HS2

[Not Jeremy]

18 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

If it's only OOC to Birmingham does it need to be double track? If it's fast enough to get from one end to the other a single track shuttle service might do.

 

That would leave the other side of HS2 free for trolleybuses. Remember them? All-electric vehicles long before it was trendy. You could have a whole fleet of them, diverting off HS2 to serve local places along the route without needing to build stations or interrupt the Birmingham trains. With the addition of a battery, there would be no need to string up wires in local places, they could run into existing bus stations and connect with existing local bus services.

 

Which would remove a lot of the local traffic from the WCML, leaving paths free for trains to Manchester and the Frozen North on the original tracks.

 

Martin.

Excellent!

 

That has quite cheered me up Martin, it is this sort of innovative and enlightened thinking that we all need right now, let's hope that Rishi and Keir are reading and taking note.

 

And also thank you so very much for Templot and all that it has given to so many of us. Without it and your and others' assistance I would never have built this back in 2010.

 

 

I am just now reconditioning it for my new line in the garden, an homage to HS2, or possibly not...

 

 

[C126]

31 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

If it's only OOC to Birmingham does it need to be double track? If it's fast enough to get from one end to the other a single track shuttle service might do.

 

That would leave the other side of HS2 free for trolleybuses. Remember them? All-electric vehicles long before it was trendy. You could have a whole fleet of them, diverting off HS2 to serve local places along the route without needing to build stations or interrupt the Birmingham trains. With the addition of a battery, there would be no need to string up wires in local places, they could run into existing bus stations and connect with existing local bus services.

 

Which would remove a lot of the local traffic from the WCML, leaving paths free for trains to Manchester and the Frozen North on the original tracks.

 

Martin.

 

It is refreshing, innovative, pioneering thinking such as this that keeps the U.K. a hub of cutting-edge excellence 'going forward'.  No wonder we are synonymous with being a 'first-world economy'.  Truly, other nations must stand and watch in awe...

 

Apologies for the lowest form of wit.

 

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

A quick video, just skimming through some of the HS2 route, showing brief glimpse of some of the work.

(note, the video can't be embedded, so the link needs to be clicked to open it in YouTube.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5OpvS8sWTQ

 

 

 

.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by Ron Ron Ron

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Sadly, Mike, the railway today is a very different one to that you worked on.  Twenty years ago Mark ruefully showed me a diamond crossing at Wilmslow and remarked how many weekends it had taken to replace.  He said he commented to Railtrack that when he joined the railway they would have replaced it between trains.  The reply came back to the effect that you didn't have H&S back then.  Possessions today take longer to set up, conduct safety briefings etc., and take down than they do for actual work done.  But, the number of injuries and, worse, fatalities has fallen greatly.

 

OOC will provide interchange between HS2 and GWR services to the West.  It will also provide an easier interchange between GWR semi-fast services and the EL than at Paddington.  A simple platform change by the transfer deck, not having to navigate your way around the station then two lengthy escalators as you do at Paddington.  London Overground also have aspirations for two new stations to feed into OOC.  If they come to fruition then it will be a western equivalent of Stratford.

 

I presume the alternatives you have in mind for diversions are Olympia or Marylebone.  To access the former you still need to go via Willesden as you can't hang a right at OOC East anymore and in any case, if you could it would be in the middle of the worksite.  Euston, whilst not ideal, has better onward connectivity than Olympia.  Marylebone is not an option as it no longer has capacity and it couldn't handle 10 car IETs - and the Chiltern Line isn't currently cleared for them although that could be addressed.

 

I can assure you that everything will be done to keep disruption to a minimum.  When Reading was being rebuilt, NR wanted to operate a 2-track railway for TWO years through Reading.  This was totally unacceptable to GWR but NR said there was no alternative.  That was until GWR submitted a plan that involved keeping a 4 track railway with two massive blockades during which trains would run to Marylebone and Waterloo.  The former involved a bonus of signalling improvements at Banbury that improved operations there for "normal" GWR services and Chiltern.  And as a result, Reading was finished early and under budget!

