Jump to content
 

Please use M,M&M only for topics that do not fit within other forum areas. All topics posted here await admin team approval to ensure they don't belong elsewhere.

Wright writes.....


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, jollysmart said:

 

John, I think the spare lights and van/pick-up are because the provision of traffic lights and other guarding cones, signs etc at temporary works is often undertaken by specialist contractors. They design the roadworks guarding plan which is submitted to the highway authority and as the people actually doing the works are not traffic light specialist they stay on site to ensure that there is minimal disruption if the lights fail. All of this work was previously undertaken by the road contractors / Local authority / Utility but not very often  now, it does cost eye watering amounts of money which someone picks up the tab for. 

 

As a former senior local government highways and traffic engineer I recall that, until relatively recently, a contractor or in-house highway works crew were perfectly capable of erecting, maintaining and adjusting temporary traffic signals. The layout and positioning of signs and signals would be designed by the in-house project engineer, and drawings provided to the contractor / works unit.

 

Then came the 'hands-off' concept of works management - the further removed the commissioner from the (potentially risky) implementation the better!

 

Wouldn't it be so much better if the principal contractor designed the works, so that the commissioning body couldn't be held responsible if something went wrong?

 

Wouldn't it be so much better if the principal contractor sub-contracted out all of the work elements and associated traffic managment responsibilities - so that the principal contractor could not be held responsible if anything went wrong?

 

........ and so on, and so on, ad infinitum!

 

Every time a responsibility is passed on there are huge tendering costs, and everyone involved in this ludicrous chain of buck-passing has to have someone on site to represent them - even if there's nothing for them to do for 99% of the time.

 

I can personally vouch for the fact that scheme costs multiplied several-fold as soon as these 'umbrella' contracts became the fashion - and we've all seen how we, via the Treasury, have to bail out these mega-contractors (who actually do very little but sell the work to others) when they fail.

 

Now you know why I got out of local government on the day that my pension matured, and why your taxes - local and national - are so high!

 

It's a mad world!

 

John Isherwood.

 

 

Edited by cctransuk
  • Like 3
  • Agree 4
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, polybear said:

On a visit to the same place last year the cans have no such warning, so either the link has been disproved or the ingredients changed.

...or the rats are all dead.

  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, queensquare said:

 

Thats the plan at the moment. It would give the right impression and its also the summit of the gradient at home - the Midland passes underneath at this point out of sight. The problem is that I need to be able to reliably uncouple the banker, in a cutting, on the move, with the rest of the train on a hidden 2' radius curve in a tunnel. What could possibly go wrong........!

 

Jerry

With DG couplings (with or without the MDE mods)? Absolutely nothing...

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

For those that think it's an easy job you would not like the abuse and threats directed towards these workmen, I have been amazed that even when drivers don't have to wait for the lights they still open windows and hurl abuse.

 

Because the sight of such unnecessary and costly resources being wasted - at our expense - is enough to bring fury to the fore in the mildest-mannered driver. I sympathise with the signals crew - but nowhere near as much as I sympathise with the enraged drivers.

 

It is the burgeoning Health & Safety industry that has invented all these 'vital' new regulations - as you would if your business relied upon you 'discovering' ever more risks that must be mitigated. However did we manage before? .... and don't tell me that it's all about avoiding accidents and fatalities; most risk arises from human error, and you cannot legislate against human nature.

 

John Isherwood.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to change the subject for a bit - It seems to me that there is a rush to get to page 2000. The rate of filling pages [with interesting stuff, mind you] seems to have accelerated in the 1900s!

 

Is this the thread on RMWeb with the most postings?

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, rka said:

Thank you, 

 

Looking for couplings is there a "best" make or are they all pretty much the same? 

 

Regards Richard 

 

The only provider of Spratt and Winkles that I'm aware of is Wizard models. For the 3-links, you have

a wider choice. Its a toss-up between realism and ease-of-use, and for me the Smith's ones are about

right, although they're somewhat over-scale. However, it still beats a tension lock.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rka said:

Thank you, 

 

Looking for couplings is there a "best" make or are they all pretty much the same? 

