JDW

10 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

People are already voting with their feet.  Just before Christmas, three GWR drivers, two from Exeter and one from Plymouth, were contributing to another well-known forum.  It seems that on the Thursday before Christmas, thanks to the overtime ban, there was only one train from Paddington to the West of England from late afternoon until close of play and that was only a 5-car unit.  The trio were gleefully predicting chaos as Paddington would be bursting at the seams as usual at this time of year and this train would, as a result, resemble something from Indian Railways.  But in the event they couldn’t understand why Paddington was almost deserted and the train, having carried a few standees as far as Reading, had seats available for the rest of its journey which as it happens was truncated at Plymouth due to no onward crew being available, stranding anyone who wished to continue into Cornwall.  Where was everyone?  Well, to me the answer is obvious: they were in their cars or on National Express/Megabus coaches on the M4/M5 or A303/A30.  Having had their plans so thoroughly disrupted will they be rushing back to the railways in future?  One of those GWR drivers then had the brass neck to complain about how difficult it was for his son to get home from Brighton for the festivities! Oh, deep joy!

 

With apologies for continuing off topic, as much as I agree that people should have the right to seek improved pay and conditions, I can't see this ending well in the bigger picture. It's gone on long enough that the railway risks becoming an irrelevance. At a time when we need to be getting people back on board (and with apologies for hugely over-simplifying), there needs to be a concerted effort to run a railway at a time when passenger growth is desperately needed, rather than get bogged down in squabbles about DOO or point-scoring over pay. Whose fault it is - Government, unions, staff, management - won't matter when there's no-one left using the trains because they're too unreliable, and there's only so long the public will stay 'on side' for. Likewise the 'make your own way' or 'don't travel' messaging around disruption of any kind - why would anyone bother using the train if they didn't have to? I wouldn't. 

Some small progress this afternoon, though it feels like quite big progress as it means coaches actually sitting on their wheels for the first time. 

The gangway connections are 3D printed ones I bought in bulk with the 465s in mind but which also seem suitable for this project. They are only tacked in place for now, partly to help check the ride height and also to help protect the bogie pivots which are a bit flimsy. I might swap them for captive nuts and bolts. 

Overall, it's looking promising though a push around some curves showed the wheels binding on the floor at times. It's highly likely that things aren't perfectly level, for reasons which are probably obvious to anyone who has followed the build so far! I think with a bit of gouging the floor to clear the flanges, it should be ok though. I don't want to lift it up any higher and end up with a big gap between body and bogie. 

The centre car isn't sitting level, so will need more work to sort out before I tackle the second driving car. Definitely feels like progress though. All that's really needed on the bodies is the strengthening plates below the doors and they should be ready to prime/paint. Still no idea what to do about the glazing, nor the underframe equipment - the idea of building lots of boxes from plastic doesn't appeal, especially as I struggle to get anything properly square...

36 minutes ago, tjf4375 said:

Nice work! I wonder whether running some brass or aluminium ‘L’ section along the inside of the lower body shell would help to keep it straight? 

Thanks, and yes, that's something I'd thought about as I'd progressed with it. The problem with doing that on this one was that I'd already used 'patches' of plasticard on the inside where I'd cracked the body in a couple of places, so no longer had a flat, continuous surface to attach anything to. 

I was going to do that on the second one when I get to it, but now I've seen the results of fitting the floor, and know the right size to cut it to (or at least, can make it the same width as the current one, I've no idea if it's exactly "right" but at least consistent), I'll probably just cut three long pieces of plasticard, heat the body in hot water as per this build, but with the 'floor' tacked in place so that as it cools with elastic around it, the result should be a bit more consistent. The first driving coach is the one I've done most of my experimenting on, so I expect it to be a bit rougher. 