Don't worry Mike I know that things have changed but alot of it now is paperwork for paperwork's sake as the unfortunate deaths at Margam showed all too clearly.  Taking a posseion is actually no more onerous now than it was in late BR days and you do all your briefing first - not in the possession time - plus on big jobs you work three shifts so you're actually working round the clock with people on site for 8 hours plus their briefing time separate before going on site.  BTW Railtrack were useless at possession planning (I had to deal with them and it was very hard work)  and there's plenty of evidence on one of their computer systems that NR don't seem to be much better

 

Incidentally Addison Road/Olympia g has twice worked very well as an alternative when major enguneering work has reduced the number of trains able to use Paddington.  East to overlook the fact that Olympia gives a good connection to the Circle/District Lines which Waterloo does not.

 

But the odd things I can't understand are these =-

1.  Why should anyone from anywhere west of Maidenhead want to go anywhere via HS2 if it only goes to Birmingham and doesn't have the capacity to run many/any  trains to anywhere else?  The journey via HS2 will, as now via the WCML, take longer and cost more between anywhere on the GWR network west of Maidenhead and Birmingham/Wolverhampton

At the  preseent journey times between Reading and Crewe - depending on Tf:L performance on the Circle, are as near equall as makes no difference.  But Crewe would definitely be quicker from Reading via an HS2 with stage 2A.

Anywhere north of Crewe on the WCML is currently quicker via London if travelling from Reading and Newbury.  But once you get out to Swindon/Westbury and beyond  it takes longer, and costs more via London - HS 2  is unlikely to change that.

So logically if we're talking journey times via HS2 only the Thames Valley semi-fasts merit an HS2 interchange stop ar Old Oak - once HS2 goes beyond Birmingham.

 

2. In terms of Liz Line/UndergrounD/TfL 'bus connectivity a place with more on offer than Old Oak seems ever likely to acnieve already exists - at Ealing Broadway with two UndergrounD routes and various 'bus services extending a considerable distance b north and south of the GWML.  But oddly no GWR services stop there since the Thames Valley semi-fasts were taken off the Relief Lines.  If stops at Ealing Broadway can't be replicated due to pathing reasons since the transfer to the Mains how can they be pathed at Old Oak? If it's possible at ealing braidway then it would be just as simple at Old Oak

 

3 It might be quicker to transfer to the Liz Line at Old Pak than it is at Paddington but it's going to be marginal.   If I, with arthritivc knees, and taking the further Liz Line escalator  can get from a Liz Line train at Paddington the front of an 8 car 387 on Platform 9, including stopping to buy something to eat on the way (and wait for it to cooked) in under 9 minutes changing at Old oak wonn'y make much difference.  Granted a big difference if you're coming up the Suburan side at Paddington but on the main line side the difference in time will be minimal.  But I accept there will be adistinct tme advantage from any train which would be running up Platform 14,

 

The connectivity - to four traditional UndergrounD lines at Paddington plus numerous 'bus routes. will never be equalled at Old Oak.   And don't forget that a lot of interchange at Paddington is (still) to the Bakerloo and Circle/District Lines.

I'll start to believe that Old Oak has any legs for Main Line cals when I see train graph which includes the whole of the ptre present Main Lines service but on 2-3 minute headways I really do question if it is achievable even with significant ec xtensions of preseent journey times but no reduction in the number of trains as the time cist of a station sti op isn't going to be much different from the currently time timetabled shortest headways.  And let's not get that often proved statement that reducing journey times  increases revenue (because more people travel).  So presumably lengthening journey times will have the opposite effect?

 

[The Stationmaster]

1 hour ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

A quick video, just skimming through some of the HS2 route, showing brief glimpse of some of the work.

(note, the video can't be embedded, so the link needs to be clicked to open it in YouTube.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5OpvS8sWTQ

 

 

 

.

 

 

And where the peak of site work is past it gives a clear lie to the nonsense spouted about doing away with green countryside - as new green land emerges beside the railway.

[melmerby]

11 hours ago, jamie92208 said:

Those long flat arches really do look superb

Brunel would've liked them.

[Ron Ron Ron]

17 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

......If stops at Ealing Broadway can't be replicated due to pathing reasons since the transfer to the Mains how can they be pathed at Old Oak? .....

