Rods_of_Revolution

So the LoS exists to allow a route to be set from an Up direction signal onto a Down direction line (or vice versa), without the requirement to fully signal the route as bi-directional? Thanks, Jack

Above is the part of the rule book in question. Firstly the driver should have been using the authorised walking route. Secondly, if an authorised walking route was not provided he should have applied point 7, '...so that you can reach a position of safety and be in it no less than 10 seconds before an approaching train arrives.'. If you're moving between rail vehicles with a gap of half a meter, there's no way he could have reached a position of safety 10 seconds before the train arrived. The only ambiguous part is 'approaching;' Is a train you assume will remain stationary to be regarded 'approaching?' And should you apply point 7 with an assumption that any stationary train (which you're not in control of) could start to approach at any moment? Should this be mentioned in the rules? Regards, Jack

I've been through inductions for many depots and often nothing is ever said about moving between vehicles, this is because these days every depot has designated 'authorised walking routes' which are supposed to be used at all times (this is also mentioned in PTS training and the railway rulebook). So the assumption is that no one, other than those in control of the vehicles and required to do so for a specific purpose (coupling a train, brake test etc), will move between or around vehicles. Therefore the driver in question would have been expected to be using the authorised walking routes across the depot. The problem with the authorised walking routes is that often rail vehicles are parked across the nearest route, so a longer route must be taken, this causes people to take short-cuts between rail vehicles, rather than the proper route provided. I agree it would be worth going into greater depth in the rules to deter people from cutting corners, but also to provide guidance should an authorised walking route not available for some reason. Regards, Jack

Here's the updated plan:

The B-Set used had the position of the roof vents altered to reduce the overall height, that said there were railtours using DMUs on the Highworth branch in the later days, so at least some DMUs were within the required loading gauge. Cheers, Jack

Thanks for all the input chaps! I'll add a home signal. Would that allow trains to arrive on both tracks, or would that require a shunt signal on the home? Would there be a limit of shunt board? Mike, you're right DMUs were not used on the Highworth branch, but I'm using modeller's license and bringing in a few elements from other Bristol Division branches, DMUs from Calne and the Signal Box/GF from Malmesbury. I hadn't noticed the distant arm being wrong, that was me cheating and mirroring rather than rotating it the software. Thanks for the details on the drawing Phil, very useful; It was you who gave me the inspiration to have a go in the first place! Richard, reversing the crossover would reduce the headshunt length, which needs to be a loco+2, to give a 3-2-2 Inglenook. The diorama is in N scale and it's tiny! It's a way to display my 50s/60s stock on society/demo stands, with the potential for operation to keep anyone on the stand with it entertained! Cheers, Jack

The track plan is deliberately basic, as it's effectively a small Inglenook diorama. The station is at the end of a fictitious branchline which leaves the Highworth branch (Swindon - Highworth) at Hannington. The era would be anything from the late 40s to early 60s (so it should be a newer diagram, but I like the pre-30s one.) Freight would be propelled the short distance from Hannington, guards van leading, with the guards van left in the platform and the train shunted into the sidings, returning to Hannington locomotive leading. The passenger service would be a DMU, or single coach in a mixed train which would be left in the platform with the brake van. Originally the line would have continued further, but it was cut back to Sevenhampton as there was a factory there which relied on the railway to bring the workers to and from Swindon, by the time it was cut back DMUs were being used so they didn't include a loop and settled with propelling the freight. The purpose of the diagram is to give added interest to the display of the diorama, so it'll have been signalled as if money was no object, where as in reality it would be a ground frame as you suggest, but that doesn't make for a very interesting display. Thanks, Jack

Hi all, I'm creating a small working diorama of a GW terminus and (after inspiration here) I thought a signalling diagram in the old GWR style would be nice to display with it. Anyway, not being a signalling expert, I thought I'd get those who are to cast their eyes over it. Is the signalling correct? Are the lever numbers in the right order? Does the diagram look approximately right? Any opinions? Thanks, Jack

I really like the authenticity in the replication of the signalling diagrams. What do the different colours (blue, orange, grey, etc) of track mean on GWR diagrams? Also, what fonts/typeface are used? Cheers, Jack

Cheers for the contributions chaps. With the info gleaned from this thread I've now found an album on Paul Bartlet's site: https://paulbartlett.zenfolio.com/frenchferryopen Diagram E342 seems to be the correct one.

Legal tender is used to settle a debt and it doesn't include electronic payment. If you're buying something, like a train ticket, there is no debt incurred. Methods of payment are based upon an agreement between the buyer and the seller, so legal tender doesn't come into it. A company could insist that all tickets are purchased using apples and they'd be perfectly within their rights to refuse to sell you a ticket if you didn't agree to pay in apples. That wouldn't be a very good business model though!

The UK is a pretty big consumer of EU designed/built trains, given the prevelance of Desiro and Electrostar trains. If these companies were to stop building trains in the UK, they'd risk losing one of the biggest buyers of their trains. I also don't think that the rail industry will be hit by Brexit in the same way the automotive industry might, as the vast majority of trains being built here are not built for export. The worst case scenario (aka Hard Brexit) is a 10% tariff on trains/cars being exported to the EU, but over the last 3 years the pound has been devalued against the Euro by more than 10%, so if it was financially viable three years ago, it will likely be financially viable even with a Hard Brexit. As for jobs in the railway sector, I think they will be pretty safe for the forseeable future, as the UK has a rollingstock shortage and EU rollingstock manufacturers still want to sell trains. The British government could even put a sufficient tariff on EU rollingstock to make sure that it's only financially viable for Siemens and Alstom to manufacture trains for the UK in the UK. It seems to me that one side says it'll be all milk and honey after leaving, the other side says it'll be an economic apocalypse. I think the reality is that, come April, everything will be much the same as it is now.

