Hesperus

I'm not saying that we should have driverless trains. But if that is too difficult/dangerous then we shouldn't allow driverless cars/lorry's/buses.

But still feels like a far easier and safer prospect than self driving vehicles on the road.

Typical, I make my first trip to Fort William to visit my son at uni and the day after I get back there's 4x37 up there! I suppose it's an excuse for a return visit. A few people were talking about CDL/selective door opening for services on preserved lines that stop at short platforms. I'd have thought that half the doors on the train are generally not at the platform (apart from the Corris and a few others) so you generally have to check there is a platform there before getting out.

Presumably as they own 8x153s and can buy/lease the rest very cheaply if nobody else wants them. Having a quick look on Wikipedia they are the only remaining operator of 153s apart from the 5 ScotRail bike carriers and 3 Network Rail test trains. Not certain of the Wiki maths though as they claim TfW has refurbished 26 and the total in service is 33.

Durham I'm assuming originally single carriageway Along with the station access road

I seem to recall hearing that the train has run for 70+ miles on battery power and the branch is less than 3 miles long so we might be unduly worrying about the batteries being damaged by rapid charging. Edit. 83 miles https://news.gwr.com/news/great-western-railways-battery-train-sets-new-distance-record

Really pleased to see some progress with Vivarails plans, this has been a long time coming. Just a minor point but it seems silly to run these between service trains rather than just use them as the service trains. If one breaks down it'll still stop the service on the branch until its recovered.

Seems strange to have new 197s sat idle when they are using 150s and 153s on some long distance services. I'm not complaining, makes it more interesting to watch but passengers would be a bit miffed.

I've not built a Metcalfe kit for years but from what I remember they are pretty good about printing detail all over the buildings so you can assemble the groups in different ways. If you left of the platform then the 283 would fit, perhaps with miniature platforms just outside the doors. In my mind it'll look a bit odd with the different buildings in a long strip though. I think it would look more believable with either one type of building stretching along most of the length or buildings that were obviously built at different times joined together (like on the Scalescenes boxfiles).

And there was me wondering if the Chiltern 68s might be replaced by 67s if the quieter exhaust modification didn't work.

Then at least the embankment will mostly be covered by plants that don't grow too tall which will help to stop the taller trees from starting to grow.

Would it make sense to deliberately plant smaller species of tree on cutting slopes? Send someone knowledgeable along every couple of years to check nothing bigger has joined them and give them a trim.

The speed isn't really an issue up to Manchester but will be for trains heading further north. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/feb/07/mayors-put-forward-alternatives-to-hs2-scrapped-northern-section This article said 3 options had been put forward by the 2 Andy's, does anyone have a link to what they are as I can't find it? I completely agree that doing nothing isn't an option. Whether you think building HS2 was a good idea or not, building a third of it, spending most of the money and spoiling the pretty bits of landscape to be left with something that only really helps people get from Birmingham to Heathrow quicker isn't a good use of money.

I would just edit the first post with a message and links to where the current layout and pictures start. There's no harm in leaving the pages there and removing them would stop a good few of us from finding the thread in "threads you've posted in". Those slate strips look amazing.

So I think I've found out what the wagon is. https://peco-uk.com/collections/parkside/products/lner-jubilee-coal-wagon?variant=7435680841762 Although I'm not sure why mine has metal underframe bits 🤔 Helpfully the Oxford version in 00 gives me a few ideas for PO liveries that are probably accurate for the wagon even if it's a little hard to explain why it's in Herefordshire.

Tonight the soldering iron needed to come out to address a broken rail joint. While it was out I thought I'd introduce an isolating section to allow two locos on scene at once. The layout wiring is a bit unusual. The boards are Kingspan with wood around the edge so there is no space underneath. The wires go straight from the board joints to rails that are always live. As all 3 points back onto the board joint the switchable frogs go right up to the join. The switch's are built into the point levers and buried in the board. I selected a space for a switch that would be hidden in the weeds at the end of the siding. In order to fit it I temporarily removed most of the weeds. On testing it I remembered that I'd need to remove the wire that previously powered the siding. On doing that I spotted another switch I'd hidden in the weeds at this end when I built it 12 years ago, guess what that is for? 🫣

It's winter and model railway mojo has been partially restored by collecting my dad's old tinplate from his loft. A cheap mineral wagon has been snagged from eBay. Does anyone know what it is?

If you are careful with where the section break is I can't see a problem with setting back a loco to double head (so long as they are well matched when both sections are switched on and they set off). Two trains running in the same section would be tricky on DC but isn't generally done on the real thing.

You'd need a few tins of XXXX after lifting a temporary knuckle coupling into place in the outback!

But is it less safe than a 158? At least he's got somewhere to go.

Bishops Castle Brewery (seen from the unusual angle of a customers garden).

It'll be nice to have a London service from Sunny Shropshire again but I can see a few grumbles about diesels under the wires.

A few years ago I suggested on another thread on here that coach's from redundant 442s could be a cheap way of making the TfW WAG trains DDA compliant. At the time the Mk4s seemed to have many years ahead of them on the ECML and there were very few if any other coach's with power doors available. I didn't know the 442 doors weren't compliant until I read @black and decker boy's post above. Surely someone at the DfT should have known? Besides which, by the time that order was made we all knew there would soon be dozens of redundant Mk4s. I realise that today's railway is theoretically made up from dozens of companies competing with each other but we all know who's calling the tune. Could the DfT try employing someone who knows what they are doing?

I've only pre-ordered one, an 0 gauge Dapol Terrier in KESR blue but it's the only new loco I remember buying. I'd struggle to find it second hand and would struggle more to match the finish repainting another.

I suspect the prize will go to some prewar tinplate like the Hornby 4 wheeled Pullman's.