Alan76

There was something in rules and regs about vacuum braked trains always having the 'assisting engine' (the term used in BR's WTTs) at the front of the train. Curiously, air-braked trains were permitted to be assisted in the rear. On loose coupled trains the idea was not that some couplings should be taut and others slack, but that the banking engine would 'bunch up' the train, keeping buffers in contact at all times. Where banking was a regular occurrence, and the incline was irregular, there would be places where the train engine would ease off, allowing more load to be taken by the banker so the train did not become strung out. Alan

Slightly off-topic, but there was an incident in 1972 where a Sheffield-Huddersfield DMU suffered a partial failure at Sheffield, losing one of the two power cars on a three car set. Staff realised that it would not make the climb to Penistone (at this time the Huddersfield trains still used the Woodhead line to Penistone, rather than today's route via Barnsley). The unit was run to Woodburn Junction and a Class 76 buffered up and banked it to Penistone. It was then able to struggle through the Huddersfield. Alan

Quote: For solder constructed track the rail needs to only be relieved of some of its curve, if the rails are soldered with the curves in opposite directions then the tension in the track is evened out. I suspect that curved rail doesn't work well in plastic track bases. Absolutely right Nigel! In the early days of Easitrac I saw someone struggling with coil rail - the stuff he was turning out looked as though it was for a model rollercoaster. Not long after that the association went back to supplying 50cm straight lengths. Alan

Just in case anyone out there is interested, the two ex Great Central locos are the work of John Greenwood. I was never going to get the time to build them myself and John's locos are a joy to own. I asked my family to chip in towards CXhristmas presents. I'd rather have this one small, delightful object than half a dozen packs of Homer Simpson underpants and matching handkerchiefs or whatever. I have this vague long term plan of doing MSW electric locos in black to run alongside them. You don't see many steam/electric models around. The Q4 0-8-0 was a Barnsley engine in the late 40's/early 50s (strictly speaking all had gone by the time the MSW system was energised) used mostly for colliery trip work while the 04 2-8-0 was a Mexborough engine - the MSW 'Tommies' did a lot to put it and its fellow 'Mexborough Pacifics' out of work. With Jerry's indulgence, next time we might try a passenger engne..... Alan

A bit off topic, but regarding the posts about the atate of the A628, you might be interested to know that when the Highways Agency published its plans for the now shelved Hollingworth-Mottram-Tintwistle bypass, they actually included traffic lights that were intended to deliberately cause delay, to dissaude more people from trying to use the road. The theory is that, when the bypass was finished it would shorten journey times. So more people would want to drive over Woodhead. You put them off by holding them at a red light that's not there to regulate traffic, just to hold you up so you carry on using your old route instead of congesting the A628 even more than it is today. Sounds mad, but that's where we are.... Alan

A couple of bits of info regarding the above: Trans-Pennine DMU sets were regular winter weekend visitors to Woodhead for the last four or five years before it closed. They had been reformed into four-car hybrid sets by this time with a 'full windscreen' cab at one end and a corridor connection cab at the other - the idea being that they could be coupled together maintaining the corridor throughout the train. Most of us can probably think of a dozen ways in which the full windscreen ends would be facing each other within days... AC electrics certainly were hauled over the Worsborough Branch. The loco or locos - I never saw more than two - were sandwiched between brake vans. I saw them several times and photographed them once, at Glasshouse Crossing. If I knew how to scan slides I would post a couple of images - though of course I would also have to know how to post images.... sorry guys. Also, you saw most diesel classes at one time or another over the branch, let alone the main line. I recall 08 (on the pantograph train), 20 (on engineering trains) 24, 25, 31, 37 (the Wath workhorse) 45, 47. I have also seen pictures of a class 40. They were mostly on colliery trip workings, but occasionally, a shortage of 76s would see diesels used on 'proper' trains. I have a picture (see apology above) of a two tone 47 with full yellow ends on MGR empties heading to Wath at Wentworth Junction. Alan

No need for OHLE for this one - it's a diesel, and there's the clue about the stir it caused! And what's wrong with BR Blue? I can never decide whether the 76s looked best in blue or the original black. My next two will be in black to match the 'Tommy' I built last year. ANd finally, I bet I can have Kim converted by the end of the weekend! Alan

Arriva proposed both Guide Bridge and Penistone as park and ride stations as part of their bid for the Trans-Pennine franchise. They wanted to run four trains an hour between Manchester and a re-opened Sheffield Victoria (or something nearby). They reckoned they could manage an end-to-end time of 35 minutes or so using Adelante (Class 180) type stock. The current proposals for Guide Bridge are by Alliance Rail Holdings. They are based in York and the man behind them is Ian Yeowart who set up the open access operator Grand Central. Alliance want to do two or three quite separate groups of open access services including some originating in West Yorkshire, running to Euston via Huddersfield, Guide Bridge and Stockport. Their proposals are, I believe, currently with the Office of Rail Regulation. Alan