As mentioned, I've added a strip of plastic along the insides of the shell to try and prevent cracking. I also fitted

an inner floor to the outer ends of each coach using the lugs provided on the 3D print. This has had a great effect on stiffening the shell. On top (below?) these, I added a second piece of plastic, 1.5mm thick, and once the superglue had dried I filed this to match the tumblehome. I added a matching strip along the bottom of the rest of the body, and again filed to shape. Various attempts to sort the splayed sides have left them a little wavy buy hopefully it won't be too obvious once finished. On the centre car, I added a couple of extra cross braces. The superglue has thankfully been string enough to keep the sides pulled in. 

Above, the three stages in progress. The second driving coach will need another dip in hot water to soften it before I pull the bottom edge into line. 

I also made a provisional bogie pivot to mount the first pair of bogies, Southern Pride one-piece plastic mouldings with sideframes bought from the same seller as the body. Using the supplied shim between the bogie and floor, the flanges on the Hornby 12mm wheels just touch the floor so a slight tweak will be needed. The ride height looks just about right compared to the nearest thing I had to hand, a Hornby class 60, and the ratio of window height to lower bodyside depth looks much closer to being in proportion. 

I'll need to add a new strengthening plate below each door. I should probably lower the step boards below each door too, but I think I'll leave them as is for now. 

The bogie frames are much too thick, and have needed a lot of sanding to make them fit the bogie frames. Before and after comparison - the dust is from doing just one. 

Possibly not very helpful if you're set on using the Phoenix/MTK ones, but this is how mine turned out using Hornby cabs:

The process was:

1. Cut cab into 3 separate window sections;

2. Remove as much as possible from between windows;

3. Glue back together, making sure they are square;

4. Remove remains of destination box above windscreens;

5. Fill headlight holes;

6. Reprofile lower cab - it was just possible to get enough of an angle, but the insides of the corners needed beefing up a little so as not to be too thin;

7. drill/file out new holes for new headlight units;

8. Fit sides/roof.

I've still to get around to drawing on panel lines to represent the numerous panels on the front of real thing. It did take me three attempts to get the two, though, as I took off too much material on the second one in the wrong place which left it too flat! 

The chassis will be from two halves of a Realtrack 144, one a spare car I picked up off Ebay, the other the remains of my earlier centre car project. No real progress though, as the bodies don't fit easily and I'm not really sure how to go forward with it. 

I've been having a good look at the 323 as well, every time I pick it up there seems to be another crack in the 3D-printed shell. I've concluded that what really is needed, to get it to ride at the correct height, is going to be an extra 1-2mm along the bottom of the bodysides. Otherwise it's just far too low. Adding a strip should mean the body sits at the right height on the bogies too - looking at how they line up with the fairing under the cab, they are too high at the minute. It might actually solve my problem of how to fit a floor inside the tumblehome, as I could just fit a piece of plasticard across the bottom, which would form the floor and add the extra depth. I'm thinking I'll do that at each end, outboard of the doors, to give a solid and easy bogie mount, then leave the centre open for now to allow me to slot an interior in later and just add a strip along the bottoms of the sides. 

I can't help I'm afraid, other than to say that I don't remember them being that good - I managed what I'd say is a better representation using a Hornby 142 cabs with slices taken out between each window and the bottom half/corners reprofiled. Maybe a little more work, but if you're building one anyway... 

2 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

The road, or roads with the double broken line have priority

2 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

As above its the double broken lines that have priority. Looking at the road layout it is obvious that the main road would have priority anyway and the minor road coming in from the left should give way. If two vehicles arrived at the roundabout at the same time on the main road the 'give way to the right' rule would apply and any vehicle approaching from the bottom would have to give way.

Yep, but in the real world, how many people would actually be astute enough to know that or figure it out as they approach - I suspect very few. And it doesn't take much to imagine one car coming from the left (normal roundabout rule of priority from the right) and one from the top (Give Way lines so "more priority"). One from the left expects one from the top to give way to him as he's coming from the right. One from the top has different markings that mean he has priority and keeps going expecting one from screen left to stop... Seems a receipe for disaster, and probably lucky no one ever really treats it as any different regardless of where they're coming from!

