ejstubbs

Indeed, I thought I made that clear in the reference to "digging large trenches down 200-plus-year-old streets and being surprised at finding unexpected stuff down there". I said the issues with GWML electrification echoed the Edinburgh trams in that sense - meaning that stuff that couldn't be surveyed or otherwise accurately costed at the outset was not properly accounted for in the project plan (budget & schedule) as tendered.

Interesting. This could explain the disconnected feeling I experienced the one time I tried it on my bike. Do you have a reference/link for that study? P.S. What is "that bone gadget"?

Distraction factor I can agree with. I have only once tried riding with music coming through headphones. It was enjoyable in its own way, but I did feel quite noticeably distanced from the normal riding experience. For that reason I've never felt inclined to do it since. I would 100% agree with your earlier point about wearing headphones while riding a pushbike being a seriously bad idea. (And FWIW: I enjoy riding my pedal cycle just as much as my motorcycle. I wouldn't want anyone to form the false impression that I'm an unreformed petrol head.)

I'm sure that a person with his level of intelligence would be able to find plenty of other ingenious ways to remove himself from the gene pool. Hopefully without inconveniencing anyone else.

I would point out that motorcyclists (including me) often wear earplugs due to the risk of hearing loss from noise. The major risk is actually from wind noise around the helmet, with road and engine noise significantly less of a worry as speed increases. Given that these noise risks exist, it should be possible to understand that hearing is not actually a very useful sense on a motorcycle. Most motorcycles have mirrors, and the test regime has emphasised both use of mirrors and life-savers for decades (at least since I passed my test in 1990-something). There's plenty of reference material about this on the web. Here is a starter for ten.

Just had a read of that this morning. The article doesn't make the timeline particularly clear, but I did notice this quote from the ORR: “costs of redesigning features and retrospective modifications due to the lack of rigour in the duty-holder’s original design should not be used to inform any cost-benefit analysis”. That seems a bit rich if the designs had been signed off before the new standard came in to force. To characterise not designing something to comply with an unratified standard as "lack of rigour" is taking the mick more than somewhat IMHO. Some of the decisions by the ORR and/or the other regulatory bodies - particularly the failure to allow a derogation for EGIP under the advanced projects criterion - seem to have been perverse, or perhaps more simply made with no understanding of the end-to-end life cycle of infrastructure projects of such a scale. There's a whole lot that goes on before the first sod is cut. On a completely different note: Mike the Stationmaster's remarks about the planning for the GWML scheme not taking possible (and possibly already known, if the right parties had been consulted) vagaries of geology and ground conditions into account seem to echo one of the key issues that delayed the Edinburgh Trams project, and eventually led to it being curtailed (sound familiar?) It might be illuminating to get sight of the RAID* registers for both projects. In the case of the Trams, digging large trenches down 200-plus-year-old streets and being surprised at finding unexpected stuff down there seems a little naive at best, downright incompetent at worst. A cynic might wonder how much contingency was pared out of the original plan submissions in order to meet a known budget, or to come in with the lowest tender (basically, allowing sales teams to override engineers is always a risk). * RAID = Risks, Assumptions, Issues and Dependencies. At least if you log each assumption made during the planning and design phases then you should be able to recognise those as potential sources of project risk (ie that the assumption may turn out to be invalid) which ought to have some mitigation built in to the plan - otherwise you end up with an issue, and nobody likes those...

Do you mean an African or a European swallow? Someone had to say it...

I'd suggest buying a new pony truck for each locomotive (I think it's spare part number X9384 for James, going by the Hornby service sheet - not sure about the Bachmann class 4 2-6-0, tbh it looks suspiciously like a NEM socket on the service sheet for that one) and experimenting with appropriate surgical modifications to the old ones to try to get a Kadee fitted to each.

Google image search identifies that photo as being on the cover of the 2003 edition of "Steam at Tonbridge: The Men and the Engines" by Mike Feaver. The book is available on eBay, Amazon, Abebooks etc if you or your friend are inclined to get hold of a copy. Or you might be able to track down the author eg via the publisher, Meresborough Books (they seem to specialise in local history/interest for Kent and Sussex).

