Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

355 Good

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

264 profile views
  1. In many ways I submit that's not a bad thing. A building is a big lump of capital that a charitable organisation will have trouble finding, so a big lump gift is appropriate, but staff and equipment needs to be continually resourced out of regular income: if you rely on an occasional patron for it then sooner or later you won't get one when you need it and will be in big trouble.
  2. I should have checked - RCTS has 3258. However RCTS shows 3282 in the row above, against 3216/9016. The dates of withdrawal and rebuild in RCTS suggest that 3282/3216 and 3258/3217 were not in the works together.
  3. The welded up portholes are still clearly visible on 9017. Presumably they were blocked when the cab was still on 3258*. With so many photos of 9017 about it should be possible to get a feel for what percentage of photos they are actually visible in. *corrected, thanks for headsup Ms Prism
  4. For example 28th Feb 1924 Now don't get me wrong, the sum is utterly trivial compared to many thousands being authorised to spend on machinery at the same meeting, not to mention whatever the directors received for turning up to the meetings, but at least there's a small acceptance of the principle...
  5. On the other hand without the baleful influence of Lenin and the agitprop from the Soviet Union there might have been less excuse for business owners to ignore social justice. The more enlightened business owners realised that the quality of life of their staff was important and did justify some of the company's money. Without the evils of marxism/leninism proclaiming that only violent revolution leads to social justice, perhaps society might have developed a bit more positively. In GWR loco committee minutes there are frequent authorisations of spending that had nothing to do with the business. I doubt the same is true of the current GWR. But we're getting a long way...
  6. One also needs to consider the loss of export trade as British manufacturers switched over to war production and US manufacturers took over their export markets.
  7. I had assumed they were intended to let light in rather than to see out of. How much difference they would have made in most circumstances is questionable I should think. A completely uninformed speculation with no supporting evidence whatsoever... When did toughened glass become available? If there was a programme of fitting toughened glass to all windows on safety grounds at that time, plating over unnecessary windows would have saved money. But this is just a guess. Zero evidence.
  8. Statistically by far the .ost likely is the open because there were so many more of them.
  9. SR would have finished the Chessington branch through Ashtead North to Leatherhead. Railway nationalisation would have surely happened the next time a radical Labour government was elected.
  10. It was impossible to find in the time I was prepared to spend looking!
  11. Seems to me that instead of the war almost bankrupting Britain, staying out would have led to a (at least temporary) burst of prosperity. Coal, steel, arms, it would all have been in demand. However if you assume that without Britain the Germans would have won, then the long term consequences are incalculable. Consider for instance that a defeated France as part of the German empire would not be repaying all the loans it took from british institutions to pay for all those guns... I agree that mergers/takeovers would have continued.
  12. One approach would be to start with current Network rail standards, and then see if there are any with modelling implications that your fictional bureaucrats might be prepared to discard. Given your scenarios the baseline is what is acceptable for a NR freight only line. It certainly wouldn't be less than that. In addition a 25mph or even lower speed limit in all stations would be an obvious requirement - no through freight trains hammering through the platforms at 50mph... As above an awful lot of the issues would be organisational rather than anything that needs modelling.
  13. Or alternatively the mediocre record of those few examples demonstrated that they were not a good idea in the UK. One invokes one's prejudices and takes one's pick...
  14. What's easily forgotten is that only a part of the eventual GWR was built to that structure. I haven't managed to find most of the detail, but I understand that although the GWR structure gauge for GWR built lines (London Bristol Line et al) was indeed very generous and would solve a lot of problems today, not even all of the broad gauge was built to that. If my understanding is correct the Bristol and Exeter and the South Devon were built to a smaller structure gauge, and all the northern division lines were never broad gauge anyway. GWR 9'6 width carriages were prohibited N of Wolverhampton and Hereford, and much of Wales, ex MSWJR and various joint lines, which suggests those were areas where the bigger structure gauge never applied.
  15. Brush (Electrical) in 1903 according to RCTS. Certainly scores good marks for cuteness.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.