Forward!

Historic England. Sadly the interior of the old drawing offices was more or less gutted when BR closed-up shop. But a few reminders remain. For instance, any fixture or fitting that could be at risk of being stolen back-in-the-day is still stamped 'GWR'. Everything from the door handles to the underside of the toilet seats (reference photo for the latter definitely not attached!).

I'm currently sat at a desk having my lunch on the fourth window in from the right, second floor!

Pre- common user my understanding was that the RCH managed two sets of charges for wagons- mileage (the fixed rate for sending a wagon out to another company's system for an agreed period) and demurrage (the penalty the other company would incur for keeping the wagon beyond that period). From a 1930s article Railway Wonders of the World: "Mileage and demurrage charges were at one time raised on wagons, and their covering sheets or tarpaulins. Wagons at the end of a journey were unloaded and sent back empty to the forwarding company - thus causing an enormous amount of unnecessary haulage. A company would frequently return empty wagons to another company at a junction and at the same time receive from that company its own empty wagons." https://www.railwaywondersoftheworld.com/clearing-house.html

Re a method of making reins that will withstand a lot of handling- have you thought of an elasticated thread? The most common 'modellers' product is "EZ Line", but other non-modelling products are identical, cheaper and readily available from a local haberdashery. Will

Sorry, not clear. The last remaining civilian bombed-out building that has not been subject to some form of intentional post-war retention, stabilisation or repair works to bring it into some form of use, even as a ruin (many bombed churches, in contrast, became part of postwar parks and gardens as part of clearance and reconstruction schemes). The retention of bombed-out secular buildings post-war was much less widespread and invariably never really intentional. They lingered for (in cases) decades, but redevelopment inevitably saw that they were demolished. The National Picture Theatre in Hull was a site abandoned after its destruction in 1941 and until very recently had simply not been touched at all. There are still smoke stains on the facade and rubble in the back. https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1391850?section=official-list-entry Will

Not to mention getting destroyed on the Hull Blitz which gutted the museum. Presumably the artefacts were in storage at the time. (Fun fact, totally off topic, the last remaining bombed-out building in the UK is in Hull. Its a former cinema and is now grade II listed and being preserved using lottery money.)

It's been at Hull since 1939 when it was added to the city's Museum of Commerce and Industry (the precursor of the modern Streetlife museum). It was on the iniative of HA Whitcombe, a noted tramway enthusiast. I'm not sure whether he had a connection to Hull or whether it was simply an expedient to save the loco by finding any municipal museum willing to take it?

Such a shame it didn't make it- already nearly 80 years old when it was fatally injured in a shunting accident.

It's the former MS&LR, GCR director's saloon and is famously a case of "one that got away" despite the intention to preserve it in the late 60s.

Perhaps they could run them like a GWR auto train- put the loco inbetween two sets!

Tender locomotives definitely ventured onto the North Lindsey Light Railway, which was privately built, but was operated as part of a 'proper' railway (the GCR), so may not be what you were getting at. https://northlincsmuseumimagearchive.org.uk/frontend.php?keywords=Ref_No_increment;EQUALS;s06746&pos=2&action=zoom Will

I don't want to be guilty of taking this thread anywhere near the concept of contested heritage (I believe the Daily Mail and the Guardian both have more appropriate forums for that sort of thing, depending on your political bent). But it is worth noting that there is no such thing as "neutral" language and no such thing as "settled" history. Two different people can look upon a statue of a dead white guy on a horse and one may be inspired to think that that 150 year old commemoration represents something pertinent to British identity in the 21st century, and another can be wholly repulsed by the exact same thing that statue was intended to commemorate. Both are entirely valid reactions. The only thing that is true is that the statue represents what those who created it at the time valued, celebrated and intended to use to create their own national idendity. And inevitably, that was a rather narrow elite who got the opportunity to do that. How much those values can, and indeed, should define a 21st century notion of UK national identity- well your opinion is as equally valid as mine (and I've been absolutely clear in a previous post about mine). Everybody adds their own layers of meaning to how we name public spaces, and, by selecting who we choose to honour, what we wish to convey to the world about any collective sense of identity. Our history is re-written every single day. And we all have our own stories to explain how we arrived at what we think we are today. I think the recent announcement is an interesting reflection of where we are as a city in 2024. A little trite perhaps, but not fundamentally any different to how things were done in the past. The future is impossible to predict. Will people in 2054, 2104 collectively remember the "Lionesses", or will it have taken on a completely different meaning? Who knows? My only real gripe was I just wished they'd come up with some slightly snappier names! Anyway, let's steer clear of the whole hornet's nest of contested heritage. These are complex discussions and one thing I've learned in my day job (I work in the heritage sector) is any attempt to iron them out in an online space is doomed to fail. I apologise if my language was indiscrete. Will

