DK123GWR

Devizes is a town in central Wiltshire. Now most famous for Caen Hill locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal, it was formerly served by a Great Western Railway line, which passed through a tunnel under the castle to the east of the station. Initially the terminus of a branch line which began at Holt Junction on the Wilts, Somerset, and Weymouth Railway, Devizes later became a stop on the through route from Paddington to Weymouth when the Berks and Hants Extension Railway was built to link the branch with an existing line from Reading to Hungerford. In 1900, the Stert and Westbury Railway was opened, bypassing Devizes, which was now on a less important single track line from Patney and Chirton to Holt Junction. The layout represents the goods yard to the northeast of Devizes station in the late 1930s. The main objective was to create a layout where there were plenty of interesting possibilities for shunting, but which also allowed a wide variety of trains to be run on the main line to provide a more relaxed option. The line from Holt Junction (the curve on the left) splits into three. The northernmost is the Up platform, the middle the Down, and the southernmost is bi-directional (I may swap the latter two if experienc shows that this makes the layout nicer to operate). In the Fiddle Yard, the plan is to use the uppermost through line as the running line, with the rest as storage sidings. In 1938, a bridge elsewhere on the line was upgraded, and Red engines were now permitted to run via Devizes. Local freight services (worked from Holt Junction and Westbury) often used 57xx locomotives from Westbury. Local passenger services were autotrains, likely hauled by 5400 class panniers. Longer distance freight trains were hauled by moguls, and long-distance passenger services seem to have moved over from Manors to Halls, Saints, Stars, and Castles during this period.

My first useable design, although there are many details that could be added (particularly to the underframe) and I realise I haven't got the proportions quite right. I wanted to make my own GWR open wagons as I felt I could do it more cheaply than buying RTR stock. Using Dapol wheels bought from Hattons at 85p/axle and 25g (roughly) of PLA at £21.99/kg gives a cost per wagon of under £2.50 - at that price you'll have a fairly limited choice of fairly low-quality models, so why not make your own? Some filing will be needed as the fit of most parts is designed to be tight. The construction of the model should be obvious once you have it in front of you, though a brief guide is provided on Thingiverse. Watch out as the couplings and brake gear may foul the axles if not placed carefully. https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6352317/files

I can't (quickly) find any data to support or reject the assumption, but I'm sceptical (unless you're talking about children travelling with families - where the high marginal cost of rail travel on some journeys carries greater weight). Teenagers and those in their early 20s though are more climate concious, more left wing, and less able to afford car ownership than our immediate predecessors (a newly qualified cousin of mine can't get insurance for less than £10,000/year). That said, when on trains or at stations (even Didcot) most people (and this is true of all ages) are staring at screens. I think that rationalisation is a big issue - of both rolling stock and operating practices. My current understanding is that for a model based on the Devizes branch in 1938/9, I can have (at least) Manors, Moguls, Halls, Castles, 57xx, 54xx, 28xx, and quite a few other locos could be justified occaisionally. I have local, regional, and express passenger services with local and long-distance freight. There is plenty of opportunity for shunting - different at each station. And this is on a single track line where the largest station has three platforms. How big would your prototype need to be to get anything like that diversity on the modern railway? The best I can think of is a cut-down Oxford, with at most one through line between the platforms (or model the future layout with three through platforms and no freight lines), a single bay for Chiltern services, and simplified sidings. But that would still likely end up as big as a model inspired by steam-era Trowbridge, which would offer everything the Devizes branch does and more. I love the look of the modern GWR and much of the freight that runs alongside it (EWS livery is still a common sight near Oxford) but I would still need a lot more space to build a modern layout as interesting as Wiltshire in the 1930s. And to attack an important premise of the argument for producing more current stock, if I want to see the modern GWR, I can go for a walk. How often do you think a 43xx comes past my house with a long train of four-wheeled wagons? When do you think I last got to see a Bulldog running? Replicating things I've seen in real life is appealing, but no more so than creating things I never could.

I'm hoping to review these at the library this evening, and I'm trying to get access to a few books which might contain some useful information. Unfortunately, the coach formations book is one of the few they don't have a copy of. Incidentally, the only website I can find claiming to have this book in stock was last updated in 2006. Since it doesn't appear in National Library of Wales searches either, I would be willing to go out on a limb and say that the British Library is the only (non-specialist?) library in the country to have a copy (I'm assuming it does because it legally has to, but can't check because of the recent cyber attack).

