eatus-maximus

To add to this, failure to produce a ticket to an authorised person upon request is a strict liability offence. The passenger would have to either prove there was a fault, hope the revenue staff know there was a fault, or spend time and maybe money appealing the Penalty Fare. Contrary to popular belief, staff are not powered by electricity, nor are pens, paper and ink stamps. Once upon a time staff actually got a good amount of training so knew a lot of information without having to look it up, this training will likely stop if the proposals go ahead as it will probably not be deemed necessary. They can, yes. Most of the offices that are lined up to close are single man operation for the entire station, they report faults and provide a place of safety for any person who needs it, and they have a duty of care covering calling the emergency services if need be. At some stations, the only person with access to the CCTV is the member of staff in the ticket office, and until recently the help points weren't actually connected to anywhere because the helpdesk contract unexpectedly ended. I have known people's lives be saved because one member of staff in the ticket office saw them collapse on the platform, when there were no other passengers present and no clear view to the street, people who are not elderly or disabled. People have come to me, in the ticket office, to report a person acting strangely on the platform, I reassured them and provided a place of safety to them, even escorting one to her train and informing the guard of the situation, but sure, nothing to do with safety.... Lack of staff in the evening is not a reason to consider that ticket office closures will not hinder safety, security or accessibility. If anything we need more staff, not less. Earlestown, in Merseyside, is currently staffed first train to last train seven days a week. It is a triangular station with five platforms, and has two footbridges to connect all the platforms and no lifts, at best you can see three platforms from any one point on the station. The ticket office closure plans will see the staffed hours drop from a total of 134 hours per week of staff presence to just 12, a drop of more than 90%. Instead of being in one recognisable place for their shift, they could be anywhere on that station. Northern alone are reducing staff from 507+ 'retail' positions, to just 235 wanderers, 148 full time staff and 87 part time staff. These staff will doubtless either pass into agency hands, or disappear entirely with no protections for passengers in place when it is deemed, by people who never use trains, that they are no longer needed. Ticket office closures will also see information points and travel centres close, leaving the only human interactions on stations as dispatch staff (where available), a hand full of 'hubs', and the wanderers (when they are there). I would say that in my experience, 90% of people I see who buy online, or at the TVM have basically no idea what they are actually buying and even less idea of what to do when things go wrong. The problem is that you can't properly measure this amount on a wider scale. The people buying think they have the correct ticket and will have protection if things go wrong, TOCs will claim people are smart enough to make their own choices, and the machines are supposed to provide most of the necessary information. Most of those three things are not actually the case. The system is not simple, people do not know what they are buying, and the TOCs have an interest in passengers getting it wrong.

It is because some tickets cannot be bought on the internet or at Ticket Vending Machines, and many people still do not know what they are buying or what to do when things go wrong, so a presence is still required in some areas. Do not be fooled into thinking these are ticket offices however, for Northern they will be 'Journey Maker Hubs', which means the 'hub' could be closed later without notice, and may not be open at all on any given day if staff are needed elsewhere. I wish I could give more detail on this, but unfortunately the staff briefings are about as complete as the public facing documents.

In terms of DCC, the easiest way is three decoders, but with cunning you can do it with one. For one decoder you will need extra wire and either a drill, or some form of conductive coupling.

Back when Virgin was withdrawing locos and coaches (with Pendolinos incoming) some locos were repainted to 'celebrate their service'. A public poll was set up to choose what livery two 87s should be painted in. 87019 was painted in LNER lined black, while NSE was chosen for 87012 (it was also renamed 'The Olympian'). Now I think I am right in saying that the London 2012 bidding was going on around then, and they may have sponsored one of the repaints. I know a GNER HST power car carried a 'London 2012' logo for a long time with 'Back the Bid', then 'Candidate City' and finally 'Host City' wording. I am happy to be corrected if wrong on any details however.

In GNER days it was with Mk4s, not mk3s, as GNER didn't have any loco-hauled mk3s or TDM fitted power cars. The idea at the time was to supplement the 91 fleet (which they later did with class 90s). There are some pictures, on the traintesting/old-dalby website, with HST coaches (and presumably a HST DVT conversion at the London end) but these seem to be restricted to a 1735 Kings Cross-Peterborough service. Flickr also seems to have some pictures of it coupled to a Mk3 TGS, but the computer I am using doesn't allow access to Flickr so I can't check them.

