Mike_Walker

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.

Oh but they are! One issue with EMD locos fitted with what they call HEP (Head End Power) is that the prime mover has to run at practically full power to supply the train. Both classes need to be kept running overnight to keep the trains' a/c and lighting working unless a suitable shore supply can be arranged.

Euston is a far more logical London terminal than Marylebone for a Wrexham service allowing a much shorter overall journey time and better connections. The first incarnation of W&S was forced to use Marylebone not because of its association with Chiltern but because of the unique clauses in Virgin's West Coast franchise contract that protected them from any open access competition being allowed on the WCML, W&S weren't even allowed to pick up or set down at Wolverhampton in the London direction. It was the resulting tortuous routing and extended journey times that played a major role in discouraging patronage leading to its failure.

What I don't understand about all this noise kerfuffle is that Chiltern used to get regular complaints from those living around Stourbridge Jct LMD about the noise levels of the 67s so before finalising the switch to 68s, 68002 was taken there and left running all night getting the thumbs up as a great improvement from the locals and, as far as I know, they haven't changed that view since. So why all the fuss? It seems to have originated with the good folk of Scarborough. You can't really take too seriously the views of those who live in the flats overlooking looking the Marylebone throat. When they first moved in they were aghast to find a working railway outside their windows and threatened legal action to attempt to get it closed. Dear old Adrian Shooter famously pointed out to them that Marylebone had been there since 1899 and if they hadn't spotted it when purchasing their posh new flats then tough. Never heard anymore from them - until recently!

The proposal for a new WSMR is being written around something like the 222s. Loco operation is unlikely.

I'm still not convinced this is more than enthusiast wibble. If you read Chiltern's ITT for replacement stock you will find it expressly requires any winning bid to provide an otion that is quieter than a Class 68 which appears to rule those out with either Mk3 or Mk5 stock. Chiltern cannot "just buy their own new stock". Like all the former franchised TOCs they are now under management contracts from the DfT where everything is tightly controlled - you even have to get approval to order a consignment of bog rolls! So any chance of any operator (apart from the OA companies) doing their own thing is for the fairies. I'm hearing that Mr Hunt is planning to cut a further £1 BILLION a year from the rail budget next year to fund tax cuts. This will mean more trains going into store, service cuts and shorter formations of those that still run. The blunt truth is: this government aided by the civil service is basically anti-railway.

As David says, reasonable up to a maximum of £3.60 for 12 hours. Full details of charges etc. https://www.buckinghamshire.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-transport/parking/find-a-council-car-park/the-mount-car-park/ Tesco maximum stay appears to be 2 hours.

Whilst I can appreciate the requirement for a bridge, I'd be very surprised if it is equipped with lifts as that would normally require them to be staffed in case of failure. More likely is that the bridge will have ramps rather than steps to provide disabled access.

Bermuda Triangle?

Dr SWMBO was indeed lucky. The Up line was closed at South Brent at 21:20 last night and the Down at 21:50 due to flooding. Seems the river rose very quickly raising concerns for the bridge once again.

The general view is that on diesel, assuming all engines are working correctly, an IET will just about match the acceleration and performance of an HST up to about 60mph on level track. Above that the HST romps away. Cut out some engines and add some hills and you can forget time keeping. But as mentioned up thread, they were specified by someone who thought the basic laws of physics don't apply (and is no longer on the planet to see what he left us with) and a manufacturer who would prefer to hide behind expensive lawyers and quote the most obscure parts of the contract rather than provide what they are being paid an arm and a leg to provide.

