Jump to content
Image restoration from pre-May 2021 continues and may take an indefinite period of time.


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 62613

  1. 6 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

    Today it would be as only the island platform is in use, but back then there was a third platform at the station entrance and that is where the Hadfield bound services called.  Ardwick was and remains a very oddly located station, difficult to get to and without a real purpose - it was good to stand at and trainspot from, and I guess for Great Universal workers (at the time), it was great for getting the train to/from work from.

    That's what confused me. I've only been using the line reasonably intensively since about 2006, and as far as I knew, Ardwick had always been like it is now. I think there are only about two trains a day call there now; one in the morning peak and one in the evening. 


    • Like 1
  2. 2 hours ago, SamThomas said:

    Nice thought but that would mean the cowboys would carry on the same & make a little more money.


    Maybe, if the local authorities were not quite so penny pinching & were pro-active with vechicle inspections it would cease to be an issue.

    Couple of things. If local authorities hadn't had their budgets slashed so heavily over the last 12 years, then perhaps they could; also, most schools aren't run by local authorities any more; they've been academised, or they are "Free" Schools. I don't know, but I would bet school bus hire is between the academy CEO and the bus company.


    • Like 1
  3. 5 hours ago, Flying Pig said:


    I believe @tythatguy1312 was referring to vehicles that create their own gas on board from combustable material (think Corporal Jones's van and see Douglas Self as usual). It doesn't seem to have been a popular transport technology anywhere except when fossil fuels were hard to come by, possibly because of the complexity of the equipment needed to purify the gas.


    You mean like Dr. Porta was advocating?


    • Like 1
  4. 17 hours ago, fulton said:

    Watched Tuesday on German TV, "A MAN CALLED OVE" Swedish film, dubbed into German, much enjoyed, lots of wit, dark humour, anyway one scene has a modern wheel tuning lathe being loaded with a wheel set in the back ground, several other shots look to be done on a preserved line, with two nice shots of a diesel shunter passing by, the main character had been a railway fitter.

    Saw this one, too; an exellent film, and very poignant in the end. The guy playing Ove was one of those who also played Wallander.


    • Like 1
    • Agree 1
  5. Watched an episode of  "Secret Army" on TPTV last night, which featured a foreign - looking tank loco. with OUTSIDE link motion. Single line, so obviously a preserved line in the UK (there was a Britsh - looking signalbox and a concrete post stop signal in one of the scenes, but at least an attempt to make it look like it was in Belgium. Were the railway scenes filmed on the Nene Valley Railway?

    • Agree 1
  6. On 15/01/2022 at 15:20, RichardT said:

    Ah yes. On being first introduced - preferably by a third party as it was a bit infra dig to have to introduce yourself - you would call your new acquaintance “Mr Hancock.”  If, after a decent passage of time, your relationship warmed, you might be moved onto “terms of intimacy” and allowed simply to address your friend as “Hancock”, “my dear Hancock” or “I say, Hancock old chap.”  Use of first names was reserved only for extreme, preferably near-death, situations!


    I remain yours, etc.,


    In the Merchant Navy, the Chief and Second Engineers might address the lowly Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Engineers as Four - oh, Fiver and Sixer; again first name terms were only really coming in towards the middle to end of the 70s. Formality hadn't extended to calling the Chief and Second by their first names, even in the smoke room!


  7. On 16/01/2022 at 21:50, westerner said:

    I think JPR was JPR to distinguish from JJ Williams. They represented Wales at the same time.

    Then we get to, in pre - season football matches (no such thing as a friendly, is there?😉) when you might have A.N. Other, or T. R. Ialist, playing for you; the club are on the verge of signing him, and don't want to let others know.


  8. 28 minutes ago, Nick Holliday said:


    There were several classes of 0-6-4 tanks that ran on the standard gauge in Britain.

    The Midland ones numbered around 40, and were primarily for passenger use, at least at first. The SECR had about 15 J Class tanks that were for passenger services, and the Mersey Railway had nine outside framed passenger locos, though many of them ended up on freight when sold off after electrification. The Barry Railway had ten rather elegant tanks, probably for goods, and the Lancashire, Derbyshire and East Coast Railway had nine goods tanks. The Highland had eight intended for banking duties, and the Metropolitan lagged behind with only four. As all these tanks were inside cylindered, it seems unlikely that the Met tanks inherited much from the elegant 4-4-4 tanks, apart from, perhaps, the boiler; of all these designs the Met tanks were, in my view, the ugliest, making the MR Flatirons quite pretty, at least before the extended smokeboxes arrived.

    I wonder if it was the extended ‘fixed’ wheelbase that was their downfall?  The Met tanks developed a reputation for spreading the rails in some goods yards, and a 2-6-2 with more flexible pony trucks at each end might have been a better proposition. As for weight distribution, most of it would have been forward of the cab, and the consumption of coal would have progressively reduced the adhesion weight during the journey, so the 0-6-4 design would have had a theoretical advantage.

    So that looks like about 100 out of around 40,000 standard gauge mainline locos ever, then. One of the faults of the flatirons seemingly, was the configuration of the passages between the valve chest and the cylinders; with the short travel slide valves and narrow passages with two right - angled bends in each, they can't have been very free - running or economical.