 

......I'll start to believe that Old Oak has any legs for Main Line cals when I see train graph which includes the whole of the ptre present Main Lines service but on 2-3 minute headways I really do question if it is achievable even with significant ec xtensions of preseent journey times but no reduction in the number of trains as the time cist of a station sti op isn't going to be much different from the currently time timetabled shortest headways.....

 

Well how does it work at Reading?

The same - 2 Main lines into 4 platforms as there'll be at OOC.

Fundamentally there's little difference.

 

.

Edited October 10, 2023 by Ron Ron Ron

[melmerby]

11 hours ago, Not Jeremy said:

trolleybuses. Remember them? All-electric vehicles long before it was trendy. You could have a whole fleet of them, diverting off HS2 to serve local places along the route without needing to build stations or interrupt the Birmingham trains. With the addition of a battery, there would be no need to string up wires in local places, they could run into existing bus stations and connect with existing local bus services.

Sadly the UK doesn't seem to have gone back to trolleybuses, unlike other countries, where battery electric ones are not a novelty.

With modern trolley pole control, they can even be removed from or replaced on the wires automatically.

[ess1uk]

Green tunnel

at Chipping Warden

[Ron Ron Ron]

57 minutes ago, ess1uk said:

Green tunnel

at Chipping Warden

 

One of the tunnels under nothing.

How many hundreds of ££££ millions are these costing ?

 

I'm surprised this scandal hasn't been picked up by the press.

 

 

 

.

[C126]

4 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

One of the tunnels under nothing.

How many hundreds of ££££ millions are these costing ?

 

It really should be considered now part of London Underground.  You won't get me travelling on it with all these tunnels.  The joy of train travel is the view from the train of 'outside'.  Harrumph!

[Ron Ron Ron]

2 minutes ago, C126 said:

 

It really should be considered now part of London Underground.  You won't get me travelling on it with all these tunnels.  The joy of train travel is the view from the train of 'outside'.  Harrumph!

 

Half the route between Euston (if it ever gets there) and Curzon St., will be in tunnels, cuttings or hidden behind earth bunds.

More than half the passengers, don't bother to pay much attention to looking outside anyway, from my own observations.

 

.

 

 

.

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Half the route between Euston (if it ever gets there) and Curzon St., will be in tunnels, cuttings or hidden behind earth bunds.

More than half the passengers, don't bother to pay much attention to looking outside anyway, from my own observations..

 

My experience of travelling on Eurostar and similar high speed trains is that looking out of the window can actually be quite uncomfortable - anything nearer than half a mile away passes through one's field of view too quickly. Better to be in the dark.

 

I do remember my first trip on Eurostar though. A little French boy on the opposite side of the carriage was excited by the prospect of travelling under the Channel and when we were in the tunnel was convinced he had seen a fish.

[david.hill64]

Suggestions from letter writers in the Telegraph today suggest that capacity on the existing lines can be made available by running double deck trains, lowering the track through tunnels and at bridges if there isn't sufficient headroom. Another pundit suggests running trains closer together using LIDAR so that they can almost buffer up when one has stopped.

[Ron Ron Ron]

42 minutes ago, david.hill64 said:

Suggestions from letter writers in the Telegraph today suggest that capacity on the existing lines can be made available by running double deck trains, lowering the track through tunnels and at bridges if there isn't sufficient headroom. Another pundit suggests running trains closer together using LIDAR so that they can almost buffer up when one has stopped.

A line with a wide and tall enough gauge, that can accommodate double deck trains is being built (and should be completed in full), but they don’t want it and think it should be scrapped.

They can have more trains, running closer together, if they’re happy for every train to travel at a maximum of 60 mph.

 

 

.

Edited October 10, 2023 by Ron Ron Ron

[Pacific231G]

19 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

Incidentally Addison Road/Olympia g has twice worked very well as an alternative when major enguneering work has reduced the number of trains able to use Paddington.  East to overlook the fact that Olympia gives a good connection to the Circle/District Lines which Waterloo does not.......

