RJS1977

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Interesting comments about the Met., because while generally true, they sort of blew it with Qauinton Road, Grandborough Road, and Winslow Road, all of which looked as if they were waiting for dreary suburbs to sprout all around them, but which, happily, until now remain surrounded by fields. Whether the Met was stymied by the tight pattern of local land-ownership, or simply ran out of enthusiasm, I’ve never worked out.

 

There is a little housing development on the edge of Winslow called Chiltern Court, but that is recent, and I don’t know whether the name is a coincidence or the result of wit on the part of the local authority.

Maybe the Met should have headed to Buckingham, rather than Verney Junction ;-)

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

But most people prefer through trains and will value the convenience over the 10 minute later departure time and having to change at Swansea.    And it only appears to happen with the two afternoon departures from Carmarthen.  The connection at Swansea is no doubt a continuation of the previous situation for a West Wales connection into a London train.  

 

And clearly to move that connection from Swansea back to Carmarthen would require a major recast of services in West Wales where there are considerable stretches of single line which influence the shape of the timetable.  And sufficient time would have to be allowed at Carmarthen for passengers to use the foot crossing to get from from one platform to the other directly in front of the London through train waiting to depart,.  Not a clever idea from a safety viewpoint when people are hurrying to make a connection and witha high potential to delay the start of the London train.

The foot crossing would be behind the London train as it is waiting to depart....

Back to West Wales services, as of Monday's timetable change, roughly 50% of London-Swansea services now continue to Carmarthen.

There is however a peculiarity about the return journey. The return leaves Carmarthen roughly 10 minutes before the Pembroke Dock-Swansea service arrives in Carmarthen. However the London service waits in Swansea for 20 minutes to allow the Pembroke Dock service to catch up! Which means that the fastest route from Carmathen to points east is still to catch the train from PD and change at Swansea rather than catch the through train!

In any case, I'm sure I've seen photos of 22s on the Cambrian Coast Express, so they can haul express trains :-)

Do you want your Mogul back? ;-)

2 hours ago, fulton said:

I was thinking of general construction, where a load of, say sand, does not all slide out, some sticks behind, making the body top heavy, particually a problem with artic tippers.

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

On 21/05/2023 at 06:35, fulton said:

In my building site experiance, a tipper with a raised bed is very unstable, cases of lorries tipping over if load does not fully discharge, I think very bad practice to have bed raised, takes no efford to raise or lower, except a little time.

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.

8 hours ago, John-Miles said:

There was at one time a Pembroke Dock to Paddington HST. Someone had to get out at Manorbier and open the gates and shut them once the train was through.

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.

11 minutes ago, Hal Nail said:

I hope this proves viable, particularly in the current climate. Whilst a mainline connection always seems sensible, the Midhants trains from Alton are generally very quiet and I doubt cover the cost of coal used to get up to Medstead, let alone all the additional infrastructure and maintenance.

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.

42 minutes ago, montyburns56 said:

 

Funnily enough I had that copy of YMR as it featured their project layout as pictured on the front cover, but I still think that the multi period layout was in RM. Also I'd totally forgotten about YMR until you mentioned it! Does anyone remember how long it lasted?

42 minutes ago, montyburns56 said:

 

Funnily enough I had that copy of YMR as it featured their project layout as pictured on the front cover, but I still think that the multi period layout was in RM. Also I'd totally forgotten about YMR until you mentioned it! Does anyone remember how long it lasted?

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).

On 10/05/2023 at 20:56, The Johnster said:

My vacuum cleaner sucks.

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....

On 08/05/2023 at 09:08, NZRedBaron said:

Speaking of which, when did Hornby gear down their "Pocket Rockets"? I'll want that for nabbing a model or two.

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.

11 hours ago, melmerby said:

The Hornby 66 special is hideous

 

A much better bet would be a King class "King Charles III", give it a brass numberplate 6523.

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).

9 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

These are not country walkers crossing the line in the middle of a field at their own risk. They are paying customers of the railway who expect to be delivered to their destination in one piece.

 

Martin.

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.

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Principally Farnborough Sixth Form College (ages 16-19), which has a wide catchment area - hence a considerable number arriving by train and meeting a bottleneck at the crossing. Again, this is all discussed in the Report, both in relation to the incident itself:

 

 

and in a prior survey:

 

 

You may say of these young people "well, if they won't follow the instructions they deserve to be mown down by a train" but that's a response that won't wash. The challenge is to manage the situation: either by eliminating the risk by providing a footbridge, or by more proactive action on the part of the level crossing attendant - which, it appears from the report needs both better information supplied to them and better training - and, as has been done, better education of users, by talks etc. at the College.

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.