GoingUnderground

It depends on whether it was used elsewhere on the project or dumped at some convenient site as close at hand as possible. I seem to recall reading that much of the excavated material from the construction of the Bakerloo line in the early 1900s came out via a caisson sunk into the Thames and was loaded on to barges, and dumped into the Thames Estuary. Please correct me if my memory is playing me false. Carting muck around is expensive, and civil engineers try to minimise the distance by using something called a "mass haul" diagram. On the Channel Tunnel I think much of it ended up at the foot of the White Cliffs. On HS2 it may well have been used for embankments. But there's not much call for those round Euston, especially when the rest of the line to Brum will probably have been completed years earlier.

You've been reading too many WW2 PoW escape stories, like Eric Williams' "The Tunnel" and the follow up "The Wooden Horse", think I've got the author's name right.

First, if you're updating from 4.2.8 or higher the ECoS will extract the ".bci" file itself, you just browse to wherever you've saved the downloaded ".zip" file and click the Send button. If you're updating from a version earlier than 4.2.8 you will still need to extract the ".bci" file from the ".zip" file. It's very easy. Right click on the ".zip" file and select "Extract All". You'll be given the option to create the directory where you want to save the unzipped contents of the ".zip" file. I did this Extract All process as recently as this afternoon and my Windows 10 computer is bang up to date. No unzipping app or program required. Windiws does it all itself. Alternatively, in file manager/explorer left click on the ".zip" file to see its contents, select all three files using Control A (select all) , copy them using Control C (copy) , go to whichever folder you want to save the unzipped files and use Control V (paste) to paste unzipped copies of the 3 files to your chosen folder. Again no unzipping program or app needed. But what sort of problem are you having anyway? Check that you have downloaded the correct version for your particular ECoS. There's one for the colour ECoS 2 & 2.1, another for the monochrome ECoS 1, and a 3rd for the Maerklin Central Station 1 Reloaded CS1R.

I think that modern designs tend to create grandiose expensive schemes. When building underground stations the tendency nowadays seems to be to dig a ruddy great hole and put the station at the bottom of it. Compare that to the amount of spoil generated when the original stations were built. Just think of the stations on the Victoria line with those on the Jubilee line beyond Green Park. But I'm no civil engineer or QS, so maybe I'm misinterpreting the comparative costs.

Depends whether you class it as a loco, an EMU, or something else, but it's still AC electric. Likewise Eurostar units as the business case for replacing the e320 units when their time comes must now be in tatters. Mind you, the Swiss did put pantos on some steam locos in WW2 as an experiment in electric firing to overcome coal shortages. Now there's a thought Flying Scotsman or Tornado sporting a panto. OK, I'm going, I'm going...... Now where did I put my gloves and walking stick..... can't leave without them.... Oh, and my scarf.

I think you mean Croxley, not Ricky, but I fully take your point. Likewise the extension of the Bakerloo line beyond Elephant & Castle, first proposed in 1947 I think it was, and periodically exhumed and then buried again.

And why don't the councils currently have the funds to fix potholes, or do much else come to that......... Take the money from them and then expect a pat on the back for giving some of it back to them......... Talk about having your cake and eating it!!!!!! Sorry it's politics, but HS2 is now all about politics and hoovering up votes, not improving the UK's public transport infrastructure.

Who said anything about steam? We need somewhere to run retired AC locos and EMUs. Electrics should get some sort of a look in. Even better if it could be switched to 1500V DC so that 27000 Electra and 26010 could come out to play as well. The LT Museum has done several trips with its '38 Stock this year, Acton Town to Uxbridge, Acton Town to Terminal 4, and Harrow to Amersham (can' t remember if they included Watford and the North Curve for Watford to Ricky, (sorry Rickmansworth for those not familiar with that neck of the woods). Mind you, I can't see the LT museum sticking a panto on the roof and transformers in the '38 Stock, or the MetroVic Sarah Suddons, or the hopefully restored 4 car Q Stock set when that is completed in a few years time. Laying 3rd & 4th rail for them might be a tad expensive and have the elf an safty polis up in arms. Still when Euston has become home to all stations to Manchester they'll need to do something with the DC lines to Harrow & Wealdstone. I'll get my hat & coat...

