Titan

I suppose it boils down to whether you regard the term 'modern image' as a name or a description. If the former, then once named modern image, always modern image, if the latter then it is only appropriate for something recent. And since there will always be someone who wants to use the 'other' meaning it is unlikely to be resolved.

Interesting strategy: If your overpriced item does not sell encourage your purchasers by putting the price up even morel! http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Gone-up-in-Price-AGAIN-LEGO-Set-10173-Holiday-Train-NEW-Factory-Sealed-Box-/200981955889?pt=Building_Toys_US&hash=item2ecb754531&nma=true&si=C7w9vj9WElGmoE6gvx5josjhJxM%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 FYI The highest price this set actually sold for in recent history is about £375, with a typical price in the £250-£300 range. And yes, if you thought model railways were expensive, just try collecting discontinued lego train sets!

I think the difference between UK and US air brakes is much bigger than you think - although both apply brakes by lowering air pipe pressure, and release by increasing air pipe pressure, and are fail safe in terms of fault - ie a burst hose causes the brakes to come on, or a fault with an individual car eg brake cylinder failure, linkage failure etc does not prevent the brakes on other cars being applied that is where the similarity ends. The US brake system does not meet British Standards and would not be allowed to operate here. The principle differences are: In the US brake cylinder pressure is determined by the difference in pressure between the air reservoir (which can vary) and the brake pipe. In the UK the brake cylinder pressure is determined by the difference in brake pipe pressure and atmospheric pressure (which does not vary - at least not enough to effect brake performance). Eg. (and don't be pedantic if I do not get the pressures quite right it is the principle that counts and it makes comparing both systems easier) If the brake pipe pressure is 75psi and the reservoirs are at 75psi on both systems a reduction in train pipe pressure to 65 psi will result in a brake cylinder pressure of approx 25psi. The US system does this by the triple valve connecting the air reservoir to the cylinder instead of the brake pipe, until the pressure in the air reservoir matches the brake pipe (and during this time it is not connected to the brake pipe and so cannot recharge). The air reservoirs are chosen to be 2.5 times the capacity of the brake cylinders, thus a 10psi reduction in air reservoir pressure = a 25psi application in the cylinder. In the UK, the cylinder is adjusted to 25psi irrespective of air reservoir pressure, which is maintained at a minimum of 50psi. What this means is that in the US, if you make a brake application, release and reapply before the reservoirs have recharged, you will have a reduced brake pressure as brake cylinder pressure is dependant on air reservoir pressure. So what happens is the engineer lowers the brake pipe pressure a little more to get the same effect - ie 10 psi below the new air reservoir pressure of 65psi following the previous application, so now he needs a brake pipe pressure of 55psi to get that 25psi cylinder pressure. If the engineer makes frequent brake applications and adjustments, which may be required to maintain correct speed down a long undulating grade, faster than the system manages to recharge (which is easy to do on a long train), he will eventually run out of air and have no brakes left. In the UK system this cannot happen. Because the brake cylinder pressure is determined with respect to atmospheric pressure and brake pipe pressure a train pipe pressure of 65psi will always give you 25psi on the brakes irrespective of air reservoir pressure. Not only that, but because a full service application of 50psi in the cylinders requires a brake pipe pressure reduction to about 50psi, and the air reservoir is simply conected to the train pipe via a non return valve rather than a triple valve, it will always be above cylinder pressure and recharging even during a heavy brake application and thus you can't run out of air like you can on the US system. Furthermore, even if this did start to happen, a full brake application will automatically occur should air reservoir pressure drop below 50psi thus ensuring the train is brought to a halt before any risk of air loss interfering with the trains ability to stop. This distinction of course probably does not make any difference to what would have happened at La Megantic - on the UK system the air will still bleed off a stationary train without a loco running to recharge it and 0psi in the reservoirs = no air brakes no matter what system you have. But nevertheless, there are significant differences between the two systems.

Not quite, GPS can give you altitude pretty accurately. So much so that we use it to set out foundation levels for OLE masts. Its good for about +/- 25mm. So take a reading, and when you have walked along ten cars or whatever applying brakes, take another and you will be able to see what sort of grade you are on and which way its going.

BR did originally order 23 Deltics, but they finally decided on 22. (I think from Brian Webbs 'Deltic Locomotives of British Rail') I don't think work had started on building number 23, but EE may already have got sufficient materials together for another bodyshell and decided to put them to good use.

I think that there is a missing bit of relevent info that may be applicable in this case. In the UK, brake cylinder pressure varies depending on demand from 0psi (off) to 50psi (full service). The brake pipe pressure varies from 75psi (off) to 50psi (full service) and of course 0 = emergency. Thus even when there is a full service application, there is still enough brake pipe pressure to maintain the reservoirs at 50psi and therefore the full service application indefinately, even if the train is a bit leaky. If however the engine stops and there is no compressor running to maintain the 50psi, only then will the brakes start to leak off. Now I am not sure if I have got the exact figures right, but it is the principle that it is designed to maintain a full service application indefinately as long as there is a running compressor to feed it, which is relevent.

I was involved in the manufacture of those! The donor was a 2-6-4 tank. I was given a load of valve gear frets and tin snips and a file, and earned a little extra pocket money cutting the bits out and cleaning them up. So there is a good chance I cut out the valve gear for that model!

The APT arrived today, and quite interesting it was too. The reason it did not run is that it had a badly wired decoder fitted inside, as well as extra weight! removed that, put the wiring back to normal, a little oil and it runs like a dream. I already have the plain front version of the APT. I was a little torn, I prefer the black windows and it is the slightly rarer version, but as my layout is more seventies than eighties the plain front is more appropriate. Closer inspection showed that it was in fact a plain yellow front to which someone had painted on the black windows, reasonably well in fact! So in that case I will cut it up and keep the plain yellow. As for the decoder, turns out that its an old Hornby Zero 1. Worth about £6 on a good day on ebay. Still, very pleased overall!

