keefer

Pictures of similar stock on Robert Carroll's Flickr site (linked to before) mention Euston-Oban 'Merrymaker' excursions.

Must be - it's 116 which according to derbysulzers list was GYFE from 8/69-10/70. https://www.derbysulzers.com/45headcode.html (scroll down for Livery Details). Not unknown to happen but usually with bigger stuff like cab doors!

Correct, it's on the Down North Line which would usually signify going through Fife on the ECML (although the numerous crossovers before and after Haymarket would enable it to cross onto the South/Glasgow/Central Scotland lines)

I thought the one on the SEMG Online site might have more info but unfortunately it's undated: https://sremg.org.uk/sr_map/lswrmap.html

The large quantity of legal/financial passengers between Waverley and Queen St. was the main reason that the fast trains were continually upgraded to the newest/fastest stock as well as having 1st class & dining. The dining went with the cl.27 push-pulls but by then, the driving factor was competition from coaches on the new M8 motorway.

Royal headcode 1X01 but for whatever reason, only the Saloon was required from Royal stock. Perhaps the full train was parked up in Edinburgh (rest of the Family staying at Holyrood?) Otherwise, a nice train to model - don't have to weather anything and only one non-RTR coach! I have the 1969 R.O. so will have a look for any mention.

The 1866 OS Town Plan map is also available as a continuous, geo-referenced map: View centred on Latchmere Junctions etc.

Last word on the 1N77 saga. Thanks to all for pointing out there was another, more direct, route involved before the train went via York. Not my era/area but interesting anyway so I'll go back and have a look at some maps etc. Thanks again.

I knew ECML limited-stop expresses sometimes missed out York but it seems strange that such a useful cross-country train wouldn't stop there.

Did a quick Google search and this site came up: https://peakdieselarchive.co.uk/gallery-46-051-46-056 Scroll down to 46052/D189, gives 1N77 as Liverpool-Newcastle in Feb. '67. Also, this page: https://peakdieselarchive.co.uk/the-daily-diaries Scroll down to 1967 and 1N77 is stated as 0900 Liverpool-Newcastle in March '68 I wonder if Dave's pic is D88 as the loco is green but the 'daily diary' spreadsheet on that site has the loco in blue in December '67?

And toilets at one end of the coach too, so definitely TSO. Mk1 FO had a toilet at each end, inboard of the door/vestibule

I remember reading (which book I can't remember) that they weren't nuclear flask carriers as such but for the reactor core fitted to submarines. Pictures on Flickr of one having come off the Rosyth Dockyard branch at Inverkeithing. EDIT: to use the word I meant to in the first place.

Maybe drivers hitching a ride light-engine back to Old Oak?

Love the covered sidecar in the background!

Thanks for that, I couldn't remember the exact details! I'd read that a normal split of 6 cars meant that the 2-car was overloaded. Just realised too that the extra DMS didn't need to go inside the 2-car, it could just be plonked on the end - no sense in splitting all three units when you only need to split one! Can't remember offhand the ScR units used but there's a Glasgow Queen St. video on Soi Buakhao's YouTube channel that features them.

Interesting to see cl.156 as a 3-car. There were three units in Scotland reformed into two 3-cars on the West Highland Line (to enable an even split at Fort William) but I didn't realise it happened elsewhere. This was built into the 156 design as inner couplings were mechanical BSI couplers with a separate control jumper - there was also a jumper socket on the cab end which all meant a driving car could be placed in the middle of an existing 2-car unit.

Page about Stannington (with links to other ECML stations) at disused-stations: http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/s/stannington/index.shtml

The Up Thames-Clyde was usually 1M86. A 1Cxx headcode would suggest a St. Pancras(?) service running wholly within the LMR. ISTR at some point, although technically a through service, the Thames-Clyde being run as two separate trains i.e. Glasgow-somewhere and then somewhere-St. Pancras?

There's a potted history of Sulzers at Inverness depot: https://www.derbysulzers.com/inverness.html Generally 5114-32 until 1972 when 5113 arrived from Eastfield (last 24 built with discs and plain roof dome) [Sorry but haven't had time to read the whole page]

The irony being it is exactly for this sort of thing that the 325s were built, albeit for Royal Mail. Dedicated express parcel units running between large mail depots in Wembley/Midlands/Glasgow. However, rail traffic declined and lost out to the roads and everything became a rather expensive White Elephant. Fast forward to the last few years where everyone is ordering online and wants their parcels yesterday, or sooner, and there's a whole new traffic. Caveat being, it's rail in the UK, so not necessarily guaranteed to last long (although I hope it does).

Interesting pic - must be a fairly important train, RKB with Met-Camm (former Pullman) FO for dining. Seems odd to me seeing a 37 on a long, mainline train but of course they were used on the GE trains to non-electrified destinations.

Preventative measures will stop the vast majority of people from doing whatever is being prevented but those who are determined to do it will always find a way. Which of these do you mitigate for? The difficulty is finding the compromise between reasonable/practicable prevention and 'complete' eradication of the risk - the latter is impossible but how far do you go (practcally and financially)? Just because something potentially saves one life doesn't necessarily mean it's sensible or desirable to keep throwing money/resources at solving the problem.

Don't know if it was mentioned already but weren't BR-owned ships Class 99 on TOPS? Did that include the Train Ferries mentioned above?

Should they though? WCRC couldn't/wouldn't even comply with the Exemption already granted i.e. they were given the chance to do things their way (with specified conditions) but, even then, failed to do so. In an increasingly safety-critical industry, WCRC had already been given the benefit of doubt - not any more.