...and of course then there's the slight nuance of which type of road marking is used - at this mini roundabout for example: https://www.google.com/maps/@57.1207724,-2.0957224,30m/data=!3m1!1e3 two approaches have a Give Way double broken line and symbol, whilst one has a single row of chunky dashes which are more commonly associated with a roundabout. Would any driver really approach it and know the difference? Or treat it any differently? Or even notice that one set of markings is different? In the real world, I suspect not. 

Looks like it needs a bucket of soapy water...

Yes, it does seem a bit counterproductive to ban vehicles which represent a tiny fraction of traffic and occasional use cases such as heritage buses (or any other classic vehicle) that's realistically not going to have any impact on air quality. The problem, I suppose, is where the line is drawn, and everyone will have different views on the right answer to that. 

I don't know the answer to that, I'm afraid. Presumably either exempt or has some kind of emissions control on the exhaust (unlikely for a non-standard fit on a bus that age though?)

For those who may be interested, I'm told that the buses in use/available for the new service are 'short' RM871 and RM1941, both previously used on TfL's heritage services, and and RM1583, which retains an AEC engine. Also 'long' RML887, RML2290 and RML2681.

Your last point seems particularly pertinent. On the face of it, it would be a good idea to link attractions like that. In reality, when you take away the guide/commentary part, then it just becomes a bus route. Even if it has a novel vehicle type, it'll still end up stuck in traffic and take much longer to get from where you are to the next place you want to go, unless you're visiting them all in order along the route. To just visit one or two, I'd guess the Underground would mean less travelling time and more visiting time. 

Whether this route would benefit from a commentary, I don't know. Maybe the conductors will do a bit of commentary, tell people where they are, what they're seeing, etc, and inject a bit of personality. Without equipping the buses with electronics for it, an app would be the simplest way, though limited to those who could use an app. 

Re York, you're right in that you can bring some aspects of tram operation to buses, but unfortunately, they tend to be the dull bits like at-stop ticket machines that don't 'sell' it the same way as a fancy bus does. Even if the route has high-quality normal buses. I think what people forget when they say they want trams back in a smallish city like York is that a modern tram is much bigger. So you can have a bus every, say, ten minutes that can carry 50 people, or a tram that can carry (for the sake of round numbers) 150 people. Which means either a massive and costly over-provision, or cutting it to a 30 minute frequency for the same level of capacity (and to use fewer, more expensive vehicles).  Until you reach a point where buses are very frequent and carrying high loads, the conversion back to a tramway is very hard to justify; even more so with the improvement in electric bus technology, which nullifies some (though by no means all) of the arguments for a tram.

I mentioned it in the Routemaster thread earlier, but in case it's of interest to anyone here, blogger and former Brighton & Hove Managing Director Roger French took a trip on the new London heritage service on its first weekday, and reported back on his blog at https://busandtrainuser.com/2022/10/18/londoner-buses-brings-back-rms/

It's operated by Londoner Buses, which is part of the Transpora group. 

Another Routemaster tour of note is this one-off Christmas trip: https://contamination.zone/product/london-christmas-lights-tour-supportukraine/

Yes, the Streetcars/FTRs were one of those ideas that sounded good but was probably destined to fail - like Routemasters, they needed two people, and the whole 'pretending to be a tram' thing, whilst a good idea on paper, is one of those which comes round every so often and actually usually just ends up with the worst of both worlds: higher costs than a good quality bus operation, without the fixed infrastructure of a tramway (which brings certainty, longevity, etc).

Aberdeen also had a large fleet of Wrightbus artics (now replaced by some of the ex-York Citaros and Enviro500 tri-axle double-deckers). At the start of the university term, they regularly ran full, with duplicates giving a bus every few minutes in the morning peak. I used to make myself particularly unpopular by actually filling them, not just stopping loading once people had blocked the throat of the aisle - something which really used to annoy me. "Sorry, Bus Full" but two thirds of the aisle empty. They were licenced for between 120 and 145 passengers, but a realistic tightly-packed but bearable heavily-loaded maximum is around 95. Above that and you end up with Paris Metro-style crushes. 

