johnlambert

Off topic, but you've answered a question that's been bugging me for years. About 40 years ago, when I was around 7, my family visited some relatives in Harrogate. I remember, one day my dad and uncle took me to see a steam train that was passing through Harrogate (I can't remember what it was, but it might have been a LMS Pacific). However, we also caught a train for a day out. That was a DMU of some sort (1st gen slam-door as I recall), which departed from a different station that I recalled as having a level crossing at one end. Looking at the map view, I think it must have been Starbeck. Although I have no idea where we went...

The A46 as it bypasses Alcester is a wide, single carriageway road, with two marked lanes but easily enough space for three lanes of traffic. It works quite well when used sensibly but is trouble when you either get people who both think they're entitled to use the "middle lane" or people who miss overtaking cars when pulling out of side roads.

At least she wasn't complaining about the view from the train window. I did once have a moment of brain failure with an automated ticket machine at Coventry station. This was about 23 years ago, if not a bit more. The machine started by asking if you wanted a single or return, then asked for your destination. Because I was thinking (or not) that I wanted to return to Coventry after my trip, I couldn't understand why the machine wouldn't accept this as an option. Eventually I twigged that I needed to choose where I was going (probably either London or Birmingham). So, it's not a new problem or limited to old people. I guess it means that business analysts can have endless fun (I use the term loosely) calculating whether the revenue from impulse purchases will outweigh the money lost through shoplifting. As for ticket machines and offices, I'm quite pragmatic. If there's a queue at the machine, I'll use the window if it's staffed. If there's a queue at the window and not at the machine I'll use that. I do the same in supermarkets with the checkouts (and I think there's a place in hell reserved for those who clog up the self-checkout area with their trolley). I had a minor moment of confusion at Gravesend station last Saturday. I was travelling to London, the ticket office was closed. I had no problem selecting the ticket I needed, but I was slightly thrown by the fact that the thing that I thought was the debit card reader wasn't in fact that card reader. I figured it out eventually.

I'm under 60 and reasonably proficient at double declutching, but I probably spend more time driving 60+ year old cars than the average person. No, I was on the Bluebell Railway about four weeks ago and the LSWR Lavatory Brake 3rd had inside opening (but latching) doors. That said, the internal door release looked like ones seen on slam-door DMU and EMU stock, but I remember commenting to my mum (who was travelling with me) that the design of the catches made it very difficult to accidentally open the door. We also travelled in one of the LCDR four-wheel (or, possibly, six-wheel) carriages, where there was no internal door catch. I think my mum (who could remember steam trains from her childhood, and visiting the Bluebell Railway when I was a child, but who uses heritage railways less often than I do), struggled more with the old-fashioned droplights. So it's probably as much a matter of how often you have to use these things as any innate lack of common sense.

Both vehicles were on the M25. Despite the motorway's reputation, speeds were well above 30mph. I definitely think some people forget that they can turn on the lights themselves. I've made that mistake in vehicles where the dashboard is always illuminated. But leaving an area with street lights would usually jog my memory.

On Friday I took a long-distance journey after dark, the first I've done for several months. Most of the driving didn't warrant comment, but one Range Rover Evoque stood out (or didn't) because they were completely unlit from behind. As I passed them, I noticed that they were running on their daytime running lights. I was impressed at how bright these seemed. On a lit motorway they probably didn't need headlamps. However, I don't know what they must have thought once onto unlit sections. I did flash them quickly with my main beams before I passed them, to see if that would wake them up, but it didn't have any impact. Later on I passed a 1959 (or close to that) Chevrolet Impala. That had tail lamps but appeared to be running only on sidelights (something dim and low at bumper level). I don't know if that was an electrical failure or the driver had forgotten to pull the switch. I'm amazed that people will go out in cars that don't have headlamps (unless they failed whilst driving, but surely you'd call for help rather than press on?).

Number 3 cylinder, by any chance? That was the usual problem one on VWs.

We also have way better fuel and lubrication, not to mention engine management that's way better than anything that could have been imagined in the 1940s.

Yes, I agree that the figures seemed implausible to me, but they all came from the same source of a reprint of a motor show catalogue. Therefore, I regard them as being measured to the same standard. That's probably a steady 30 or 40mph under ideal conditions, not really realistic driving conditions.

@alastairq I suppose it depends upon the requirements of the design as to whether or not there is anything wrong with sidevalve engines. Just for fun I found the specs for various small, four-cylinder engines from the 1950s; the 803cc A-series, the 1172 Ford sidevalve, the 803cc Standard 8 and the 1192cc Volkswagen. The most interesting comparison is the Ford and VW, one a sidevalve, long-stroke and one an overhead valve, short stroke. One develops 30bhp at 4,000rpm and 46lb.ft at 2,400rpm on a 6.2:1 compression; the other develops 30bhp at 3,700rpm and 56lb.ft at 2,000rpm on a 6.0:1 compression. Oddly, given what conventional wisdom might have you believe, it's the VW that is the low-revving slogger. However, a crucial difference is unearthed when you look at the maximum recommended cruising speed for a Ford Popular vs the Volkswagen De Luxe saloon; the Ford is recommended to cruise at 45mph (just over 2/3 of its 60mph maximum) where the VW is claimed to be able to cruise at its 68mph maximum speed. Nor did the buyer of the German car lose out at the petrol pumps, fuel consumption being quoted as 38mpg for the Beetle, compared with 35 for the Anglia. I've attached the data below (I hope it comes out OK). 1950s car specs.xlsx

