30851

I assume the other thing that made climbing round on these tiny spaces a little easier is that these drivers would be underweight and a lot smaller than we are.

Good reason to keep on eating!

Rob

I have the new version AND the option to send feedback! They must be scanning what I said above and noted that I didn't say I hated it yet. Maybe I should say I hate it and see if the feedback option disappears.

Rob 

Rob

Seems they are testing a new interface design on a "small" number of users - https://www.wfla.com/news/national/youtube-is-testing-a-new-layout-the-internet-hates-it/

The URL of the above link says what most people who got it think of it.

I am one of the small number as well. Can't say I hate it (not used to it though) yet but I am not liking the growing number of adverts and poor choice of suggestions these days.

Rob

7 hours ago, russ p said:

 

This raises another question relevant to my layout did any of the early kk2 FKs in maroon or blue and grey work on the GE section 

According to the Michael Harris MK 2 book - appendix C. There were 5 early MK2's assigned to the London - East Anglia services (along with 180 MK1) in mid-1972. He doesn't state that they were FK's but I assume that is what they would be. Don't know when they moved over but, of course, they would be repainted by 1972.

Towards the end of the 70's he says a lot more of this stock moved over to the GE lines.

Rob

On 21/01/2024 at 15:35, PortlandStone said:

I can recollect watching the down Royal Wessex being split at Bournemouth Central.

1. Train is split in front of the Swanage portion and the Bournemouth West portion departs.

2. Loco backs onto Swanage portion, which is split from the Weymouth portion and departs.

3. Another locomotive backs into the platform line and departs with the Weymouth section.

No extra coaches were added.

 

Anyone know what happened when the train was put back together in the up direction? That would involve more shunting I presume.

Rob
 

Hands (assuming you still have them) up those who want to work like the guy in the first few seconds of this video https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0lFs4DVC2kY

Thinking back to when I was around 9 or 10 (early 70's) there certainly were deaths due to misadventure.  In my class (not just my school - in the 30 kids in my class) I can remember two kids who died. One got caught on something while swimming in a canal lock and drowned. Another died while playing chicken running in front of cars on a fast road.  The thing that strikes me now about it was there was little fuss made - just an announcement at the start of class and nothing more. If that was the norm then you are unlikely to have heard about these deaths unless you were in that class.

Rob

6 hours ago, 30851 said:

 

Seems 92023 (a Crosti) and 92050 were allocated (for a month) to Kingmoor in 1955. There were there for tests - no clue what tests though.

 

Edit to add - the RCTS book on the 9F's says 92015-7 and 92161/2 were allocated to Newton Heath in June 58 and used on fitted freights from Manchester to Carlisle via the Settle and Carlisle route.

 

Rob

On further research in the RCTS book 92023 and 92050 were on tests going north to Kilmarnock. The tests were to compare the standard 9F with a Crosti version. These were road trails after tests in the Rugby Testing Station. The test trains consisted of 600 tons of empty passenger stock - which sounds like an expensive train to model!

But there was another road trail with 92013 between Skipton and Carlisle in September/October 1954. This was a shorter train but would be unique as it consisted of a Dynamometer car and Mobile Test Units.

Crewe did send them north for testing on completion. But I don't know how far north.

Other than that it seems 9F's didn't start appearing in general use until 1958 when they started to run on the Settle and Carlisle. 

Rob

5 hours ago, LNER4479 said:

Yes, that's 92167, one of the 3 stoker fitted examples. They were initially allocated to Saltley depot (from 1958) for use on the 'famous' through fitted goods service from Washwood Heath to Carlisle via the S&C, a long standing ex-MR institution. That was always Saltley's 'top link' job, the crews lodging at Carlisle. It was Black 5s, prior to that date. I was aware of the use of 9Fs on this service but again, a late 1950s scenario.

 

Otherwise, I've been checking the intial allocation of 9Fs to the LMR, as per the lists in the Xpress Locomotive Register book (quicker than checking each one individually on BR Database). They comment - and it's quite evident from the lists - that the LMR didn't have a pressing need for such a loco (initially at least); their most immediate impact was to see off the LMS Garratts from the MR London coal train workings, with many of the initial allocations to Toton and Wellingborough. No 1950s allocations at all to any WCML depots. So, other than the above, there's little justification for one on my scheme, as I suspected (and as Terry refers to above). We do use them on the 1960s phase of Shap exhibition layout, however.

Seems 92023 (a Crosti) and 92050 were allocated (for a month) to Kingmoor in 1955. There were there for tests - no clue what tests though.

Edit to add - the RCTS book on the 9F's says 92015-7 and 92161/2 were allocated to Newton Heath in June 58 and used on fitted freights from Manchester to Carlisle via the Settle and Carlisle route.

Rob

6 hours ago, jwealleans said:

 I did say my knowledge was sketchy......

To me this sounds like a triplet not a pair of coaches. 90 people would be hard to fit in two coaches along with the Restaurant facilities.

