Trevellan

Always a good location for clag when they were opened up for the gradient out. Not very politically correct, but spectacular.

I read that a previous iteration of BML2 had been shelved indefinitely. This latest proposal sounds attractive, but I suspect it would be prohibitively expensive. And that's before the locals along the route begin to object...

I wish everyone an enjoyable day (or weekend) in Taunton. I'm desperately sorry I cannot be with you this year and shall miss the friendly banter, especially among the modular layout team. May your electricity flow freely and your derailments be few

The HST shot looks like an attempt to recreate some iconic poster designs. Very nice.

Comperes using the term "give it up for..." instead of "please welcome..."

Back in 2004 when I was a Bluebell volunteer, I was asked to clean "Blackmore Vale" ready for a filming job involving Clive Groome and Bruce Dickinson. I had to leave before filming commenced, so I have no idea what was produced.

Perhaps "patronising" may have been a better choice - and your posts were not those I was referring to. I have little experience of Linux, barring two years of using Mandrake on a PC which was mostly number crunching from a call centre logging system to generate stats. I did have XP for several years and, like you, I found it worked well most of the time. Unfortunately, my distrust of W10 is such that I now have Task Manager running in the background so I can instantly check CPU and HDD usage if things start to go slow.

I must admit to being quite disappointed with some of the seemingly smug posts on this thread. If your browser is working fine, then good for you. However, W10 is proving to be a mixed blessing for some of us and I know several highly experienced IT people who won't touch it in its current form. I find it is often intrusive and has a habit of running what should be background tasks when I am working to a deadline. Disk and/or CPU usage rises dramatically and slows down any applications I'm trying to work in. It would seem some contributors are forgetting that we are using different machines that will be set up differently. It is also important to remember that some applications can conflict with others and this has been the case for as long as I've been using computers, now 30 years plus. This can manifest itself in different ways, including system crashes, freezes or slow running. My experience is that PCs will be stable and reliable for a period, but then software updates create problems which have to be addressed before the previous happy state can be restored. My office PC was "upgraded" to W10 some time ago, but I have seen little improvement over its predecessor. As for browsers, I use both Firefox and Chrome, sometimes simultaneously. Firefox is the default, but sites such as RMweb run better in Chrome (on my PC). Recently, I have experienced a number of problems with internet and email. For example, Firefox has noticeably slowed for no obvious reason, so I have sympathy with some of the previous comments. I think one of the main problems with W10 is that it tries to be all things to all people and many of its features seem to be aimed at tablet users. Frankly, I'm not interested in fripperies, like their choice of picture on startup. All I want is a stable office platform for my PC which allows me to work efficiently. In all honesty, I still believe that Windows 98SE was the last iteration that gave me what I wanted. This clearly won't be a popular view with some contributors, but this is my reality.

I thought the apparent speed was more to do with a fairly wide angle view, but I may be mistaken.

Interestingly, in my part of the world a police officer on a motorcycle recently spoke to a bus driver about being parked on zig-zags and told him to move on. The bus was actually calling at a marked bus stop which happens to be a major traffic objective (a college and leisure centre). This stop is also a timing point in the service registration and public timetable and is adjacent to a signalised pedestrian crossing. In the latter case, the proximity of the bus stop is actually a benefit, deterring individuals from crossing a busy road at a less safe location. Any attempt to relocate the stop would create more problems than it solved. The stop in question is one of many which seem to clash with basic road safety principles and appear to be based on historic precedent. Some years ago I was routinely involved in site meetings to establish safe locations for new bus stops, back in the days when the police could afford experienced traffic officers as road safety advisors. Inevitably, certain locations are a compromise, but many of those in my current locale would never have been agreed. While I can see the officer's viewpoint, it was unreasonable to pick on a bus driver simply trying to do his job. I have therefore advised colleagues that if police officers have concerns about bus stop locations they should be directed through official channels and any future interventions of a similar nature should be reported to the bus company. In fairness, few front line officers will be aware of timing points and the role of Traffic Commissioners. However, I felt the intervention was rather petty, especially given that local officers show little enthusiasm for prosecuting quite serious moving traffic offences, of which there are many on a daily basis.