Presumably that whilst stopping the merger in the interests of internal competition within the EU, the EU will place tariffs on any Chinese rollingstock being imported into the EU to protect Siemens and Alstom. This means Siemens and Alstom may struggle in markets outside of the EU. I know China has started making inroads into the parts of the Balkans which fall outside the EU's jurisdiction. Perhaps post-Brexit we'll get some good deals on Chinese trains!

Having had a discussion with people in the relevent department whilst I was working for a TOC, what I gleaned was thus; Back in the day people (guards, gateline, etc) were able to use their discretion more (either with permission or just because they were unlikely to get caught by their employer). These days companies insist that the rules are applied as stated with no exceptions to avoid possible legal and PR issues. For example, if one person was given the benefit of the doubt and let off a penalty fare whilst someone else, especially someone from a 'protected class,' wasn't given the benefit of the doubt, the company could be open to a lawsuit or news articles suggesting discrimination. It's much more likely to become an issue with the advent of social media and sensationalist news media, as what happens between a guard and a passenger can become an event broadcast to the world. Whilst some people will cease travelling by train after a penalty fare has been issued, the reality is that most people don't have a better option and will continue to use the train. The relatively small loses incured from the minority who decide to no longer travel by train are offset by the reduction in exposure to the risk of PR or legal problems. It would be nice if everyone could use common sense and judge each situation on its merits, but this approach is becoming less compatible with the modern world.

Does anyone know which diagram of ferry van these vehicles were converted from? Any other details of their history, construction and use would be most welcome. This is the type of vehicle I'm refering too: https://ukrailwaypics.smugmug.com/UKRailRollingstock/I/IFA-flats/IFA-G-STVA-4-unit-vehicle/ Cheers, Jack

3D Printing is becoming more and more popular, Shapeways has grown massively because of it, so where are the economies of scale? Why's 3D printing getting more and more expensive at Shapeways? People are trying to run businesses through Shapeways, a fact that's fundemental to Shapeways' business plan, yet Shapeways keep moving the goal posts with little explanation. When I started using Shapeways, about 10 or so years ago, the service was much better, the prices were much better and the overall experience was much better. The models were checked by people with experience of 3D printing rather than a computer program and someone with no practical experience in 3D printing. When they made the move from more experienced people checking models, I ended up with models which had previously been printed and shipped 20-30 times being rejected because a wall was now apparently "too thin". The result was I had to redesign a lot of them, in some instances making them structurally weaker overall in order to get the automated checks to allow me to order it. There have also been several price changes, which is fine unless, like this recent hike, it effectively prices the models out of the market. As it stands with my FUD models, I have no idea if the increases are correct or anomalies, Shapeways won't say what the error in their calculation with FUD is. So I'll have to wait and see. I'm pretty much at the end of my tether with Shapeways.

It seems that there has been an issue with the new pricing implementation on FUD, so they have currently postponed the rollout for FUD. It did seem odd to me that I had 300% increase on some models. https://www.shapeways.com/forum/t/grandfathered-pricing-wind-down-details.98455/

I've found it great for doing all sorts in N scale. So long as you're using a sharp blade with the speed and cut depth set correctly, you'll find it perfect for creating N scale buildings, some examples of which you can see in my Pontsmill Thread. As for rolling stock, check out this master piece of a ballast cleaner Jo has been building using parts he designed and cutout with the cameo: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/43870-jos-n-gauge-wagon-works-scratch-built-plasser-rm95rt-ballast-cleaner/page-3

Thanks Bernard, that explains things. Perhaps I'll take the body off and plonk it in field on the layout, I've certainly seen old storage vans with odd shaped roof replacements.

I purchased for a small sum (£10 for 12 wagons) a lot of older/cruder N Gauge wagons with the intention of using them on a BR(WR) layout set in the 1950s/60s.There's a few decent wagons in the bunch that I have rebuilt with metal wheels, added weight, NEM pockets and weathering, but there are a couple of wagons I'm not sure about. The first wagon is Peco NR-43W, which is a GWR 12t twin vent van. How accurate is the model? Would this have survived in GW grey, would have been repainted completely or simply patch painted? Would it have had any new braking systems added? The second wagon is Farish 2404-LN01 which is another 12t twin vent van, but it's of a design I can't seem to find a photo of. It looks almost SR style with the ironwork but with GW profile ends. Is it a work of fiction? Thanks you in advance for any and all help. Cheers, Jack

The issue with this is that I'd have to go through everything and document what it is, list it online and then package up and post 101 different things. It's something which I unfortunately don't have the time to do.

Maybe I just need to bite the bullet and bin a lot of it. As you say, if it's been gathering dust for 10 years, it'll probably gather dust for another 10 years.

Hi all, I've started to have a tidy through all the model railway items I've bought across the years and I have a lot of odds and ends. I have several 'bits boxes' which contain old sprues from kits which had extra parts on, odd detailing parts, old and damaged wagons and locos, bits of set track etc. I want something which is a bit more ordered as well as to engauge in a bit of cull to reduce the amount of stuff. What do people's 'bits boxes' consist of and do any of you have any tips for bringing order to the chaos? Cheers, Jack

To be fair no stock ended up on the floor today, although there was one moment where an item of stock was being accelerated by gravity before being intercepted by a hand! Overall a good day all round!

As Jo says, we've been getting the layout and stock up together for the Calne Show, although yesterday we did get distracted by lunch at the Avon Valley Railway along with a pleasant chat with some chaps pinch baring a VCA into the car park! I've been working on weathering a Farish VGA and MBA: I may have also invaded the layout with a few pieces of my 1980s Cornish rolling stock! Cheers, Jack