Q. - How do you make more use of smart motorways between London, Birmingham and Manchester? A. - Make travelling by rail so damned expensive and awkward that those who can give up rail travel and go by car or coach. Q. - How do you make travelling by rail so damned expensive and awkward? A. - Increase rail fares by RPI, which in most years is more than either CPI or the rise in wages or salaries. Build a line from the outskirts of London to a new station in Birmingham with a connection to the WCML south of Stafford so that travellers from Central London have to change trains at OOC and reduce the number of fast through trains from Euston to get people to use the new line. Close ticket offices. Break the rail network up into a multitude of commercial entities who when things go wrong try to pin the blame on everyone else so thay they don't have the carry the financial can. Make so many unneccessary concessions to vested local interests and "nimbyism" that building a new line becomes so prohibitively expensive that it is cut back to save money with the result that the bit that is built is so compromised that the benefits are severely reduced. Need I go on? OOC to Birmingham Curzon Street must the the first time that a brand new heritage railway has been built, because at the end of the day that it all that it will be good for IMHO.

First may I be so bold as to correct some bad but entirely understandable misunderstandings. The Cab Control set uses exactly the same Mobile Control 2 handset as is sold to work with the ECoS. It isn't just visually identical, it is the same item. As it was first announced for the ECoS, it is probably better to say that CabControl uses the same Mobile Control 2 handset as the ECoS. The Mobile Control 2 handset is listed as 2 separate items on the ESU website. One, 50113, includes a wireless access point for ECoS users who either don't have home WiFi or their WiFi router is too far away from their ECoS for an easy cable connection and a reliable WiFi link. The other, 50114, is just the handset on its own, which is what you'd buy if you already have your ECoS connected to your home WiFi or wanted additional handsets for your ECoS or CabControl. CabControl, unlike ECoS, has its own built-in WiFi system. Second, the CabControl was originally intended for N America and Australia. It was also sold in Europe and N America under the Piko brand as SmartControl. Thirdly, the videos were made for the N American market and will primarily have been aimed at current and potential CabControl owners. If you want info about ESU products look at the product descriptions on the ESU website or download the manuals from their Downloads pages. Finally, Mobile Control 2 is not a standalone DCC system. It will only work with ECoS or CabControl. In theory, it could work with other makes using WiFi, and ESU did release the code for the throttle knob. But to the best of my knowledge no one has yet written Android apps to use Mobile Control 2 with other makes or systems. Here's the history of CabControl. 2-3 years ago, possibly longer, Piko stopped supporting SmartControl and withdrew the ESU supplied SmartControl from sale. They changed to another system made by Uhlenbrock which at the time Piko called SmartControl Lite. It is not the same system as the ESU made original and the components are not interchangeable. Late last year, I think it was, ESU announced a programme where owners of Piko SmartControl could have them "upgraded" to ESU CabControl for a price. That allowed them to receive updated firmware again after Piko ended support. Then at the beginning of this year, 2023, ESU announced that they would start selling CabControl in Europe and presumably that will include the UK at some point. However, as far as I know, that hasn't happened yet. I believe that may be down to supply problems rather than a change of strategy as they still show it in the German language part of their website as coming to Europe, but no longer quote a planned release Quarter, or they didn't when I last looked. The original ESU part number for CabControl is 50310, whilst for the version for Europe it is 50311. As far as is known there is no difference in the spec between them, and the change may be down to nothing more than including a german language version of the user manual in the box. However, the Mobile Control 2 currently uses Android 6, so there may be a change to a later version of Android which might explain the two different part numbers. But this is all just speculation on my part. For more background look at the DCC Discussions sub-forum.

Once you are on 4.0.0 or higher you can go straight to 4.2.12 and ignore the intermediate files. Within each generation every firmware file that you download is a full and complete file that does not depend on any particular version already being installed as they do not patch the already installed firmware. The update process overwrites the already installed firmware, replacing it with the new version.