It's a lovely building, but I still salivate over the picture of the traverser. Sad, I know, but to me that's proper train storage.

I suspect that might be a little tricky Mike, with lots of potential for things to go wrong. A moving table would be best for that, which I don't believe the Proxxon has.

I don't know why, but the editor has put two copies of the image in my post and I cannot delete one of them.

robertcwp said: In the early to mid 1980s there were two such evening peak workings formed 33/1+4TC+8-Vep. This struck a chord with me, so I delved into my collection and dug out the image below. It was taken at Basingstoke on Tuesday, 27th May 1986, and my notes show this as the 17:00 Waterloo-Salisbury/Eastleigh. The combo seen here is 33 108+433+7766+7829.

I have enjoyed being part of the Taunton event for the last three years, but I regret that I will be unable to attend this year. A combination of factors has changed my circumstances, to the extent that my entire model collection, including my test track and two RMweb modules, is currently in storage. My modelling has therefore had to be put on hold for the moment. Other factors dictate that it will be difficult for me to even attend as a visitor. Despite this, I will continue to follow developments, in the hope that I can return in 2018. I wish you all the best of luck with your planning.

I think the comments above demonstrate just how awkward these front ends are to reproduce accurately. However, attention to detail at this stage will, I believe, help sales and pave the way for a definitive 4CIG. IMHO, the sound option is eminently sensible. All of the BR EP units, including the 4TC, had distinctive sounds, including the rhythmic beat of the compressor. The brake sounds too are distinctive, so why not offer the option? I have the blue/grey variant on order and have seen nothing yet to put me off.

Here's a shot I've been meaning to post for some time: Driver Matt Clark at the controls of a class 107 DMU at Largs Station in August 1981. I wonder if any RMwebbers north of the border know of, or knew Matt?

The location of Ventnor station was dictated by geology. The town is effectively split into four distinct tiers: the esplanade and beach at sea level, the town centre higher up, then upper Ventnor where the old station was located and above that another tier which is also known as upper Ventnor to the locals, although the official name is Lowtherville. As you may know, Ventnor station occupied the site of a former quarry and in terms of gradients and access was the only practical solution. These days there is a half-hourly bus service in each direction which stops close by and there are other services provided under contract to the Town Council which could have augmented the main bus service. Ryde is still an important traffic objective and East Cowes, West Cowes and Yarmouth all have regular ferry services. New operators have come and gone, unable to generate sufficient traffic to cover significant overheads. For example, one such operator started a West Cowes to Portsmouth service, which was potentially useful. However, they lacked sufficient capital to keep the service going long enough to build a decent customer base. The current situation is therefore an amalgam of historic precedent and basic economics.

Quote "Can something that happened 50 years ago really be described as short sighted?" Interestingly, I've heard this view from senior rail people, that forecasting is not a fine art and the Beeching recommendations could not have foreseen a future need for closed lines. You are right though, the real crime was not taking a national decision to preserve the former alignments in their entirety. Some still exist in part, of course, as public rights of way, but many have been lost for ever to Britain's detriment. Reflecting my post on another thread, the British problem is a tendency to view railways as a liability rather than a strategic national asset and a key part of the country's infrastructure. The Isle of Wight is actually a microcosm of a national problem which is still not fully understood. EDIT: My response crossed with yours Derek. No, the railway - in whatever form - will not replace the need for private transport, but it can help by providing an option for certain trips.

It has already been explained that the main road between Ryde and Shanklin becomes very congested and the the parallel rail route provides a useful alternative. Therefore, the decision to retain that section of line was pragmatic rather than odd. A move to more frequent and evenly spaced tram operation would enhance its utility. What we have seen in recent years is a substantial increase in traffic congestion on former rail alignments (Ryde-Newport-Cowes), making even local journey times unpredictable. The shortsightedness of those 1966 closures is now being demonstrated almost daily. Unfortunately, a push for sustainable tourism was three decades away and the principle is also being revived in local authority policy. We now have a Task Force on the island, headed by no less a luminary than Christoper Garnett, which is set to address a number of problems. For example, Newport is being choked by traffic and badly needs a relief road, as well as a re-think about access in general. It could also benefit from at least two Park & Ride hubs similar to those serving Salisbury. In short, lots of problems and no easy solutions, despite some of the bigoted and misguided comments earlier in the thread.