2. In terms of Liz Line/UndergrounD/TfL 'bus connectivity a place with more on offer than Old Oak seems ever likely to acnieve already exists - at Ealing Broadway with two UndergrounD routes and various 'bus services extending a considerable distance b north and south of the GWML.  But oddly no GWR services stop there since the Thames Valley semi-fasts were taken off the Relief Lines.  If stops at Ealing Broadway can't be replicated due to pathing reasons since the transfer to the Mains how can they be pathed at Old Oak? If it's possible at ealing braidway then it would be just as simple at Old Oak

 

3 It might be quicker to transfer to the Liz Line at Old Pak than it is at Paddington but it's going to be marginal.   If I, with arthritivc knees, and taking the further Liz Line escalator  can get from a Liz Line train at Paddington the front of an 8 car 387 on Platform 9, including stopping to buy something to eat on the way (and wait for it to cooked) in under 9 minutes changing at Old oak wonn'y make much difference.  Granted a big difference if you're coming up the Suburan side at Paddington but on the main line side the difference in time will be minimal.  But I accept there will be adistinct tme advantage from any train which would be running up Platform 14,

 

The connectivity - to four traditional UndergrounD lines at Paddington plus numerous 'bus routes. will never be equalled at Old Oak.   And don't forget that a lot of interchange at Paddington is (still) to the Bakerloo and Circle/District Lines.

 

 

I agree that OOC will never have enough connectivity -  HS2's connection there will only be with the GWML and hence the Elizabeth Line ( I suppose you might build an additonal Central Line station with a travolator but I can't really see that happening).

I'm not sure about Addison Road - the District Line there is a single platform at the end of a  single line so anyone using it is going to either cram onto some kind of  District Line  shuttle to Earls Court (or possibly High St. Ken), use the Overground, or crowd onto a bus. I live near the Central Line so, whenever I go to Olympia, I use it to Shepherd's Bush then walk. 

I do remember that after the Ladbroke Grove disaster in 1999, when Paddington was closed for weeks, Ealing Broadway became the western terminus of the GWML. It does have good Underground connections* but at that time there was no Elizabeth Line and services were curtailed with many long distance trains terminating at Reading. In terms of passengers it was mayhem there.  

 

*(Mainly because the GWR opted to give running powers to the Central London Railway with its own island platform at Ealing Broadway rather than its original plan in which the Ealing and Shepherd Bush railway would have been a GWR line with its terminus close to the CLR station - originally its terminus- at Shepherd's Bush. The Central Line extension was then delayed by WW1)

Edited October 10, 2023 by Pacific231G
clarity

[Ron Ron Ron]

46 minutes ago, Pacific231G said:

I agree that OOC will never have enough connectivity -  HS2's connection there will only be with the GWML and hence the Elizabeth Line ( I suppose you might build an additonal Central Line station with a travelator but I can't really see that happening.....

 

There are proposals to build stations on both the NLL and WLL, to serve OOC.

The proposed NLL line station is situated on OOC Lane, just across the road and a short walking distance from the HS2 station complex.

Unfortunately, the proposed WLL station is further away.

 

Both these proposals lie outside of the HS2 remit and again, the DfT and Treasury have been averse, right from the very start, to the additional cost being added to HS2, or to creating a new programme to build these stations.

TfL would like both built, but insist that the money should come from central government funds  (the requirement stems from HS2 and TfL have no money).

The government and DfT say it's a matter for TfL and again, stay silent on the matter.

 

Any incoming government are going to have to direct whatever rail investment into the north and other regions, before either or both of these schemes could be considered now.

 

A plan was floated early on, of deviating the WLL to the west of its current route over the GWML area, crossing over the Hitachi depot yard and GWML on a flyover and rejoining its original route, north of OOC.

This would have enabled an elevated WLL station to be built at the eastern end and directly connected into the HS2 station.

There was no way a positive business case could justify the expensive of such a development and the open land at Wormwood Scrubs, has been firmly declared untouchable, so this idea never formed part of any official proposal in the end.

 

London Underground connections are more problematic than providing additional rail connections to the London Overground and I doubt they will happen for a long time into the foreseeable future.

 

.

[corneliuslundie]

"More than half the passengers, don't bother to pay much attention to looking outside anyway, from my own observations."

Because if it is not on the screen of your phone or laptop it doesn't exist.

Even in beautiful mid Wales my wife and I are usually the only people looking out the window.

Jonathan

[The Stationmaster]

19 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

Well how does it work at Reading?

