eldomtom2

On 26/04/2024 at 13:16, DY444 said:

Labour pre-1997 GE: We will reverse privatisation

Labour now: .....

 

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice ...

In fact, Labour's 1997 manifesto specifically said privatisation would not be reversed:

Quote

The process of rail privatisation is now largely complete. It has made fortunes for a few, but has been a poor deal for the taxpayer. It has fragmented the network and now threatens services. Our task will be to improve the situation as we find it, not as we wish it to be. Our overriding goal must be to win more passengers and freight on to rail. The system must be run in the public interest with higher levels of investment and effective enforcement of train operators' service commitments. There must be convenient connections, through-ticketing and accurate travel information for the benefit of all passengers.

To achieve these aims, we will establish more effective and accountable regulation by the rail regulator; we will ensure that the public subsidy serves the public interest; and we will establish a new rail authority, combining functions currently carried out by the rail franchiser and the Department of Transport, to provide a clear, coherent and strategic programme for the development of the railways so that passenger expectations are met.

On 26/04/2024 at 06:27, jjb1970 said:

The problem isn't so much privatization as the way governments have managed railways and allowed DfT to micromanage. As with any idea, it can be done well or done badly, Japan privatized JR before BR was privatized and made a much better job of it than we did (which in fairness isn't unique to railways, Japan did did and does a lot of things better than the UK).

Well, if the TOCs had been allowed to discriminate against ASLEF/RMT members and tell local authorities "either you take over this unprofitable line or we're closing it" things might have been different...

5 hours ago, Legend said:

Steampunk yes , but I can't imagine the cost of tooling that was huge .

The Steampunk stuff was all resin, wasn't it?

They all seem to be ones operated by German freight operators, however the Captrain one at least would be plausible on a French or Spanish layout if renumbered.

On 03/04/2024 at 23:02, Dunsignalling said:

TBF, Hornby are marketing TT:120 at beginners and the budget-conscious, so the segment most under threat from it will logically be the Railroad range.

But if you're budget-conscious, surely it makes more sense to go for a scale like OO or N where there's a much greater amount of second-hand stuff available?

On 15/03/2024 at 22:08, 009 micro modeller said:

Indeed, and I don’t think there is either. The issue I have with some of the more hysterical attempts at “journalism” on this subject is that they don’t seem to want to actually engage in any debate on said definition, or understand why such a debate might exist. I get a similar impression from reading some of the articles opposing the reinterpretation of country houses, research into colonial links and so on - when you get to the root of it, some of this opposition just seems to be rejecting any kind of new research that complicates or challenges previous narratives, even on subjects that aren’t seen as very controversial. Historians have always ‘rewritten history’ in some way or other, and to be honest I find it quite sad that anyone who claims to care about a historic site would not wish to see it researched, explored and written about from the widest range of possible angles.

Hmm, there's a fair bit I'd like to respond to here.

"The issue I have with some of the more hysterical attempts at “journalism” on this subject is that they don’t seem to want to actually engage in any debate on said definition, or understand why such a debate might exist." - In all honesty, the organisations they're criticising rarely present it as a debate either...

"some of this opposition just seems to be rejecting any kind of new research that complicates or challenges previous narratives, even on subjects that aren’t seen as very controversial." - I think this raises the question of what is the subject and how it is supposedly not seen as "controversial".

"I find it quite sad that anyone who claims to care about a historic site would not wish to see it researched, explored and written about from the widest range of possible angles." - I think this statement fundamentally misunderstands the nature of historiography. New perspectives are not merely added to old ones; frequently they replace them, and the old perspectives are deemed invalid. This is even more so the case when comes to things like museums, which rarely if ever deliberately present multiple historiographical perspectives without presenting one as more correct than others. In this context one can understand how different historiographical perspectives can be seen as a threat.

On 15/03/2024 at 22:08, 009 micro modeller said:

Clandon Park is possibly relevant here (but bear with me) - the National Trust wanted to conserve it in its damaged state, preserving what was left of the original material and showing the underlying construction of the house. The Restore Trust wanted to try and restore it as far as possible to its condition before the fire. Perhaps not one of their more headline-grabbing or topical moments (unlike their opposition to the Colonial Countryside project, for instance), and not an especially unreasonable position to take (Uppark was restored, after all), but for me the symbolism of the Restore Trust’s take on this is interesting. Not wanting to show how (or by whom?) the country house was constructed, papering over the history and making it look nice, and prioritising giving visitors what they’ve come to expect over the conservation of the remaining original material - only in a more literal sense than usual.

