Nearholmer

At what exact time in the film is the phenomenon that spooked you? TBH, all I could make out was your own headlamp pool, and the procession of street lamps.

The SR didn’t really get very far into DE before WW2, only the EE 350hp shunters, which were really a byproduct of the very good LMS diesel programme. A few ideas were sketched-out, including a DE conversion of the ‘Milk Van’ power cars from the LBSCR 6.6kV OLE trains, but that was very early (late 1920s iirc), and the power-weight ratio of diesel engines was still very poor at that stage. If it had been built, it would have shared similarities with the BTH bo-bo diesels supplied to Ford Motors. Almost certainly by the late-30s, and definitely during the 40s, they were playing about with ideas for DEMUs and ED locos, so what emerged later under BR had deep roots. The big mainline diesels that became BR Class 16/2 were designed and authorised under the SR of course, although not finished until BR period, and there was the one-off 0-6-0 “road switcher”, but that was DM, rather than DE, probably a bit of a ‘Bulleid Folly’, and not very successful. When the SR made public it’s forward plans in 1946/47 through papers to the engineering institutions, their stated intent was to electrify everything east of the Bournemouth Line, bar a few sprigs that didn’t justify it, and go diesel west thereof once the mainline diesels were proven and into series-build. For the non-electrified branches they intended using DEMU, and there was to be a diesel loco for non-mainline goods (this is partly where the 0-6-0DM ‘road switcher’ came into the picture). This poses questions about the intended lifespan of the Bulleid Pacifics, and the infamous Leader, which have been much debated in other threads. As regards earlier railcars, the LBSCR tried petrol mechanicals, but at the time they were too weedy/fragile for passenger service, and the SR tried one Drewry railcar, apparently not finding it flexible enough (it was sold to the WC&P). In short, the SR was well clued-up on diesel options, but didn’t focus on them anything like as hard as the LMS did during the 1930s, and for passenger MU always seems to have looked towards DEMU (an EMU with a generator on-board), rather than DMMU, which is what both the LMS and GWR went for.

Would make a good tag line for one of those dull-trying-to-be-exciting business documentaries on telly: ”If only they’d told us they didn’t have termites! How Bunnings bombed in Britain” They had to write-off a billion Australian dollars due to totally misunderstanding how the big DIY shop market in the UK works, which is by selling cushions and aspirations to women. They paid I think £350M for the Homebase chain of stores, made a huge trading loss, got tangled in a long site leases problem, shut some of the stores, then sold the rest for £1.

Vive les cheminots!

The nickname for the French troops was “bleuets”, cornflowers. The flower now has something of the same symbolic meaning as the red poppy does here.

^^^ They are very good indeed.

That was the stuff. Coated steel then, rather than aluminium. A few fencing contractors in very well-off areas do offer it here, but it is incredibly rare to see a fence of it “in the wild”. If it is steel, doesn’t one scratch in the coating result in an instant rust-fest? It certainly would here.

When Bunnings (iirc) briefly owned a UK DIY store chain, they started to sell some very fancy Aussie roofing sheets, and fencing systems made from similar material, rolled aluminium I think. Except that they didn’t sell it, because nobody bought it, and it just sat there gathering dust. Buying barely-preserved timber and frail roofing felt seem to be such a part of British tradition that it’s hard to flog anything else, I guess. People would much rather have leaking roofs on their sheds, and fence posts that rot through at ground level and fall over every time the wind blows, than invest in fancy foreign stuff. I mean, it’s not as if we have a climate that encourages wood-rot, is it? The one positive feature is that wood is a fairly sustainable product compared with aluminium - you can grow a tree quicker than geological processes give rise aluminium ore, and you don’t need vast amounts of energy to smelt a stick.

Except, of course, that it hasn’t worked for decades, in that the “old style” NT way of presenting buildings, which I remember from my own childhood, was distinctly non-engaging, except possibly to a small constituency of people who got a frisson from touching the hem of aristocracy and privilege. Fortunately, the NT moved on from that very old style at least two decades ago, possibly helped a bit by a particular generation of volunteers, many of whom really did know how to talk down to people, getting a bit too long in the tooth to continue, and being replaced by a new crop. Most of the present round of volunteer interpreters are very approachable, and hugely knowledgeable, and a high proportion are very good at pitching things for children. Making a place interesting to kids, rather than a dull old house that they can’t relate to, is a “door opener” to getting them interested in history …… if you enjoy going somewhere when you’re ten, you’re likely to go back and see it through adult eyes, picking-up on completely different things, later. You might even want to see it conserved, and interpreted for your own kids. Top question when it comes to conservation of anything ought to be “why conserve it all?”, and in a country that has old steam locomotives, and grand country houses coming out of its ears, as we do, it’s one that needs a good answer. There is a great deal more to history in these islands than railways and cash-splashing on ginormous country houses, two topics which one might argue are vastly over-represented in the “heritage diet”, so the least that should be done is to attempt to give lots of context around each, to broaden the learning. Rant temporarily suspended. Regarding the locos: the NT doesn’t posses the skills to conserve them beyond a basic level, or the knowledge to properly present/interpret them, and is forever trying to stretch the pennies across a multitude of other things. Personally, I think they’re better off cared for by “railway” people, and I particularly think that the IoWSR will make brilliant custodians of a loco that they will cherish far more than the NT ever have.

