RJS1977

And several in the UK as well, of course, both during WW2 and in the preservation era. We very nearly had two at Wallingford station at the same time a year ago!

There is an intermediate position between sprung buffers and buffers cast as part of the model - namely inserted unsprung buffers. These have been around for a long time, even on lower-spec models. Quite surprisingly, for what is generally regarded as a "child's loco", the Hornby Holden tank has always had inserted unsprung buffers.

I don't think it's a case that "we" want more detailed models and expect them to be priced cheaply. There seem to be two camps - which from this thread appear to be split roughly 50:50 - one camp wants the high spec, high-detailed models and s*d those who can't afford them, the other camp are perfectly happy with the lower spec of models they were brought up on 30, 40 or more years ago and believe that the hobby is healthier if more people can afford to take part. At present, the manufacturers are concentrating their efforts on the former - in large part probably because a (say) 10% profit on a £200 loco brings in more profit than a £100 loco, so if both camps are of similar size, the former camp brings in more money.

Similarly, until its closure last year, the most recent gate guardian at Scampton was a retired Red Arrows Hawk (not a fibreglass replica!). That said, I can't help thinking Scampton would have been better having a fibreglass replica of one of their previous gate guardians rather than the real thing - a live Grand Slam bomb!

But they probably add something like £15-£20 to the cost of a model (Bachmann said some years ago that they add £10 to the cost), which on something like the Hornby Peckett is a significant percentage. I'd venture that a significant proportion of layouts have sub 3' curves, and for those that don't, if you're going to replace the couplings anyway, you might as well replace the buffers as well.

I read an article earlier this week where a Ukranian official had said they needed to be sent tanks by Friday (i.e. today) in order to give the Ukrainians twelve weeks training time before a possible Russian spring onslaught.

I think there are still some about - there's the famous one pointing at a Council office in South London, although that's probably pretty derelict by now. And a relative of mine who runs Capel Military Show has at least one T-series tank in working order.

Assuming that the operator of said service was paying the ELR an access charge for use of the line, I would expect the access charge to be set at such a level as to cover the maintenance costs. If the "commuter" service was weekdays only, then permanent way maintenance (at least smaller items such as sleeper replacement) could still be carried out at weekends. More major works that required longer downtime would require a replacement bus service - again, I would expect the ELR to set access charges at such a level as to cover the costs for any planned replacement services. Perhaps more problematic for a heritage line sharing with a regular transport function would be the impact on "seasonal events" such as Polar Express (which I know ELR don't do).

Yes "feeling" wasn't really the right turn of phrase, for which I apologise. Semaphore signalling isn't necessarily an issue. The current ELR timetable has steam trains taking 32 minutes between Bury and Rawtenstall (for some reason the DMU service takes longer). If by a combination of missing out some of the smaller stops, some improvements to increase line speed on the slower sections, and use of more modern units with better acceleration, this could be cut to 25 minutes, an hourly service could be operated on that section of the line with the signalling "switched out". An increase in line speed to 45mph would have challenges for sure (although maybe not necessary - at least not for the whole route), but would not preclude the use of the line for heritage services, especially if the "public" services were restricted to certain times of day, or weekdays only. As I say, not an easy nut to crack, but if a way can be found, I daresay other lines and local authorities would be looking with interest.

I was thinking about the earlier discussion re help-points the other week - how about a help point in a K6 phone box on the platform? Changing the word "TELEPHONE" at the top of the box to "HELP POINT" would not be obtrusive, and could easily be changed back for filming purposes. There have been many things in the history of heritage railways that have been said to be "impossible" but, with determination, some out of the box thinking, and a lot of hard work, turned out not to be so. My feeling is that the same is probably true for running "main line" or "commuter" services over heritage tracks. If a way can be found of doing so, it opens up possibilities for a number of lines.

This seems to be a slightly different project that has been refused funding - a service from Bury to Rochdale via Heywood, which presumably would have left the core (and more attractive) Irwell Valley section of the ELR intact, whilst maintaining the ELR's connection to the national network.

A lot of our brethren in the ride-on outdoor steam part of the hobby use box trailers to move their locomotives around. Granted that the locos are much heavier than baseboards, but I haven't heard of anyone's locos being damaged by this - certainly not on a regular basis.

My personal view would be to do everything you can to avoid points outdoors (have all sidings etc in a shed) and just leave the outdoor section for extending the run. Not saying it can't be done, but even indoor points can cause enough problems at times!

It's quite well known that during the Dams raid, 617 Squadron flew their Lancasters under power lines to avoid radar. What's less well known is that whilst doing so, Les Munro looked down and saw another Lancaster beneath him! James Doohan (Scotty in Star Trek) was court-martialled for flying a slalom course underneath a line of telegraph poles!

I think the roof was dented not by the impact from the loco, but by the other crossing pole collapsing on it. Still looks deliberate to me, I'm afraid, especially given the time at which it happened.

I thought this was bad enough to post in here:

Watching "Hornby: A Model World" just now, there seemed to be quite a bit of footage at the end of the TT Scotsman moving without its wheels going round - is it tender drive?

I seem to remember some were still in place along Napier Road in Reading until the area was used as a compound for NR during the station rebuilding/electrification.

One of the power stations where my father worked decided to celebrate the fact that they'd gone a year without any workplace accidents, by hoisting a flag on the flagpole. Unfortunately whilst the flag was being hoisted, the pulley fell off and hit someone!

Just coming across this thread myself, it appears that your requirements for automated train running whilst you shunt the yard are not too different to my father's "Templebar Junction" layout, which comprises a long double track main line with reversing loops both ends, on which four trains can lap with automated block signalling, with two more shuttling up and down the branch line, while an operator can make up goods trains, swap trains in the carriage sidings with those on the circuit, change locos, etc. The length of main line from one reversing loop to the other at 33' feet, is not dissimilar to your distance BCDE, the main difference being that you would require an extra 90 degree curve somewhere. The video below (apologies for lighting levels) gives an idea of the automated side of the layout in operation, albeit with only three trains on the circuit (the fourth train is the one headed by the National Power 59 in the harbour area, which can be switched in to alternate with the nuclear flask train. The second reversing loop is on a short stub at 90 degrees to the main layout, beyond the townscene. There is a second loco depot in the fork of the loop. The loop at that end is double track and also has a couple of dead-end storage sidings off it.

TBH I'm not even too worried about dimensional accuracy (within reason). If Hornby can save design and tooling costs by re-using a chassis that's a scale 6" too short, I have no problem with that.

It was interesting to read an article from the Telegraph (via MSN) yesterday, about Londoners who are switching to classic cars , because cars registered before 1979 are exempt from the ULEZ charge! However I have also read that this year's London-Brighton Mini run is likely to be the last owing to ULEZ :-(

CJF originally postulated 20' x 12' (for a 00 layout) as being "The Desirable Maximum", but later trimmed it down to 16' x 8'. I think his reasoning for both limits was that whilst it might be possible for someone to build and maintain a layout larger than that, it would only really be by increasing the distance between stations, platform lengths, curve radii etc rather than by increasing complexity, so, from an operational point of view there would be little advantage in doing so. On the flip side, most people wanting a layout room 20' x 12' or larger would need to build one specially, with all the planning and construction costs etc, and extra heating and maintenance of the building. He could see little sense in going to all that effort and expense if the layout was no more effective than one built in a smaller space. IIRC he finally settled on 16' x 8' as many houses had garages, but few had rooms bigger than that.

Like this?

Not impossible - CJF drew up a plan (P18 in "Track Plans") for a simplified Exeter Central in 15' x 8' (i.e. a standard garage, although the car would have to remain outside).