The same - 2 Main lines into 4 platforms as there'll be at OOC.

Fundamentally there's little difference.

 

.

Actually its thrwe Main Linre platforms on the Down Main Reading, not two - where trains are running on close headways.   But just two Main Line platforms on the Up where trains are not on such close headways and with the option when times are busy of crossing to Relief Line platforms.   The three Down Main fed platforms at Reading were specifically created that way to take account of trains running in tight headways and that can readily be seen in action especially when trains get bunched on the Down Main.  Putposely done to get rid of the regular queue of trains sttanding on the Down Main waiting plarformn 

 

Now if there are going to be four Main line platforms at Old Oak why in the name of commonsense do they need to shut the railwaty for weeks in order to create them and the associated trackwork,  That makes the over long possessions even more ridiculous when with a bit if of sluing they could simple build each double sided island platform at a time, bring it into a usable state and then progress to the next one.  Darned sight cheaper that paying out millions in extra costs and compensation for the various diversions.

[The Stationmaster]

5 hours ago, Pacific231G said:

 

 

*(Mainly because the GWR opted to give running powers to the Central London Railway with its own island platform at Ealing Broadway rather than its original plan in which the Ealing and Shepherd Bush railway would have been a GWR line with its terminus close to the CLR station - originally its terminus- at Shepherd's Bush. The Central Line extension was then delayed by WW1)

The GWR never gave Running Powers over the Ealing & Shepherds Bush to the CLR,.  An agreement between the GWR and CLR dated 23 August 1911 provided for the working of an electric passenger train service  between Ealing Broadway and Wood Lane Jcn, thence ove a short stretch of jointly owned line - constructed by the GWR but using CPLR Parliamentary Powers.  The service was advertised in detail in the GWR's public timetable as running between Ealing Broadway (GWR) and Liverpool St (CLR) with a small font  footnote explaining that the trains were operated by the CLR

 

The line was in teresting in then it used a centre third rail power system *like Hornby Dublo) and power was supllied. by the GWR power station ar t parkRoyal via the substation at POd Oak Common west in the vee of the junction where the New Line diverged from the old line.   After the CLR had fallen into the hands of the group owning much of the UndergrounD network it was subsequently converted to the standard 3rd & 4th rail system.  Except for the platform lines at Ealing Broadway. (which were controlled by the District Line's signal box)  the signalling was controlled by GWR signal boxes at each end of the line and at North Axcton, and automatic 3 position semaphores were used between rhe 'box controled areas.  Strange though it might sound its installation on the E&SBR fgave the GWR what i think was the longest section of railway in the country signalled by 3 posiyton UQ signals including automatic signals.  The line was worked under a slightly modified version of GWR Rules with its own Rule Book.

 

The GWR upper quadrant 3 posiyion signalling remained until after WWII at wgich time the line was converted to standarad LT signalling,.   the connecting junction at ealing Brioadway from the Relief Lines was removed in the 1930s but the connection at North sactom remained until the separate 'steam lines' were commissioned.  I presyume teh latter - which took place Post WWII was a consequence of the planned extension northwards of the central which resulted in various GWR  local stations on the New Line being closed.  Ownership passed to LT in 1948 according to one source but I think the connections to the GWR lines had been remobved when teh line was resignalled a year or two  after the war.

[jamie92208]

A new video of the Kenilworth are.things are really coming on and the final trace of the route is easily visible for much of the way. I presume that the duacarriageway is the A46, obviously the next big bridge work. 

 

Jamir

[Pacific231G]

17 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The GWR never gave Running Powers over the Ealing & Shepherds Bush to the CLR,.  An agreement between the GWR and CLR dated 23 August 1911 provided for the working of an electric passenger train service  between Ealing Broadway and Wood Lane Jcn, thence ove a short stretch of jointly owned line - constructed by the GWR but using CPLR Parliamentary Powers.  The service was advertised in detail in the GWR's public timetable as running between Ealing Broadway (GWR) and Liverpool St (CLR) with a small font  footnote explaining that the trains were operated by the CLR

 

The line was in teresting in then it used a centre third rail power system *like Hornby Dublo) and power was supllied. by the GWR power station ar t parkRoyal via the substation at POd Oak Common west in the vee of the junction where the New Line diverged from the old line.   After the CLR had fallen into the hands of the group owning much of the UndergrounD network it was subsequently converted to the standard 3rd & 4th rail system.  Except for the platform lines at Ealing Broadway. (which were controlled by the District Line's signal box)  the signalling was controlled by GWR signal boxes at each end of the line and at North Axcton, and automatic 3 position semaphores were used between rhe 'box controled areas.  Strange though it might sound its installation on the E&SBR fgave the GWR what i think was the longest section of railway in the country signalled by 3 posiyton UQ signals including automatic signals.  The line was worked under a slightly modified version of GWR Rules with its own Rule Book.

