Derekstuart

EDIT: Comment deleted.

Stewart any accident involving a 'guided bus' falls under the remit of DVSA (Driver & Vehicle Services Agency, incorporating what was VOSA and previously VI). They are buses whether on road or guided way. I have been involved with that blasted monstrosity in one form or another already. Although not involved with the operator concerned, there was an accident on it and it was VOSA (now DVSA) that became involved. Nothing to do with rail or trams etc.

Thank you Jamie. Sorry, I should have thought that it might have been unpleasant for you to dwell on the subject given your personal connection. Apologies if I have been tactless in any way. I have no information on US built coaches, other than to say that the outer skin that you see as it goes past will have nil structural strength in it and I would be surprised if the skeleton between the inner and outer skin is any different to British/ European designs. But that is an opinion on my part without any evidence. In that era, Plaxton and Duple bodied Leyland Leopards & Tigers and Volvo B58 and B10M. They all had a full chassis from the front bumper to after the rear axle, but it is correct to say that there was very little behind the rear axle of most coaches. Certainly the driver was sitting above a full strength chassis. What might surprise you more is that modern coaches, being mostly rear engine, have no heavy chassis BETWEEN the axles, with a lattice of lighter weight structure holding it all together. However, where the older chassis relied on thickness of metal for strength, newer designs rely upon mathematical calculations by design engineers- much like modern cars. As I have written some 4 or 5 times now, buses and coaches are engineered to go on their side or roof without collapsing- it is R66 approval (now superseded as part of eu whole type approval- soon to be superseded by a new name I would expect post Independence). If it is of any interest I have a bus up in the air outside my door at the moment if you want some photos of the underneath. It has no chassis at all and all main components- engine, transmission, axles and so on are bolted directly onto the bottom of the body. Again, apologies for the slightly off topic reply. I don't know if that helps anyone or not.

Hello Jamie Have you any data about the comparative accidents between GB and US? Having worked in road transport- including a short period in accident investigation- I am interested to learn of US approach to this. I am aware only of three coaches ending on their sides- one at Heathrow with a driver taking a bend far too fast, one who was drunk and thought Newport Pagnell services with its very slow entrance was in fact the slip at J14 and I can't recall what caused the other one. Two of them caused the type of injuries you describe, the third one didn't. I am not in the sort of job involving that now, so a bit out of touch- but even then I would struggle to associate the word "common" with this level of injury so it would be interesting if you could share any info you have on US safety (by pm or in a new thread to avoid o/t if you prefer)

A mainline train driver is less accurate than a politician about railway signalling?

That's just basic laws of physics. Inertia. An object will continue in whatever direction it is heading unless acted upon by an outside force. Imagine driving your car around a roundabout too fast, the car will slip to the edge but likely stay on its wheels- but then you slide hard into the kerb and you form a turning motion vertically on your car, you are going onto your side or the roof.

I wasn't aware that single deck vehicles have to undergo tilt testing (but that might have been changed with eu directive 2007/46/EC regarding type approval- and should be changing back again in 2 years). What single deck vehicles do have to pass is R.66 rollover testing, which broadly speaking requires that the bodywork suffers no more than X% deformity when on its side/roof (I am feeling de ja vu here). I have seen a 'decker on its side- pre R.66 regs- and it remained broadly intact. What was more common for structural failure was coaches as they tried to reduce the body weight to increase luggage/passenger loading. Deckers will stay upright far more easily than most people realise- you have to really work hard to get one over. The decker mentioned above was from that very problem- he went around a bend far too quickly, clipped the NSR wheel, caused a skid and then the OSR wheel clipped the other kerb bringing it to a sudden stop- which is what put it over. Not sure of the connection with tram incidents btw.

EDIT: To remove duplicate information.

John Having just seen one for 'real' I fully accept your point. I remember seeing one of these on the real railway many years back; perhaps when you are knee high to a proverbial grasshopper your sense of scale is a little iffy. Though I like your comments about the static etched kit. Looks quite good. (Personally I think the novelty of running one of these would wear off quickly, so a static kit looks good to me anyway). I will still buy one of these for the hell of it though. Thanks again for your very thought provoking and useful comments.

You ARE talking about the Country that has managed to keep some Trabants running for nigh on 60 years. The Russians might not go in for polished aluminium and coca cola dispensers on every bulkhead, but don't under-estimate their ability to keep things running. Where the US and presumably all of NATO now is making everything computer operated (ridiculous to think at the core is bog standard pc kernels) the Russians still prefer hard wire and hard steel. Which ships will survive one of these circuit crippling electronic weapons? Hell, we've all seen Battlestar Galactica and Independence Day...