This is an interesting attitude to take on a railway enthusiast forum. The railway preservation movement, with very rare exceptions, is very big on cosmetically restoring stuff to its "original" condition, ensuring modern-day extensions to heritage buildings are in keeping with the style, and other activities of that like that academics tend to take a dim view of.

Therefore by making fairly sweeping speculation about motives you are also implicating the railway preservation movement here.

To wade back into the more "political" stuff, I do have some comments to make.

On 12/03/2024 at 20:42, adb968008 said:

Bw Lazy (Ostfront): 24.03.1942 - 13.08.1942

Bw Auschwitz: 14.08.1942 - 15.05.1943

Bw Groschowitz: 16.05.1943 - ?.01.1944

 

https://eisenbahn--museumsfahrzeuge-de.translate.goog/index.php/deutschland/staatsbahnfahrzeuge/dampflokomotiven/baureihe-58/58-311?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
 

But they dont mention why, an aging 2-10-0 German freight loco, would be sent to a rural part of Poland, which wasnt a military centre, or an industrial area, nor was it on a critical war route to the Eastern front, for what can only be “non-essential” war work on rural routes to Czechoslovakia or Polish towns.

Oświęcim (under German rule renamed Auschwitz) was and is a railway junction of some significance. The idea that a locomotive would have been assigned there because of Auschwitz-Birkenau - when it is an undeniable fact that the deportation trains to the concentration camps were low-priority traffic to the extent that planned deportations were delayed due to lack of rolling stock - is implausible.

If you want to argue that there's enough of a chance that it was used on train to the Auschwitz camp that they should mention it that's a fair enough argument, but your argument goes beyond that.

On 12/03/2024 at 19:37, Craigw said:

The thing with modelling German railway subjects in WW2 and after that troubles me is not the flat wagons loaded with the material of war. It is the cattle wagons and vans that I know were being used for something else and travelling across other countries too.

This is a good example of how popular culture warps people's perceptions. You probably wouldn't think twice about a model of a third-class passenger carriage built in the first quarter of the twentieth century, but they were the stock of choice for trains deporting Jews from Western and Central Europe.

On 12/03/2024 at 21:47, 009 micro modeller said:

While it’s an extreme example, it’s not the only case of railway history being presented in a way that ignores the wider, more difficult, context. I’m tangentially reminded of this NRM research project, and some of the more outraged reactions to it.

"Context" is a difficult word. What "context" is necessary is a fundamentally political and subjective opinion.

On 13/03/2024 at 19:08, TJ52 said:

The Imperial War Museum has such a diorama. It’s black and white as there are no colour photos to give any idea what it actually looked like.

 

Terry

Hmm. I'm not sure that's actually the case - does the museum have other black and white dioramas of non-Holocaust subjects? The idea that "we don't know what the colours actually were, so we'll do it in a black and white" reflects its creators' beliefs about how the Holocaust should be portrayed.

Recent events at the Oscars (without taking a position here) serve as an excellent example of how the "memory" of the Holocaust is perceived as meaning different things by different people.

1 hour ago, F-UnitMad said:

Was there much left or was it destroyed by the retreating troops?

Most of the WD locos sent over to France survived the fall of France. Most stayed in France for the duration of the war and were returned to the UK after its end, but not all - some were apparently sent to China while at least one Jinty and a couple of Dean Goods survived in Central Europe into the 1950s - one Dean Goods remained in East German service until 1955. There are photos of the Jinty and one of the Dean Goods on this German forum thread.

18 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Where did I say the research wasn’t relevant today?

So it isn't apolitical, right?

19 minutes ago, 009 micro modeller said:

Where did I say the research wasn’t relevant today? The point being made is clearly about (usually right-wing) tabloid “journalists” who don’t really seem to understand the purpose of museums, or how academic historical research works.

This is assuming that there is a definition of "the purpose of museums" that everyone agrees on. I don't think there is.

7 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Unfortunately, the topic has very definitely been politicised

I'm saying the topic was political from the start, and thus was unable to be politicised.