 

Regards Richard 

I don't think it's the case that all couplings are the same, Richard,

 

The previous pages have illustrated that. 

 

I suppose the 'industry-standard' (certainly in OO) is the tension-lock. Now, just to muddy the waters, what is a 'standard' tension lock? I think the first was produced by Tri-ang, as as successor to its second coupling system which was a metal hook resting on a metal bar (the bar was not in the form of a 'goalpost', but just bent at right angles - does anyone have a picture to illustrate this, please?). The hook did not lock under tension. 

 

Being metal, it could be bent in many directions, enough to make it able to hook up to Peco/Hornby-Dublo/Trix couplings. In my youth I had Tri-ang but my best friend (whose dad was a test pilot, so well-off) had Hornby-Dublo, and another friend had Trix. By using the Trix track, and ensuring that no Hornby-Dublo train was to be hauled by a Tri-ang loco, and by switching the feed wires around, we ran all our trains. I seem to recall Cyril Freezer telling us that the different systems (and definitely the couplings) were not compatible. Since none of us knew what compatible (or incompatible) meant at the time, we carried on in blissful ignorance! 

 

The tension-locks do just that - while in tension they'll depress uncoupling ramps, and only uncouple when shunted back over them. 

 

Some folk still use the Peco-type coupling (which, at least, resembles a buckeye), but the final manifestation of it by Hornby-Dublo was a gross, nylon affair - which didn't always couple up successfully to the original metal ones.

 

So, the tension-lock became standard. Lima produced what must be the ugliest of the type, and there have been various sizes produced down the years by the RTR boys. Though nominally 'compatible', this is not always the case. Most now are mounted in NEM pockets, which means they can be substituted with relative ease, but beware - not all are at the same height. It's common knowledge that I cannot stand them! 

 

There are various other proprietary semi-automatic types which have been mentioned of late, or, like me, you can make your own. 

 

Three-links and screw-links look most like the prototypes with regard to shackles, but they're a fiddle to couple-up/uncouple, and always require the 'hand of God'. Kaydees look most like buckeyes.

 

It's down to which suits you best.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Clem said:

D16/3s often worked on the Cambridge-Oxford services if I remember correctly.

Good afternoon Clem,

 

After the closure of the M&GN, ex-LNER locos regularly worked over the MR route through Stamford, to Leicester. Prior to the closure (actually a little before) B12s would often take the 'Leicester' to Leicester, or even Birmingham New Street, travelling over both ex-MR and ex-LNWR lines. 

 

As you know, the east west route through Little Bytham is actually an end-on junction where the Midland met the Midland and Great Northern. On the model, I have several ex-LNER locos running............

 

1413468522_McGowanB123finished03.jpg.eee7e36b668374ab593881c395f9baee.jpg

 

in this early-50s view, this B12/3 is about to run on to Midland metals, controlled by Midland signals from a Midland signal box.

 

411358072_McGowanB12311.jpg.389709fa9fb59f2cc37cadc614863527.jpg

 

The girder bridge was actually Midland property. 

 

630700976_PDKB12361530.jpg.56bf7aa8316301e2d12053739b18f321.jpg

 

As was the bridge over Station Road.

 

311465750_D163abovegardens.jpg.c08f1c13430d72a0b104c942783f070a.jpg

 

And the length of embankment between............

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

  • Like 19
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Andy Reichert said:

 

I'm happy to properly inform the buyers that there may be concerns. What they do with it later is then their risk instead of mine. I regularly CNC machine cut rail into points, but I wouldn't dream of grinding any of it and making dust. Governments only just figured out that the unfortunate workers who make "granite substitute" type kitchen worktops have been breathing in as much quartz dust as if they were coal miners.

