Mike_Walker

I think if you asked a broad cross section of the Great British Public if there should be a means of preventing them falling out of moving trains they'd almost universally reply "yes". At the end of the day that is what CDL does. A week or so ago I was chatting to a neighbour who knows very little about railways but had read reports in the national press that "all steam trains were to be banned" over this dispute. I explained to him the background to why CDL should be fitted and the role of both WCRC and the ORR in this and he fully accepted the argument and agreed that WCRC should follow the rules in place for a very good reason. As others have said, those that are making the most noise in support of WCRC are those who are not in possession of or understand the full facts.

"tvagot" is the Thames Valley & Great Western Omnibus Trust headed up by Colin Billington and based near Maidenhead. He has loads of connections in the south west and much of his collection is based down there. The group also organises the Kingsbridge running day in addition to that at Penzance. Clearly they do need to work on the publicity side of things.

Correct. Chris Green didn't want RR pilfering his trains so the 159s along with the 165 and 166 Turbos had two wires reversed in the coupler electrical connection meaning the units could couple with RR 15x units but not work in multiple. Post privatisation Chiltern have their 168s wired the same way and when the ex-TPE 170s became Chiltern 168/3s and the Chiltern 172s went to West Midlands a simple wiring mod was needed. Likewise, the SWR 158's have had the same mod.

WO4625 was a specially modified Leyland Bull TQ1 which was usually a goods vehicle chassis. The original body was by Dodson.

If it's the photo I'm thinking of at Burngullow by Peter Gray, then it's 365, GTA390, which was a 1942 Bristol L5G which was stretched to 30' in 1955 and fitted with a new ECW 39 seat body making it in effect a LL5G not a LWL which were 8' wide. I too would love to have one of those SUS kits - or two actually, one WN and one in Thames Valley livery for the two ex-WN (and three ex-Bristol) ones that worked over Marlow Bridge.

At Bourne End there used to be a sign at the end of both platforms that read 'COMMENCEMENT OF TOKEN SECTION' and every 'N' on both was reversed. I always regret not taking a picture. Back in 1974 when Alder Valley were expecting a trio of minibuses to work across Marlow Bridge, the prototype was displayed at the Commercial Motor Show with 'MORLOW' on the destination display. I pointed out the error and a quick scroll through the blind showed Morlow Bottom and Morlow Common as well. Luckily it was corrected before delivery and the other two were also correct.

Hi Nick, Not sure exactly when it was built but I think it was there in the 1980s. I'll ask around and see if I can get a more accurate date. Mike

They look pristine so perhaps new ones being delivered from the manufacturer?

I really like that shot of 165125 passing Little Marlow at what is officially Vineyard No.2 Crossing and almost in my back yard. I was at Swanage at the time where it was much less sunny! The road in the photo stitch is the former track bed to High Wycombe and is one of several such developments that have replaced the old route which makes reopening well nigh impossible. No issues with shadows at Marlow now. The row of overgrown and neglected conifers were felled last week much to the disgust of the local residents.

Another useful shop is closing down. Collectables R Us in High Wycombe citing the usual complaints of rising rent and service charges along with hassle from their landlord, reduced footfall and spend despite being in a prime location in the town's main shopping arcade, and a steady rise in shoplifting which the police seem completely unwilling to do anything about. They will continue on line and are actively looking for an alternative location within the town. Fingers crossed they are successful - for one thing, they always had the best stock of Humbrol both acrylics and enamels of anywhere I know.

Then make your own! 🙂

I always thought that T24 signal at Truro was a prime example of over-engineering. It was installed at the time of the Falmouth branch upgrade to allow Down trains to depart from the Up platform. In the good old days it would have been a simple post but not today. Note the substantial square post and platform, with railings, from which the signal sprouts on a traditional 4" post. I was told this was required by modern standards so that the arm and spectacle lenses could be cleaned safely. In my book it is only surpassed by the replacement of CJ13 at Shrewsbury where a simple but rotting LNWR timber post was replaced by an enormous bracket structure which looks like it could support the weight of a battleship and even the signal post is actually two 4" posts fishplated together!