On 29/01/2024 at 23:25, 009 micro modeller said:

I’m aware of the “culture clash” and issues around that as I work in the heritage sector, however in the case of the National Trust a lot of the outrage (usually around research into links to colonialism) seems to have been whipped up and politicised by reactionary media outlets and their supporters, who apparently don’t want anything to be researched in a deeper and more nuanced way than before, or to have their existing worldview challenged.

Hmmm - I don't the use of the word "politicise" is fair here. If you asked the writers of the "Addressing the Past" report which kicked off a lot of the debate, I'm sure they'd say that their research is relevant today...

3 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Help me understand this…

 

The proposal is a GBR that is outside the civil service, and state control, that will basically be BR but handing out franchises, contracts rather than operating its own trains and making its own (ostensibly) decisions on planning and operations.

 

Whos going to own it, and aside of the ORR, whom its apparently going to pay, (conflict of interest ?) who will it answer to ?

It'll be outside of state control in the same way that BR was and Network Rail is - that is, not very much.

23 hours ago, Lazy said:

There is also a "Stafford" which represents the NSR battery loco.

This is not part of the ERTL range but rather the "Take n Play" range produced by Fisher-Price - these are generally less useful than the ERTL range (which has now been out of production for two decades) as they are not dimensionally accurate either to the real-life prototypes or the characters in the TV show.

17 hours ago, CKPR said:

Although I'm primailrily interested in the late pre-grouping and early 1970s eras, I am wondering if there is any cross-over with some other discussions going on on RMWeb, particularly those about the disappearance of old school operational layouts that were much more popular from the 1940s through to the late 1960s. By this, I mean layouts with several stations, all properly signalled and with the primary emphasis on realistic operation. It strikes me that this type of railway modelling, which has all but disappeared with the dominance of finescale accuracy, might be the answer to the lack of variety in modern rolling stock. 

The modern railway is certainly more suited to such a style of layout than the steam era one, since it can be realistically operated by a single signaller.

I've recently purchased several freight working timetables covering the WCML between Preston and Carlisle in the 1950s and 60s, and am interested in further information regarding the workings over the WCML - the WTTs only contain the start/end points and headcodes of the services. In particular, I'm interested in information about the locos and rolling stock used.  I am particularly interested in information regarding which services were likely to be hauled by Austerity 2-8-0s and 9Fs.

4 hours ago, NotofthiscenturyTim said:

Once you adjust for inflation Hornby's prices are pretty flat at the entry level, while median household earnings have doubled since 1980 in real terms, meaning that the hobby's cheaper than ever. 

That may very well be true if you actually look at the prices (bearing in mind of course that measuring inflation, cost of living, etc is an inexact science), but that is not the public perception.

And a comment on recent posts - absolutely railway enthusiasm is alive and well. But not all railway enthusiasts are interested in model railways.

For an external perspective, here's discussion of a recent Telegraph article on the UK and model railway subreddits - obviously Reddit is a site with a userbase that skews much younger than here, so users' thoughts make interesting reading.

Of course with the idea of computers vs. model trains being brought up it is worth mentioning that rail enthusiasts who in the past might have gotten into model railways now might get into train simulators instead...

On 27/12/2023 at 16:36, DenysW said:

William Wiltun in "American Steam Locomotives" (Indiana University Press) has a long discussion on the 130-140 mph claims for the Pennsylvania duplexes. His view of the truth is that the speedos only went to 125 mph, and the reason the speed claims were (and are) made is that the poppet valves were an innovative design that had given many months of reliable operation at speeds up to 125 mph. But when they were put into 'normal' service they started failing in weeks. A paid-passenger was put onto the trains to see how they were actually run by timing them against mileposts (etc.). The conclusion from this was that 130-140 mph was routinely achieved downhill where the crews need to make up time having lost it uphill, and that this excessive speed was what was destroying the valves. This was good enough speed data (by averaging enough points to get rid of random errors) to be convincing for cause/effect but not enough to record-book entries.

Of course it should be noted that this is all based on Withuhn's interviews with two employees at Franklin, the poppet valve manufacturer. The actual records have been lost to time, which places the story a bit too far away from the source for me to put much stock in it, personally.

19 hours ago, Northmoor said:

I believe that was a common accounting practice by BR at that time, because it was assumed that passengers would drive to the junction or new railhead, so that traffic would remain with the railway.  Even, apparently if they were only travelling one stop along the main line.....

I suspect that Beeching's attitude was that passengers travelling one stop along a line was a market they could do without. He is explicit in The Development of the Major Railway Trunk Routes that in his view "shorter distance and cross-country" journeys were better left to road transport.