Attitudes here tend to be different - if you don't have a seat, it's a bad service - whereas on the continent, buses do tend to be treated a lot more like Metros etc and people will get on and stand more readily. Here, people want to get on, settle into their seat, get comfy, pootle agreeably along to the next stop,... 

Certainly, the bespoke design for London is an interesting concept. Bespoke isn't necessarily bad in itself (The Enviro500s for Berlin for example, fulfil a purpose. I wonder how much Hannover's vanity Irvine Citaros cost.). The Routemaster was probably over-engineered for the provinces, and the New Routemaster is probably too complex, which means that unlike the RMs, it's unlikely to have much of a life after London service. What might be an option, though, now the tech has improved, could be re-engineering them as pure electric rather than hybrid, if the body structures still have life left in them. 

Getting back to the original point, Roger French took a trip on the new service on its first weekday, and reported back on his blog here https://busandtrainuser.com/2022/10/18/londoner-buses-brings-back-rms/ I think he raises some very fair points. The third, and particularly fourth, photos show one reason why I'd rather travel on a new bus than something vintage on my everyday commute. As beloved as they might be, novel and characterful, they're hardly the epitome of what most 'normal' passengers would call a pleasant, modern travelling environment. 

Another Routemaster tour of note is this one-off Christmas trip: https://contamination.zone/product/london-christmas-lights-tour-supportukraine/

I'd not seen that article before, but to be honest he does seem to hit the nail on the head. 

Routemasters were undoubtedly good buses. Better built and more comfortable than what went before. Easier to drive. But, as he says, that was also their undoing, in that they lasted well beyond when other similar types had been replaced by the next stage in bus development, meaning they lasted long enough to start becoming 'charming' and 'historic' and that awful word 'iconic'. I get why people like them, but at the same time, you have to move on. A nice icon they might be, but would I want to drive one all day every day? Would I want to commute on one? No thanks. They've had their day. They were good at what they did against the criteria of the era, but times move on. 

He makes some good points about artics too. He mentions the Wrightbus alternative, of which some did see service in London, but to be honest I don't think they'd have stood up to the rigor of London service as well as a Citaro. Although I disagree that the buses themselves are poor, they do have to be viewed in the light of being introduced into a regime that wasn't designed for them, which (setting aside the political bluster) is a big part of why they weren't popular. It's not always just a case of change a few bus stops, move a few traffic islands, and they'll be fine. The network was designed around double-deckers, and the infrastructure developed accordingly over many years. 

In the same way, cities such as Berlin or Paris have used them for years, so their infrastructure is aligned with the needs of the buses. Alongside that, passengers are used to them and how to use them. Although there are a few exceptions, try switching a European artic route to a London-style, 10.8-metre, two door, single staircase double-decker. You'd have exactly the same problems in reverse, and people would tell you that they're useless (too slow to load), dangerous (climbing stairs! On a moving bus!), encourage antisocial behaviour (back of the top deck) etc etc. And the infrastructure would likely cause problems too, if it's not geared to high vehicles.

As far as the New Routemasters go, they have their faults too - bus designers never seem to learn, or forget past lessons, when it comes to things like ventilation. They also forget there's a huge gulf between what they intend, and what actually happens at depot level when it comes to things like keeping air-conditioning working. But at the same time, I think it's overlooked sometimes that although some of the cost was driven by them being bespoke designs, they are also hybrids which carry a cost penalty anyway - some people like to compare them to a straight diesel bus for the sake of making more dramatic figures. Compared to, say, the relatively unspectacular Wrightbus hydrogen buses that Aberdeen, Birmingham and London have, the price tag wasn't that high - for a product which is much more bespoke. Maybe that didn't help - it stood out more, so was noticed more? I have to say, having driven one when they were new, they were certainly a cut above in terms of driving experience. 