No. 209 - Stock - TOV (Alexandra Laundry party), G. W. Articulated Restaurant Car (30 seats, Alexandra Laundry party; 60 Pioneer Spiritualist party) ; TOV (Pioneer Spiritualist party) ;  2 TKL ; 2 BTKL

Rob

59 minutes ago, Steamport Southport said:

 

I think you are about twenty years out with that one!

 

Manchester Derby about 1977 ISTR. But might have been against Liverpool, Everton or Leeds. Definitely a United fan.

 

 

Yep - i worked with him in the 90's. The dart incident itself happened around 77 long before I met him.

Rob

6 hours ago, PhilJ W said:

Back in the early 90's I worked with the guy who got the dart in his head. He said he didn't know it had happened and was wondering why everyone was staring at him - eventually his friend did tell him. Luckily he had a lot more hair at the time than the above guy in the cartoon.

He brought in all the newspaper clipping about it. Strangely enough no one had pointed out that there was a big picture of his face on the front page underneath the headline 'The ugly face of football'. He did not appreciate me bringing up that point!

He seemed to be a person beset by strange problems. I remember him coming into work a little late and a little wide eyed. On his way to work he was just coming out the newsagent when the house next door just collapsed all over his car.

Rob

The Modern Railways mag of the time has a number of articles about this topic at the time. They start with rumours and gossip and end up with what actually happened. The gossip was that in 1962 the SR was getting concerned with the losses west of Exeter so were considering refocusing their efforts into a diesel semi-fast service to serve the stations up to Exeter (not sure if single line or not). Then comes the discussion mentioned above - should the Westbury line be closed and all traffic diverted by the SR route. Then the rumours really start - if the West of England is going to the SR and the old GW lines were going to the LM is there any need for the WR at all. Could the remains be combined into the LM?

Of course that didn't happen. They kept the Westbury route - reasons, not sure Waterloo could handle the extra traffic on a weekday, too slow to reverse at Exeter, Taunton was too big a place to abandon and most existing passengers were used to going to Paddington. I am sure the WR folks were happy with that decision!

Edit - just to add. None of the articles mention anything about the SR line being closed. Modified yes - but not closed.

Rob

9 hours ago, newbryford said:

Doing the rounds..

Actually I think they would look at that and think "Cut down an entire forest and get $20?? - way too much like hard work. I wouldn't get off the couch for $20!"

Rob

18 hours ago, russ p said:

Brilliant photos David.  Was the land to the south of Nottingham Midland where the cars are parked in the picture formerly sidings? 

18 hours ago, DaveF said:

 

From memory, yes.  I'll have a look to see if I have more information - probably tomorrow.

 

David

That land was used by the up and down goods lines which avoided the station and sidings. The goods lines were taken out in 1968 during the changes in preparation of Trent Power box.

J1544 also shows some of the work in preparation for Trent. The layout has been changed and the semaphores changed to match. The biggest change seen here is the distant signals added to the gantry. These were only added in 1968 - they just look like they have always been there!

Rob

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

It may have been the ecs at Bolton St.
it was a long time ago I read the article about this working, maybe a decade, but there is an article about it. I seem to recall it was serviced in Longsight, not Bury.

 

The MP did reach Bury, theres more than enough people with knowledge of this working out there to support that.

 

but ive only ever seen the 1 picture taken in Bury Bolton st on ebay about 4 years ago, sold with copyright. I bid on it, and the bidding went quite well, it was on Platform 3, with a 504 on Platform 1. It was taken from the predecessor of what is todays “jubilee way” bridge, taken approx 10-20ft closer towards p4 than this image of another footex at Bolton street…

http://www.stuwilletts.plus.com/assets/images/1.163_Bolton_Street_Station_Mod_500.jpg

 

so someone somewhere will probably cash it in.

Sorry i cant provide 100% proof, but i’m adament it reached Bury, Ive spoken to far too many people who know it / saw it.

 

Scenes from the Past: 33 Bury to Heywood and Rawntenstall has a photo of the BP in Bolton Street station. It is on platform 3 (train 1Z65) in the evening and is signaled to go towards Castleton.

Rob

According to the John Swift version of Birmingham Central diagram  - 2 was a home signal on the other side of the tunnel. While 3 was a starter also on the other side of the tunnel. However the rest of the Swift diagram doesn't really match the above diagram so this may not be one of his best!

Rob

4 hours ago, kevinlms said:

Even if i was, I wouldn't be reading it outside of working hours!

Even if I am a employee in working hours I still wouldn't read all the emails I get - there is just far too many of them!

Rob

Well I will try to redirect it back to Clans!

A number of posts imply that the Clans were supposed to be built in small numbers - mainly for the highland line. Is that true? I haven't seen anything written that they were that restricted - they seem to be another type to be built and used all over the system. As far as I can see they were intended to be a replacement for Jubilees (and equivalents) across the system.

It does seem that the first batch was intended for the highland lines but didn't make it there. The reason given by the RCTS book is that they didn't have the automatic token exchange equipment and it was decided it wasn't worth the cost fitting them when there were new black fives to do that work. So they got moved to work alongside Jubilees.

Also according to the RCTS book the following extra Clans were planned.