 

See https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=243&tid=44

 

When I was just a kid, I helped my father hand saw a 3 x 2 sheet of 1/2"  asbestos to fit into our home airing cupboard to support a new copper hot water tank. I'm sure he would have used something else if it had been labelled as dangerous 60 years ago

 

Andy

 

Very well said - Health and Safety is there for a very good reason!

 

Gerry

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, chris p bacon said:

 

Your post shows just how out of touch you are with how works are charged now, For the last 2 service crossings I had I paid between £480 and £620  for the supply of the lights and a man to operate, I was also charged £1700 each time by Central Beds council for the permission to have the lights.  A simple electrical connection to a property cost just over £7000 with 40% of that charge coming from CBC for the permission to cross a road and pathway. 

 

Health and safety has nothing to do with the majority of costs. These 'permission' charges have come out of nowhere in the last couple of years as local authorities see service works as a cash cow.  So rather than it costing you money it's actually paying for your pension.

 

I get p*&%$£ off with people claiming "H & S" is the problem when it has nthing to do with it. The reality is that construction (especially roadside) is one of the most dangerous workplaces in modern times, mainly due to driver impatience and poor driving skills. You might not care for workmens lives but I prefer to go hime each night in one piece.

 

Since this discussion has gone way off-topic, I have continued it via PM.

 

John Isherwood.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

I have a photograph of a J39 on a passenger train at Woburn Sands.

Probably late 1930s.

Any more LNER machines spotted?

Bernard

 

I would have thought it would be very unusual if it was the 1930s; I believe BR(E) locos only started working over the Cambridge-Bletchley line after nationalisation.  As well as the types already mentioned, I've seen pictures of B1s and K3s working trains between Cambridge and Bedford, in BR days.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, Tony Wright said:

I don't think it's the case that all couplings are the same, Richard,

 

The previous pages have illustrated that. 

 

I suppose the 'industry-standard' (certainly in OO) is the tension-lock. Now, just to muddy the waters, what is a 'standard' tension lock? I think the first was produced by Tri-ang, as as successor to its second coupling system which was a metal hook resting on a metal bar (the bar was not in the form of a 'goalpost', but just bent at right angles - does anyone have a picture to illustrate this, please?). The hook did not lock under tension. 

 

Being metal, it could be bent in many directions, enough to make it able to hook up to Peco/Hornby-Dublo/Trix couplings. In my youth I had Tri-ang but my best friend (whose dad was a test pilot, so well-off) had Hornby-Dublo, and another friend had Trix. By using the Trix track, and ensuring that no Hornby-Dublo train was to be hauled by a Tri-ang loco, and by switching the feed wires around, we ran all our trains. I seem to recall Cyril Freezer telling us that the different systems (and definitely the couplings) were not compatible. Since none of us knew what compatible (or incompatible) meant at the time, we carried on in blissful ignorance! 

 

The tension-locks do just that - while in tension they'll depress uncoupling ramps, and only uncouple when shunted back over them. 

 

Some folk still use the Peco-type coupling (which, at least, resembles a buckeye), but the final manifestation of it by Hornby-Dublo was a gross, nylon affair - which didn't always couple up successfully to the original metal ones.

 

So, the tension-lock became standard. Lima produced what must be the ugliest of the type, and there have been various sizes produced down the years by the RTR boys. Though nominally 'compatible', this is not always the case. Most now are mounted in NEM pockets, which means they can be substituted with relative ease, but beware - not all are at the same height. It's common knowledge that I cannot stand them! 

 

There are various other proprietary semi-automatic types which have been mentioned of late, or, like me, you can make your own. 

 

Three-links and screw-links look most like the prototypes with regard to shackles, but they're a fiddle to couple-up/uncouple, and always require the 'hand of God'. Kaydees look most like buckeyes.

 

It's down to which suits you best.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

Hi Tony, 

 

I should have made myself clear, I meant which are the best three link/instanter couplings? 

 

I have found romford and smiths so far. 

 

Best regards Richard 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
8 minutes ago, rka said:

Hi Tony, 

 

I should have made myself clear, I meant which are the best three link/instanter couplings? 

 

I have found romford and smiths so far. 

