olivegreen

Well, Bruce, as the good Book says '…and some fell on stony ground' !

I agree with this - the down side being that Evergreen is rather expensive, here in France, at least.

Accepting that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, I do find that this thread has turned into yet another 'I can run Hornby better than Hornby management can' tirade, with astonishing naïvety being shown by some regarding how business (in general) operates. I think LBRJ's post 41 (qv) is worthy of a prize for star comment of the week!

You could always try not opening the tins before using them as weights.

Not necessarily, JeffP - remember we have to pay motorway tolls here and it is astonishing the number of drivers of all ages I meet who choose not to do so. Beyond that, first, in my view, few drivers will obey the 80 limit, at first at least and that, despite the speed cameras, which currently are far fewer than in the UK and many other countries - in other words, given the size of France, it will not be very thoroughly policed; second, I am pretty convinced that the increased accident rate (if not death rate - but I don't have the official figures to hand) in France, and possibly elsewhere, is contributed to by the use by drivers of mobile phones and also those interactive screens that all new cars seem to be fitted with and which distract attention for far too long. Third, the French government is convinced (it says) that 80 kph will reduce deaths - it might, some countries have had such a limit for years - but government conviction is based on experimental areas where the 80 limit has been in operation for some time: the statistics are skewed, of course, by the fact that those experimental areas are well known and signalled, so whether or not there are/were speed cameras on them, the drivers in general would be alerted to those 'special' zones, whereas for a generalised limit throughout the country, the same would not apply. I do hope the 80 limit works, but I hae me doots: France is not the Netherlands (to name but one country with the 80 limit). None of which has the least impact upon the level crossing case in question, of course!

Be careful when catching your Indian: I'm sure Jonathon's constitution is stronger than mine but even so, posting close-ups is a bit risqué, is it not? (And yes, of course I know what you mean. Excess of whimsy - I have just returned from a rather good lunch (not Indian, sadly))

The British are not unique in creating such situations. If you do not already know about it (and I'm sure most here do know - it may have been mentioned in these pages, too), it is worth reading about the Dutch Fyra eperience. One source is: https://dutchreview.com/news/fyra-the-dutch-high-speed-rail-debacle/ It is an almost textbook 'state monopoly + lowest price bidder + inexperienced manufacturer + dodgy international contracts … etc etc' way not to do it. (And that's leaving aside the odd choice of a Swedish name for something intended to serve the Netherlands and Belgium!)

I agree with everything you say there, Mike. I know we are getting off-topic here but the point I was making is simply that the signs and rules exist - however inadequate they might be as seen through British eyes (as an aside, an American friend once described the quality of French signage as "marginally below 'sucks'"!) - and that the law requires drivers to obey them. If the latter do not, they are at fault - it is as simple as that. Look, for example, how much emphasis is placed on the 'give way to the right' rule: woe betide you if a car piles into your right-hand side and you try to claim it was the other driver's fault. It cannot be argued that one set of rules should be applied rigorously and another not. But then, this is France and life is not like that, as we well know! I'm certainly not saying that more, clear signs would be a waste of money but as you suggest (in red), would that actually change anything? I hope the press does not let this story drop, as it has enormous human and road safety interest. Mike S.

Accepting that I generalise a bit, have you ever seen the way French drivers act on the (admittedly rare) box junctions in France? It's a complete waste of paint, whatever the Code de la route might say! Going back to Mike Storey's post 18 above, French level crossings like the one in question, though from those photos that one is evidently less visible at the crossing itself than the British one, will usually have warning signs, and often countdown markers on all the roads leading to it. A driver who does not heed them … well, I will not repeat the case I made earlier. Mike. (edited forr speelingues)

I wonder how it was transported to the final installation site. (OK, I know it would have been dismantled and rebuilt, but I can fantasise about a llllloooonnnnnggggg low-loader, can't I?)

You could try Roxey Mouldings, who do a scissors gangway. I'm sure there are other possibilities, too.

I think you are a bit behind the curve on this, Paul: it has been clear for some time that the bus has traces of the barrier's paint on its front end - and vice versa. SNCF have confirmed that the crossing was working correctly. There is no confusion whatsoever, except in the minds of journalists… Again, I emphasise that what I say is simply repeating what information is in the public domain - it is for the legal enquiry to determine the facts. As for the story about the crossing having a fault, as you say it is probably local hearsay and to be taken with an extremely large pinch of salt unless and until proven otherwise. Again, I apologise to all for being more forthright on this affair than is my usual temperament, but from the evidence so far available I really do feel that the bus driver, a PSV (equivalent) qualified person conveying children and who had the express or tacit approval and confidence of everyone from the transport ministry downwards through the children's parents to the children themselves, is wholly to blame for this accident, and that those protecting her are fooling themselves regarding her responsibility in the matter. But again, I repeat that that is a personal view and it is for the official enquiry to decide on the matter. Mike

Your point is taken, Nimbus, but in the incident referred to in this thread there were barriers (lowered) and lights, which the coach driver appears to have driven through, but the facts are, of course, for the enquiry to determine. The French press is full of train-crashing-into-road-vehicle incidents on level crossings, and I suppose it is little different elsewhere, since it makes sensational news. That said, in the vast majority of cases it is unquestionably the road vehicle driver that is at fault. For me, that hardly justifies the closure of a line, branch or otherwise, but we live in excessively (IMHO) risk-averse times…. French traffic law is the same as in UK in that a red light means stop. Whether the crossing is protected by barriers or not, a red light means stop. I may be very heartless here but if a driver does not respect the red light at a level crossing, he/she has only him/herself to blame for the injuries and deaths that may as a result be caused and, as is too often forgotten, for the trauma caused to the train driver, regardless of other consequences.