The 319/1 units were all converted into 319/3 by (Govia) Thameslink Rail, starting around 1999 IIRC, 319163 being the first and being used as a test bed for the new livery (blue and yellow), emerging into service as 319363. It was at this time that the 319/1 units lost the first class compartment and the 319/0s received first class accommodation (as 319/2 and 319/4 units). The majority of 319/2 units lost there pantographs for a while when in use for Brighton Express services (as they didn't use them), though I recall this was done on an 'as required' basis, rather than planned modifications. They were replaced when Thameslink started hiring some on a daily basis. They also have a difference in body side toilet area, with an extra small window on one side (as they only had one toilet after refurbishment). The refurbished units used by Northern (and for a short time GTR) also had a difference window arrangement for the toilet area. An increasing number of 319/3s are now stored, and I don't believe Northern got all of them. I think one is in the 769 programme. 319364 and 319365 got this livery IIRC, named 'Transforming Blackfriars' and 'Transforming Farringdon' respectively. IIRC they also operated the last passenger service out of Moorgate, in that livery, before the route was shut to allow the extension of Farringdon's platforms. On the subject of liveries, all the 319/0s had the dark grey NSE livery, and all the 319/1 units had the later light grey livery. 319021-060 were later repainted into the rather drab 'Thameslink' grey livery, however none of the 319/1s were given that livery. The first EP (the really bad one) appears to be an attempt at a 319/1 and 319/3, the later one is the earlier 319/0, 319/2 and 319/4. I think the newer EP is much improved, but still has plenty of lesser errors around the cab. I could probably live with it in N Gauge though.

321301-321347 have one small and one medium window, 321348-321366 and 321401-321448 have one small and one large window.

Oh Jeez that's disappointing. I was looking at the possibility of getting some of these (having driven many and seeing them on a nearly daily basis for most of my life), but the paint job would have to be spectacular to get me to part with the money they are asking if that is how it ends up looking. That front end is so wrong and the windows down the side look wrong too. The latter might be excusable if they hadn't already done a 150 with the same windows and body shell! To my eye the sides between the cab door and the cab front do not angle in enough, leading the thicker than real area noted by Grahame, or possibly the 'face' isn't wide enough, and the roof corner needs adjusting, though that might be cured by adjusting that cab side angle. The headlights are wrong and the grab handles on the cab front too, as mentioned. There is a groove missing across the cab front and the manual uncoupling bar (cab front, bottom right) is far too pronounced, it should be much more recessed than that. The rib around the emergency access door looks wrong. Reasonably sure they have got the 'skirt' wrong too, something isn't right with it. I wonder if Bachmann have tried to hide the motor by making the side windows too small? They certainly don't look wide enough, but I think they are probably too shallow as well, maybe that's why the corners look wrong. I would hope they get the right pantographs for the right units too. Stone Faiveley only ever went on /0, /4 and early /2 units, Brecknell Willis for the rest, noting that some /2 units ran without a pantograph for a while. And as for the coupling, okay I know they have to have a working one for those who want to run in multiple, but that look hideous!

The earlier 'Executive' livery (1983-1987) did have it that high on HST Mk3s (not sure about Mk3a/b), later 'Swallow' livery (1987-1995) repaints did not.

My advice would be.... 1) Forget the third inner loop. I don't think you have the space to do it well and I can't think of many places that have three tracks for very long. 2) Think about where your trains will go. It's very important in the real world because not enough points and track is a problem, but too many is expensive to maintain and replace. In model terms, you could increase or decrease operational potential (and possibly enjoyment) with even the most minor changes. 3) Think about gradient. You mention a raised branch line, it looks like it is linked to your other loops, so what kind of gradient are you going to use? Too steep and your trains won't get up it, too shallow and it might impede your design choices and operational potential. 1 in 30 is usually the steepest anyone would recommend (1 inch up for every 30 inches along), but you might be able to get away with something steeper depending on what you plan to run over it. 4) Station length. You haven't mentioned it, but station length is important. They are generally built as small as they need to be, about as long as the longest train that will stop, but build it too small and your trains could be blocking junctions or just look very strange. That's not to say you can't have long trains stopping at small stations necessarily, that's not unheard of, but it is the exception rather than the rule. 5) History It might sound stupid, but the railway is shaped by history. Every line had a reason for being where it is, every change was for a purpose. Does your railway have a history or purpose? Some people find this helps them decide what 'fits' on their layout. If you think about it, history and operation go hand in hand. 6) Keep your trains away from the edge of the board. Accidents happen, so keep your trains and tracks away from board edges and big drops as much as possible. 7) It's your railway. Whatever advice is given here, remember that you have to be happy with your railway otherwise you will tire of it and it will end up discarded.