 

Best regards Richard 

 

I think you need to narrow down what criteria you want to use to choose the "best". You tend to have a range of different ones that go from near to scale and fiddly to use up to easy to use but chunky and overscale.

 

So "best" can mean different things to different people. Best in appearance or best to use?

 

I abandoned screw and three link couplings many years ago on my ow models in favour of a home made Spratt & Winkle type, which I have illustrated before but I wouldn't know where to find it now, so I am putting the photos up again. Made from "Top E" guitar string (I know there are different ones but these are the ones that broke on my daughter's guitar and I have no idea what brand/gauge/weight they are!), they work really reliably on Narrow Road and were used on a range of other layouts.

 

295647314_Couplings006.jpg.2d684a6d5c269c0c6d3bc14c01abf3b7.jpg

1320983197_Couplings005.jpg.162c5da3275ff5ca9770d1f8061c6d67.jpg

1598863120_Couplings004.jpg.0cf1cdb0858fc1c44c9a8a8ba6c14740.jpg

 

Two bends, attach a split pin dropper and fix at the far end of the wagon. The "safety loop" stops it dragging in the ballast at a magnet.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a user of 3- and screw links and I'd recommend Smiths.  The hooks are overscale and this helps coupling and uncoupling.

 

Don't put vac pipes where they're supposed to be (directly over the hook) either.   From the side you can't tell if they're a little offset.

 

If you're watching costs, you can buy the hooks separately and make your own links from soft wire.   There are plenty of guides on doing this in books and online.

 

Masokits are the best in appearance (I'm told) but they're horrilby fiddly to make and couple up.

 

Romford screw links are over large and have a tendency to jam up, often so they stick out from the front of a loco in a highly suggestive manner.

 

Or maybe it's just my mind.....

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
  • Funny 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Tony Wright said:

Good afternoon Clem,

 

After the closure of the M&GN, ex-LNER locos regularly worked over the MR route through Stamford, to Leicester. Prior to the closure (actually a little before) B12s would often take the 'Leicester' to Leicester, or even Birmingham New Street, travelling over both ex-MR and ex-LNWR lines. 

 

As you know, the east west route through Little Bytham is actually an end-on junction where the Midland met the Midland and Great Northern. On the model, I have several ex-LNER locos running............

 

1413468522_McGowanB123finished03.jpg.eee7e36b668374ab593881c395f9baee.jpg

 

in this early-50s view, this B12/3 is about to run on to Midland metals, controlled by Midland signals from a Midland signal box.

 

411358072_McGowanB12311.jpg.389709fa9fb59f2cc37cadc614863527.jpg

 

The girder bridge was actually Midland property. 

 

630700976_PDKB12361530.jpg.56bf7aa8316301e2d12053739b18f321.jpg

 

As was the bridge over Station Road.

 

311465750_D163abovegardens.jpg.c08f1c13430d72a0b104c942783f070a.jpg

 

And the length of embankment between............

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

 

 

 

 

I do like to see a bit of well-modelled Midland. The tramway that goes under the girder bridge is nicely done too!

 

Re. 3-links, I've been happy using the Slaters ones which are rather nearer scale than the Smiths ones and consequently more of a pain to couple up. Perhaps not so good for shunting but in a fixed rake they look better. Although I'm in 00, this is a case where, for me, appearance wins out over functionality.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, jwealleans said:

I'm a user of 3- and screw links and I'd recommend Smiths.  The hooks are overscale and this helps coupling and uncoupling.

Not being under exhibition scrutiny, I try to make my 3 links as close to prototype as possible. As I've said before, I know make my own out of 0.5mm brass wire. Using a uncoupling pole attached to a torch is a big help and if you can get the hook just right it can make the difference, making the coupling/uncoupling a lot easier. However, I can see that on a large exhibition layout using Smiths would be the ideal compromise.

 

Here's one I've just done although the photo shows that I didn't quite line up that last link. I solder up each link and with care,  the solder usually fills any gaps without leaving any humps. The hooks are Masokits.