I completely agree! We should remove all identifiable traces of sexuality and gender before the watershed! Children will never be safe from such destructive ideas until all characters are uniform, nondescript, alien blobs! Or is it only some people's sexuality and gender that you think children need protecting from?

What do you think character before identity would look like here? You can't understand Rose without appreciating her experience of gender, and the consequences of that. From the shed scene we know that her compassion for The Meep, before the reveal as a villain, is clearly linked to her own feelings of isolation. This is the scene in which Rose is most vulnerable, and we get to see a part of her that she would normally hide from other people. But her partial exclusion from society has come about because of her gender identity, and the way that others have responded to it. We know that she experiences discrimination and hostility from at least some of her peers, and that this is pervasive. We've seen it take place outside her front door. From that we can be almost certain that it happens at school. So there probably aren't many places where Rose feels safe and secure. That's a very important insight, and its something that might be crucial to understanding her actions if we see more of her. And those are just the indirect effects that are easiest to observe. Somebody who spends more time than me thinking about what gender is and their relationship with it could probably give you a far more detailed and nuanced account of the ways gender identity can influence seemingly unrelated aspects of someone's personality. If we are judging people by the content of their character, we shouldn't be getting upset about the fact that their race, gender, or sexuality are so visible. They would still be fundamental (though not politicised) parts of people long after equality is acheived. Martin Luther King was very clear, even in that speech, that his dream was something that could only be realised following a long and often confrontational campaign for equality: "With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day." A point King made time and again, which he is making here, is that progree cannot be acheived without making people uncomfortable. Most people find changing their views challenging, and they can lash out. I have enourmous admiration and gratitude for those who, like King (and, to some extent, Russel T Davies) who understand that what they are doing will make some people uncomfortable, that they will fight back against it, and yet do it anyway because they understand how important it is. As I write this paragraph @woodenhead has posted and I would agree with everything from the first comma onwards. Returning to King's famous speech: "We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: for whites only." If main character roles are dominated by straight, white, able-bodied men, it acts as a more subtle but no less powerful version of the signs King was opposing. It's a similar point to my last post so I won't keep rehearsing it, but seeing yourself in prominent positions matters, and if you don't you will notice it and it will limit your ambitions and opportunities. I think I've made most of the contributions I can to this debate. There might be further elaborations or clarifications but I would imagine they will just be building on the same basic points. For those who are following this thread solely in their capacity as Doctor Who fans, I can imagine it's already becoming a little tedious. I hope therefore that I will be forgiven for stepping back for now, and limiting any further contributions to very specific points which I find interesting.

Mission accomplished then! The car gets compressed into an infinitesimal volume and easily fits into any storage space.

I thought it was reasonably good. I think being aware of The Meep beforehand (so anticipating the reveal as the villain) didn't really detract from the episode, and probably made the earlier scenes more amusing. I would have perhaps preferred the good Wrarth Warriors vs evil Meep situation to be slightly more complicated, forcing the Doctor into a dilemma where saving the innocent civilians on Earth from The Meep would require working with the Wrarth, who (for example) were indeed treating The Meep as livestock as alleged in Donna's kitchen. I also appreciate that that would be too slow and heavy for a lot of people, and that the context (three specials) required Donna to be revived pretty quickly so she could play a full role in the next two, so a more complicated story would probably have led to too much being crammed in. Except, of course, for all of us who haven't often seen important aspects of our lives replicated on screen, especially when that's something we're marginalised for. Being able to watch films and TV that told stories about queer people and dealt with issues affecting us was hugely important when I was a teenager questioning my sexuality. It allowed me to explore and confront feelings that I just wouldn't have been able to otherwise. The fact that such stories have increasingly entered the mainstream, and been well-received, is one of the things that helped me build the confidence to stop hiding part of myself away. Seeing people like you on screen matters. But so does having other people see them. It can erode prejudices and people's reactions can tell you a lot about how safe it is to be yourself in that environment. Inclusive storytelling makes a real, positive difference to the lives of ordinary people across the country. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's something you can fully appreciate except by first-hand experience. I would be sceptical of many of the assertions I've just made if they weren't grounded in my own experience as there isn't much else that I have felt that I could use as the base for trying to empathise with someone in my own situation. But it's still true that seeing authetic, explicitly gay characters in prominent roles on television has helped me, just as seeing authentic trans or disabled characters is immensely valuable to many other people. The idea that inclusivity in media is solely, or even primarily, about allowing media executives to congratulate themselves on how progressive they think they are trivialises the important impact it has on the lives of a huge number of viewers (the majority of whom live outside the M25).