While I appreciate that everyone will have their own viewpoint, your comments illustrate the difficulties in even having a rational and intelligent debate, let alone making physical progress. I'm afraid your statements are wildly inaccurate and unnecessarily negative. However, reading between the lines I suspect you are one of the many motorists mentioned in my earlier post who would never use buses and therefore resent them. My posts on this thread are intended to inform the debate in a constructive sense. Perhaps you could come up with some suggestions that actually bear some resemblance to reality?

It all sounds wonderful, but I'll wager there will still be a role for class 37 haulage...

Wow. Light the blue touchpaper and stand clear Kevin Unfettered car use on the IoW is undoubtedly a factor, but the Conservative councillors echo the national party line by doing everything to woo the motoring vote, even if it has a detrimental effect - and it does. This immediately rules out a number of your proposals. The biggest single cause of delays to buses on the island is not congestion, but on-street parking, which in some cases can convert significant lengths of the highway into a single lane. A substantial chunk of the island's housing stock has no room for off-road parking, yet residents expect to be able to park on the highway, even though it constrains road capacity. Another issue is the phasing of traffic signals, with any bus priority measures no longer effective, if they ever existed at all. I'm not suggesting that bus drivers should never see a red traffic signal, but they most definitely should NOT see a green light change in front of them. Sadly, they frequently do, and this can often be just to allow a single car out of a side road. Utter madness. The Southern Vectis network is, by most standards, already comprehensive, with metro-style frequencies on key routes, e.g up to 8 buses per hour (bph) on the Newport-Cowes corridor and 6bph on the Newport-Ryde corridor. Any improvements would need to be driven by determined priority measures, as you suggest. However, these would be unpopular with the majority of islanders who see unrestricted car use as a birthright.Having been involved with transport policy and planning for many years now I know that nationally there is a hard core of motorists who would never use the bus, but might be persuaded to use a train or tram. Indeed, the success of light rail systems in cities such as Manchester, Sheffield and Nottingham has provided hard evidence of this trend. Therefore, the remaining rail route IS needed, because the parallel road route is constrained and does become congested. One reason why light rail is seen as a sound proposal is that operating costs should (in theory) be lower, while being able to operate higher frequencies. It may also allow on-street running, although this would require substantial civil engineering, as well as cross-party political support. The last time a major transport infrastructure project was attempted on the island it was sunk by political squabbling and sniping, plus (I'm told) unreasonable demands by Network Rail. Former rail alignments still exist as cycle routes, but most would be unsuitable for any meaningful busway conversion. All of the above is important, but the key issue is funding. No-one seems able to explain why Island Line costs so much, yet generates so little in the way of revenue. Until we see detailed cost breakdowns, it is difficult to know how and where to make savings. The proposal by Christopher Garnett does at least bring the IoW Steam Railway into Ryde, albeit well outside the town centre. However, St Johns Road station has a large car park which is used as a park and ride facility by commuters. The Isle of Wight Bus Museum is also located nearby, providing another traffic objective. And finally, that big supermarket at the back of Ryde couldn't realistically be located anywhere else in the town and it does at least have a regular bus service. However, we now have a new ASDA being built on the outskirts of Newport which will generate additional local traffic and the potential for even more congestion. I hope all of this is helpful background from a professional transport planner, who has also been a local for the last three years.

Isle of Wight Council doesn't have the capability to run the system and it is unlikely that Southern Vectis would be chosen, for a variety of reasons. I'd agree that new build is off the agenda. As ever, cost will drive decision-making.

The 1973 stock currently on the Piccadilly line is too long for the island. The 1972 stock is feasible, but would require a lot of work because equipment is spread between driving motor and trailer cars. Light rail would mean lighter infrastructure requirements, although the conversion to OLE would prove challenging in places. Returning rail to Newport from Ryde is feasible, but access to Cowes is now nigh on impossible. Congestion and a lack of resilience in the road network has shown the rail closures of 1966 to have been spectacularly short-sighted. It is no accident that the island's two busiest bus routes parallel former rail alignments.