 

IMG_5218_rdcd.jpg.a2f52abd14fb7416088874a1ddac56c5.jpg

  • Like 15
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, cctransuk said:

Every time a responsibility is passed on there are huge tendering costs, and everyone involved in this ludicrous chain of buck-passing has to have someone on site to represent them - even if there's nothing for them to do for 99% of the time.

 

I can personally vouch for the fact that scheme costs multiplied several-fold as soon as these 'umbrella' contracts became the fashion - and we've all seen how we, via the Treasury, have to bail out these mega-contractors (who actually do very little but sell the work to others) when they fail.

 

Pity everyone forgets that authority can be delegated, responsibility is not.

 

Totally agree about the large contractors.  There's a strong rumour that another major one is about to go bust (government departments only refer to it by code-name, for fear of the information becoming public and causing shareholder panic, which would be certain to push it over the edge).

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

Because the sight of such unnecessary and costly resources being wasted - at our expense - is enough to bring fury to the fore in the mildest-mannered driver. I sympathise with the signals crew - but nowhere near as much as I sympathise with the enraged drivers.

 

It is the burgeoning Health & Safety industry that has invented all these 'vital' new regulations - as you would if your business relied upon you 'discovering' ever more risks that must be mitigated. However did we manage before? .... and don't tell me that it's all about avoiding accidents and fatalities; most risk arises from human error, and you cannot legislate against human nature.

 

John Isherwood.

You may be different but I would never sympathise with anyone who hurls verbal abuse at someone who is just doing their job.  I don't care if they've been delayed for a few minutes, tough.  Set off earlier.

 

As for your second paragraph, sorry to have to tell you but almost everything you have written is wrong.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
18 hours ago, robertcwp said:

Thanks for this. I see it is listed on the Eileen's Emporium website, along with several other blackening products, but the site does not state which one is for any particular metal. I found I had a Birchwood Casey Super Black instant touch-up pen in my drawer, which I bought from Eileen's some years ago (it still has the price sticker £8 on it) but I never used it. It is stated to be for anodized aluminium and possibly won't work on other metals. I was also put off by the notice "This product contains a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer."  I might stick to shiny couplings and bars for now.

Standard arse-covering content.

 

The State of California seems to consider that true of almost every substance known to man. They are largely correct; in that almost everything can, if one is exposed to enough of it, sufficiently often, and in certain ways (perm any two from three). However, they never elaborate on any of that.

 

All it really indicates is that the maker sells, or wants to sell, their product in California.

 

We modellers use loads of things that would so qualify, so we take precautions:

 

Don't use in unventilated spaces. Don't sniff the stuff. Don't smoke while you are using it.

 

Do wash your hands thoroughly if you get any on them, and definitely before handling food. Do store it securely.

 

Oh, and Do read the instructions.*

 

Most things that are still dangerous if we exercise all of the above, are already illegal in most countries.

 

John

 

*except the last one, which is something most of us chaps seem to regard as a last resort, :jester:

 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

You may be different but I would never sympathise with anyone who hurls verbal abuse at someone who is just doing their job.  I don't care if they've been delayed for a few minutes, tough.  Set off earlier.

 

As for your second paragraph, sorry to have to tell you but almost everything you have written is wrong.

 

 

For obvious reasons I tried to take this off-topic and inflamatory subject away from this group.

 

Clearly there are other points-of-view than my own - I can only say that my views are the product of forty years practical experience and are honestly held.

 

With that, I will withdraw from any further comment.

 

John Isherwood.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

For obvious reasons I tried to take this off-topic and inflamatory subject away from this group.

I think that's a reasonable point. I don't agree with your strong opinions on health and safety John, but would not want to make any disagreement a personal issue. It's always dodgy when politics with a small 'p' gets into the conversation between folk with a common love of railways. Fine in a conversation between like minded folk, but I would never assume others thought the same politically. It's not worth the angst when there's more relevant (and mutually interesting) things to discuss on here.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...