JDW

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.

Excellent, great to see someone doing something a bit different with DMUs. I look forward to seeing the 158 finished. I hope you won't mind me pointing it out, but since you've gone to the trouble of doing the rest of the work: on the RRNW/First North Western 156, the yellow should cover the front lip of the roof too, unlike the Sprinter livery where there's a black strip at roof level on the front end. It's only a small change but makes quite a difference.

Looks good. I might be interested in a pair, if you are still able to produce extra prints, could you message me and let me know the cost. Thanks.

Very smart, I like it. But what's with the fad for painting the bottom fairings of HSTs and 91s/DVTs in a dark colour? The Virgin/LNER 91 that acquired a white one looked much sleeker than hiding it with black. The same here, the original white one on the Intercity livery was much nicer and showed off the shape better.

Intercity would be interesting to see!

Having built both a 141 and a 144 centre car, I vote for neither!

It would make sense - if not for that, then for loco release from a train on the platform road, without opening the crossing gates, if such a move would be allowed.

Just catching up on this thread (some great images!) and noticed the track layout here. There's a crossover between the two through lines (single slip on the one coming towards the camera) but that crossover extends across to the platform at the end of the loop and then back out onto the same line. Obviously there must be a reason, and probably something obvious, but I'm struggling to figure it out. Does anyone know why? What precluded the use of just a standard crossover? I can't see any advantage of crossing to the platform road instead.

Have we had this one on here yet? It's from quite a few years back but I don't remember seeing it:

As far as I remember there are no specific regulations just for school bus maintenance. The most common thing is that a school (or education authority, etc) will have a set of specific requirements, which could include things like what safety systems (ABS and so on) the coach must have, along with requirements for seatbelts, PSVAR (accessibility regulations), etc. But in terms of vehicle maintenance, all PSVs must be maintained to the same standard. All of ours went out on any job. All PSVs are subject to regular interval inspections, every 28 days is probably the most common for buses and coaches that are in normal service (though that can be varied, for example for vehicles which see limited use), and that inspection would be broadly similar to what's being looked at for an MOT in terms of making sure everything is safe and functioning correctly.

A 'bit' is an understatement, I reckin I need to take a good 3mm off each one. And so far the only way I can see to do it evenly and safely is by rubbing them against a file laid on the desk. The first one came out about 1mm wider than a Hornby class 156 bogie across the airbags, but looks right sat under the bodyshell. I'm not sure what I'll do about couplings yet. I seem to remember the 323 has quite deep gangway bellows that cover the coupling too. If that's the case, I have some extras that I bought from Ebay, 3d-printed ones, for the class 465 project, which would suit but leave little room for a coupling bar underneath. The easy option of bogie-mounted couplings will mean quite long coupling bars.

No pictures just yet but a little more progress on the 323s thanks to the arrival from Southern Pride of some sets of bogie frames and some sideframes from the same seller as the 323. They're not quite right for a 323 I don't think, I need to have a closer look, but are close enough - and of course its a unit, not a loco, so how many people will spot the difference anyway! I've sliced the end of the Southern Pride frames, then had to thin down the cosmetic sideframes a lot (a couple of mm) before drilling holes to accommodate the bearing pockets on the SP frames. I've trialled one so far, and it seems OK and looks right enough. Hopefully good weather will allow me to do some more painting on the 156s too.

Yes, I know what the point of a restriction is. But it wouldn't really make it more usable for larger vehicles at all, it'd make it more usable for vehicles up to 7'. The kerbs would still be the same width apart, and the posts would still prevent any significantly wider vehicles passing, but allow a few inches of extra of leeway for driver error to prevent scraped wheel-arches. Anything wider than a van still wouldn't fit, as (for example) HGVs have a much wider track so still wouldn't fite between the kerbs - and even if they mounted the kerb, the extra couple of inches between the posts still wouldn't be enough to allow them through, as anything bigger than a van is generally significantly wider. Angling the posts outwards so they tops are 6 inches further out would do the same, and probably have an even better psychological effect as it would emphasise the narrow base, and still mean nothing wider than a van could get through, but allow enough leeway that those who are just under 7' at body height can do so without unneccesary damage or hindrance. I don't think people should be scraping it anyway, whether its because they're chancing it trying to squeeze through or just can't judge their car's width, but the design could still achieve the aim without causing unneccessary damage. Punishment by damage isn't the aim - though some might disagree!

Not yet. I hoped he might get around to producing them but no sign as yet. To be fair, nor have I asked, as I'd not made any progress on it. I'll probably at least try and get it on bogies and painted, and then worry about how to sort the windows (frames and glazing) and underframe equipment. I'll probably go for dark-ish glazing material to hide the lack of interior, though I will probably make up a few basic internal partitions between cab and saloon, and around the doors.