Quote: The last true loco operated service (GE main line) Surely not. The ECML Class 91 + Mk IV sets are every bit as true loco hauled as the GE - a completely separate power unit, cabs at each end, capable of being operated completely independently of the stock, used to haul or propel fixed rakes and operated via a DVT when in propelling mode. Alan

Still winding my jaw off my chest Jerry. That's going to look really, truly, incomparaby good when it's finished. Now, how about a fantasy 2mm Expo? This, Fencehouses, Ynysarwed Sidings (didn't know I could spell that), Copenhagen Fields, Wansbeck Road..... Alan

There were two or three memorable runaways down the years. The one that you're thinking of prompted the installation of heavy-duty sand drags at Dovecliffe, where the gradient steepened down to Wombwell Main Junction. There was an entry in the sectional appendix requiring all loose-coupled trains to stop and pin down brakes. I have vivid memories of hearing brakes banging away as the trains were powered away from Wombwell towards Wath Yard. Dovecliffe Station itself was also a gem with a crazy three-storey signalbox tacked onto the end of the station buildings. One day I'll get off my backside and model it!

It is a bit of a mystery - in the case of the Barnsley-Sheffield line (I know this is off topic!) I suspect the issue was that the Worsborough Branch was just over the way and there you had the sight of heavy trains (with up to four locos) ascending the bank to Penistone and the Woodhead main line. There was also the U1. But at the Northern end, the Barnsley-Sheffield line ran within eyeshot of the Worsborough branch. I've often wondered why more photogaphers didn't walk the four hundred yards or so to rattle off a few frames. The line was a delight. Trains were mostly colliery trip workings but with largely intact closed stations. Often thought there's a cracking model in there somewhere! Alan

Not just around Manchester.. try finding pictures of the GC Barnsley-Sheffield line. There are just a handful that I've been able to find including the views of stations at Dovecliffe, Birdwell and Chapeltown that you'd expect - but very few of trains on the move and the ones that do exist are almost all of specials and excursions. Very little of the workaday operations and absolutely nothing from the last five years or so when the line was diesel operated. Alan

I feel almost guilty returning this thread to boring sensibleness, but on the subject of tiebars, Keith Armes does a rather clever one, using a PCB sleeper on its end with wire wrapped around and soldered to the blades. Rugged bit of kit with only the edge of the PCB sleeper on show. You do have to cut a groove for it in your baseboard top, but that's a minor issue. I'd also echo Jerry's comments about moving sleepers. In 2FS you need to look hard to spot what's going on. Alan

Not sure about the minimum clearance, but the contact wire could go down to 13' 9" about rail level. It might be possible to work something out from that. Alan

Sorry, my mistake on Mick's use of Electra couplings... in regard to Dapol's latest offering, I think it's a huge mistake to put a knuckle coupler on the market that's incompatible with the one that's already there. Farish are - or at least were - said to be working on the same thing. Let's hope they've struck a deal with Mictrotrains to do an NEM compatible version. Alan

Just to add to the noise and confusion: I use Microtrains knuckle couplers even though I model British outline 1970s/1950s. I think they are no more and no less obstrusive than DG BB or any of the others apart from AJs which look great but I can't see me ever being skilful enough to be able to set them up to operate at all reliably. Mictrotrains are also quick and easy to install and you can use the time saved to do whatever else it is that melts your butter... I have also used Kato non-automatic knuckes which are very neat and unobtrusive on fixed rakes of wagons. The knuckles themselves are easy to find but the pockets they sit in are harder to come by. My daughter brought me a batch back from a visit to Japan with her boyfriend. She's since dumped him so I have a long term problem. More recently, I've converted one of my trains to the Mathieson Models three-links which look great but permanently couple the wagons together, so I've done them in sets of five or six, which is just about manageable, with each 'sub set' coupled using knuckles. This is a 24-vehicle train - a mix of 16T mineals and 21T hoppers - and I intend running it for a while before deciding whether to do more. I also need to find a way of storing them off the layout and transferring them to and from the stockbox - some sort of cassette looks like the best option. Incidentally, Mick Simpson is the 2FS user of AJ couplings - and his DO work - flawlessly! Alan

Splendid! Look forward to that. I'll be there with Simon Howard, who'se become my regular conspirator and, hopefully Mick Simpson. We'll have to make sure we fit a beer in. Be good to see John again too. I think I'd like a pair of well tanks on banking duty!

Just wanted to say how much I enjoyed the MRJ piece Jerry. I'm currently planning the next project. Mini-MSW happened more or less by accident and I think this time a lot of thinking might be a better way of doing things. Your article gave me a few more things to think about - which is good. Alan PS yes, it will be electrified, just in case you were wondering....