There is absolutely a lot of nostalgia in Japan for historic railways - perhaps not as much as the UK, but you'll have no problem finding models of the major transition-era steam loco classes.

17 minutes ago, Mike Buckner said:

And the units themselves are getting longer - 5, 6, 8, 12 car units are now on the railways in numbers.

To some extent, but there are still plenty of 3- and 4-car units rolling out of factories. This also, of course, has not stopped the production of the invariably 5-car or longer express EMUs.

3 hours ago, Dungrange said:

How many people claimed they would buy each of the 'missing units' that you highlight?  I don't think any made the top 50 of modellers wants.  There are DMUs and EMUs on that list, but the ones nearer the top tend to be older prototypes: not those currently in use.  Manufacturers will be guided by what we collectively say we want.

313/314/315/507/508 topped the EMU poll with 164 votes - the 507s and 508s are still in operation, the 313s were withdrawn this year, and the 315s went last year. The Electrostar family was in fifth place with 132 votes. The 319 was in ninth place with 109 votes. For DMUs there's definitely a bit more a bias towards older prototypes but the Turbostars took sixth place with 133 votes and the Networkers and 185 joint ninth place with 112 votes each.

Hardly no interest in the more common contemporary classes...

39 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 or they believe that they can make more money for their shareholders by not making the ‘modern’ products you cite in your analysis.

I never said otherwise - the question is why is the market like this?

33 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

You also seem to be suggesting that there’s something unique about the impossibility of buying a fully representative set of r-t-r stock for modern TOCs, when in fact there isn’t. The number of first generation DMUs produced in 00 r-t-r is still very small; SR and BR(S) EMUs aren’t at all well represented, and those that have been made seem to dip in and out in of production, making planning a layout around them a major gamble; as for LMS and LNER EMUs, anything for the surface parts of the Underground other than (dead modern, as it happens) S stock, there is nothing. Anything MU, especially above two car sets, seems to be too financially dangerous to bother with, unless it has celebrity status. And, it was ever thus. Maybe you should move to Japanese N-gauge, where I think they do cover the current scene.

That only partly explains things. Look again at the list of stock produced and notice how biased it is towards DMUs and express EMUs. Clearly there is something more than a lack of nostalgia or multiple units being too expensive going on here.

I also said nothing about "fully representative" - my point was that for a great many areas there is nothing available RTR.

Why is modern UK passenger rail so poorly represented in RTR?

Looking at what is available to represent the modern passenger rail scene in RTR, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the average person is unable to buy a model of the train they take regularly. The situation is particularly bad when it comes to non-express EMUs, with such busy electrified lines as the contemporary BML being completely impossible to model RTR in any scale.

My question is, why is this? Why are manufacturers chasing ever more obscure steam and early diesel era subjects while the vast field of contemporary passenger operations goes mostly unnoticed?

To aid discussion, I have produced a list of the classes operated by all the present-day British TOCs, along with whether or not they are available in OO. I have also listed how many trainsets are represented by the classes available, so that an impression of how representative the classes available are can be formed - these are rough calculations (especially for loco-hauled stock) that are probably inaccurate in some places.

Avanti West Coast: 221 (available in non-Avanti livery), 390 (available). 74/74 trainsets (56/74 trainsets available in Avanti livery), 2/2 classes (1/2 classes available in Avanti livery).

c2c: 357 (unavailable), 720 (unavailable). 0/86 trainsets, 0/2 classes.

Chiltern Railways: 165 (unavailable), 168 (168/1 available in historic Chiltern livery), 68+Mark 3s (68 available, Mark 3s available in non-Chiltern livery). 16/75 trainsets (0/75 trainsets available in modern Chiltern livery),  2/3 classes (0/3 classes available in modern Chiltern livery).

CrossCountry: 170 (available), 220 (available), 221 (available). 77/77 trainsets, 3/3 classes.

East Midlands Railway: 158 (available in non-EMR livery), 170 (available in non-EMR livery), 222 (unavailable), 360 (unavailable). 66/114 trainsets (0/114 trainsets available in EMR livery), 2/4 classes (0/4 classes available in EMR livery).

Elizabeth Line: 345 (unavailable). 0/70 trainsets, 0/1 classes.

Eurostar: 373 (available), 374 (unavailable). 11/28 trainsets, 1/2 classes.

