Jeremy Cumberland

It's probably just because it was a Western Region vehicle. It was converted from W1012 at Swindon in 1963. This is long before the the other exhibition coaches were converted, which I think was done shortly before their European holiday.

I wouldn't forget about Coombe Junction entirely. It provides a very rare prototype for a junction where passenger trains reverse but goods trains can continue. Easy question first: Not for siding B (it is worked off lever 17), but you do need one for the Warehouses branch. In itself this isn't a problem, but it does suggest that the box was intended for a bigger installation that was either never put in or else has since been removed. You would need to decide on a numbering policy. You could easily adopt the 1956 Coombe Junction numbering. Here is a summary: You have two signals not on the Coombe Junction plan, for entry and exit from siding B. These could be 13 (siding exit) and 14 (siding entry). You can then squeeze things up a bit and use a smaller frame (will the model have a signal box? How big is it?). This is fairly conventional "modern" numbering, with the main running signals at opposite ends of the box, on the side that trains approach from, with only the level crossing bolt outside them. Point levers are more or less in order as viewed from the box and FPLs are immediately next to the points they lock. Shunting signals are placed where they fit, again more or less in order as viewed from the box. I have no idea when this became a more or less standard numbering convention, but in times past, things used to be different, with signals, point levers and FPLs all interspersed, generally grouped according to direction of travel. FPLs were often a long way from the lever working the points. Note in the Wikipedia diagram that for a train leaving the platform for Liskeard, that the points are 12, 15 and 16; the FPLs are 6 and 7 and the signals are 11 and 14. Approaching the station from Liskeard, the points are the same (12, 15 and 16); the FPLs are 18 and 19 and the signals are 20 and 21.

I don't think it is. The numbering seems to me something of a giveaway that this is a Victorian box, and it matches the 1950 SRS diagram. The box was replaced in February 1956, and the 1956 SRS diagram shows some simplification and more conventional numbering. For example, @Halton Boy's 2 and 3 (now positioned where 11 is in the Wikipedia diagram) become 1 and 2 in the 1956 diagram, and @Halton Boy's 1 becomes 3. You can find small thumbnails of the SRS diagrams here: https://www.s-r-s.org.uk/html/cdgwef.htm There is a lovely hand drawn diagram matching the SRS 1950 diagram (and quite likely the basis for the Wikipedia one) on the signalbox.org site here: https://signalbox.org/~SBdiagram.php/?id= 372 I suspect there were special instructions at Coombe Junction since the only purpose of points 16 in the Wikipedia diagram appears to be in case of runaway. However, in @Halton Boy's plan there presumably isn't a 2 mile long 1 in 40 gradient on the left hand line from the halt, and siding B has ordinary points and a trap set normal for the main line. In this situation, the points would need to be set for the main line and the FPL engaged before a train could be accepted. There is no reason why wagons (or even an engine) couldn't be left in the siding.

15 and 19 should be together, where 19 is. If the level crossing is closed against the railway while a passenger train is in the platform, then 2 and 3 should be just before the crossing gates. If the gates are always left closed against the road, then it can go on the other side of the level crossing, just before the junction. 21 and the trap are now rather close to the halt. There's nothing wrong with this if the longest passenger train fits in the halt without passing the signal, but if there isn't enough room, move the signal and trap further away. Here's the Coombe Junction signal box diagram (from Wikipedia), which I think you must have already taken a look at: I see no reason why you shouldn't more or less copy the lever numbers, removing the ones you don't have, and adding in your 19 and 20, and closing up gaps to have a more reasonable number of spares. Some of the numbering of the original surprises me, such as 25 being to the right of 22 rather than to its left, and 11, 13 and 14 being in the middle of the frame (with points 12 in between). I think your 19 and 20 should go to the left of the "Liskeard" line points (in between 14 and 15 in the prototype numbering scheme). Personally, I'd keep your 2 and 3 where they are on the left and not move them to the middle of the frame. Not particularly. It would have to run round at the warehouses, because there is no other option. The locomotive will then shunt siding B leaving at least the brake van on the main line. I imagine that the reformed train will then depart for "Liskeard", so it will all be done with engine having the token, but if the whole train is put away in B, or if the loco, perhaps with some wagons, returns to the warehouses, it would be done by blocking back.

