Neil

Oh dear, that's as ugly as the 517 is pretty.

Hello everyone, this is Fred. Fred is tired. Last night Fred brought in a mouse. The mouse did not like this and ran away. Fred found the mouse in the shoe cupboard. Fred rearranged our shoes. No wonder Fred is tired.

I'm not sure, my mate is on his way back from France so I'll update when I find out more.

The Ratio GWR four wheelers. First photo down here

Well that's a weird coincidence; I've just been re-reading the Wild Swan book on the Golden Valley Railway and thought that the 517 was probably the most obvious missing GWR loco. As a rule I'm not a fan of the GWR but the open cab 517 does look particulary lovely.

Taxation; at least I hope it does. Though of late tax has been a bit of a dirty word I believe that fair taxation is a good thing. If it's done fairly then those with the greatest wealth/highest income pay more, as they should do, for things which benefit the whole nation. Loading it all onto the consumer (passenger in this case) means that the millionaire pays the same as the person on benefits, which seems wrong. Of course this all depends on the fairness of taxation, here are some interesting figures which suggest that the fairness part has been significantly lacking over the years.

I was thinking more long term, since the privatisation of rail rather than post Covid.

I'm not convinced that increase in passenger numbers is necessarily down to things that the railway does, other factors I suspect are in play. I'm thinking of the huge increase in house prices in cities, particularly London, which must have led to big increases in commuting. Things like how we spend our leisure time, how affordable or desirable private motoring is will also have a bearing on the issue. The privatised railway companies may simply be responding to increased demand rather than creating it.

While this might be OK for many companies where we would have a choice of buying or not buying I don't think it works for public utilities. I'd count rail (and bus for that matter) as public utilities as for many there's no choice but to use them and they are a key piece of national infrastructure. They shouldn't be a vehicle for wealth extraction. The shareholder thing is also a bit troubling to a leftie like me (yes I know that pension funds are investors) as the principle behind investment is that those with spare cash are able to make more money while those unable to invest pay more than they need to so that there is spare money to hand over to investors. The rich get richer etc. which strikes me as a bit unfair. Without losers there can't be winners so why would we want to benefit at someone else's expense?

I assumed you had Phil, but thought it worth mentioning for others who might just have rocked up on the day with a set of barriers.

Here's a fabulous fifteen minute film full of interest and nostalgia from the bowler hatted passenger on the tube to the clippie on the bus. My favourite moment; the Wallace and Gromit scrub-o-matic seat cleaner at 6:05. Enjoy.

There is a potential problem with this. All is OK if the layout is operated from the front as space at the front of the layout will (should be) factored into the planning, however if operating from the rear the effective front of the layout will be a couple of feet forward impinging into the gangway. This may still be OK if it's in one of those spaces where the layout itself can be pushed back or where the gangway widens out but things don't always work out that way. I feel it would be worth indicating the intention to do this to the show organiser in the hope that this can be worked into the floorplan.

Ah the crane bit. At the moment it looks like it may be as Airfix intended, but the jib (boom?) has required quite a bit of filler so it will depend on a decent finish. I would love to be able to replicate the Dutch example above but I fear that the spindly construction would defeat me and be terribly fragile. I do hope to get the cabin to sit lower on the legs but I would like to be able to retain the ability to rotate.

A further thought. As an exhibitor, there may be a few pertinent questions to ask of the organiser before accepting an invite. Do you provide barriers? How busy (how many through the door per day) is the exhibition? What is the character of the exhibition; is it aimed at the general public, is it a specialist event or is it a bit of both? No guarantee that all risk will be averted but at least you'll have a better idea of what to expect.

Almost eighty pages in; has WCRC become a proxy for a debate between those who take a libertarian standpoint and those who prefer collective responsibility?