Govia Thameslink Railway: 171 (unavailable), 377 (unavailable), 387 (unavailable), 700 (unavailable), 717 (unavailable). 0/432 trainsets, 0/5 classes.

Grand Central: 180 (announced), 221 (available in non-GC livery). 14/14 trainsets (12/14 trainsets available in GC livery), 2/2 classes (1/2 classes available in GC livery).

Greater Anglia: 720 (unavailable), 745 (unavailable), 755 (announced). 38/191 trainsets, 1/3 classes.

Great Western Railway: 150 (available), 158 (available), 165 (unavailable), 166 (available), 387 (unavailable), 800 (available), 802 (announced), 43+Mark 3s (available), 57+Mark 3s (available). 167/233 trainsets, 7/9 classes.

Heathrow Express:  387 (unavailable). 0/12 trainsets, 0/1 classes.

Hull Trains: 802 (announced in non-Hull Trains livery). 5/5 trainsets (0/5 trainsets available in Hull Trains livery), 1/1 classes (0/1 classes available in Hull Trains livery).

London Overground: 378 (unavailable), 710 (unavailable). 0/111 trainsets, 0/2 classes.

London North Eastern Railway: 800 (available), 801 (available), 91+Mark 4s (available). 73/73 trainsets, 3/3 classes.

Lumo: 803 (announced). 5/5 trainsets, 1/1 classes.

Merseyrail: 507 (unavailable), 508 (unavailable), 777 (unavailable). 0/84 trainsets, 0/3 classes.

Northern: 150 (available in historic Northern livery), 155 (available in non-Northern livery), 156 (available in historic Northern livery), 158 (available), 170 (available in non-Northern livery), 195 (unavailable), 319 (unavailable), 323 (announced), 331 (unavailable), 333 (unavailable), 769 (unavailable). 237/373 trainsets (70/373 trainsets available in modern Northern livery), 6/11 classes (2/11 classes available in modern Northern livery).

ScotRail: 153 (available), 156 (available), 158 (available in historic Scotrail livery), 170 (available), 318 (unavailable), 320 (unavailable), 334 (unavailable), 380 (unavailable), 385(unavailable), 43+Mark 3s (available). 143/346 trainsets (103/346 trainsets available in modern Scotrail livery), 5/10 classes (4/10 classes available in modern Scotrail livery).

Southeastern: 375 (unavailable), 376 (unavailable), 377 (unavailable), 395 (available), 465 (unavailable), 466 (available in historic Southeastern livery), 707 (unavailable). 65/387 trainsets (29/387 trainsets available in modern Southeastern livery), 2/7 classes (1/7 classes available in modern Southeastern livery).

South Western Railway: 158 (available in historic Southwest livery), 159 (available in historic Southwest livery), 444 (unavailable), 450 (available in historic Southwest livery), 455 (unavailable), 458 (unavailable), 484 (unavailable), 707 (unavailable). 164/333 trainsets (0/333 trainsets available in modern SWR livery), 3/8 classes (0/8 classes available in modern SWR livery).

TransPennine Express: 185 (unavailable), 397 (unavailable), 802 (announced). 19/82 trainsets, 1/3 classes.

Transport for Wales Rail: 150 (available in non-TfW livery), 153 (available in non-TfW livery), 158 (available), 170 (available in non-TfW livery) 197 (unavailable), 230 (unavailable), 231 (unavailable), 67+Mark 4s (available). 94/187 trainsets (31/187 trainsets available in TfW livery), 5/8 classes (2/8 classes available in TfW livery).

West Midlands Trains: 139 (unavailable), 150 (available in non-West Midlands livery), 172 (unavailable), 196 (unavailable), 319 (unavailable), 323 (announced), 350 (available in historic livery), 730 (unavailable). 115/235 trainsets (25/235 trainsets available in modern West Midlands livery), 3/8 classes (1/8 classes available in modern West Midlands livery).

Thank God for Dapol. Hopefully we see more modern EMUs in the future.

This article from one of the junior programmers on the BR version of TOPS may be of interest: http://www.les-smith.com/software/tops.htm

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

This is couched in the language of opinion. One has to ask, is there any evidence beyond assertion?

It does not take very long to find heaps of contemporary and retrospective evidence for instances where rules were ignored and management turned a blind eye without outright approving any exemptions to the rules.