How do you intend doing the 3-link couplings Pix? I've just converted an entire train using the Mathieson Models ones. They look really good but it means permanently coupling two wagons, so anything beyond five or six becomes a bit unwieldy. I've used either Microtrains knuckles or Kato non-automatic knuckles (which are a but smaller) to couple each portion of the complete train. The train concerned is a mix of Fencehouses 21T hoppers and Farish 16T minerals (the new ones which are very good). I'd been told that the Mathieson couplers were a bit on the coarse side, but Alex Duckworth tried some, sent me some pictures and I was hooked. No good for a shunting plank, but great for fixed rakes. Highly recommended. Alan

Quote: Instead of loooking at why it closed, why not look at reasons why it should be opened again? Well, there have been at least three serious proposals to re-open it down the years: 1) as part of the Liverpool-Lille Berne gauge freight line; 2) Arriva's proposal for an expanded TPEx franchise (as detailed above) and 3) as a 'rollendestrasse' (I think that's the spelling!) trans-Alpine style rolling road for carrying HGVs through the Peak Park from Broadbottom (interchange with M60) to Tinsley (interchange with M1). Lorry drivers would use the downtime to take their legally-required breaks and fuel saved would help to outweigh the charge for rail transport. None of the three have come to anything. No-one regrets that more than I do, but it feels to me like a commentary on the economic worth of the line today. As noted above, it was built for mineral traffic (the original proposal, interestingly, was to haul limestone east. Hauling coal west only came along later) that no longer exists. It might, just might, have a future as a route for intermodal traffic. The most recent study says there will be a need for another Pennine crossing by 2030. But whether trying to re-instate the Woodhead Line and re-open the New Tunnel would be the most economic way of doing it is far from certain. I'll repeat. No-one regrets this more than I do. I grew up with the line. I rode on many of its locomotives. I don't need any lessons on liking railways. But this is the way it is. Alan

I'm certain that someone does a set of whitemetal castings for Class 50 jumpers - have you tried TPM? For the cables themselves I would use black EZ Line - from Model Junction in Slugh. Alan

About 10 years ago Arriva planned to re-open the Woodhead Route as part of their bid for the Trans-Pennine Express franchise. It would have carried four trains an hour - using Class 180 Adelante or similar stock - and would have taken 35 minutes for the Manchester-Sheffield journey with a stop at either Guide Bridge Parkway (!) or Penistone, which would have been just 13 minutes away from Sheffield. A new station would have been built somewhere near the site of Victoria. It never happened of course because the Strategic Rail Authority had run out of money. It went instead for a scaled down TPEx - the one we have today - and let a 'no growth' franchise for the rest of the North of England because there were no funds to do anything else. I used to think that Woodhead would re-open. I no longer think so, certainly not in my lifetime. And if it did, there are no longer any guarantees that the Woodhead New Tunnel could be re-used. It would not meet current safety regulations and it is a moot point whether, after so many years out of use, it would enjoy any 'grandfather rights'.

I think you should set aside all the arguments about whether this is a good thing for the railway industry or its passengers. This is an intensely political thing and it is all about getting people back into work so they pay taxes rather than claim benefits. Someone at DfT has seen a quick win here - the supply chain for the Lancashire traiangle will have been set up, the electrification trains and other equipment bought and the specialist teams recruited and well used to working with each other. So you get a bargain basement price compared with starting from scratch. The practical effect on the railway is a side issue. So, Class 319s will get tickled up to make them more akin to the 185s, though, as the excellent Railway Eye site remarked last week, all this is going to leave the 319s covering more ground than Santa's sleigh on Christmas Eve. Particularly given that the replacement Thameslink trains still have to be ordered (we're approaching 1,000 days without a an order for new trains being placed by the way). The really interesting issue now is what happens to Hull, Scarborough and Middlesbrough. DfT has told Network Rail to look at the business case for wiring them up. They'll report back by next July. Hull and Middlesbrough might get through on the basis that, with a few tweaks, you can get wider network benefits, but Scarborough? Cue a row.... Alan

The stock will almost certainly be displaced Class 319s. When Philip Hammond was transport secretary he was very clear that it is next to impossible to make a business case for new trains for the Northern conurbations partly because of the low fares. This is theme that Northern has also taken up making the point that their average fare is £2.19 - less than than the average cappucino that people buy to drink while they ride to work. So if new trains are out, there's nothing much else left except Thameslink left-overs. This won't be an entirely bad thing: old electric trains are better than old diesel trains. As already remarked, they have a good configuration for handling heavy commuter flows. They've already been earmarked for the Lancashire triangle, so, if you had a joint fleet, you'd also need fewer trains because you'd have a common pool of maintenance spares and the advantages of common diagramming and so on. And, as DfT's gone to the trouble of aligning the end dates of TPEx and Northern, you can bet the farm that some sort of reorganisation is planned which may well see the whole lot be run by one franchise. The realling interesting decision will be what happens to the redundant 185s... Alan