Mike Storey

You forgot 32 mm. Unforgiveable.

So sorry to learn that. I did not realise anyone had actually died from working in GN House ...... As for scholarly issues, my senior school was an all boy affair, hence I have no further avenue should the current Mrs Storey part company, although there was that delightful blond chap in .... Quite, back to racing, sort of. The only garage I passed en route, sorted out your tyres, and windscreens if the bloke wasn't out in his van. But they did have an RS Mexico round the back. Does that count?

I am beginning to miss the point / lose the plot here. If one wanted a much "bigger" layout in the restricted space available, one could simply choose N gauge, if one's eyesight could manage it. If one wanted something more detailed, or something you could actually see with older eyes, and accepted the space restrictions, then 00 (or EM or P4) is the obvious course. What does TT:120 bring? The difference to N gauge (at 1:148) for eyesight issues, is marginal, and the space saved also pretty marginal - or am I wrong? I note the eager froth lists, but just who will buy this scale, and why?

Yep! Not just from the asbestos and the imminent danger of collapse then?

It's got to be Mark 1's, suburban then mainline. They go with just about anything in the last 60-odd years. Then some vans, CCT, VEA to VDA. Then some opens and hoppers. That takes us to about 2029....... Personally, I would love to see some 33's, 73's and some 50's/60's EMUs (and DMUs) so I could start the new layout with much more room, but I think I am stuck with 00 for a long while yet.

As I model the Southern, South Eastern, in mid-BR days, I don't have many locos. Neither did they. EMU's on the other hand ........

Most excellent!! You are on form tonight!

Never mind all that. What I want to know is why you were in the playground, as a sixth-former, when the rest of us were down the pub, or chip shop?

Is that to improve track utilisation perhaps? Because it does not make sense otherwise! Thameslink is far faster for the end-to-end journey.

The memorial is not for the chap who invented the OLE, but the chap who got the tunnel built in 1870, Germaine Sommelier, or some such. My mistake. https://e-monumen.net/patrimoine-monumental/monument-a-germain-sommeiller-modane/

I watched the Second Test highlights instead - a lot more excitement.

Your shots of Modane reminded me of a very pleasant day spent there when we were on our way to see Cathie's brother in Switzerland a few years ago - great cafe across the road. I took some splendid shots, including one of a memorial, in one of the walls, to the chap who, apparently, invented the OLE system they first used. But the station was pretty well empty, and movements far and few between. It was (is) a far cry from when I remember it in the 1970's and early 80's, when all life seemed to revolve in, through and around it.

I agree with others. Although only on the Southern, I was an Ops Supervisor on quite a few weekend engineering works for much of the 80's (nice bit of overtime), and I do not recall seeing almost anything other than black or olive green P/Way wagons (occasionally, faded Railfreight red for some opens transferred to ballast work). Most were so dirty or rusted, or both, that the original colour had receded. I do think S&T red and yellow vans/opens were appearing, but the Dutch livery was notably absent, apart from one rake of gleaming hoppers in Tonbridge West Yard one weekend in, perhaps, 1987, but they weren't on my job, or anyone else's from what I could see!

OK, very funny. Let's look at the facts instead then. The Greengauge 21 report of 2007, which promoted only HS2, was not commissioned by anyone. Rather, it was "sponsored" by the Railway Forum, a collection of trade membership, with only a few regional political reps. That is how Jim Steer works. Yet, Greengauge 21, after forming a Public Interest Group in 2008, produced another report ("Fast Forward"), in 2009, proposing a wide network of new, high speed lines, very similar and expanding upon the earlier (in the same year) Network Rail submission, which was sponsored by the DfT. The Greengauge 21 Report was the result of work with dozens of stakeholders, from regional authorities, trade, PTA's, to freight, but not national government. http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/fast-forward1.pdf The DfT however, continued only to pursue HS2, and in that respect was supported by HMG of both hues. I fully recognise that you cannot build everything at once. But the sheer audacity of Grant Shapp's IRP, in claiming it was the greatest strategic rail plan in a century, beggars belief. It not only cut back HS2, but confined rail investment to a "plan" (more realistically a list of aspirations plus funding already announced) to £96 billion over 25 years, when the govt's own National Infrastructure Commission had forcefully advocated a minimum spend of £185 billion over 30 years (just for the North and Midlands). I leave this to be read, or ignored just like the government has done, as you see fit: https://www.railengineer.co.uk/integrated-rail-plan-the-evidence/