They're not original engines, I'm told at least some of the ones in use by Transpora/Londoner Buses, if not all, were the ones used for the TfL heritage routes. I'm not too up on things London or things Routemaster but would assume that they'd be Dartmaster or newer conversions, probably with additional retrofit to meet more recent Euro standards. As I understand it, they have a derogation from the accessibility regulations, with noticed on the platform explaining that the buses are not wheelchair accessible. I can't remember if it's on the on-board notice or their website, but I remember reading a statement to the effect that alternative routes are available with low-floor buses. 

Yes, there's a new service operated by Londoner Buses (londonerbuses.co.uk), which is part of the Transpora Group. It will be interesting to see how it develops, considering that (as far as I can tell) it's not really a sightseeing tour, more of a bus route that passes tourist locations. I believe it was intended to launch the tour earlier in the year but the start was delayed. 

The Transpora Group (transporagroup.co.uk) also owns Coastliner Buses in Blackpool*, Altonian Coaches, and operates a Manchester sightseeing tour using open top buses, as well as having recently taken on some of the work given up by HCT Group when it's Bristol Community Transport operation closed. There are also connections to former operations including CityFox and FoxStar. 

* not to be confused with similarly named operations by Transdev in Yorkshire or similar brands used by First and Stagecoach, among others.

I decided that, since I now have windows for it, I should probably try and fit the 141 to a chassis. Which highlighted my inability to build things square, as well as the fact that the Peco roof sections make it probably a couple of millimetres too narrow. So it's going to be a proper pain to do. 

Another small parcel arrived (a new bogie), which means I have enough parts for the complete 465, though it still needs some work to build one more bogie from a collection of broken parts. The Hornby ones seem particularly prone to breaking. 

I've still not done anything about chassis for the other pair of bodies, I have one in stock but need a second. 

The extra bodies (bottom two in both images below) have one Hornby end and one very basic plasticard end each

The full coaches (top two) have all except one end using the original Hornby ends. 

I have some 3D-printed gangway connections that match the Hornby ones, which can be clipped into the existing holes. On the plain ends, I'll just file off the clips and glue them in place. 

Still need to sort out ned coupling bars for some of the bogies too.

No idea what I'll do with it when it's finished, but can't see me getting round to painting it any time soon anyway!

1 hour ago, SHMD said:

I question for one of you knowledgeable types (when you have time) :-

Why does the turning gear make things go bang, what are the circumstances, and why does it not normally happen?

 

Mucho appreciato,

 

 

Kev.

 

1 hour ago, J. S. Bach said:

And add "What is the turning gear and what is its function?" TIA

And can I add... 

How do you just 'patch up' the side of a ship like that [previous page] in the middle  of the Channel? That's a pretty big hole to put a few bungs in!

Not a lot of progress to report. I see that some of the images have reappeared, but most still seem to be missing. I did manage to just about finish the Northern lilac 156, just needs the pale blue stripes extending onto the ends, and numbers/logos adding when I get around to sourcing some. The black around the exhausts needs touching up too, and cantrail stipes adding. The paintwork's not perfect, but looks OK from a few feet away. 

While I was at it, I decided I ought to get around to fitting new steps below the light clusters on the 153 next to it. It was constructed from bits in the spares box, so they were missing to start with. Just needs a couple of tiny bits of black plasticard, and then I'll call it finished. 

I have been keeping my eye out for cheap Hornby 142 bodyshells too, as I need glazing for my 141. I spotted a few on Ebay recently, so they're on their way too. 

There's been no progress on the 323. Every time I look at it, I either manage to create another crack or find another job that needs doing, so it's come to a bit of a halt. The 466 hasn't progressed either, though I have enough parts to create a rolling 4-car unit, plus a second pair of inner coach bodyhells. Just needs motivation!  

I suspect it might have something to do with the ability to police it - or more to the point, police the people watching it. On the road sections of the journey, it's easy enough for people to line the road, and also for the cars to pick a path between them if needed (though people generally seemed to remain at a respectful distance along the kerb). On the railway, look at what has happened for thinks like Flying Scotsman in the not too distant past, crowds along the edge of platforms, trespassing on embankments and bridges... Even if the train itself ran slowly (which to a degree is impractical in itself), the people straying too close have no concept of other traffic on the railway, nor how close it's safe to be regardless of how close they can legally be. Logistically and practically - especially with modern technology telling people where and when - it's almost a non-started despite on the face of it seeming a better option. 

