Jump to content

phil-b259

Members
  • Content Count

    6,207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,291 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location
    Burgess Hill, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

574 profile views
  1. Its a GWR 'autocoach' - the GWR didn't have 'Push-Pull' trains, they had 'auto trains' This type of coach could have worked singly (with the non driving end facing to the loco), or up to 4 could be coupled together (2 each side of the loco) Have a read of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GWR_Autocoach
  2. I severely doubt there is anything fundamentally wrong with the HST such that it requires scrapping and is not repairable! A better choice of words is "uneconomic to repair" - and were the 800s not taking over i have no doubt that would be the course of action. Many a car has been brought back from the insurance company despite it being supposedly ' written off' after a crash and fully rebuilt because someone can see it has a future . provided things like the underframe / chassis are not bent, etc then we are basically talking cosmetic work, (albut quite a lot of it including a new fibreglass nose).
  3. This See also https://howlingpixel.com/i-en/Gauntlet_track
  4. Again, high level platforms in North America were a late invention - during the boom in railway construction low ((or frequently no platforms were the norm). As such their loading gauge could tale full advantage - meaning the platforms upgraded many years later to high level ones did not infringe on the necessary space required for double deck stock to be viable.
  5. Yup. I believe that originality the LMS approached the GWR asking if it could use the drawings for the Castle class to help them create a new loco - but the GWR said no. The LMS then went and asked the Southern if they could have a look at the Lord Nelson drawings - and the SR agreed with the end result that some aspects of the Royal Scot class are strikingly similar to a LN
  6. Firstly those pictures are of a heavily rebuilt city centre station - TRADITIONAL German platforms (many of which still remain out in more rural areas) - and thus what the national loading gauge is built around are much lower! Have a look at this diagram - note the 'step in' at the bottom of the loading gauge precisely to accommodate British high level platforms. Those German high level platforms are built with a bigger setback from the track so that the lower half of the carriage may clear them. Note that the 'traditional' low level German platforms fit neatly in the 1'5" gap below the car body. Where the Germans have raised their platforms, they have done so starting further back than the traditional British practice - so that means they don't affect the structure gauge and impact the carriage shape. Rebuilding British platforms further back to allow for the straight sides of the German loading gauge would introduce unacceptable stepping distances to trains built to conform to the EXISTING UK loading gauge - hence conventional UK gauge trains would be BANNED from calling at such platforms! Yes, it is of course possible to buy a new fleet of trains with extendable flaps (the new HS2 'classic compatible' stock is likely to have them, but thats an awful lot of new trains - particularly given the way on many commuter lines like the SWML, the ability of slow trains to use fast line platforms (or vi-sa-versa) in cases of disruption / engineering work is a must so you need to replace EVERYTHING, not just the trains for one particular service group. The other thing to take in from that diagram is the width of the loading gauge - the Germans have at least an extra 12" to play with. However if the trains themselves are wider then on double / multiple tracked lines each line has to be further apart plus grater lateral clearance is required to structures. Making things higher is relatively easy - making them wider as well is a lot more disruptive!
  7. Not as high as UK ones (though higher than 'traditional' continental platforms) and not the case at every German station. However they key point is that their high (ish) platforms do not intrude into the space required for double deck stock! Basically the German railways structure gauge was defined during the era of having low platforms and takes full advantage of this - and hence has allowed double deck trains for many decades. As platform heights have increased in recent decades (primarily to help with disabled access) the increases have taken place in such a manor that the structure gauge has not been reduced and there is still sufficient width for carriage bodies to extend down between the bogies without getting narrower thus eating into the potential passenger space.. Its a lot easier to 'add' than it is to 'take away' when building stuff - and for the UK to provide enough space for double deck trains requires the wholesale trimming back and lowering of platforms - even if you are using the German standards as a target.
  8. Actually the train that was trailed was not a true 'double decker' as most would understand it. Firstly it was all individual compartments interleaved with each other, rather than two open saloons stacked one on top of another as is the norm in Europe / USA / etc. Secondly none of the passenger accommodation extended below the solebar (due to UK loading gauge restrictions) - again virtually every 'double deck' train design does this to maximise passenger space. Its an unfortunate accident of history that the Victorian railway design standard - in particular the use of high level platforms* means that true double deck trains are a non-starter. * It is alleged that high level platforms are all the fault of Queen Victoria! In the very early days what passed for platforms were actually very low and passengers would be expected to climb up into their carriage with steps just as they had to with the stagecoaches which were used for road transport before the railways came along. However this presented a danger to Victorian women as it meant that they might (shock, horror) end up showing an ankle / bit of leg as they climbed up. Therefore, when the GWR finally persuaded Queen Victoria to take the train, the directors decreed that a raised platform must be supplied to prevent any accidental exposure of the Monarchs lower body. * As records show the Queen was highly impressed with her first train journey - but one of the things she commented on in particular was the excellence of the raised platform, not realising it had been built for her use. Of course in that era if the Monarch said something was an excellent idea, companies would take notice - and hence the adoption of high level platforms became the norm across our railway network. Had the GWR not sought to spare her Majesty's blushes, then the situation ,might have been very different....