 

The GWR upper quadrant 3 posiyion signalling remained until after WWII at wgich time the line was converted to standarad LT signalling,.   the connecting junction at ealing Brioadway from the Relief Lines was removed in the 1930s but the connection at North sactom remained until the separate 'steam lines' were commissioned.  I presyume teh latter - which took place Post WWII was a consequence of the planned extension northwards of the central which resulted in various GWR  local stations on the New Line being closed.  Ownership passed to LT in 1948 according to one source but I think the connections to the GWR lines had been remobved when teh line was resignalled a year or two  after the war.

That's interesting and I was probably using the term running powers too loosely but I don't know of another for the situation where one company operates a service on the metals of another. The point was that the line to Shepherd's Bush wasn't built and operated, as originally intended, as a purely GWR line with its own terminus at Shepherd's Bush (which obviously has interesting modelling possibilities for a GWR Minories type terminus) 

I used to see the sub-station at OOC whenever I used the Greenford branch to get to and from Paddington and ISTR that it was served by a short siding to move heavy transformers etc. in and out  but didn't know that was what it was.

According to my  Cooke's 1947 Atlas of the GWR. the line was transferred to LPTB in 1948 but the connection with the GWML at Ealing Broadway (used for goods and one daily workers' train) had been removed on 27th May 1945 (though it probably fell out of use in 1938). One curiosity is that my local grade II listed Central Line station at Perivale (which is on the opposite side of Horsenden Lane from the original GWR halt) was originally designed not by LT but by Brian Lewis, the Asst. Chief Architect (later Chief Architect) of the GWR as were  other Central Line stations (though Hanger Lane does resemble some of Charles Holden's stations). 

For some reason (legal powers?) the line from N. Acton Junction to Greenford, parallel to the existing New North Main Line (Paddington-Princes Risborough-Banbury) was built by the GWR in 1947 but transferred to LPTB the following year and it was LPTB who extended the line to W. Ruislip in November 1948.   

Edited October 11, 2023 by Pacific231G
more info.

[Stanley Melrose]

I beg everyone's pardon but I haven't been reading this thread but I thought those who have done so might appreciate this:

<https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2023/oct/08/german-train-travel-deutsche-bahn-kafka>

 

Stan

[Tom Burnham]

Not unlike our family's experience travelling to Italy in June.  Apart from not being able to get on the Eurostar at Ashford, only 20 minutes by train from our local station, the journey to Brussels was uneventful. On the ICE from Brussels to Cologne, the air conditioning failed in our carriage, on the hottest day of the year so far, and the train crew came round giving out water bottles.   The train was late into Cologne Hbf, but a glance at the indicator showed our connecting train to Mannheim was also late.  There was a last minute platform change so all the passengers with their luggage had to go down through the underpass and up again. Because of a lineside fire (shades of London Bridge) the train was diverted to call at Bonn Beul instead of Bonn Hbf. During the very scenic section along the Rhein, the conductor came round.  I cranked up my German and pointed out that the train was now rather late and wondered if we would make our connection in Mannheim for Freiburg.  She corrected me: the train was very late. After a brief consultation of the DB equivalent of RealTime Trains she reassured me that the train we needed to catch at Mannheim was even later. And so it proved....  We arrived at Mannheim later than planned but not before the pubs shut.  The next day our train broke down half way through the Ceneri Base Tunnel but that's another story. Our return by TGV from Nice to Paris was punctual if rather sardine-like.

[Ron Ron Ron]

The German railways have been getting into a mess for a good few years now.

DB reliability and punctuality is a running joke with many German's.

 

 

.