RJS1977

Sorry, I was meaning Andy Hayter when I typed "fulton"! And I agree with Grovenor that a linkage to prevent moving out of first with the back raised would solve the problem. However even that might not have prevented this: https://youtu.be/hMpMRxqKIhw?t=304

I think fulton was thinking of jobs like road laying, where a tipper lorry advances slowly, discharging its load evenly on to the road behind it.

The Summer Saturdays PD-Paddington (and return) working continued right up to the end of HST workings from Paddington, when it was replaced with a 5-car 800 (IIRC it joined another at Swansea to form a 10-coach service from there). The service was suspended after the pandemic (presumably due to the welding issues on the 800s) but will be reinstated from this month's timetable change.

I haven't noticed MHR trains from Alton as being particularly quiet on the times I've been - there were certainly a good number of people getting on/off there (including me) at the gala the other week. I understand their revenue took quite a hit when the bridge outside Alton was out of use a few years back.

In terms of rationalising a layout, no, I've never done that - I've always regarded having areas of empty trackbed as rather a waste of baseboard space! However I've often wondered what a modern-day version of a layout like Buckingham would be like with a pared-back station, most of the sidings built on, etc, and the Leighton Buzzard branch turned into a heritage line.

Yes, the multi-era plans layout was in Railway Modeller. Ambridge & Akenfield by John Glover, March 1985. (Thanks for the excuse to browse through - online - issues of RM I read all the spots off in my childhood! I still think the variety of content in RM was much better then than now).

Mine's only gathering dust....

I think they can be made presentable with a bit of work - although I haven't got round to doing that with mine yet. Of course, being low-detail models (and pretty bulletproof), they're ideal for layouts operated by children (who aren't going to be worried too much about overscale roof ribs or incorrect ventilators). Of course, on a continuous run layout, you need two opposing express takes anyway....

Yes, they did. I was running one on our club layout last week and was pleasantly surprised how slowly it ran compared to the one I was given for my 5th birthday! I know the change was made after production shifted to China, but not quite sure when. Unfortunately it's impossible to tell just from looking at a secondhand example which chassis it has.

Cheaper than a double Fairlie ;-) Of course, it's not something that has to be done right away. The existing one can sit there until money allows or someone has them on special offer. And whilst I'm usually one of the first to jump on the "Why is everything so expensive?" bandwagon, I am a sucker for moving items. I bought one for my father a couple of years ago and it was only lack of space on my own Wallingford layout that stopped me buying another one. (I'm sometimes tempted to add one to the Club layout as well...).

As the layout's "for the kids", it might be worth replacing the (static) water tank with a Dapol working one.

So do I!

At a first glance at the plan, it appears that your power feed is between the two points. It needs to be to the left of the first one. And as someone has mentioned, if you're using electrofrog points, there also need to be double insulating rail breaks somewhere in each side of the passing loop in order to avoid short circuits. Ideally I'd put them a loco length + clearance space before the loop points, in the direction of travel.

6027 would have been the appropriate number as the GWR renamed 6029 as King Edward VIII and 6028 as King George VI on their accessions, so were the Kings still in service now, 6027 would likely have been renamed King Charles III. (At the last Swindon Railway Festival, just after the Queen passed away, I did ask the 6024 Society whether - as custodians of the higherst numbered surviving King - they would be renaming it).

PS - that point nearest the GWR van appears to be straddling a board join - is there room for a point motor or have you got a crossmember underneath? If there's a crossmember in the way, you may want to shorten the siding with the van on it slightly so that you can fit a surface mounted motor.

I see the GWR station building you bought on Tuesday has also put in an appearance! :-) Personally I would have taken the narrow gauge right down to "ground level" to make transfer of goods from standard to narrow easier, but at least you still have the option of being able to unload from narrow into standard wagons (e.g. using tippers).

In terms of their role as "paying customers of the railway who expect to be delivered to their destination in one piece", I would say that from a railway point of view, their "destination" is FN station itself, an once they leave the confines of the station, the railway's responsibility to deliver them safely to their destination ceases.

I'm not saying "they deserve to be mown down by a train", but equally it seems to me wrong that Network Rail are potentially having to spend a large sum of money installing a footbridge for the sake of someone ignoring flashing lights and a siren. We don't see pelican crossings being ripped out and replaced by footbridges.

I think the key is being able to have a chat, not necessarily being forced to have one. Where the local model shop wins (assuming the staff are knowledgeable modellers in their own right, or at least know their products) is being able to ask the retailer for advice about building a layout, etc.

I'm trying to work out which educational establishment the "children" were going to. There are three relatively close to Farnborough North station: * North Farnborough Infant School: Unlikely - how many parents send infant children to school by train? * Henry Tyndale School (special educational needs 3-19). Possible, but the school only has capacity for 140 pupils - how likely is it that they all arrived on the same train? And again, how many people parents would send a SEN child to school by train unaccompanied? * The Sixth Form College - in which case all the "children" are at least 15. If it is either of the first two schools, then it seems to me that a more practical and cost-effective solution would be to have a member of staff from the school meet the children off the train (there's only one train an hour that stops there so it's not a particularly onerous duty) and see them across the line safely. If it's the 6th form college, then the "children" should be old enough to know how to use the crossing safely. After all, by then they will almost certainly have been taught how to use the road, and there are plenty of signs and posters at FN saying not to cross the line when the lights and siren are on. I'm sorry, but on a footpath crossing where the only victim of an accident involving crossing misuse is likely to be the person(s) misusing the crossing, and the passengers on the train are not in danger (unlike say a car stopped on a level crossing) then provided there is adequate signage and the equipment is working properly, NR should not be responsible for the failure of pedestrians to use the crossing properly.

Also, although the lane crossing the line is technically a footpath, it appears from Street View that it may get occasional vehicle use - there are KEEP CLEAR markings adjacent to the gate at the Farnborough end of the lane, and at the other end of the lane, the gate is signed "No Parking. Keep Clear for Emergency Access."

Could the gates not be interlocked with the signalling so that the signals go to red when the gates are open? Or would that cause too much disruption if the gate failed to close properly?

Generic is back in fashion now ;-) I think we can be sure that whatever variant the Triang clerestories are closest to, they certainly didn't run round on BR Mark 1 coach bogies... Fitting either the Hornby long coach bogies, or 3d printed Dean bogies from Shapeways both seem to be quite common "fixes" for the issue.

I never quite understood why Hornby went to the effort and expense of tooling up for the "long" clerestories with their non-existent beading, when they could have simply reissued the old Triang ones (albeit ideally with the correct bogies). I know the Triang clerestories don't match any known diagram, but for most modellers' purposes, that doesn't matter. It's interesting too that despite having had both versions in and out of their ranges since I was a boy, Hornby have never (as far as I know) released the Triang clerestories with the correct bogies off the longer coaches.

That depends. Some railways already have established model shops, often selling top-of-the-range items, so that suggests that discretionary spending power is there. Sales from the Polar Express shop at Wallingford at Christmas (when families had already spent £35 per person on the experience) indicate that too. And although enthusiasts will often travel many miles to visit a particular heritage railway, there are also often a good number of local families who will visit a railway regularly because it's local, especially if it's one of the shorter lines, or offers partway fares. Back when my grandparents lived in Carnforth, Steamtown had a model shop which could be visited without paying the entry fee for the rest of the museum. My father and I often used to call in at the shop when visiting my grandparents (we did go to the museum from time to time but not as regularly). Indeed it was on one of those trips to the shop that I first saw Flying Scotsman (as she should look, resplendent in apple green, and without smoke deflectors) - and of course didn't have my camera with me!