I don't follow this thread. There seems to be this "romantic" notion of days gone by when the government (of either side) actually bothered whether the Country was safe or not. One only needs to look at the news now to see that posturing and empty threats is the name of the game now- and for that we are a World beater.

That sounds like a challenge to me. BTW what do people think of the current special offer for Yorkshire Tea? Do you think that the "hard water" version is any different? I am not sure myself. I live in a hard water area and find that normal Yorkshire Tea- grown in plantations just outside Whitby- tastes damned fine. Apologies for the o/t but Andy's comment was red rag to a bull.

Martin/ Mike thank you for the information. It seems quite obvious now that I know. Martin: BRT3... I bought a copy as you suggested, though many pages are missing (not stated in the description). I shall buy another copy at some point as it will probably answer all the questions I keep asking here. Thanks again.

Clive, forgive me if I am wrong on this, but the originals weren't always removed in a very tidy manner- certainly leaving a pristine finish afterwards was not their primary aim. Is it not an option to replicate the rather rough looking removal?

Of course. But is there any reason why BH cannot be made as CWR?

If these are being painted into blue and grey should they not have lost the steps at the end? Of course this is a pre-production photo and they might well be removed on that livery. Also the windows do seem to suffer the prismatic affect, though again it is a pre-production sample and may look different on release. Either way, I think Hornby's approach to communicating with people via that page is pretty good. Well done Hornby.

Southern Pride stuff sounds really good, but apart from a couple of AM10 kits (VERY good) built at an exhibition I haven't seen any of their stuff either real or on the internet. Certainly given the amount of people who talk about ScR DBSOs I am surprised there aren't more SP models on layouts. Anyone any ideas? I think their range- if it is as good as their AM10s- must be the best kept secret in the hobby. Sorry if O/T

What was the reason for changing from bullhead to flat bottom? I have read that it is down to International agreement, but think that not the case here. Although now our tiny island cannot think for itself unless there's an Internationally agreed set of specifications for everything, but as FB started to become more popular in the 1960s- an era when we were capable of designing our own things, I can't see that being the reason. (historic appraisal of the Country, no political statement intended). So is there some reason why bullhead is not capable of being used as a high speed rail? It **LOOKS** stronger than flat bottom, but I am assuming it isn't. I know that when designing cants the limit is higher for FB than BH.

DELETED: It's not my place or my job to explain elementary economics to anyone. I apologise for doing so. Blame the currency variation on pixies for all I care.

Stephen, thanks for the useful information there. I have converted diesels and a couple of 060 coupled shunters, but never a hot water machine. If you don't mind me writing it, your interpretation of P4 adherence to prototype is the same as mine, but there are seemingly a growing number who are using artificially widened gauge well beyond that allowed on the prototype for curved gauge widening just so they can run 9Fs and so on round curves that are barely larger than set track. Personally I think that defeats the whole point of P4, but that's just me. Again, thanks for the info. When I get my B12 it will be in a queue behind a Bachmann 4MT- my first steam loco conversion.

No, not really. It's just sarcasm and tongue in cheek I think- at least from me anyway. I greatly respect those who have done other things that I can learn from; but a little humility from them is often a good thing. As for your other points, agree 100%.

You poor wee thing. Did I not show you enough respect, great man? I did, not that it matters, suggest that someone would be able to do it. I did not indicate that someone would be me. That said, I will do so just to see for myself. I might need help working out how to open the box though.

Presumably someone, somewhere, sometime, somehow, will have converted one of these to P4. I am told that the spacing behind the splashers to put in full length axles, rather than the 4ft 1in gauge that it has as standard, is quite limited. I am looking for one of these now, but if what I was told earlier proves to be correct then I will not only have to replace the wheels but the chassis and bodywork too. It will be then be named- "LNER- Trigger's Broom"

Oh for god's sake...

Maybe, maybe not. Who knows. As for my comment about P4- the point I was trying to make was that standard wheel treads are more forgiving than true scale P4 treads, and traction tyres aren't required in P4 so why they are needed in 00 (normal locos that is, this one is slightly different) I don't know. Is this trolley driven from both axles or just one? Given that it cannot realistically be any lighter than a Tenshodo or Spud or similar, I cannot see how this is going to prove as bad as people are predicting.