Good idea- I have found getting about on the Overground increasingly tricky, especially if there was disruption because you basically had to memorise the entire system to work out where that disruption was and whether it would affect your part of it. I have no problem with chosing names that reflect how London wants itself to be seen by the world, but I think they could have chosen some that roll off the tongue a little easier. I tried saying "Lioness Line" out loud a few times quickly and I very easily ended up contracting it to "Line'sline". I'm not sure how much thought has been given to how easily some of these can be pronounced (or heard) by visitors whose first language isn't English. Will p.s. for what it's worth almost anything would be a "political" choice- and there's plenty of older examples on the system. Naming something is an intrinsically political act. They in their own way tell you a lot about what those politicians cared about in their own time- battles and royalty- the glories of Empire. You see it everywhere across London- lot's of statues of dead white guys on horesback. No bad thing- our history is our history, but claiming that Khan is somehow politicising the tube is nonsense. I'd rather have some slightly silly names than be boring like the Germans and just have S1, S2, S3...

Full retro NSE for me!

DfT claims it costs less to maintain road/motorway road earthworks because they were constructed (more or less) to modern standards. They commissioned some research in 2021 that found that railway earthworks were much more likely to be built on cuttings or embankments which do not meet modern standards and as such steep embankment slopes increase the risk of slips. The UK’s third Climate Change Risk Assessment (2021) claimed that older, less well compacted assets such as those supporting the rail network (i.e. embankments made by simply tipping spoil and allowing natural settling) are deteriorating at a faster rate due to increased rainfall than newer assets built to more modern standards. I'm no civil engineer so I don't have the patience or skill to read the science, but my takeaway from the research I've read is motorways=new, railways= old and knackered. And again- the scale of the problem is staggering. Network Rail is responsible for 70,000 soil cuttings, 22,000 rock cuttings and 100,000 embankments- the overwhelming majority of which are over 100 years old, and much of them are over 150.

I think our positions are entirely compatible. I absolutely agree that good continued maintenance of what we have is necessary, but such an approach can't be perpetuated indefinitely. Despite best efforts our existing infrastructure will fail because it was never designed to perform in the conditions it is now experiencing. Fact. You are also absolutely correct that investment in alternatives without the accompaying systemic support for its continued maintenance is as good as doing nothing at all. In my view though, it's a question of re-scaling the thinking. If, for example, a railway earthwork fails, the question should not be "how do we keep fixing it", it should be "should a railway even exist in this location at all- why not build a new one over there instead?". These are mega££££billion decisions that few governments seem willing to grapple with because the economic benefit is massively subservient to the short-term political dynamics. Serious thought needs to be given to more fundamental, systemic change. Anything less than about 30 years in the future is basically tomorrow when it comes to climate change. There needs to be a recognition that old solutions only solve the old problems, not the new ones. The battle I encounter in my day job is arguing just how radical, how comprehensive, and how urgent change needs to be! Will