It's a bad set up for sure - the bollards themselves could be set a few inches back, or if making sure it's absolutely no wider than 7' at the base they could be angled outwards away from bodywork and still have the same effect. It should have been easy to predict that they would cause damage. BUT I still don't think any of the accidents are the fault of the road. I have sympathy for those who misjudge it. None of us is perfect. And yes, the design could be better. Yes, a better design might have prevented some of the accidents and certainly many of the minor scrapes. But each and every one of those drivers made the choice to drive through, not the council. Unless there's a blinding low sun directly ahead (definitely not the case in the above!), the obstruction is visible, it's signed, and they chose to pass through. The option was there at all times to stop, to turn around, and for those who touched it and tried to continue, the option to stop was still there. They chose to drive on, into a section of road which is presumably well-known by many who pass through it as narrow and posing a risk. The design might be poor, and better design would prevent accidents, but there's generally no excuse for driving into a stationary object you know is there.

Another quick shot of the lilac 156... The shade looks much better than the first attempt wgich was too pink. I think Hornby's version on the white unit is much too purple, I might consider re-doing that stripe in the same shade.

Not a lot has happened recently, but there has been a bit of progress on a few projects, including the 465s, for which the four centre car bodies are pretty much complete after a few rounds of filler and primer, as are two of the chassis. I've ordered some Southern Pride bogie frames, enough for the 465s and 323s, and will source suitable sideframes for each. I was planning to use the 3d printed replacement bogie frames available on Ebay for the Hornby 466 but without a supply of the wheels or centre metal insert, they're no good. Fine for replacing damaged frames on existing models but no good to me. The shells for the first 323 are almost complete but after another round of heating and straightening, more cracks so will have to sort that next. For anyone building one, I strongly recommend supergluing a strip of plastic inside along the full length below the windows. (with apologies for the low quality phone snap) A pair of cheap 156 shells has also been stripped and undercoated, ready for a coat of plain unbranded FirstGroup blue with white doors. The Northern lilac one has seen some progress with a more accurate shade of lilac but the finish from the aerosol wasn't great. I'll see how it is once it's dry.

I thought the cut out problem was when the crossover was set for going from one loop to the other ('power one rail with both controllers') not causing a short when the points were set to 'normal'. If one controller were trying to make a train go one way, and the other trying to make it go the other...

Looking good. Great solution to the adverse camber problem. Just one question regarding the controllers tripping out if the track is fed from both - and with apologies if it's obvious - but they are both the same way around aren't they? As in if the inner rail on one circuit is positive and the outer rail negative, the other circuit is the same?

I had the same problem, and eventually discovered that one or more of the gears were split. It's not always obvious, I had to dismatle the bogie and remove each gear to see it, and both my original sets have suffered from it. As far as I know, replacement gears are not available, so it's a case of a replacement bogie, which are not cheap. If it's just one bogie and your layout is flat, you might be able to get away with removing the drive shaft and worm/gears on that end.

I'm not sure if my Like on the last post is for the snowplough or the slippers

I'm not sure I'd class that as a "real problem", either they'll notice the other move, stop and change the points, or the train will go round onto the other track and they'll stop or carry on. WIth the points set like that they won't get more than a lap anyway. I'm not sure I'd count it as a problem in the grand scheme of things, a very minor 'oops try again' at worst.

Without wanting to confuse the issus, I have to admit I was reading through all the electrical talk over the last few pages, and I'm glad someone else asked the question about isolating rail joiners. For many years my "train set" when I was young had two tracks with crossovers, and I never had a problem with not using isolating rail joiners. I simply set one controller to off, switched the points and drove a train from one side to the other. No damage was ever caused to either controller, nor to the trains, and it was much more user-friendly than driving a bit on to the other circuit, stopping, changing controller, changing the points... I quickly figured out that by setting both controllers to a similar speed, I could quickly switch the points back to straight and the train would just carry on around the other circuit. I'm not saying that the approach above is a bad one, and I can't comment on the actual risk of getting a shock from an unplugged controller's plug (easy to solve, always plug in both), but I wonder if we're trying to over-complicate things. In real terms, I'd go as far as saying that trying to fit isolating joiners adds more problems than it solves.

One at which you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear. Yes, there will always be unexpected events. That doesn't excuse not being prepared for the predictable ones though. Regarding the follow-up points, the fact that the sign was close to the van is irrelevant. If there had been no sign, it would be equally irrelevant. Yes, it's nice to have a sign so you can plan ahead, and it would have been more useful by the sounds of it to have placed it with more thought - I can certainly see why a badly-placed sign would be frustrating - but the absence of any prior warning does not mean the absence of danger. The fact that it was a badly placed warning sign is ironic, but doesn't change the fact that it was an obstruction. If you replaced all of the word 'cycle' with 'car' or 'driver', there's be uproar at a car driver having to swerve because he couldn't stop in time. As much as I agree with the need to respect the more vulnerable road users, I do think they also need to be held to account for their actions more frequently, especially cyclists. I've ridden a bike, I know what it's like. I know it can be scary. But at the same time, people need to take some personal responsibilty for their own actions, and we need to crack down on things like doding through traffic, sneaking up the inside of large vehicles when they're signalling to turn, etc. As an experienced driver of large vehicles, I can't believe how often a cyclist would try and pass while I was signalling to turn - and I think the London idea that large vehicles need illuminated warning signs to warn cyclists not to pass is utterly crazy. They already have them. Indicators. If a cyclist can't see them, doesn't understand them or chooses not to act on them - and every bus has at least two visible from the rear - then what's the point adding in more?