The September 1931 Service Time Table, on the other hand, says: "HEAVY ENGINES BETWEEN PATNEY AND HOLT JUNCTION VIA DEVIZES. The following types of engine are prohibited from running over the section named:-" And then lists: Saints, Stars, Castles, Halls, Kings, 83xx, Cities, Counties, Badmintons (etc.), 47xx, County Tanks, 31xx, 2-8-0 tank engines, 56xx, 66xx, 1101 class, and absorbed Red engines of the 0-6-0T and 0-6-2T classes. The sole exception is for Halls, Castles, and 47xx locos, which can run onto the line with freight trains at Patney to allow other trains to pass. It lists loads for partly fitted and accelerated goods trains only for the category including the 43xx and 4001-4045 (all other routes have loads for engines up to 47xx and Castles). A September 1938 upgrade seems reasonable though, even if the Manors didn't leave as soon as Red engines were permitted. Between February and April 1939, four new Granges were allocated to OOC and Westbury, at around the same time the four Manors seem to have left. Could it have been a case of keeping the Manors on until there was something suitable to replace them? _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ It has been suggested that I revisit Priddle and Hyde by a modeller who does recall Manors being mentioned, giving a very similar list to the ones I had inferred might have worked on the line based on shed allocations.

According to the index, three articles by Bill Crosbie-Hill on his wartime experiences. Probably worth looking at anyway, but I'm not sure they'll answer my question about the larger 1930s passenger trains unless something's mentioned in passing.

I have read the main book on this branch, Priddle and Hyde's 'GWR to Devizes', as well as a smaller volume by Nigel Bray. The line was upgraded to Red RA, as I understand it, in 1939 when a bridge was strengthened. There are many photos in the books on the line taken from this point onwards, showing Halls and Castles on the long-distance passenger services (London/Reading to Trowbridge/Bristol). What would these have been hauled by prior to the upgrade? There are no photos from this period. I have observed in J.W.P. Rowledge (and this website, which duplicates much of the relevant information) that when built in January 1938 - January 1939 (before the upgrade), 7802 and 7808 were allocated to OOC, and 7809 and 7814 to Westbury. By nationalisation (the next data point for both sources) all had moved away, to Aberystwyth, Oswestry, and Bristol Bath Road (joining two Manors already in Bristol). The OOC locos both moved away in April-May 1939. This site suggests that it's not clear what OOC would need a Manor for, and I am inclined to agree - except that maybe, as the largest locos permitted, they would have been useful on the Devizes trains worked by Castles from just a few months later. I am not sure which month the bridge was upgraded, but by this point the threat of war (stated in Priddle and Hyde as the reason for the upgrade) would surely have been clear. On this basis, it would seem plausible that they had a brief stint on trains via Devizes, but that is the strongest claim I can make. Can anyone contribute evidence for or against this hypothesis? Furthermore, what would have been used before the Manors? (Or before the Red engines, if the Manors at these sheds were used for something else?) Again, there are no photos, or even textual references, that I have been able to find. The obvious answer would seem to be a 43xx - also a group D engine with Blue RA, and it seems many were allocated at different times to sheds where they might have been used on these trains, including Reading, OOC, and Westbury (though scanning the 1931 timetable, it appears more likely that the locos came from Reading/OOC than Bristol/Westbury. Any thoughts (including reasoned guesswork) would be much appreciated.

The tooling has, according to Dapol, already deteriorated considerably, causing a reduction in the quality of the kits. Surely the most likely cause of the range being discontinued in that context is that they reach the point where the tooling is barely useable. What would then be the point in anyone else buying it?