  9. Please do some research before posting nonsense! The lack of double deck train clearance on the network is NOT 'Criminal' as you put it - its called being practical and grounded in solid engineering reasons (unlike your claim). Firstly the biggest problem with double deck trains is NOT HEIGHT - ITS THE UK HISTORICALLY HAVING HIGH LEVEL PLATFORMS! If you pay attention to double deck trains used in Europe, you will note that their carriages have a wide body hanging down between the bogies facilitating a spacious lower deck- something that is only possible because it won't be foul of the loading gauge (in particular platforms). Those same carriages would be ripped open like tin cans over here if you tried to use them, regardless of how high the bridges were. Having a spacious lower deck is essential because things like staircases take up room that could otherwise be used for seats or standing space. Also such double deck carriages must have the doors at the ends rather than at the 1/3rd and 2/3rd positions, which brings allow for quicker station dwell times as its easier for folk to board / alight. Rebuilding platforms is not quick / easy like bridges - and whats more once completed traditional British trains cannot call at them either, it has to be one or the other. What that means is NO TRAINS FOR 6 - 12 MONTHS while you rebuild EVERY PLATFORM LOWER FURTHER BACK to cope - which then cannot be used by conventional UK trains as it prevents the use of wheelchair ramps and creates bigger stepping distances. Secondly, the problem with containers is NOT their height - its the fact they have square corners. 'Gauge enhancement' for containers is mostly a case of replacing arched structures with flatter ones giving more room for square shaped objects to pass through rather than an increase in height. This is just as well - because when 'raising' bridges things like buried services and the vertical alignment of roads approaching the bridge can need significant adjustment and although it is sometimes possible to lower the railway, this can make it more susceptible to flooding and / or requires extensive drainage works. Now if you are building a new line with dedicated stations, its easy to build in double deck capability - which is exactly what HS2 is doing. By having their platforms built in such a way that hey won't be foul of the lower deck at the beginning there will be no need for disruptive alterations later on. Equally because it will be operated by bespoke rolling stock there is no need to consider 'conventional' UK trains needs with respect to platform design.
  10. From what we have seen in the past that accusation simply isn't true as far as the designers / researchers are concerned However what is true is that after SK came back, the shutters have come back down on the operation as it were so we don't get see the dedication and enthusiasm which undoubtedly still exists within. Agree with the pointlessness of 'gold plated' models - but if they sell well and generate money which can be put into more deserving models then so be it! Its a bit like those tasteless Flying Scotsman clocks - however awful they might be to railway enthusiasts the fact that the NRM gets a small donation is an undoubted positive. Also if you actually think about it, because those models subject to the 'gold plated' treatment are ones that have already been made in the normal way, they not actually consume a lot of time to create thus they don't impact that greatly on the designers working on more important (to us) projects.
  11. They could - but I just don't think thats the 'SK / Hornby way' of doing things - its a bit too boring. Its also worth noting that "we are bouncing back stronger than ever" type marketing was present at the time the 2019 range was announced, and the 2018 one IIRC. Thats why I reckon there will be some sort of 'special edition' product alongside the usual bunch of new liveries / products - and rigorous analysis of possible subjects for that special edition is heavily biased towards steam. Take for example something like a recreation of the Rocket they ave done in the past. It will appeal to collectors AND the general public more widely (particularly if they can get to into the places which don't normally stock trainsets but have occasionally sold them at Christmas) and is by virtue of what it is, definitely fits the 'one off' criteria. Suddenly swamping the market with lots of DMUs is NOT going to keep Hornby in business - it needs a portfolio that sells well. A sure fire way of making them disappear is to pander to what you say you want - for all the bluster steam still remains a very profitable segment of the model market despite the protestations of many that its going to disappear due to "the folk that 'remember it fist hand dieing off' Hornbys difficulties did NOT stem from over concentrating on the steam market - they came from chronic mismanagement which has now been rectified and as such there is no reason to not believe they will be with us for many years to come. Now thats not to say a high detail first generation DMU wouldn't go amiss from the range, nor a contemporary EMU*, but they will only come f Hornby decide they will be profitable enough for the company. The fact they haven't done to date suggest that other products (including steam) are better at generating wealth. * Bachmann and recent moves by other manufacturers are doing reasonably well at covering the significant second generation units.
  12. There is nothing in the rule book preventing a passenger train being signalled using a position light signal in revenue service provided all points within the intended route are fitted with a Facing point lock (hint, virtually all electrical / hydraulic point machines are). Indeed such moves can be very useful in 'get you out of trouble' situations. The downsides are low speeds (Train MUST be able to stop within the distance they can physically see to be clear - unlike Main signal aspect, position sight signals do not guarantee the line ahead to be clear of trains) and poor viability due to position light signals usually being mounted on the ground. As such passenger trains are not timetabled / pathed using position light signals - and if regular moves are planned then the installation of a full main aspect signal will be required.
  13. Not disagreeing with what you say generally - BUT its not relevant to the question of producing a model especially to celebrate 100 years of Hornby railways is it? A 'special product' is NOT one which you continue to churn out year after year in different liveries! Nor do 'special editions' tend to feature the mundane / ordinary - they are normally distinctive and limited distribution and that apples jut as much to model trains as it does to cars or fashion!
  14. They could - but such a model is hardly going to scream 'special anniversary is it? I fear people are confusing two very different things:- On the one hand there is the usual business of announcing a few new models each year - regardless of whether the company as been trading for 34, 76, 83, 104, etc years). A new DMU, which can be released in lots of different liveries over subsequent years is a perfectly sensible choice for release under this setup. On the other hand there is the desire to release something unique to celebrate a specific anniversary / event. This shroud ideally be a 'one off' and OT be repeated in subsequent years so as to preserve its 'special' nature. Release a model of the Rocket in a fancy presentation box would be a far better fit for this than a DMU for this particular event.
  15. In that case we would see train sets with ex Lima 156 units in them rather than Pulman cars and named locos for the sets they flog at Christmas via non model shops! Casual means someone who has not committed themselves to the hobby and just likes the idea of a trainset.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.