------------------
Andy's linked to the item I was trying to find as I was typing, which suggests it's health & safety nonsense, and although I'd like that to be the case, I don't think it is, and the reality would be an almost unmanagable mass of people at stations, or ones who couldn't fit in or get there trespassing. I'm not even sure the suggestion that we couldn't police rural stretches of lines is right - we no doubt could, but it's a question of could it be done in a sensible and practical way. As much as I'd like to say so, I'm not convinced that it would be realistically achievable. The world has moved on since Queen Victoria died. The railways are no longer the same - for better or worse - nor are the people, and nor is how we live, act and behave. 

I'm not sure it's negativity as realism. Routemasters are indeed an iconic vehicle, and they have their fans. My background is the bus industry, and although I've never driven a Routemaster I've driven contemporary vehicles, on short and long journeys. You're right that it would be different and stand out, and it's true that in it's day, it was a very good product. But it is also something that is very much of its era. Routemaster fans might not like me saying it, but the cab is loud, cramped and spartan. Of course, you know what you enjoy, and we'll all have different wants and needs, but if you're envisioning long cruises enjoying the landscape from the comfort of a nice high driving seat, I suspect the fun would quickly wear off after miles of listening to the engine at max revs as you're overtaken by everything else. 

Height-wise, any double-decker is going to leave the twin problems of potentially too much height on the outside (especially in a country which might not be used to such tall vehicles) and at the same time relatively limited height inside on each deck. As others have mentioned, finding space for plumbing is hard - look at how some people have fitted full height showers into modern double-deck coaches, half way up the rear stairs to give a deck and a half of height otherwise you're forever crouching down. With the external height, all it takes is a couple of low tree branches and that's a front window or two broken, and journey over. I've had colleagues break front windows on routes where double-deckers are common, just because heavy rain has bent a branch lower than usual, the first bus of the day comes along in the dark and ... whack!. 

Others have already mentioned too that the door arrangement would need careful thought. Unless you're buying one of the very few versions that had doors, then an open platform would be no good and would need a door adding for security, which would spoil the classic looks if nothing else. Maintenance-wise, especially so far from the UK, you'd need to be pretty self sufficient too, though I imagine you've already considered that. In terms of cost, most non-bus-fans wouldn't know a Routemaster from a Lodekka, especially so far from the UK, so buying something cheaper and potentially more suitable might be a better idea in that sense. 

I don't think the points raised are in a spirit of negativity, but sometimes it's easy to get enamoured with an idea and forget some of the practicalities. To me, no matter how much I might enjoy the look, the compromises it would entail (for modern living, anyway - different in Summer Holiday days) would mean it were always a compromise, and something more akin to glorified camping than a real motorhome, and journeys of any length would quickly become a chore. Have a look at some of the videos by Pete and his bus on YouTube, the most recent has an in-cab shot of him driving on a motorway. 

Whether the purists would approve is probably immaterial, it's your bus to do as you please, and it's not as if there's a shortage of them. You could probably argue (the purists might not like it) that there's too many of them preserved/saved anyway, or that it's better to have one saved and being used in some form than not at all. 

The 323 is neither resin nor anything to do with Bratchell. It is available via eBay and is 3d printed. The seller appears to have lost interest in producing the underframe/bogies, so for now at least it is a set of unglazed bodyshells only. I have one under construction and a second in stock, and it has required quite a bit of work so far. The main issue has been that the lower sides could really have done with being joined, as without a cross-brace or floor, they have splayed outwards and needed a lot of reshaping. The material is quite brittle, so it's not an easy task, and has meant repeated immersion in hot water, gentle bending and leaving to cool. There are also inaccuracies around saloon window height and cut-outs above the bogies on the sides which shouldn't be there. 
There were pictures on my workbench thread, I'm not sure if they've reappeared following the forum outage yet though, or whether they will.