Following on from my debate with Ron, this may be of interest. It is a report from Greengauge 21 in 2009, proposing a network of high speed lines for the UK. This came after their HS2 Proposal of 2007, which influenced Adonis and then the Tory/LibDem govt into proceeding with HS2 in its Y-shaped format. http://www.greengauge21.net/fast-forward-a-high-speed-rail-strategy-for-britain/ The 2009 report produces very similar conclusions to the NR report, published one month earlier, but goes even further into detail. Again, this contradicts the prevailing view now that London/Birmingham/Manchester (and perhaps Leeds) is the only line that makes any return, and especially the view that this was always the case. What is sad (for the country) is that both this and the NR report were pretty well ignored in the subsequent DfT Strategic Review of HS2 Options. Finally, there is an article from Rail Technology, primarily about HS1, in 2007, that states that Network Rail were only just about to "go public" on their views about High Speed Rail for the rest of the country. https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/highspeedone/ However, we are now where we are, with a dog's breakfast of a scheme with little apparent thought on what follows.

I don't dispute that Ron. The most interesting thing is as to how two (or even three) such reports could come to such different conclusions, on the extent of routes, CBA's and costs. I don't know the answer to that.

Just to help your memory Ron, I attach a report of the NR report (I cannot locate a copy of the actual report either, but I remember it well). It was this report that was largely ignored by Adonis, and later the Tory government, in favour of the much more restricted and less ambitious HS2 Ltd report, which came out four months later. You will note that NR believed the business case for just going to Manchester was marginal, but that going through to Scotland would have seen a 1.8 return on the investment (over 60 years). The figure HS2 Ltd came up with was never more than 1.5, IIRC, even at the original costings. https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/08/26/u-k-s-network-rail-moves-forward-with-route-choice-for-high-speed-2/ Incidentally, this report says NR had been working on it for a year, but, like you, I know for certain that work started on it around 2005 - I was, briefly, a small part of it at the beginning.

Absolutely. But that was c.20 years ago. Eventually, Ansaldo sorted out their problems and are now the dominant supplier, I believe. The primary issue concerned RT's, then NR's, quest to find competition for Alstom/Westinghouse. I don't think that will be a problem for Trans-Pennine. In fact, things seem to be progressing, almost stealth-like. What I believe we don't yet know, is what the final (or interim) solution yet looks like?

Sorry Ron, but I think you are confusing things. The Network Rail study, which reported formally in August 2009, concluded that a High Speed Network was exactly what was needed. It proposed a system that eventually had a through route right into Scotland, via the West Midlands, Manchester and Leeds, with a few branches off, to serve TransPennine and the North east. That was scuppered by the DfT Report, in December 2009, which, despite only a year looking at it (NR had taken four years) concluded that the Y-shaped plan was all that was needed. The issue concerns, as ever, the Cost/Benefit Analysis (CBA) allowed. At that time, no changes had been made to the Green Book, which was the only source of CBA elements allowed in governmental projects. That was essentially a Financial Appraisal. It took little cognizance of social/demographic/economic benefits other than those directly attributable to the works. The Green Book has since been revised, and does allow much greater weight to those matters, which drastically alters the HS2 CBA (depending on which elements proceed). The Transport Secretary of the time (Philip Hammond) even said as much, but the "Special Advisor" (Lord Mawhinney) contradicted his views, and it was his preferences that became the basis for the initial HS2 Act. So, whilst anyone can grandly proclaim that the "business case is used up by the time it gets to Manchester and Leeds", that is far from the truth under the new Green Book allowances (if the Levelling Up agenda is to be believed). The great pity in all this, is that those same changes, in what is allowed for the CBA, have played next to F-all part in the ensuing decisions. As others have said, we are back to short-termist, highly political decision making - everything has become purely about cost, and little is heard of potential benefits, if they don't fit the narrative. It is also a very big fib that France (State and SNCF) did not start out thinking of a High Speed Network - they most certainly did. Plans for LGV Nord, LGV Sud-Est (beyond Lyons) and LGV Ouest were all being submitted long before the Paris-Lyons route was started. The only dispute was how to pay for them, and in what order.