Again, it's down to Hitachi's failure to present the units for service in a fit state. They routinely send out sets with more than one defective toilet (although the universal one has to be operational) and inadequate water supplies. The contract between Hitachi and the DfT prevents GWR from topping them up during the day - only Hitachi are allowed to at the depot! Interesting point about the cab. It is generally considered to be just about the best in the business in terms of layout and ergonomic design. Certainly from my own experience, admittedly only on the simulator, everything you need whilst driving falls straight to hand - once you remember where the various controls are and what they do. The driving seat is simply superb but then it ought to be. I'm assured that they cost £30k each - yes, you have read that right - and the joke is that so much was spent on the driver's seats there was nothing left for the punter's seats which is why they are so poor. Incidentally I think you will find the speed limiter kicks in at 124mph; it's something to do with the programming of the management computer as I understand it. They will go a lot faster. A couple of years back a TPE driver, who thought he'd engaged the speed limiter, glanced down at the speedo and found himself doing 150mph! He quickly slowed down and reported himself to the signaller (in accordance with the rules). There was a notice to all drivers of 80x units at all companies as a result reminding them of the correct procedure for engaging the speed limiter and ensuring it is working correctly. As @Steadfast says, it's rare to get a fault free run with one although these days most faults are pre-existing as the units come off depot and into service - isolated engines for example. The instances of faults occurring in service are much reduced now compared to the early days. @Mallard60022 mentions the better seats on Hull Trains' 802s. These are more like what was proposed for the GWR 802s but vetoed by the DfT. Hull Trains being an OA operator means they have the freedom to furnish their trains in whatever manner they choose so long as they meet fire regulations, etc. Finally @Gwiwer's point about vehicle length isn't really relevant. Yes, at 26m they are longer than anything that has gone before but, and I admit this is surprising, it was taken into account when the units were being designed and only a few minor revisions t the infrastructure were required to accommodate them*. All the 80x family are 26m the only exceptions, to date, are the forthcoming EMR 81x units which are only 23m due to constraints on the Midland Main Line which would be too costly and expensive to overcome to accept 26m vehicles. * I remember when the Turbos first appeared and BR were running around with angle-grinders shaving the edges off platforms because of their extra width.

As I mentioned in the other thread, there was no need to hold a formal closure procedure for Park Royal to OOC as the Chiltern service was simply diverted over an alternative route with a slightly increased journey time. There were no intermediate stations no longer served. More recently the train service was cut back to West Ealing to free paths and platform capacity at Paddington for Crossrail and more recently still it has been replaced by a bus as so few people used the train (it and the bus normally run empty) that it is more cost effective.

Yes they are very sluggish on diesel as I found out last week driving the simulator away from Didcot to do a power change at Moreton. In truth they were never designed as a true bi-mode. Had the planned GWEP been carried through in its entirety diesel power would only have been used for fairly short distances beyond the end of the OLE and in emergencies but Failing Grayling (assisted by a now deceased civil servant/cartographer who thought he could rewrite the laws of physics) decided they were the perfect reason to abandon large chunks of the scheme as a result of Network Rail's botched approach to the scheme and failure to manage costs. As designed, they were never intended to be used on the WoE. Initially, GWR proposed to refurbish and modernise the HSTs (as they did eventually to form the Castle sets) but under pressure from the DfT it became obvious that the HSTs were no longer an option so First Group went for the 802s instead. The 802s were fitted with more powerful engines to tackle the Devon and Cornish banks and the 800s have since been uprated to the same but in both fleets there are currently up to a quarter of the fleet running round with at least one engine isolated due to Hitachi's inability to keep pace with failures. A unit missing one engine is even worse in performance, two (not unusual) forget it. Originally, the 802s were to have had better seats too but that was blocked by the DfT who insisted (including threats to FG) that they had to be the same as the 800s so as not to show them up! Incidentally, the leasing deal First have for the 802s is about a third of that the DfT negotiated for the 800s (and LNER 801s) and the DfT have finally woken up to the fact they were taken for a ride - Hitachi are no longer in favour! The reason why there are so many short or incorrectly formed services on GWR is entirely down to Hitachi's inability to provide the full number of serviceable units daily and even if it does then they may not be the required mix of 5 and 9 car units. GWR are as frustrated as anyone else at this but as far as the 800s are concerned then there's little they can do due to the way the contracts are written although I understand that the DfT has recently put aside a large sum of money to take possible legal action against Hitachi for breach of contract. As for buffets this is a contentious issue. The decision not to include them in the GWR 800s was again taken by the DfT in order to maximise the number of seats. GWR (First) did consider for the 802s but the decision not to was explained to me thus and remember this was pre-Covid. Many customers today are business travellers who like to work during the journey and will set up laptops and other expensive kit at their seat and are therefore reluctant to leave them unattended and go to queue at a buffet counter, preferring a trolley service instead. Of course, on the WoE services leisure traffic is just as important as business but that was the decision and it's not likely to be reversed. The whole story of the IETs has been one of naivety and incompetence and even a whiff of corruption involving civil servants and politicians who think they know better how to specify and design a train than seasoned rail professionals. The taxpayer has paid a fortune and the passenger received a poor product as a result. Please do not blame GWR or LNER for the shortcomings. Remember, FirstGroup and GNER in conjunction with Siemens got the HST2 project (which was entirely a private sector project which would have cost the taxpayer nothing) almost to the point of cutting metal when the DfT ordered it be halted in favour of this Japanese wonder train. One day, the whole sorry story will come out in someone's memoirs.