That is so early! Not an advert, but useful to get a conception of US railways at that date;

He’s quite clearly tweaking the noses of the scale-perfectionists.

The family of vans under discussion covered-off more than the Syphons, because it included ones with end-doors (CCT in BR talk), and ones with guard’s compartments - it even included a few that were able to carry elephants! If you look at pictures of many ex-SR branches and cross-country lines, you will see that nearly every train had one, sometimes several, because they carried railway parcels, Mail, bikes, newspapers, and on the holiday lines lots of passengers’ luggage in advance, and perambulators. The bogie versions were used on main-line services too, because there was a lot of luggage to and from the holiday areas and the ports, plus things like cut-flowers and new-potatoes from the Channel Islands. Sir Winston Churchill went to his final resting place in one, and I find it hard to imagine a Syphon being used for that! By the 1950s, this family of vans was ubiquitous on the southern, and they’d escaped all over the rest of BR too. The “secret” I think was that while the other companies persisted in building vehicles that were based on carriage design philosophy for most duties that involved them being attached to passenger trains, the SECR design was unashamedly “modern goods wagon technology”, which meant that they were cheap to build, very robust, and cheap maintain/repair, even if they looked a bit unsophisticated. The LMS, GWR and LNER vans looked posher, but the whole-life cost of them must have been substantially greater.

The constituent companies had lots of different 6W ventilate, passenger-rated vans for milk and fruit, some even got fitted with through-piping so that they could be used within PP trains as general PMVs. Late in its existence, the SECR came up with a truly brilliant LWB 4W PLV design, based on continental construction practices, so a steel underframe, light steel body frame, inside timbering, and good ventilation. The SR picked-up that design and built multiple variants, both 4W and bogie, known colloquially as ‘utility vans’ (although that isn’t the proper designation for many of them) all passenger-rated, some with guard’s accommodation, some with end doors. That huge family of vans progressively replaced the old 6W vans, of which few if any were left in revenue service by WW2, and BR continued to build them into the 1950s. Vast numbers were still in service into the 1980s, and every preserved railway in the country seems to have at least a couple, some being stripped to the under frames to create running-gear for historic 4W wooden coaches. So….. latterly, milk in churns went in those, but by WW2 there wasn’t much churn traffic left, and the last probably ceased c1950. Have a look at the Bluebell Railway rolling stock collection, and the IoWSR, because they have a good selection of typical ones preserved, including a LBSCR 6W milk/fruit van at the Bluebell. The KESR has the SECR original PLV https://kesr.org.uk/the-cavell-van/

When the ‘felt’ on our shed roof was beginning to “go”, I went straight over the top of it with Onduline sheeting, which is a rigid bitumen sheet that looks like corrugated iron. So far (c5 years), so good, with it not showing the slightest sign of deterioration, and I have high hopes that it will last longer than ‘felt’, which began to noticeably deteriorate after c10 years. I found it easier to install than felt too, less faffing about.

Barrels of clotted cream for the Lyon’s Tea Shops, I reckon, to cater for the annual Scone Rush. Or great vats of pouring cream for Wimbledon strawberries. I’m entirely making this up, but don’t cows produce very high cream milk at certain times of year, leading effectively to surpluses? August and September??

What a cracking idea!!

Clockwork anyone? On the parental downsizing, you have my empathy. One of my bros and I spent a lot of time, on and off, last year, helping/supporting/guiding/facilitating our mother from her house to a “supported independent living” flat at the seaside near my bro, because she’d come to the decision that the house and garden were getting too much for her, which was also clear to the rest of us. Physical hard work, and emotional hard work too, because the house had been in the family since the 1930s, so was stacked to the rafters with memories (as well as my late father’s books and papers!).

If you do get tempted into retro-modeling in 00, for goodness sake include a circuit, because as I discovered when I dabbled in building a 1963 BLT, something has happened to the running quality of those old trains. Or, more likely, something has happened to expectations in the intervening sixty years. Whichever it is, they certainly aren’t as good at very slow running and shunting as they seemed back in the day. Bilteezi artwork stands up to the test of time though, very definitely.

In Edwardian times, it would have been possible to control your train lights using devices that incorporated both confusing phenomena, a vacuum, and electricity. This decidedly H G Wells little chap is one of the first thermionic diodes (or diadems, as autocorrect keeps trying to say), made in 1889.

It’s a good article that, one which appeared in the TCS magazine a few years back. Heres the key point for this discussion: ”The gauge of this product was entirely arbitrary, set by the width of the mechanism, which was probably designed first, with the body and rail fitted round it” He’s probably right, but if he is, then it just poses the next question: why were the mechanisms however wide they were, and the wheels however wide they were? (Don’t take this too seriously, please)

Yes, I know that’s how real ones work; I was trying to gently hint to Geep7 that maybe his bridges didn’t have proper load-paths through them.

Yes, that was Barratt Homes, IIRC, then all the other developers, and the people who plan the street layouts on new estates, copied the idea.

It all has a certain, satisfy sinuosity.

For GP, you really need facing and trailing crossovers on the approach. You can just make out the point ends where they are mostly in a covered-way.

Some tin churches are very tiny in reality, although maybe not that tiny. You can attempt to use my son as a scale rule. This was a couple of years ago, and I reckon he was about 5’8” then. If you put a topper on him, I think he’d still get through the doorway.