Ron, pot & kettle? The same could be said about your, mine, and almost everyone else's comments on here about HS2. And he is local to that area, living in Stafford, which is not a million miles away from Rugeley in case you hadn't noticed. For him it's local and he takes an interest in railways as evidenced by his interest in serious model engineering. Stopping work, or pausing or rescheduling or postponing or whatever other words the politicos want to use to spin their decision, is cancellation by another name. If you pause or postpone it then reinstatement costs are avoided. The uncompleted works just need to be made safe which I would have thought would be a lot cheaper than reinstatement because you leave everything in situ, untouched, on the excuse that work will eventually be resarting. So, for me, the cry "it's cheaper to complete than cancel" argument just doesn't stand up. Whatever slight hope I had that HS2 was an indication of a renaissance for modern railways in the UK has gone. Defeated by the nimbyism that insisted on so much expensive earthworks to hide the line and politicos that have no interest in public transport. And I'm not anti-car, in fact I'm about to spend several thousand on restoring a 26 year old car that's been off the road for 13+ years to full running order. But as I get older, I increasingly realise that I will have to stop driving eventually, and I'd like to think that public transport will be there to meet my needs when the time comes. And I see rail as a very important part of that mix.

HS2 R. I. P. Bring back the Blue Pullman Paddington, sorry, OOC to Brimingham service.

You mean a downgraded replacement IMHO. And I did mean Rugeley as he talked about it going through the old power station site. In his view the Manchester leg was already dead and just waiting for the politicos to make it official.

If they were serious about saving money they could always terminate HS2 at West Ruislip and let the punters, sorry, I meant passengers, take the Central line into London. 🥸 The whole thing has turned into a farce. 🥸 For what it's worth my own view is that forcing all passengers to change trains at OOC destroys the entire logic of building the line. You may be adding capacity, but by making it less convenient to use than existing services from Euston and removing the time saving by having to change trains why would people want to use it at all? I had dinner tonight with friends in Stafford one of whom is a rail enthusiast, he builds live steam 7 1/2" gauge locos. His view was that HS2 would join the WCML near Rugeley, IIRC, and that some of the necessary works were already in hand despite the lack of any public announcement to that effect.

Pardon me for saying so, but I think you need to check your facts. An ECoS has always been perfectly capable of handling as many decoders as you want with the same address. What stops duplicate addressing happening is RailcomPLUS which lets the ECoS detect duplicated addresses and automatically change one of the addresses in Railcom PLUS equipped and enabled decoders to remove the duplication. This only happens if one (or both) of the decoders to have duplicated addresses has Railcom PLUS, and Railcom PLUS is turned on/enabled in the decoder(s), AND Railcom PLUS is also turned on/enabled in the ECoS. Using duplicated addresses is very, very. easy to do. There are even 2 separate ways to do it. Either change CV28 (twenty eight) in the Railcom PLUS-equipped decoder(s) which are to have duplicated addresses from 131 to 3 - this turns off PLUS in the decoder(s). If both decoders to have duplicate addresses have PLUS enabled then you must disable it in both decoders. You can now change the address in one decoder to duplicate the address of the other decoder. Do not turn PLUS back on in the decoder(s), you must leave it disabled. That's all there is to it. Or go into the ECoS's configuration settings and turn off Railcom PLUS. With PLUS turned off in the decoders an ECoS will never try to change the decoder's address automatically as it treats it as a decoder not equipped with PLUS. This is the method that I use, and have done for many years. It is much better than turning off PLUS in the ECoS as keeping PLUS turned on in the ECoS means it will still autoregister new locos with PLUS enabled decoders. Railcom PLUS is an extension to Railcom and can be turned on/enabled or off/disabled in Railcom PLUS-equipped decoders without affecting the working of Railcom itself. So you do not need to adjust CV29 (twenty nine), and can still use Railcom to identify locos and show their names on the ECoS's track plan diagram if you use ECoSDetectors or ECoSDetector RCs fir occupancy detection. There is a third way which is to use decoders that are not equipped with RailcomPLUS. If a decoder isn't equipped with PLUS or it isn't turned on/enabled in the decoder, then it doesn't matter whether PLUS is enabled or disabled in the ECoS. The ECoS cannot change its address automatically. I hope this helps. By the way, I put PLUS in capitals to emphasise that it is the PLUS system that prevents address duplication, not Railcom. So many people do not realise that PLUS is a sub-system of Railcom and confuse the two.

I wasn't looking to start a debate about the source or quality of the free sound files as that is covered elsewhere. I do find the move strange though, particularly if the files are not SWD's but recreations by ESU from SWD's source recordings. I am curious as to the reasons and motivation behind the change. Does anyone have any info that they can share with us without breaking any confidences? Or have any views on the merits or otherwise of withdrawing from retailing and restricting their activities to wholesale only? For owners of ESU kit that breaks down it seems to be more difficult now for owners to return items to ESU for repair now thatvwe are outside the EU. Previously I just sent items back without worrying about customs, etc. Is this the first step of the clearing of the decks in preparation for SWD to become a clearing house for the return of items for repair? It would make sense as they would be much better placed to get the paperwork right than end users, and, where appropriate, invoice UK customers for out of warranty repairs on behalf of ESU.

