Nick C

I've had that one too!

Bear in mind it's only really 4 platforms, as 4/5 are both sides of the same track. The line from East Grinstead via HK to Haywards Heath was indeed double track, so I would assume the idea was to provide separate up and down platforms for both main and branch. It's also quite possible, that it was built that size in expectation of future traffic, which then never materialised. Were it still on the national network, the village would probably now be a commuter town just like Uckfield, Oxted etc...

This all makes you think really, doesn't it - if electricity had taken off in that early era of personal vehicles, rather than petrol, we'd be in a very different situation now...

And ran for several years in the US - in 1910! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle#Power_as_a_service_and_General_Vehicle

https://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/pti/lgepics/diag-1.html It looks from that, that both 3 and 4 roads are trapped by the crossovers, so presumably would be possible. I don't know whether it is done though.

I think generally farmers realise it's in their interests to keep footpaths well maintained, as that helps to stop people straying from them and wandering across their fields, trampling crops as they go.

I've not looked in detail at the BR block regulations to see what's changed, but one key thing to remember with heritage railways is that they tend to carry a lot more traffic than an equivalent single line would have done in BR days - so, for example, at a terminus you may well need to be able to accept the next train while the previous one is still running round - obviously you can't do this without the outer home and advanced starter. Most such stations were either not termini in BR days, or would generally only have had one train present. Looking at a few diagrams on the SRS site, it seems that virtually all of the LSWR single-line termini had advanced starters, but few had outer homes - presumably this would have allowed run-rounds to take place without the need for blocking back.

In practice, at most stations you wouldn't be able to give TOS until the train was clear into the loop anyway, as most boxes are either on, or at the end of, the platforms, so the rear of the train will be in clear by the time you can see the tail lamp...

Inspired by this thread, I dug my (conventional) bike out of the garage the other day and went for a ride - I was knackered after 20 minutes! I need to put a bit more effort into getting fitter I think...

You could always try sticking a bus on your bridge?

Here's a photo of a real one, in Ropley Yard on the MHR - for context, the top two roads go into the loco yard, bottom right is access, and bottom left is the carriage workshop - there's no need to have access to both roads of the loco works from the carriage works, so this save a lot of complexity (and therefore cost) over a double slip.

That's exactly what it is, just two points heel-to-heel, but overlapped to fit them into roughly the space of one - if you think about it, that's the point of any kind of slip, a double slip is effectively the same (from an operational point of view at least) as two points toe-to-toe

It'd make more sense, to my mind, to have the heat close to the tank - as others have mentioned, the outlet won't be full of water when it's not operating, and I'd have thought it'd be the valve that was most at risk of freezing. I might be wrong though! There's a couple of photos on this page of the one at Lambourne - that looks to be close to, if not under, the tank.

Stick our heads in the sand until it's too late to do anything, and then panic?

Have you ever considered doing a winter scene? The bare trees and unpainted board already give it the feel for a frosty morning...

The way it's written suggests that it is special due to only signalling one line, rather than due to only having home and distant?

I've not actually got one yet, but I was going to get one of these: https://www.hamodels.net/wheel-bearing-cutting-tool-for-4mm-wagons-coaches.html

What happens if you place it on something flat (e.g a sheet of glass or mirror) and push it? Does it still bind up? It might be worth drilling out the axle boxes and fitting pinpoint bearings - you'd need an axle box reamer, which is like a very short drill that firsts between the axle boxes and drills each one in turn. That's something I need to do with my Hornby ex-LSWR stock for Lyme.

The Martian by Andy Weir was originally self published.

Although as a countermeasure, I was somewhat disappointed at how little the European Railways Association seemed to know about European Railways. They seemed to have plenty of interest in Germany, France, Switzerland etc, but very little about the other 40-odd countries in the continent...

A positive customer service story for a change - I'll post it here as it's cat related. We have a pair of 'SureFeed' microchip pet bowls, which we bought when Clydie was ill and had to be on prescription food. We tried to reprogram his for Benji, and found that it wouldn't work - pressing the programming button simply did nothing. I phoned Sure Pet Care on Monday afternoon, and their agent agreed that it was indeed broken (most likely just the switch), and was still under warranty, and arranged to have a replacement sent out 'in the next few days'. It arrived Tuesday morning. If only all companies were like that...

Yes, I think all the loading gauge measurements use the top of the rail as a datum.

Definitely - depending on the era when it was built, 3' above rail level (12mm) is a good ballpark figure - but earlier ones were often even lower. A surprisingly common feature was a slight ramp mid-platform where they'd been extended, with the extension higher than the original, and the original bit wasn't raised to match.

I think the Wills rodding is overscale, which is why it ends up taking up too much width. Do you actually need an FPL on the loco release crossover? If not then you only need one rod going along the front of the platform. Quite a lot of stations didn't, even in places where it looks like they should have done (i.e. where the points are partway along the platform) - e.g. Lambourn, Abingdon, Clevedon, Bodmin, St Ives

An obvious change would be to say that the 'exceptional hardship' defense can only be used once - which sounds similar to the system @kevinlms describes in Victoria. That'd instantly prevent the people with 60+ points at least.