    • Like 2
  9. 40 minutes ago, JimC said:

    I just had a quick look. Its tricky. The piston valves on the 56 are as close to the bottom of the smoke box as they can be and still have a drumhead smokebox. So the boiler has to go up higher (or revert to slide valves). There is room for that,  but there's also weight to consider, and the bigger driving wheels seem to make a surprising (to me) difference.  So I suspect the tanks need to be appreciably smaller to keep the weight within limits. The water has to go somewhere though, so perhaps that forces you towards an 0-6-4T. But then you have to ask why this is a better solution than the Std 4 boiler Large Prairies. 

    0-6-4 classes; how many were there on UK railways? The only "large" class I can think of are the Deeley Flatirons. I know the Met. had some, but why so few overall? Was there something wrong with that particular wheel arrangement?



    • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
  10. On 15/03/2022 at 17:15, rodent279 said:

    I *think* I follow.

    So if I understand correctly, the relative positioning of piston valves & the associated cylinders, which by the nature of the fact that a piston valve steam chest will be a larger diameter than a slide valve steam chest, means that the cylinder centre line & valve spindle centre line are further apart in a piston valve arrangement that in a slide valve arrangement. This in turn leads to angular irregularities, which are not easily corrected in Stephenson's valve gear, but are in Walschaerts & its derivatives?

    Remember that  slide valves are actually flat; in sectionthey would resemble the letter "C" or "D" on it's side, slideing backwards and forwards between the steam ports. Quite often, the valve itself will be contained in a "Bridle" attached to the valve rod, and the valve chest cover. The valve was pressed to the face by the steam pressure.


    I suppose that, in the earliest engines, it was quite possible because of the smaller - diameter cylinders, to place the valvechests between them, but as cylinders became fatter, the space disappeared,so they had to go somewhere else. Having two big ends and four eccentrics on your crank axle is getting fairly crowded anyway!


    • Like 1
    • Informative/Useful 1
  11. 12 hours ago, BMS said:

    I was reacting to the official government announcement; Man Vic, Picc, Oxford rd, Airport mods and electrification Liverpool to York etc


    The Liverpool - York electrification is a different pot of money to this (I think - the £589 million announced about 2 years ago?). This £84 million covers the upgrade in the Castlefield Corridor, and the platform lengthening in Cumbria. I can remember a scheme called the "Northern Hub", from about 2014 (?) of which the only part  done was the Ordsall Curve. The rest seems to have vanished into the air.

    • Agree 1
  12. On 12/03/2022 at 14:44, DaveF said:


    Today the Tardis takes us to Cambridge from 1947 to 1949 in black and white.


    The photos are all Dad's, once again he was using his track permit for some of the photos.




    Cambridge D16 2614 up pass  1947 JVol1417  Dad's notes say KIngs Lynn to Liverpool St.




    Cambridge J67 8517 1947 JVol1432




    Cambridge O7 WD 77450 up goods c1948  JVol7276  Still carrying its WD number.




    Cambridge B17 1633 Kimbolton Castle 1948   JVol1383




    Cambridge B1  E1094 up pass Cambridge to London 1948  JVol7375




    Cambridge B1 61094 pass Cambridge to Kings Cross  1/250 f5.6 Kodak super XX May 49 JVol6028








    Jvol1417: 2614 was, of course, one of the "royal" Clauds. I'm sure I read, in the RCTS green book, that her and B2 1671 were on a more or less permanent afternoon Kings Lynn - KX turn, so that crews retained route knowledge for Royal Train working

    • Like 1
    • Informative/Useful 1
  13. 36 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

    There’s this on gov.uk but it doesn’t really say much more:




    The previous plans for remodelling at MCO would remove the bay, so the CLC trains (and some others) would have nowhere to terminate. But is there space for them at Piccadilly without platforms 15/16? 


    A new western concourse and platform extensions at MCO might be close enough to Deansgate that the latter could be closed, which might have a small benefit on capacity. But something would need to be done to improve interchange with Metrolink in that area. 

    Soundbititis! On another note, I think I saw, but missed, something about electrification structures being erected between Victoria and Stalybridge on one of the NR works videos last week


  14. 35 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

    Ironically, I was hoping someone might post some more detail myself about the remodelling - a couple of references in the media about the money, but no-one is giving any detail.  I am not sure how remodelling Oxford Road helps unless it is accompanied by the remodelling proposed at Piccadilly so that both stations can hold 4 trains in the through platforms.  In the original expansion plans Oxford Rd was getting longer platforms to deal with longer trains, Piccadilly got an extra two platforms to ease congestion.  For the resignalling I can only think of ERTMS which is the clever signalling Schapps wanted to avoid having to do any building work to open up the Deansgate corridor to more trains.


    CLC has been a long vaunted desire to electrify, it's the only route left I think not on a current wiring scheme but offers a diversionary route off Chat Moss if it floods or needs to close for maintenance.

    Wasn't the original idea to four - track the whole way between at least MCO and Piccadilly, but the city council got cold feet when they saw what was involved ? Why not run CLC services through to a turnback siding the other side of Piccadilly?


    • Agree 2
  • Create New...