Well, you could have argued that from the 1948 British Nationality Act, but both Acts merely defined the immigration boundaries. They did not seek to determine what citizenship actually meant. Because we have a monarchy, we are all still subjects, as parliament and the armed forces swear allegiance to the Monarch, not to the country, and enact "her" laws, technically. Without any written constitution, we are subject to the whims of any government, in terms of our rights.

I have severe reservations over the direction this discussion is going. There are no "citizens' rights" in the UK anyway. We are all "subjects" and, apart from common law rights, the only other rights we have are those enshrined in the Human Rights Act, which is about to be radically toned down by this government, if parliament agree. We don't have any rights because we don't have a written constitution, and the authoritarians want to keep it that way. Taking your example, for example, the right to freedom of movement. Would a rail strike become illegal then? If the answer is no, because people "always" have an alternative, then why does that not apply to road closures due to protests? If the answer is yes, then I believe we will be going down a very dark road. "Overstepping the mark" is an age-old repression - a similar phrase was used when the Tolpuddle Martyrs were transported, and also at Peterloo, when many were mown down just for protesting - they were blocking the road.

True, but the report on the post-completion analysis was in 2002, when much of the new housing did not yet exist, but it drew the conclusions despite that. Getting back to HS2, "corporate memory loss" is clearly evident with those in power now - an extraordinary number of new roads, many termed "by-passes", are now planned, after about 20 years of consensus that they rarely solve anything. At the same time, HS2 East was cut back, as not cost-effective. These are both despite govt "commitment" to environmental targets. Go figure?

Poll Tax, yes. Greenham Common, definitely no! The works continued and the cruise missiles arrived. They were removed eventually only by the signing of the USA/Soviet Union INF Treaty, after 1987. Newbury by-pass would be a better example. Although they did not stop it being built, the subsequent analysis (5 years after completion) showed that traffic in Newbury had barely reduced (the main reason given), road deaths had gone up, not down as predicted, but the most successful result was that most new road schemes were cancelled for a few decades.

Maybe, but you are forgetting that some very major centres of manufacturing, commerce, banking and insurance lie North of Paris, such as Lille, Dunkerque, Rouen and to a lesser extent now, around Amiens, to which people south (Orleans), south west (Tours, Bordeaux and Toulouse) and south east (Lyon, Marseille) of Paris, need access. Not to mention Belgium and the Netherlands (and to a lesser extent now, Britain). Incidentally, someone earlier stated that all the industrial might of Britain was dominated by the North and the Midlands. Up to the early 20th C, London was one of the largest and most diverse manufacturing centres in the UK! 1 in 6 people in manufacturing worked in London - no other single city could claim that. It had coal (from Kent and elsewhere), iron (from Surrey) and plenty of water. It had a very skilled workforce. It also had 50% of the country's imports/exports (until WW1). But much more money was to be made from other activities, and it was much cheaper to locate heavy industry in the Midlands and the North after, say, 1900. A regionalisation policy after WW2 also accelerated the decline of London's industrial base. History is complicated and does not necessarily fit the narrative.

Not sure where you got that figure from? Using the ONS CPI data and the officialdata.org site, I get a rather different result - £105 million (rounded). That would buy rather more railway than is being indicated, notwithstanding all the additional costs that modern schemes have to contend with, as cited above. Which was a 50% overspend from the original estimate (£2.3 m), and nearly broke the company. Nothing new under the sun!