1954 0 SR 5, ScR 10

1956 NER 20

1959 ScR 17, NER 15

1960 Scr 16 NER 25.

The 1959/1960 ones were put on the plan after the Modernisation Plan was announced! Obviously got cancelled soon after.

Wonder what the NER were to be called?

Rob

25 minutes ago, keefer said:

Would they have been so expensive though, given they were composed of 'Standard'  (particularly 'Britannia') parts?

As mentioned in previous posts, there was a perceived need/demand for a Class 6 loco with lighter axle-load (i.e. a smaller Brit) for the Highlands area of the ScR.

There was no need for hundreds of said loco, from the start - so if that is what was required to make it worthwhile, it wouldn't have happened in the first place.

As mentioned, the real waste was after construction - locations that didn't need them got them and those that did need them, didn't get them! Hence, by all accounts, the Clans were often used vice Britannias, with the resulting 'poor' reputation.

So, let me rephrase the question - how many Clans and Brits did they think they were going to build? Or to be more general - how many standards were they thinking about? I assume they meant to build them in large numbers (for example there was no 74xxx class so does that imply more than a thousand 73xxx?). It doesn't make sense to me that they would do all that design work if they expected to build a small number of engines - might as well just build a few more of already existing classes. Just building a few engines with a different set of component parts is just going to complicate things even more - especially in an already heavily standardized area like the Western.

I don't think I have seen how many they planned to build per year and for how many years. Of course, steel/money shortages and diesels ruined whatever plans they had.

Rob

On 23/08/2023 at 11:01, spamcan61 said:

To quote E.S.Cox (who would've known) from his very interesting book on the development of the Standards*, with regard to the rationale behind the Clans:-

 

"(2) The proposed smaller "Pacific" in the 18-ton axle load Class 5 range became the subject of particular heart searching because it was a border line case. On the one hand, truly Class 5 duties were already carried out with great competence by the numerous 4-6-o mixed traffic locomotives already existing, having total weights some 11 tons less than that of the proposed 4-6-2. At this point Bond took an active hand in the deliberations, pointing out that the lower combustion rates which would result from the larger grate at the average rate of working on such duties would give savings almost exactly equated by the capital charges on the increased cost of the Pacific over the 4-6-0, whilst the higher standby losses and the maintenance cost of the trailing truck would remain as debits. On the other hand, if the main idea behind the new engine was some increase in potential capacity beyond that of the existing 4-6-os, as indeed it was, then it would be more appropriate to develop it as a Class 6 from the first. The performance of the S.R. West Country of this power category in the recent trials had been very impressive, and although its design was not acceptable due to its poor efficiency and mechanical complexities, it was clear that there was scope for an 18.5 ton axle load locomotive of this kind"

 

*British Railways Standard Steam Locomotives: pub. Ian Allan, 1966

How Clans were they thinking of building when this decision was being made ? I assume they must have been thinking in the hundreds to justify the costs of developing another 'standard' class. Obviously 35 wasn't what they were thinking - they wouldn't have considered it worth it. I suppose, based on the numbering scheme, it was at most a thousand.

Rob

Shouldn't the Atlantic Coast Express count as well? You don't just get one pacific with that train.

Rob

54 minutes ago, 96701 said:

I hadn't been to Cranmore in that period, this is what is baffling me. 

13 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Apologies - I hadn't read http://www.cs.rhrp.org.uk/se/CarriageInfo.asp?Ref=952 fully and overlooked the words "at Eastleigh until 1973 then to Cranmore." ...................... must admit I didn't recognise the buildings as Cranmore - an' I was there in June ! ☹️

Did you go to Eastleigh in 1973 as 92203 and 75029 were there between their stay at Longmoor and going to Cranmore.

Rob

48 minutes ago, 96701 said:

Also, thinking about it, the Leeds and Wortley is only 2 track. The sign on the bridge is Ribble Cement.

Is it the approach to Manchester Victoria (or maybe Exchange depending on the date) on the LNW lines with Threlfall brewery in the background? 

Edit - as two of the tracks seem out of use then Exchange has probably closed by this time.

Rob

On 29/06/2023 at 02:48, Compound2632 said:

 

Why do computer scientists have trouble distinguishing Halloween and Christmas Day?

 

Because 31 OCT = 25 DEC.

On 29/06/2023 at 03:15, Reorte said:

I think that one qualifies for the nerdiest joke I know!

 

The second-most one is:

 

"There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Those who understand binary and those who don't."

You can get a lot more nerdier with this joke! It works because OCTober means Eighth month and DECemeber means Tenth month which leads to lots (and lots) of nerdy stuff about the changes in the calendar with March once being the first month of the year.

Just be glad for this thread that Caesar Augustus wanted a month named after him so there is no month called Sexember!

Rob

I think I read that they did consider bi-mode when designing the hasting units but the benefits were out-weighed by the extra costs so they didn't do it.

As for West of Salisbury I also think that the cancelled 3rd stage of the Kent Coast electrification was supposed to have released units from the Hastings and Oxted (and possibly others) lines for transfer to the west.

Rob