JohnR

The journalist who did the story on the BBC, when questioned as to who was the source for it said it was Patrick Hallgate, Western Route MD for Network Rail.

No, FGW ends up with a route which it can use when bad weather makes the Dawlish route impassible. No one has suggested that FGW be required to route all Plymouth services via Okehampton. Now you might argue whether it is worth it for the perhaps one week a year that it might be needed for that purpose, but the passengers may well find it preferable for their train to reverse on those occaisions. At the moment, not having that backup option is also making the M4-M5-A30/A38 very attractive.

But no one is telling them they cant! The Okehampton route would be used in case of bad weather by trains to/from London etc to gain access to Cornwall. The rest of the time it would function as a local route, serving a not inconsiderable local population with plenty of tourist potential. No one is proposing we cut off the south devon line.

The proposal is that the Okehampton route is used for diversions when the Dawlish route is out of action - and not as a permanent switch.

Why would an additional HST be needed? The proposal is for HSTs to use the Dartmoor line when the sea wall is blocked which of course means that Teignmouth and Dawlish would be cut off. Presumably services could continue to Newton Abbot/Paignton from the Plymouth direction.

While you make some good points, surely the point of rebuilding the Okehampton route is for use as a diversion while bad weather/repairs etc close the Dawlish route - and not as a full time alternative?

Thanks for posting this Captain, especially when you must have a thousand and one other things to be thinking of at this time. However, I think this time the diversionary routes will have a political dimension. There seems to be a lot of pressure to have a route on which some service - especially freight and the sleeper - can reach Plymouth. Yes, it wouldnt serve the major towns in south devon - but then the requirement is to connect Plymouth and Cornwall to the rest of the world.

Absolutely not. The advantage of the national environmet agency is that when things like this happen, resources (including money) can be re-directed from elsewhere in the country. At the moment, the EA doesnt need to spend as much in Bedfordshire, say as in Somerset, but if they were devolved, the Somerset EA would have to live within its much smaller budget.

Looking good, Phil. Although you say most people wont need the legs and lighting if theyre not taking the layout to exhibitions, I would suggest it would still be a good investment, as it will allow the layout to be seen at home at its best, as I dont think the lighting we have at home is designed for this.

I'd like to claim the credit, but detailed info such as that came from Richard Derry's Book of the West Country and Battle of Britain Pacifics" published by Irwell Press. These books (they have others on other classes) are invaluable when it comes to checking details on models, especially if renumbering.

Yes, 34005 went in for an overhaul and these items were fitted. The AWS box is actually a battery box that was quite prominent on many locos, including the WC/BoBs, for the Automatic Warning System which gave an indication to the driver of the signal ahead. After the Lewisham disaster in 1957 (involving 34066 Spitfire), where a train crashed in the fog, installation of these was accelerated. The speedometer was attached to the rear driving wheel on the left hand side of the locomotive, and a cable ran from this (on the axle) to the underside of the running plate. Again it was quite prominent and several of Hornby's models have had this, but not from the image, Okehampton. EDIT: Here is a picture of Barnstaple at Exeter Central showing the AWS on the front bufferbeam and the Speedo cable on the rear driving wheel. http://flic.kr/p/fxxYW4

Part two is living up to the high standards set by part one!

I cant see any reason why not. Okehampton had a 5,500 gallon tender from rebuild, the same size as Barnstaple. The model doesnt seem to have the speedometer fitted, so unless you wanted to add that (and an AWS box) to Barnsaple, it would be a match for 34005 from 29/6/57 to 19/1/61.

Where else on the line would there have been mail apparatus? I've heard there was some at Laurencekirk. Would this have been in both directions?

Looks like they are going to introduce a competitor to SMP etc rather than point-work to complement it.

Intriguing, but how much would that cost? Reopening has been suggested at costing £1billion, and even if your scheme could save 25% thats still £750million - that could be better spent on other rail schemes.

Phil, which issue of BRM dis the layout Shepherds Bush appear in, whose plan is on page 15? Looks like an interesting take on Minories.

And is no doubt what CJ Freezer had in mind when he produced the plan for RM/Peco....

The Hornby 14xx is basically the old Airfix model - 1970's vintage. The fact that it has lasted until now in terms of detail etc is a credit to the original designers, although I think Hornby did a refresh when they took over the tools in the 1990s. However, you cannot run it out of the box alongside other models of more recent vintage - it looks out of place. Combined with the fact that it is not DCC-ready, it is definitely time for a new model to modern standards. Of course you will also need a new auto-coach for the same reasons.

I think a really good GW 14xx is needed - along with a modern standard auto coach. If the tooling were done well, it could also have the other variations including 48xx etc

Chris, have you ever thought about writing a book detailing your experiences of 50 years in railway modelling? The article in Model Rail just wasnt enough!

HS1, delivered on time, and on budget. I believe (from the top of my head) that HS1 came in at something like £34.5m/km and HS2 is priced at £60m/km (thats the £33bn for the full Y network price). Considering that HS1 was driven through the Kent countryside (every bit as nice as the Chilterns) and through to Central London, that should be reasonable.

The IEA report also seems to get to its inflated cost by adding in the cost of the Tram extension, CrossRail2, new infrastructure in Liverpool etc. However, it then suggests that HS2 should be cancelled, and some of the money spent on projects such as CrossRail2, the Nottingham Tram extension, new infrastructure in Liverpool etc.

If it's reducing journey times from Edinburgh to Perth (and beyond), the £1billion could probably be better spent on upgrading existing routes... The report also has a go at spending many billions at building a high speed line to connect Glasgow and Edinburgh for a small reduction (~10 minutes) in jounrey time, instead of reducing times north of the central belt. Thats a fair point I think. High Speed Rail in Scotland shoud really be a Y shaped route from the border to Glasgow and Edinburgh, rather than something to connect cities 35 miles apart.

I saw that too Keefer. While I would love to see the route re-opened, I cant help but think that the M90 would inflate the costs by quite a bit - the article quotes a figure of £1bn, and its possible it could be as high as that. Could that £1bn be spent on railways elsewhere in Scotland to greater effect - even reopening railways? Probably. The likes of Peterhead and St. Andrews are more likely to go ahead thank this one, I fear.