I'm not sure if this should be here, or in Small Suppliers, but as it applies to digital systems and ESU in particular, I thought this was the best place to post it. Likewise apologies if it has already been covered elsewhere on RMWeb. You may have seen that many UK diesel sound files for ESU sound decoders previously available from SWD are no longer available from SWD. Instead a range of UK diesel sounds is now available for free download direct from the ESU website for their V5 decoders. This looks to be an even more radical move for SWD than simply withdrawing from the UK sounds market as their website now makes it clear that they no longer sell direct to the public. They are continuing to distribute ESU products to the trade in the UK. In my dealings with them in the past as a retail customer I've always found them to be very helpful. I wish them well in their change of direction.

The free steam sounds are quite old as they have been available for download for just over 4 years now on ESU's website for the V5 decoders and from August 2016 for V4 decoders. Also, available from August 2016 was a free sound for the Class 08 for V4 LokSounds. There are no UK sounds available for download from ESU for Electric locos or MUs.

"Gauge change gate is a word for word translation of the announcement in German "Spurwechseltor" Spur = Gauge, Wechsel = Change, Tor = Gate or Door. It does not refer to the crossover itself, but the the yellow door that was shown in an earlier photo which in normal use closed off the crossover tunnel. The French version, referring to "La porte de la diagonale", crossover door, makes this clearer. The vertical yellow line in the picture posted by Ruggedpeak looks to refer to the location of the crossover door, whilst the red line drawn perpendicularly across the crossover to the to the left and slightly above the yellow line I take to show the very approximate positioning of the mobile door. The yellow line is not perpendicular to the crossover tunnel but angled in relation to the crossover tunnel suggesting that reflects its actual positioning. If that were the case then any wagon or loco running into the door from either side would tend to be pushed into the tunnel wall which would transfer some of the kinetic energy into the tunnel wall rather than relying solely on the strength and retaining fixings of the door. Were it not for the crossover door, the derailed wagons could have entered and obstructed the other running tunnel. Hence the need to restore some form of barrier, the "mobile door", to protect the other running tunnel from physical ingress from the crossover tunnel, including smoke, and making appropriate adaptations to the signalling systems before running can restart in the other bore. There are pictures on the internet of similar doors which, according to one of the file's name, are in one of the scissors crossovers in the Channel Tunnel. https://www.ilf.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/pic_slider5_03_channel_tunnel_web.jpg and https://l450v.alamy.com/450v/b8j4cr/installation-of-massive-steel-sliding-doors-used-to-separate-rail-b8j4cr.jpg

An operating scenario not that different to the first fire in the Channel Tunnel. The comment about such an incident being "impossible" strikes me as idealistic if not downright naive. Another case of Murphy's Law 1, Tunnel Operators Nil. Whilst the chances of an incident happening in the tunnel might be very small but I don't believe that they could ever be nil. Perhaps I'm just a pessimist, but that's what life has taught me. On the basis that it will happen again one day, what could be done to detect this sort of incident and bring it to the driver's attention sooner and minimise the potential damage? Or would the powers that be look at it on a cost benefit basis, the cost of installing and maintaining such a system against the costs incurred when the unexpected did eventually happen?