Something I keep forgetting to ask: what's the bell for? Both the converted Hawksworth and the Collett slips have one - bottom right of the middle window.

There is a film of the final slip coach working to Bicester on the Railway Roundabout To The End Of The Line DVD; it's the last segment on the DVD. It includes views of both sides of the slip coach: The commentary states that it was one of the three converted Hawksworths, number 7374 (there doesn't seem to be a clear view of the coach's number to confirm this, unfortunately). The film also includes some interesting footage of the departure from Paddington, including a Castle and a Warship stabled together at Ranelagh Bridge.

Thanks both, that confirms my suspicions. I don't intend to isolate the slip on all exits. It's primarily there as a space-saver, to replace two toe-to-toe turnouts. The divergent route from each turnout was isolated since it led to a separate power section. Power for the section they were in was fed to the common toe between the two turnouts. Looks like I can apply power for that section to the switched exit from the slip on the same section, and isolate it from the sections either side same as the turnouts were going to be. I will have to add an isolating section for the siding where I want to stable the loco. That might be simpler to explain with a couple of diagrams: Toe-to-toe turnouts Single slip

I've never used a slip of any kind before. My current collection of track is code 100, and my layout plan requires a single slip, which must perforce be the insulfrog (SL-80) variety as they don't do an electrofrog one in Code 100. I have no room in my plan for the Code 100 to Code 75 adaptor. I've just been experimenting on an SL-80 with a multimeter and as far as I can tell it's not self-isolating like the ordinary turnouts are - every rail is always live, regardless of how the switch blades are set. Is that correct? I have read the Peco instruction leaflet but it's not completely clear on the matter IMO. All it says is that the the Single and Double Slips are "already wired", whatever that is supposed to mean. I get the next bit, about having to isolate the slip completely if you want to use it to cross two separate power sections. That's not the issue in my case, but it does suggest that my findings are correct. In my layout design, one leg of the slip is a siding. I had naively assumed that the siding would be isolated if the switch blades were set so that there was no access to the siding from any of the other routes, but it appears that this is not the case. So am I right to conclude that, if I want to stable a loco on that siding while another loco is running on one of the other roads emerging from the slip, then I will need to have a switched isolating section for that siding?

The original track plan can be seen pretty clearly on the 1933 25inch OS map: The main difference cf 1969 is the presence of the passing loop (including trailing access to the goods yard) and of course the road through the goods shed, which seems to have gone in 1969 (TBC) but is definitely there now. It's not clear whether the trailing goods yard access from the loop was via a crossing or back-to-back turnouts. I suspect the former, which means that when the loop was removed the crossing would have been replaced by a turnout.

If it helps at all with the shunting 'issues', the OS shows the goods loop still in place in 1969 - which is close enough to when the film was being shot (and is in the preservation era, so 'anything goes' could still apply if required): However, the road through the goods shed appears to have been lifted at that time. And the passing loop was long gone by then, of course (there's a photo on eBay of the station in 1960 showing the passing loop not there) although AIUI the level crossing is still two tracks wide. Then again, one should never rely on the OS to be 100% accurate with details like this. And there's always Rule 1... Update: Google Streetview indicates that the LC is indeed still two tracks wide.

Er, hardly - the last post before yours was less than a month ago. But hey, that's relativity for you. Probably. Oh no, hang on, that's quantum physics.

Similar systems are also being trialled in The Netherlands, and in Augsberg, Germany. The idea is not universally welcomed: This also reminds me of those idiots who say that we should aim to get deaths on the roads down to zero. I can understand the idea of setting a challenging goal or having an inspirational vision, but choosing something which is obviously unachievable (unless everyone just stays at home) probably has more negative effects than positive. Many people will find an attempt to appeal to them through nonsense insulting, quite possibly triggering an antagonistic response which will cause them to ignore exhortations to modify their behaviour, or even to adopt the opposite of the desired behaviours. Others may be persuaded - through respect for authority, or uncritical idealism - to pursue the unachievable goal, resulting in skewed priorities, and time, money and effort wasted in pursuit of a mirage.