It's not just on the Wessex route but across the entire network. Here on the Western, senior TOC managers tell me they lie awake at night dreading the prospect of a major incident such as another Hatfield which they are powerless to prevent but is, and I quote: "Long overdue and likely to happen at any moment." Landslips, falling trees, failing and badly maintained signalling, crumbling bridges and multiple broken rails (another yesterday on the GWML) are all the result of Network Rail's failure either due to incompetence and/or a lack of investment due to Treasury cutbacks. When it happens, and it will, don't blame the train operator but NR or more correctly the government.

It does, at present these are non-public "ghost" trips replicating the service conditions using 230001. Once they have proved reliability, passenger trips will commence. The cancellations last week were due to the unit being attacked by the local scum bags requiring GWR to clean off all the unwanted additional "livery". Unlike sHitachi who leave it on IETs for weeks even if it is highly offensive.

Especially as I understand it was doing around 90 when it hit the obstruction. Luck to have not been worse, seems the conductor rail acted a bity like a check rail and kept in line.

According to a senior SWR manager on Monday, the issue is with unexpectedly heavy wheel wear which requires several wheel sets to be replaced. The reasons causing this are unknown but are being urgently investigated by specialist engineers.

Went today and thought the layouts were excellent but TBH I thought the venue was a bit of a warren. It would have been helpful to have a more detailed plan in the quide to navigate around. That said, I think I saw all the layouts and met up with several friends.

Couldn't agree more. Although there are a small number of locals who make a lot of noise over this it is never going to happen simply too much of the original track bed has been lost. Also, Wycombe District Council is no more having been replaced by the new unitary Council for Buckinghamshire which displays little interest in transport matters particularly public transport. The tragedy is that the line was closed in the first place. It was deliberately run down by BR who first divided the Maidenhead - HW service into two at Bourne End forcing through passengers to change trains then recasting the timetable to make this impossible without very long waits so patronage collapsed and closure was "justified". It was indications that a similar policy was being imposed on the remaining Maidenhead - Marlow section that led to the formation of the MMPA which successfully fought to turn the line's fortunes around. Incidentally, one member of the MMPA committee around 1980 was quite youthful (still at school) who went on to carve quite a name for himself in the industry which is why it is said today that the Marlow Branch is the most important part of the GWR network. After all, the trains show the "route number" 01 on the front!

Like this.

There were two of this design at Boscarne Junction, the one next to the signal box was definitely used for lamp oil etc. whilst this one was coal store. I managed to get some nice 3D prints for my model of Boscarne Junction. Can't remember the source now but I think this was probably it: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/203560177693 The chap I got them from also did me a half width one.

Not as far as I'm aware of. My American friends are always amazed at what we can access on line.

UP General Motors PDA-4101A bus 27 dating from 1949. Used on feeder services in the Los Angeles area, it has 32 seats and a large baggage area at the rear. Sacramento CA 3 May 1991.

Excellent, thanks.

A friend in the US has sent me this photo of a tired San Francisco trolley bus taken back in 1976. Can anyone identify the make/model?

Exactly so. Some of the later EMDs such as Boston's F40PH-3Cs had an extended car body to house a small engine that drove the HEP alternator and allowed the main engine to be idled at rest. Some commuter rail agencies later had their standard F40PHs rebuilt in a similar fashion. Incidentally, in the US and Canada it is the norm to leave EMD power units running continuously. I asked a LIRR Engineer friend why this was and he told me that it was because you might not get it to start again. After initial laughter and taking it as a joke he went on to explain that being a 2-stroke; if it stopped in a certain position it was very difficult to crank the engine over to restart it. I don't know if it is still the case but the Western Sectional Appendix contained an instruction that diesel locomotives were to be shut down if they were to be stationary at Paddington for any length of time but classes 57, 59, 66 and 67 were specifically exempted from the requirement although no reason was given. I assumed it was related to what I'd been told.