No, it's been a little used replacement bus for several years now - see separate thread. OOC to Park Royal has been lifted and will not return. There are to be a pair of turnback sidings for Elizabeth Line trains provided as part of the OOC station complex and Chiltern have proposed a new two platform terminal adjacent to North Acton LU station but there's not a lot of chance of this happening at least in the near to medium future.

Here's an example of a public footpath crossing alongside an accommodation crossing; Vineyard No.2 and No.1 Crossings respectively on the Marlow Branch at Little Marlow. Officially they were 1 chain apart but in practice much closer. The nearer farm gate is hidden by the tree whilst the further pedestrian gate is hidden by the bush. All modernised now, modern steel gates and blindingly bright miniature red/green warning lights you can see from more than a hundred yards away or the middle of the river and movement activated cctv which has revealed some truly shocking cases of misuse - not by us locals! No.1 crossing has completely vanished. Incidentally, a little further towards Marlow is (was) Caldicote Lane crossing. Several years ago the land owner on the north side erected a massive steel palisade fence along his boundary which cut off the crossing and made it unusable. That hasn't stopped NR spending a fortune upgrading it in a similar manner!

But Chiltern make a nice business out of transporting tourists to and from Bicester for the shopping there. They even "downgraded" the station from "Town" to "Village" to emphasise how convenient it is although the present station is an impressive upgrade to what went before. The same would probably also apply for Universal.

Here's the GWS interpretation, I presume they got it reasonably correct.

Having spent the last couple of decades producing route diagrams and supporting route learning documentation for many TOCs I can say that the whole approach to the subject changed in the wake of Ladbroke Grove which was largely the result of poor route knowledge and the misunderstanding of an admittedly unusual signal. The passenger TOCs have all provided route diagrams. I've done many of them but it has always surprised me that Network Rail haven't produced these centrally. Drivers obviously have access to these and in the early days these were hard copies which they might have in their bag but a dim view would be taken of a driver running with them on the desk in front of them! Today most operators have them digitally on their company intranet which again the drivers can access on their devices but not whilst driving. Typically these diagrams show the track schematically, line speeds, physical features such as bridges etc and of course the signals complete with details of their configuration and any route indications displayed. It wouldn't be much use a driver asking the signaller. Panels or workstation displays do not show details of a signal's indication as the route set is all the signaller needs to know and that is shown on the panel/display. As @The Stationmaster points out, the opportunities for TOC drivers to undertake complex shunting moves in this era of fixed formation trains is limited. I don't know what arrangements the freight operators and the likes of West Coast have for route learning and route knowledge assessment but I was never asked to provide material for such operators. Perhaps one of our freight driver members can enlighten us.

I've heard there was a potentially serious incident on the GCR at the weekend when a passenger on a train passing Quorn non-stop opened a door, presumably expecting it to stop. The door remained open through much of the station but fortunately nobody on the platform was struck. If they had it would have resulted in serious injury or possibly a fatality. One can just imagine the resulting RAIB investigation and the ORR deciding to extend the CDL requirement to heritage lines.

As far as I know only BH&D had the LDS variant. Six LDLs were built and they went one each to: Bristol OC, Hants & Dorset, Notts & Derby, Thames Valley (diverted from Southern Vectis) and two to Western National.

No doubt Graham Waring will be along with a selection. In the meantime may I offer... 306, 306MFC, a 1962 AEC-PRV 'Bridgemaster' 2B3RA with Park Royal LD43/29F body at Gloucester Green bus station, Oxford. 1 July 1968

In memory. Brush-Bagnall rebuild 953 and Hunslet-Barclay 07 on front of one the now doomed Port Talbot blast furnaces. 5 August 1996. Unrebuilt Brush-Bagnall 902 hauls a torpedo car to get another load of molten steel from the blast furnaces.