I have been looking for an APT as cheap as possible to cut and shut so I can make my 5 car into an 8 car; http://offer.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewBids&_trksid=p2047675.l2565&rt=nc&item=390611512588 Don't think I could have spent a penny less!

A slower line can have sharper curves, substantially reducing the amount of tunneling and earthworks required as obstacles can now be avoided rather than tunneled through. this also includes being able to use cheaper land that the original alignment would not have been able to.I certrainly am not advocating building anything near what is required for HS1, only a top speed of 140mph. Indeed utilising the pendolinos ability to tilt could make the curves sharper still. And in this current climate I think so called 'penny pinching' would be welcomed judging by the reaction to the current proposed costs. You might even get away with less 'enviromental' tunnelling on the grounds of reduced noise from slower trains, and being able to route the line further from sensitive areas, although somehow I think the NIMBYS will still have something to say about that. As far as electricity is concerned, there is such a significant future shortfall in future provision for the entire country that a lot of new power genertion will need to be built anyway. Tagging on the comparitavely small extra requirement for a new railway line will add a hardly noticable, if indeed any extra cost at all, on to that program.

The way I see it there is more of a capacity problem than a speed problem. Any new line would help, it does not have to be high speed. It would make much more sense to me to build a new line that pendolinois could run on at 140mph. You would end up with 80% of the benifit of HS2 for a fraction of the cost. As an aside, altering an existing line to a larger loading gauge is likely to cost much more than building a new line, because there is much more work involved than altering overbridges and platforms (and OLE come to that!) Why? Because along the entire route the tracks will have to be slewed outwards so that trains don't hit each other when they pass. This means widening of cuttings, embankmants, rebuilding or widening of viaducts etc. just about every single piece of railway infrastructure would have to be moved or rebuilt. With a new railway at least you don't have the cost of demolishing the old one first, let alone before you factor the disruption in!

Its is far from correct to say all OLE would need altering, most of it is already well clear of the European loading gauge. It is only an issue where it comes down much lower for bridges and tunnels etc. which are areas which would need rebuilding in any case.

One further little detail which might be worth mentioning is the "cross contact bar" used at crossovers. This is a very short length of spare contact wire which is clamped to the main wire, but runs over the top of the crossover wire. You can just about see it in Clives photo. The reason for it is that pantographs lift the contact wire as they pass along. No problem when running on the main wire, it is underneath the crossover wire and both are lifted together. However, if a pantograph is running along the crossover wire, then unless the two were connected by the cross contact bar, the pan could lift the crossover wire without lifting the main wire to match and the pan horns could 'hookover' the main wire and cause a dewirement. With the bar in place both wires get lifted no matter which direction the pan comes from. Typically the amount of 'uplift' designed for is in the region of 230-300mm, depending on system, linespeed, wire height etc. In practice though it is usually not anywhere near that (unless its the rear pan of a 10 or 12 car class 309 at 100mph which will have everthing bouncing all over the place!!!)

I don't think it would be a gearing issue - after all there is a gear reduction between motor and axle so you can have any size wheel you want and choose the drive ratio to suit. Indeed as motors turn much faster than axles the smaller the wheel the less gearing you need as the axle speed gets closer to motor speed. It is more likely to be a weight issue - it is preferred to have larger diameter wheels for heavier loads, and the power car would have a much heavier axle load compared to the trailers.

The most useful aspect of a relco is getting a stationary engine to move without having to prod it with a finger. Unfortunatly if you are double heading or have coaches with lighting you need everything to be on some dirt for the relco to work, which does not happen much! Having said that, its worth its weight in gold for making trains go - I have a terminus with an overall roof and for making sure that the locos can be reversed off the buffers without having to lift the roof and prod them is a god send! They only run hot when there is nothing on the track for any time and the light is constantly lit.

There certainly appears to be nothing amis in that Video, a locked or skidding wheelset would have been clearly audible, and in any case the train had not been traveling far enough for the wheels to wear double flanged, or a bearing to overheat and burn off. No sign of fire either, reinforcing the idea that the fire was a result of the derailemnt rather than prior to it. Perhaps they should have checked the Back to Backs?

Drat! It does not matter how quickly you manage to correct a mistake someone manages to quote it first!

An update: A fireman at the scene stated that the train had run approx 150m derailed. Looking at the plan of the layout, it appears the point of derailment on the entry to the sharp left hand curve coming off the viaduct, whereupon the loco derailed to the right. There is no pointwork in the vicinity of the derailment, nor did the loco cross any pointwork whilst derailed (although it would not of needed to travel much further before it did) so track damage should hopefully be limited.

My take is that the engine derailed, fuel tank ruptured, sparks igniting fuel. With that amount of flame and white smoke it has to be a lot of diesel fueling the flames. What caused it to derail is another matter - such a multitude of possibilites i don't think I could attempt to narrow it down to even just a few!

I think you are correct - it looks like the 9F is running with a fitted head - the first few tankers look like they may be vac fitted four wheelers, as well as some other stock behind the loco. Having said that, I think some 9F's were fitted with air equipment for operating the doors on the consett ore trains - I don't know if this included air brake equipment also.

Very drole!

And Locos use L codes. Now, I wonder what the L, C & W, could stand for...

D'oh! Did think it was more than 3 but I guess not!

I believe the mk2's used on the Glasgow Push-pulls between pairs of class 27's had disc brakes fitted, which may not have been converted back when they were used on other services, but that only accounts for a few.

168mm long running on N gauge track.