Is there still consideration as to whether those wanting undecorated models might be given choice of 321/4 or 321/9? I realise the only real difference is the unit either having DTC and DTS vehicles (321/4) or two DTS vehicles (321/9), but there is visible detail difference between the DTC and DTS vehicles. I'd prefer the option of 321/9, but I could probably live with 321/4s if it really came to it.

You can do the red/white stripes with transfers. it's just the basic blue/grey and the cab end and roof that you'd need to do in paint, oh, and the window frames. I found the chassis to be a reasonable fit. You do need something fitted to stop the body sitting too low on the chassis though.

The 321/4 is available as an "undecorated kit", just like all their other models. This has the advantage of clear plastic cab ends so adding working head/tail lights is not such a pain. I went for a Bachmann 150 chassis to power it.

No grace period that I am aware of, however a lot of Northern routes already have a 'failure to pay' scheme in place, which actually has a higher penalty of £80+, though the Penalty Fare is a more immediate payment and should, in theory, be easier to appeal. As for not having a camera phone, to be blunt, Northern management don't care. For a number of years, station and ticket office staff have been fighting a losing battle with .pdf timetables online replacing printed leaflets, the Railway Byelaws and Conditions of Travel already being online only. The fact that a high percentage of the population don't have smart phones hasn't phased them in the slightest. In theory all staff can be made aware of any TVMs that aren't working. Sadly that would require a certain head office department to be available 24 hours a day and they can barely manage nine to five on Weekdays (they are understaffed and overworked which means many reports don't get passed on). If it helps any, and this is small consolation, the machines should self-report any faults and the manufacturer is contracted to get things sorted as quickly as possible. Despite Northern management's rather half-hearted promises, there is a very real feeling amongst staff that ticket offices. for the most part, are not here for the long term. Yep, but money talks and profit is everything, one machine is cheaper than two.

A few clarifications if I may (yes I work for them, but no, I am not, in anyway, a manager, PR guru, or involved in the Penalty Fare Scheme). Penalty Fares, for now, will only be done at stations, NOT on the train. Not only that but currently it will only be done by a team of contracted staff (not Northern employees), though eventually all of Northern's own Loss Prevention Officers (LPO) are intended to also be doing them. As I understand it there are no plans for Guards to issue them at any stage. Penalty Fares are part of the Franchise Agreement, the plan is to have 60% Penalty Fares by an undisclosed date and 100% Penalty Fares by a different undisclosed date before the end of the franchise. In regards to unmanned stations, self-service ticket machines (TVM), where provided, will only accept card payments, however, before you go celebrating your excuse of paying cash, they will issue 'Promise to Pay' tickets for free, which you would be expected to obtain if you cannot buy a ticket. TVMs are planned to be in place at all Northern stations as soon as possible, but I believe priority has been given to the Penalty Fares Scheme routes. If you are paying card, but the TVM does not issue the ticket you require (and I can see this one becoming a problem), you are expected to purchase a ticket upto the value of the one you require, to cover part of your journey, and then, as soon as reasonably practicable, pay the difference to the fare due. If the TVM is not working, you would be expected to take a picture of it as proof that it was not working at the time you tried to use it. In regards of what you can buy on the train, if you boarded at a station where you could have bought the ticket you required, you should only be offered the full Anytime or Anytime Day fare for your journey. If you boarded at a station where you could not purchase the ticket you require, you can buy from a full range of available tickets, minus any fare you may have already paid.

I've noted three on that well-known auction website already, bound to be more in the near future.

An 11 car non-sound unit? £295 wasn't it? To be honest I was looking at passing on a couple of my 9 car sound ones, when they arrived, for about £500-£600, I might have to rethink if that one actually sold at £595.