Far be it from me to quibble with the author of The Newcomer's Guide to Model Railways and owner of this immeasurably useful web site, but if you mean wired from the CDU (via the switch) to the first solenoid, then from the first solenoid to the second, then back to the CDU, then surely that's in series, not parallel? Or is my aged brain becoming even more addled than I realised? Connect them in parallel, but don't wire the second motor to the first, wire it back to the switch and to the same return point. If you wire the second motor to the first, the first will steal all the power, because electricity to the second motor will have to pass through extra lengths of wire and additional soldered joints.

Are they actually locked? @LNER4479, did you check?

So the Mk1s are there to provide retention tank toilets, it would seem.

There are no absolute requirements, but it isn't entirely irrelevent. GTR were fined £1 million under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 section 3(1) in 2019 when a passenger was killed by putting their head out of a window. This clause is a general duty of care by employers towards third parties. A statement by ORR in 2019 (https://www.orr.gov.uk/search-news/safety-first-droplight-windows-heritage-and-charter-trains) says: I don't think ORR has issued any specific guidance, and as you say, there is no specific legislative bar to opening windows, but if anyone is injured by sticking their head out of the window of a moving train, the operator can expect to be prosecuted.

That's a conventional relay. How would you use it with a solenoid point motor, CDU and pulse contact switch? The GM500 contains a dual coil latching relay and I imagine it has been designed specifically to work with Gaugemaster point motors. The instructions say 9V-24V, which ought to cover pretty much all CDU configurations.

An alternative would be Electrofrog "out of the box" style wiring, where you rely on stock rail to switch blade contact to provide the electrical supply to the crossing. This presumably is something you had intended doing anyway if you wanted to replicate Insulfrog, but I can't say it is anything I would choose to do myself, and I have no idea how reliable it can be made. I suppose you'd solder a pickup strip to the underside of the switch blade that has a wiping contact with the stock rail (or vice versa, soldering to the stock rail and wiping the switch) when the switch is closed. With Electrofrog out-of-the-box, the two switch blades are electricaly bonded via the frog, so you'll need to take care that the opposite side electrical wiper breaks before the near side electrical wiper makes. You will also need to make sure that the switch blade to closure rail electrical contacts are absolutely reliable on each side. You will probably need to add insulating joints and track feeds at the diverging end of the point, but these depend on the track plan. There is a potential problem with "out of the box" Electrofrog, which you don't get with Insulfrogs or live frogs with switched frog polarity, and that is that the open switch blade will be at the opposite polarity to the adjacent stock rail, which could cause a short if you have narrow open switch gaps, thick flanges or undersized wheel back to backs. This is unlikely to be a problem if you keep the same overly-wide open switch gaps as the Settrack points, but I expect you want to make them narrower.

I'd be inclined to build them with live frogs and switch the crossing polarity. The problem with any sort of insulfrog arrangement is that you end up with a very small, vulnerable crossing nose. Peco insulfrogs make the crossing nose part of the plastic base moulding. Peco Unifrogs use the moulded plastic base to support the crossing nose over its entire length. You will struggle to get this level of support with hand built track, not without having a very long insulated section.

Unfortunately the Scottish CalMac ferry saga has rather torpedoed the Buy British (at any cost) mantra for national infrastructure projects. A Labour government might well try and get trains built in Britain, but I doubt it will be very high up their list of priorities, and they will expect value for money. Don't expect to see BREL resurrected.

There has been no suggestion that I've seen that competition will be outlawed (unlike some post-war nationalisation schemes), and Labour have specifically said that they expect open access operators such as Grand Central, Hull Trains, Lumo and Heathrow Express to continue operating much as they do currently. The shame, to my mind, is that the roscos won't be touched, for reasons @Ron Ron Ron has described better than I could. I will be very interested to see what a Labour government envisages for new rolling stock procurement, whether they will continue to use roscos, or whether new stock will be purchased by the nationalised operator.

Someone wouldn't allow the Virgin class 57 Thunderbird models, though, as I recall. This may well have been down to Gerry Anderson / ITV side of things rather than Virgin.

48 was double-heading the down express with 140. 121 was on the up troop train. 907 was on the down local. There was a down goods train in the down loop, and an up special of empty wagons (presumably a "Jellicoe") which was admitted into the up loop after the passenger train was crossed over to the up main, but I don't know the loco of either. The driver of the down goods said their engine was six-coupled with steam brake on loco and tender, but the driver of the up empties didn't say anything about their engine.