I've just looked at this topic for the first time, so apologies for the very, very late reply. I want to comment on two potentially misleading statements in melmerby's post about using boosters with ESU's ECoS and CabControl. If you want the full interaction between the ECoS and a booster, then you would need to buy the ECoSBoost. However the ECoS has a dedicated port for connecting a booster which can either be a Maerklin booster or a DCC booster which has C/D/E terminals. Both are clearly set out in the ECoS manual, including how to connect a booster that has just the C = Data and D = Ground port connections. Unfortunately CabControl does not have the necessary port. It may seem strange that CabControl doesn't have the same functionality as an ECoS, but CabControl isn't an ECoS without the screen, control knobs and physical function buttons. it a lower spec product with less functionality than an ECoS sold at a much lower price when compared to an ECoS plus a Mobile Control 2 handset. The Loconet port on CabControl is referred to as a Loconet-T port, same as used on ESU's L.Net module. it is intended for connecting Loconet slave throttles or occupancy detectors. If/when it is eventually enabled on the CabControl ICU it still could not be used with a Loconet booster as those require the full spec Loconet-B port. Likewise, using an L.Net module with CabControl would not let you use a Loconet booster with CabControl. However, to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing to stop you using a standalone booster that only needs a connection to the DCC track signal with either an ECoS or a CabControl. But take care to follow the instructions in the booster manual about how to connect the 3rd party booster to the tracks to make sure the orientation/polarity is correct to avoid problems. The Hornby Booster is one such device according to its user manual, and I think the Bachmann EZCommand Booster is another, but I can't find a copy of the Bachmann user manual for the Booster online for me to check whether that is the case, but I suspect that it is as the relevant port is marked "DCC In".

According to Desmond Croome's book, during WW2, Circle line services used stock from before 1921 albeit rehabilitated in 1934. Pictures of Moorgate station in the post-war 1940s of trains with Inner Circle destination boards are of this older rolling stock. O and P stock was in service before WW2, but operating Hammersmith branch services (O) and Uxbridge branch services (P). There is a picture of a wrecked flare sided train comprising a mix of O and P Stock cars at Moorgate destroyed on 29/12/40. So, depending on the storyline you could still use O or P Stocks but would have to restrict the action to the Hammersmith branch services. I don't know if Uxbridge branch services ran beyond Baker St during WW2 to Moorgate and beyond.

Really?????? When the District only owned the section between Mansion House and Sth Kensington???? The Met built and owned more of the Circle line than the District, getting as far as South Ken in the South West and Tower Hill in the South East, whilst the Tower Hill to Mansion House section was a joint enterprise between the Met and District companies. The District company only built the section between Sth Ken and Mansion House, and had its own platforms at High St Ken, Gloucester Road and Sth Ken.. There were still separate platforms for Circle and District trains at Sth Ken until 1969. The Act of Parliament authorising the building of the section between Mansion House and Aldgate (it absorbed the Met's Aldgate to Tower Hill section) provided for the Met to operate the outer rail clockwise services and the District the anticlockwise inner rail services, but with the Met providing some trains (it might have been 5 trains) for the anticlockwise service as well in recognition of the higher proportion of the line constructed and controlled by the Met. I believe that revenue was shared in a similar proportion (55% Met to 45% District). So the idea of having to go the long way round is, at best, mischevious. The District did promote its own southern route between the City and Kensington as posters from the 1880s show. But I cannot recall reading that the company from whom a traveller purchased a ticket determined the direction of travel, especially when the Met also provided trains for the anticlockwise service. But I'd be interested to know the source of your information. The District was founded as a separate company as that allowed more capital to be raised than would have been possible if the Met had built the whole line. The original idea was that the Met would absorb/take over the District company in due course and initially the Met did operate all services for the District and did appont members to the District's board. But the District wanted independence and gave notice to terminate the operating agreement with the Met and take over the running of its services itself. The Met's representsatives resigned from the District Board, and the situation worsened when James Staats Forbes joined the District Board due to the personal animosity between him and Edward Watkin. Watkin was charrman of the South Eastern Railway whilst Forbes was chairman of the London Chatham and Dover and it was this mainline railway rivalry that probably didn't help when it came to co-operating in London.

A Bit off=topic I know, but there is one other point on F Stock worth noting in relation to their speed. They had mainly longitudinal seats, the transverse seating being restricted to the bays at the end of each car. This gave them a much greater carrying capacity, the same as today's S Stock has a greater capacity than the A60 Stock with its all transverse seating. Thus F Stock gained a reputation for clearing crowds quickly from platforms especially at stations serving football grounds. The greater carrying capacity of such a seating arrangement would have required sufficiently powerful motors from new, all of which points towards rolling stock that would have been far from being slow in everyday operation. I well remember just how spacious and roomy the F Stock felt compared to the O and P stock running on the Uxbridge branch in the early 1960s. It never really occurred to me at the time that the feeling of spaciousness was due to the mainly longitudinal seating arrangement. I just knew that they looked and felt very different to the more usual O/P Stock. I'd love to be able to go back to the early 1960s and ride on the F Stock again.