I haven't performed that specific test, but yes, I think so. Previously the loco was moving off at speed step 1 (albeit eratically) whereas afterwards (and before I altered the start voltage) it was only doing so at about step 5. I think that's what you'd expect to happen. As I understand it, the BEMF is a proxy for the motor's speed, and the chip is meant to use the reading to determine whether the motor is running faster or slower than expected at a given speed step, then change the voltage to compensate. In this case, the motor was running slower than expected, so the voltage was increased to speed it up. However, for reasons that I don't understand (and, since it's working OK without BEMF, don't need to) it must have been severely overcompensating at times, leading to the sudden acceleration.

I have purchased a Hornby Star class on ebay, which was DCC fitted. CV8 reads 151 and CV7 reads 89, I believe indicating that this is some sort of LokPilot. At very low speed steps it is a jerky runner. At around speed step 8 it can suddenly jump up to a very high speed. Often it is just brief wheelslip, but sometimes it races off and has to be brought to a stop. CV29 is set to 34, so analogue running should be disabled. I haven't yet had the chance to test on DC, but will report back when I can. Does anyone have an idea what might be causing this sort of behaviour? EDIT: The jerkiness at low speeds appears to be the same issue, but with more frequent and shorter duration periods of 'running away' - several per rotation - on a loco which is (apart from that major issue) running correctly. EDIT: I turned off BEMF by setting CV49 = 0. This has solved the running away issue, although the loco probably needs a few further tweaks it is now usable.

A generous Unconditional Basic Income. There can be no other sane method of allocating resources in a society where there is so little demand for wage labour. Of course, the capitalists who control the AI firms (and, most crucially, computer servers) will try to keep hold of their products and use them for profit. I don't think that will be sustainable. In a passage that you echo above, Karl Marx once wrote: It is hard to see how this vision could practically have been acheived in Marx's day, and even in the present I think it would be unacheivable. But supposing we did reach the stage where food and communications technology could be produced and managed by machines, and we had a way of supplying enough energy to run them (I have no idea how far away that is - but I would say at least 50-100 years when you appreciate all of the capital investment needed) it is hard to see how politicians and the public could resist the freedom on offer. One might hope that when people no longer have to worry about survival, they become nicer and more coopertative, and culture will become more developed. If people no longer have to have full time jobs, they will do what they enjoy. This will almost certainly mean more people will get involved in all forms of art - literature, theatre, model railways*, etc. More people will also be able to appreciate what others have produced. It is likely that many will return to education, studying what interests them, and that many others will be happy to pass on what they know. People could take part in projects to improve their local community - maintaining flowerbeds, building children's play areas, volunteering at heritage railways, etc. I don't see any reason that people would be left without purpose more so than in present day society, where many are trapped in jobs they hate. *See, we are on topic!

Bing image creator.

I also tried to find out what it would look like if giant cats terrorised real railways, just as the do models. I give you: 'Paddington Station being attacked by a giant evil kitten named Terrence.' Here he is causing carnage at King's Cross: And here he is just after you've finished weathering your layout's centrepiece. Bing doesn't seem to know what Dawlish looks like, but I felt this image was worthy of inclusion because of the 47-style HST, which might make an interesting model for someone.

GWR Castle: I'm actually quite impressed by some of these. Obviously none are perfect, but you could take a good guess at what they're supposed to be.

If you have analogue watches you can use the same one (flipped) for India and UK winter/European summer.

My old watch could only be adjusted forwards and didn't have a 12/24 hr button, so you had to press a button 49 times to set it back an hour (once each to enter and exit the time setting mode, and 47 times to cycle around the clocks). And if you accidentally went an hour too far, that's another 47 button presses.

I think so, but that might just be my subjective perception.

The Shopping Trolley Problem: A runaway trolley is careering down a hill. You have an ethical dilemma. If you do nothing it will continue down the path and hit a group of five philosophers. Alternatively, you can place an object in the path of the trolley to deflect it into the canal.

The band was named after it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oasis_(band)#:~:text=Liam suggested that the band,in Swindon as a venue.

Payed for by whom? TfL are broke and spending more money on HS2 (or rail in general) doesn't seem to be in line with current government policy.

I have found that when trying to build one in the past. The only running example I have seen had static connecting rods - perhaps for this reason?