Or even, heaven forfend, obeying warning signs that are put there to help keep you alive. Or you could turn it round: in an age where there are big and fast things around (so, getting or for the last 200-odd years then - ask William Huskisson) maybe there's a downside to wilfully degrading your two most important senses by concentrating on a shiny electronic toy instead of the world surrounding you. So, at the point of potential conflict between trains and pedestrians, steps are taken to make the approach of a train not 'stealthy'. But people still don't take any notice. Whose fault is this again? Sorry, my sympathy is pretty much at rock bottom. The exit to the gene pool is that way; hope you enjoyed your stay.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_(slope)

That's not flat: I reckon there's a good six inches difference in elevation between the crossing tracks. I'm impressed that they made sure to run their CMX track cleaner through as soon as the line was open.

The turntable isn't shown on the 1936 map. The map in my post was the 1905 one.

Thanks to everyone for your responses, they do help to explain how things came about. I was under the impression that the BoT was also not keen on crossings on the flat. I could well be mistaken about that, though. Moretonhampstead is a terminus on a single track main line with a single platform face (unless the line to the goods shed also had a platform face, which I doubt - any in any case, the difference is the same). There is no "up" or "down" line - it's all bidirectional. My understanding is that Yealmpton was originally going to be a through station - the line was intended to extend as far as Modbury. If that had come to pass then the loop would have indeed had have "up" and "down" sides, and hence to have trailing access to the yard as it was oriented you would need to access it from the non-platform side of the loop, via a diamond. As a terminus, the Yealmpton configuration looks a bit odd IMO. (Come to that, as a placename Yealmpton looks a bit odd!) References: Wiki Waybackmachine BBC Domesday Reloaded Cornwall Railway Society (caption under last photo) If you mean in the modified configuration post-1885 then that would seem not to have been the case - see the signal box diagram in my OP. There is a facing turnout on the approach to the station to complete the run-round. See also the 1905 OS Map: (The 1936 map shows that turnout as being slightly further east, beyond the road crossing. It also shows the crossover as being partially hidden under the station roof rather than fully in the open.) However, the 1885 map does show a diamond crossing on the loop, to give access to the loco shed from the platform road: Unless there's a crossover hidden under the station roof - which BG John's photo plainly suggests there wasn't - then I assume this one must have been a single slip, otherwise how would a loco run round?

In one of his books that I have on my bookshelf CJF admits that the layout of Ashburton can be problematic - specifically, with regard to shunting the kickback siding - and suggests Moretonhampstead as a better prototype to model. In a moment of idleness I had a quick look at Moretonhampstead on old-maps.co.uk and I noticed something a bit odd. Thinking that it might have been an OS error I had a look on the SRS web site and it looks like the OS was right. I'm puzzled as to why the goods yard is accessed from the run-round loop, requiring a diamond crossing across the platform road. Why not a turnout straight off the platform road? Could it have been purely to save on an FPL? It does seem to make shunting the yard rather ungainly, in that wagons would have to be propelled through a reverse curve from the main line. In a model that could be a little problematic. Any thoughts?

Sorry, that should have been 2011. I've not read that review myself, my comment was based on Dave Franks' posting here, dated August 2011. (I got confused with this one from 2014.) FWIW I use Google directly to search in RMWeb: just enter some search text and stick "rmweb" on the end. In this instance the search string was lms track cleaning kit rmweb.

I have one and it works well for me. It was reviewed in the May 2011 edition of Model Rail and came second to the Dapol all-singing-all-dancing DCC track cleaner. It was also reviewed in Railway Modeller around August 2014 but I don't know which exact edition that was. If you want to find out then I'm sure Dave Franks will oblige - have a look at the Contact Us page on the LMS web site. He's usually very quick to respond. Do remember that the kit doesn't include the brake van - they're available second hand on eBay for not a lot of money. If you go for a Hornby one rather than the Airfix do make sure that you get the newer Hornby LMS brake van based on the Airfix model, rather than the older (ex Tri-ang?) one, because the kit won't fit that one (ask me how I know!) I think the difference is that the older one has the stove chimney bang in the middle of the roof whereas the ex-Airfix one has it offset, but I'm not 100% sure. I'm sure Dave will be happy to advise if you need further guidance.