Indeed, but the point I was making is that even maintaining our infrastructure to past levels is going to require more effort in the face of climate change, and will therefore become increasing unviable in the future as rainfall events become more frequent and more intense. In some cases it is already fact that traditional designs are failing. Sure, poor maintenance is not going to help, but good maintenance is not going to solve the problem either. Completely different approaches to building and maintaining infrastructure will be needed to cope with the effects of changing weather patterns. I work in historic environment management and already the sector is talking about managing whole landscapes in very different ways than before- and yes, actually admitting that it is not possible to save everything in the form it's currently in or even to preserve historic land use patterns is a consideration. In our sector we call it "curated loss". I expect there is something similar in other sectors. Let's also not forget that the world has already recorded its first full year of breaching the 1.5 degree warming target- so even if we do act now, the impact of climate change will still be felt in the UK landscape in decades to come, whether we like it or not. The scale of the problem for rail infrastructure is huge. There are 596 stations and 1800km of track deemed at high risk of surface flooding due to intense rainfall events. The effects of rainwater scour are probably the single biggest cause of structural failure on the system. There are currently about 60-70 earthwork failures on the system each year. The changing pattern of rainfall compounds the problem because we're getting wetter winters and drier summers. This is expected to lead to an increase in earthwork failures on the rail network. This means greater fluctuations in soil moisture, which in turn causes cracking and in turn, structural failure. The 2021 UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (a five yearly assessment required by law under the 2008 Climate Change Act) concluded that Network Rail has “been proactive in implementing adaptation measures” but that “sustained action is still required”, with significant risks remaining particularly around flooding and heat, and around “single points of failure” such as bridges, earthworks, and subsidence. There's a lot that can be done using technology for real-time monitoring of earthworks (e.g. LiDAR) and a lot of risk-assessment, but fundamentally this isn't a problem that's going to be solved by just keeping up good maintenance regimes- there needs to significant, sustained, adaptation. The infrastructure is simply not designed to cope with increased rainfall or extreme heat. The million dollar question is where do you start upgrading it? And the answer to that depends largely on where a failure has the potential to have the biggest impact. If one asset (e.g. a crucial bridge or high-risk cutting) is upgraded, this can enhance the resilience of other, lower risk sections of the network. Also, much more thought needs to be given to mitigating the impact of failures (such as planned diversionary routes), because this problem isn't going away! Adaptation of the network is going to take time and it's going to cost a LOT. But the upgrading of key pieces of transport infrastructure will avoid the costs and disruption of emergency works (planned work is £ for £ cheaper than repeated emergency repair works). The really tricky thing is that it is not easy to conduct traditional cost-benefits analysis of adaptation works and upgrades because we cannot predict climate change with a great deal of certainty (we know it's happening, but are less sure of how fast it's happening and how its impact will be felt in different parts of the UK because our weather patterns are heavily dependent on things like the jeststream and Ocean currents.) Take a famous example of Dawlish- we know that sooner or later storm disruption is likely to make the route economically unviable. So when do you pull the trigger on upgrading it? You could argue for an "up front" investment, or you could adopt a "wait until we have more data on climate change" approach. Both have arguments in their favour, but both also present significant risks. Some very serious decisions will need to be made in the next decade or so. The scale of vision needed to avoid catastrophe is huge- I like to think of it in terms of Bazelgette having the vision to build an entirely new solution to sewage in London- 1100 miles of drains and 82 miles of sewers so large they could incorporate enough spare capacity to see it still operational 150 years later. That's the scale we need to be thinking about. Even though (albeit in another sector) thinking about stuff like this is my day job, the scale of the challenge (or rather our politician's unwillingness to acknowledge it) still sometimes keeps me awake at night. Will

It's significant that in 2020-21 the UK was 9% wetter than it was between 1961-1990. And when rainfall events occur, they are generally more intensive than they were in the past: more rain is falling in less time. Indeed- between 1862 and 2020 six of the ten wettest days on record have occurred in the last 20 years. A very significant part of that increase in rainfall is concentrated within the months October-March, which exacerbates the effect of rainfall events on localised flooding, damage to transport infrastructure, etc. There's also a regional effect- the North West and Scotland is seeing a greater increase in intensive rainfall than the South and East. As climate change warms the air, it can hold more moisture (7% more moisture for every 1 degree Celsius increase in air temperature), so the UK is likely to experience more dramatic rainfall events in the future. Climate change, even if action is taken now, will continue to effect our fundamental transport infrastructure without extensive (and very expensive) adaptation. Victorian rail infrastructure was never designed to cope with extreme rainfall (or for that matter, to cope with extreme heat either.) Will

Cheers Richard, I'll try to find a copy. Will

Hi all, I recently treated myself to the latest iteration of Hornby's 4mm scale LNER W1 water-tubed 4-6-4 more or less on a whim (I model the late 40s, so completely unjustifiable on my layout, but as ever, rule 1 applies...). It prompted me to read around the subject a little. I have consulted the usual sources- e.g. the relevant Yeadon's register about the whole unhappy experience the LNER had trying to get the damned thing to work, so I've got a fair idea of the technical reasons why it failed. What I'm less sure about is whether it ever could have been made to work had the LNER not cut their losses and had it rebuilt as a firetube-boilered single expansion loco. My instinct is that the high-pressure compound concept was a classic case of a solution that was in search of a problem, but I'd be interested in what others more familiar with the subject think. Will

Worth noting that in the earliest days of the GWR "corridor" service, the connection between carriages was not considered to be something for passenger use- it was for attendants to move throughout the train to serve people at their seats. The concept of using corridor connections to allow passengers to move between carriages in order to access a dining (and later buffet) carriage came along later- the GCR being a particular innovator in this.

Drawn and described in Railway Modeller November 1969.

"The Great British Rail Sale"? Surely "privatisation" is a snappier name for it?

That would be a nice detail to model! Anyone know how widespread this service was?

I'm guess the "correct" answer to most of those questions was "slash public services and privatise everything in sight".