47840 received BR blue around 2002 as part of Virgin's farewell 'heritage' liveries. It was repainted into two tone green in 2007.

If memory serves (and there is a good chance it doesn't), Mainline was kept for Railfreight sector locos that were likely to be 'borrowed' by the Intercity sector, whilst Swallow was applied to locos in the Intercity sector.

Images of Kings Cross Thameslink will show just how low the overhead wires can go.... I believe the current standard is for wires to be around 4600mm-5100mm above the rail, which is somewhere around 14ft to 16ft in old money.

First off, the usual disclaimer that this is all just my opinion and it's your railway. Have you considered where your passenger trains will go when you are not using them? I personally think you need to re-evaluate some of the space efficiencies. In some areas I think there is too much track, like you really need to fit stuff in, and in other places it's a bit 'barren'. Is there a reason you have avoided pointwork on the curves of the mainline? The first change I'd make concerns the junction on the left side, and the pointwork on the lower part of the mainline. Starting with the lower mainline section, why are the points there? what function do they serve? Could they go on the curve to their left, nearer the other pointwork? As for the junction on the left, it looks like an accident waiting to happen. The two mainlines should be as straight as possible really and the two points on the centre line don't really serve a purpose (other than a 'Addams Family' style wreck). My choice would be a right-hand point bringing the lower platform loop line onto the mainline just after the upper curve, with the 'toe' (single track end) connecting to the curved line ('ankle') of another right-hand point which would feed into the lower curve and the previously mentioned lower edge crossover (long straight left point into curved point there I think). The straight edge ('heel') of the second point should then join with the 'ankle' of a left hand point on the outer mainline. Above that, on the upper curve, a left hand point should be provided for access to the sidings at the bottom ('ankle' to mainline, 'toe' to station, 'heel' to sidings). If you have to put it on the straight section use a right-hand point. On the sidings at the bottom, I'd experiment with more curved points, you should be able to get more length on each siding with less visual impact. The sidings and general station area could use a little work in my opinion. I think you have too much here and what you have is very straight, it doesn't have the right 'feeling' for me and I think when you lay it out you'll think you could have done better. On the left, have one siding (or head-shunt if you prefer) and consider linking it to the lower sidings, even if it forms one long double ended siding. On the right side I'd consider linking one of the parallel sidings to the long line you have running up the right hand side. You might also want to add in a crossover on the mainline curve approaching the station for freight to use to access the lower sidings when running anti-clockwise on the mainline, running the freight through the platform loop rather than on the clockwise mainline. I would also consider moving some of the pointwork onto the curve to give you a bit more platform length. You should also consider the use of flexible track, even if it is the Hornby R621 stuff, it is, as the name implies, more flexible. One final consideration I think you should have is putting the lower platform between the 'platform line' and the mainline, and perhaps even do the same with the upper platform. I think this would give the layout more 'flow' if done with flexible track too. There's nothing wrong with having two designated through lines like in your plan, but more platforms is more flexibility in my view.

Ah, I wasn't sure about the 321/3, but the livery options might have allowed it, good to clarify that though. It'd be nice to get that option, I realise the number of 321/9s ordered will be much lower than the 321/4s, but as I mostly want 321/9s it'd be a bit disappointing to end up with a number of 321/4s instead.

I notice in the "other liveries" option there are a potential mix of 321/3, 321/4 and 321/9. If I put first choice "Northern" (321/9) and second choice "Undecorated", but the first choice doesn't get enough orders, will I get an undecorated 321/9? Or one of the other two?

....And different pantographs and differing headlight illumination options, and a few other really minor things.

This one? (Picture by Neil Davies) A very brave choice for sure, though 319364 and 319365 were around for a fair while in that livery, and for two operators of the Thameslink franchise. Given that Farish would have to do the 319/3 (formerly 319/1) for the Northern livery it would be possible. I must admit I'm a little curious to know if Farish are only doing the 319/1 and 319/3. The other sub classes wouldn't be too difficult to make I'm sure, and if they were made, I think 319001 "Driver Mick Winnett" in GTR Thameslink grey would be popular amongst Bedford based staff (so would 319441 in FCC livery (which carried the same name).