Agree. From the information available to the general public (and I do emphasise that point) it has been pretty clear from the beginning that the bus driver was at fault…unless you believe the stuff put out by her defence lawyer(s). The real question is why did an apparently experienced PSV (equivalent) driver do it? I have a distinct feeling that a portable telephone will enter the debate very soon...

True. I use Barkeeper's Friend sparingly. I know it contains a soapy substance, too, but with good rinsing it has never caused me a problem.

Agree on the timing, which is entirely justifiable IMHO but I see it more as a gimmick for collectors than anything else - or perhaps as a toy? (Edited to add that its announcement is apparently timed with the London toy fair, rather than, for example, Warley, which is a model railway event. (My italics in both cases).

Agree - the reference to the double loading doors is bizarre. As far as I understand from the standard references, the double loading doors were present on both sides of all of these vehicles, serving a cross-passageway between the kitchen and the pantry. I think what the press release is actually referring to is the passenger doors either side of the saloon end of the coach, which were not present on the original four. Having them on the model gives greater flexibility in variants to be modelled later. …unless I am mistaken!

Thanks for that information, to which I'd add just a slightly off-topic note to anyone wishing to model such a cross-country set: the brake vehicles (compos and thirds, later seconds, of course) in those sets were originally built with British Standard (CA) gangways on the brake ends (and some on both ends), rather than SR/Pullman-type gangways, for ease of connection to LMS and GW stock. (Mike King's book page 69 refers). Whether they retained them in the late fifties is another question. The first/third compartment balance in the composites was also different. My point being that such a set with the restaurant car and CA gangways would certainly make an unusual and interesting model. (Apologies for sounding like a top tip from Viz!) Now, in the late fifties were these carriages in green or blood and custard? Back to you! Edited to add that the coaches concerned were the high window type and the brake thirds(seconds) were the 4-compartment type.

WHAT? The Men in Malachite detect such heresies. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Agree. My wobbly bits are wobbling with excitement, not only at the prospect of a LN to modern RTR standards but also at that of the artistry you will bring to it, Rob!

Apologies for the pedantry but Phil is right and you are partly right but a little confused, perhaps. See the second paragraph on page 96 of Mike King's Illustrated History of Southern Coaches, which explains all! Edit: while typing this lots of other replies arrived! My statement remains valid, though.

Evidently, though Heaven knows why. I think they're rather good, Rob: don't give up!

Typical of Scalefour/P4 (or whatever one is supposed to call it these days).

I received my copy last week and have read it from cover to cover. A splendid book, evidently very thoroughly researched and a good summary of salient points taken from a vast range of official sources with little anecdotes added here and there, which add much interest. There is much in the text that is highly technical, which is good to see, and though informative, descriptions of how the electrical and power systems in general work require a degree of knowledge of power engineering to understand them fully (anyone who has read the previous Southern Way book on the SR booster locomotives will probably have experienced this). A splendid collection of photographs, too… though as a 'green era' modeller, I would have liked more of the early days of the HA class: well, I would say that, wouldn't I? Perhaps they simply do not exist. As others have said, it is a book that all interested should add to their collection - and at such a reasonable price, too. Well done, and thank you to both authors. Mike

I would suggest that a good quality LN would sell like hot cakes, even at that price. Not, of course, that I am inviting any of the potential manufacturers to set their selling prices at that level, but I am at least realistic with regard to increasing prices. Edited to add that it is educational to look at continental prices for comparable HO models - and I know that comment has been made many times before - British prices are not so shocking in comparison…yet. As to the comment regarding those who would say that RTR should be compared with the cost of kit-built or scratch-built equivalents, for kits, perhaps (but let us not forget that many of the kits we not-so-long-ago revered are nowhere near the standard of today's better RTR productions), but any comparison with scratch-built simply is not credible. Materials for the latter may well be cheaper but it is nigh on impossible to put a value on the skill and time involved in scratch building to any reasonable standard. Since this is the rebuilt MN thread, I'd just say that I (and I'd bet many others) wouldn't dream of trying to scratch-build one: why re-invent the wheel? Hence many without either the time, the skill or the investment needed in research - or, indeed, the desire to go to that extreme in modelling - would accept this logic and pay the price to buy RTR. Each to his own, as they say. On the other hand, what I do try to scratch-build, though, are wagons (in particular) which are unlikely ever to be manufactured by the major producers, regardless of price - recently, for instance, a SR refrigerator van, L&BR bogie covered van, LSWR CCTs…oddities like that. I hesitate to show them here, because I am very aware that my skills are lamentably limited, but the challenge pleases me! Mike