Last year I had a brief drive in an Austin 1300GT. I've always admired the ADO16 but this was my first taste of the car. I was amazed how good, competent and modern it felt. Although the 1100/1300 range had plenty of faults, I can't help thinking that it was probably the best car to come out of BMC/BL and the corporation's failure to produce a worthy successor (although I'm sure the Allegro isn't as terrible as it's often portrayed) is a sad commentary on what happened to Britain's largest home-grown car manufacturer. Further back in time, I have driven a MG Midget with the same 1275cc engine. By every measurable standard I think the 1300GT is absolutely the better car. However, for some reason, it isn't always possible to be strictly objective about these things. How do you quantify the joy of the wind in your hair (if you enjoy it)? What metric is appropriate to preferring a car that wraps itself around you, instead of leaving you to rattle around like a marble in a sweet tin? Sometimes, for reasons that only other car people will get, better isn't actually better. I guess that's why we love old cars.

Yes, I've got two Castles (not to be confused with fork 'andles). I am very happy with their performance. If Farish did a stand alone one in post-war GWR livery, or some more British Railways liveries, my fleet would definitely increase.

One of the things I appreciate about my current car (2007 Ford Fiesta) is the three-dial heating and ventilation control system (no AC, sadly). I tend to keep the direction always on the demist setting with the fan blowing gently. It is easy to adjust either the fan speed or the temperature without looking. I would prefer if the grip on the dials was a slightly different shape, but their action (the fan in steps, the heat in a smooth rotation) and the fan volume makes it easy to tell if you turn the wrong one. The only justification I can imagine for touch-screen HVAC controls would be if it is something that you can set and forget. Sometimes it feels like people who design dashboards and controls are more concerned with appearance, symmetry and aesthetics; rather than function. In my view, instruments should be analogue with white (or yellow) on black calibrations. Speedometers should be marked in 10mph increments. Tachometers should be marked in integers. Minor gauges should be oriented so that the optimum/all OK position is vertical. In right-hand drive cars with a centre gear-change, or transmission control, the lights and indicators should be on the right-hand side. Switches for minor functions should be identifiable by touch, obviating the need to look for the desired control.

On the subject of changing gears. Yesterday I had the pleasure of driving three old cars. The oldest was designed in the 1930s, launched in 1945 and the particular example I drove dated from 1952. In the middle was a car launched in 1957 and built in 1960. The youngest of the trio dated from 1968 as a development of a basic design that was introduced in 1953. By design, none of them had synchromesh on first gear and not much second gear synchro left either. Changing up was a matter of taking your time and feeling when the next gear was ready to engage, going down was a pleasant opportunity to polish the double declutching skills that modern cars allow us to neglect. Would I want a car with a "crash" gearbox as my daily transport? I'm not sure, but I love the idea of a car with the benefits of modern brakes, tyres, engine management, heating and ventilation; yet furnished with such old-fashioned features as a close-ratio, un-synchronised gearbox, fly-off handbrake, maybe even a convertible top that allows for the fitting of a centre-zipped tonneu cover and fold-flat windscreen. Does the ability to use an un-synchronised manual gearbox make me a better driver? I very much doubt it. For me, good road driving is about observation and consideration as much as any particular technique of car control. As for automatic transmissions, I feel they are done a disservice by the name as it sets an expectation that they cannot match. They cannot (as recently stated) anticipate, only react. Where some fail is that they don't necessarily make it easy to inhibit changes when they are unwanted. When I am driving a car with automatic transmission, I am happy to use whatever means are available to prevent it changing gear when I do not want it to. But my experience of current automatics is that switching between automatic and manual control is not as intuitive as it should be. The last automatic I drove was a Triumph Stag, with an ancient three-speed auto (probably the evergreen Borg Warner Type 35), which was perfectly adequate although I didn't fancy using the stiff lever to try and hold lower gears. Earlier in the year I drove a Jaguar XJ (X300 type) with the 3.2-litre straight six and four-speed automatic. With a sensitive ear and right foot (and prior experience of the type), I never once encountered an automatic shift that I didn't want, despite leaving the thing in drive on a test route that took in a reasonable variety of roads. But I do remember some of my early experience of two-pedal cars, where things like kick-down could be somewhat disconcerting if you weren't used to it.

"It's only a model" Also, "Let's not go there, t'is a silly place" All models will involve some sort of compromise somewhere. There is, of course, a broad spectrum to "tweaks". If you claim to be accurately modelling the Liverpool and Manchester railway in the 1800s, the presence of a Pendolino probably isn't justified on the grounds of entertainment. But it probably does make sense to run more trains, plus a greater variety of locos and stock than might have been seen in real life (as long as it is broadly appropriate).