Edwin_m

Looking at Google/Bing I think there's another similar goods shed now forming part of the recycling place at Mossley. Totally inaccessible though.

The main layout change from class 220/221 to 222 is that the 222s have accessible toilets in the end cars only, with toilet-fitted intermediate cars having a smaller non-accessible toilet compartment. All toilets on 220/221 are of the much larger accessible type. Together with needing less internal equipment (no tilt pack) I think this makes the intermediate saloons a bit longer on the 222. I notice some of the linked photos for the 222 show a small window at one end of the row of larger ones on some intermediate cars, but I can't see that on any of the 220 pictures. Perhaps someone could confirm if this is a difference or am I just missing something here!

1060mm by 260mm for prototype (Group Standard GK/RT0045 for new signals, notes that larger ones have been used in the past). I make that to be 7.16mm by 1.76mm at 1:148.

I think that's unlikely as they would have to take the longer route via Marple and miss out Stockport. The Liverpool-Norwich would also have to cross the whole throat at Piccadilly and the ManAir-Cleethorpes would have to cross most of it - exactly what the Ordsall Curve is supposed to avoid for the North Transpennines! I wouldn't be too surprised to see Philips Park to Ashburys electrified so that the Manchester-Scotland EMUs can get to the depot at Ardwick where they will be maintained, without having to go round the Ordsall Curve and across the Piccadilly throat yet again. And electrifying Guide Bridge to Stalybridge also makes sense as a diversionary route and may even be worthwhile on grounds of strengthening the power supply and avoiding another feeder station. Just hope nobody thinks electrifying both of those is a reason not to electrify the direct route via Ashton!

I don't think that link fully answers the question. There seem to be three issues to think about here: - We are told that two wires from the signal are connected together to operate it. As noted down the link a relay (or solid-state equivalent) is needed to connect these together when energised from the decoder output. However we need to know the voltage and current that flows between these two wires and whether DC or AC, in order to define the relay type (maybe even to choose a suitable push button, if large currents are involved!), and with access to the actual circuit people might find simpler ways of doing things. I hope either Dapol publish some technical details or someone posts the results of experimenting! - It also seems that the signal is "toggled" each time these two wires are connected to each other, whereas most accessory decoders produce a pulse on one output when set one way then on the other output when set back the other way. I think Kato points work this way too, so whatever solution is used for those may be suitable. - For DCC users and indeed non-DCC users who want to work the signal by a simulated lever, there is the problem of the signal getting out of sync with where the "control system" (lever position, DCC accessory state, computer memory) thinks it is. For example if the control system assumes all signals are "on" when the layout is powered up, then any that are left "off" will be in the wrong state right through the operating session. Moving the signal arm by hand may cure this depending on the mechanism, but even if it does it is hardly an ideal solution! Many years ago I dismantled a non-working Hornby-Dublo signal which appeared to be "toggled" in the same way. It had only one solenoid coil with an ingeneous mechanism with a sort of rocking cam linked to the arm. The solenoid worked a sheet of bendy phosphor bronze, which dropped into one of two slots in the cam in such a way that each successive "pull" reversed the cam's position. Does the Dapol signal do something similar?

Total guess, could it be a shelf for a fire extinguisher in the vestibule?

Looks pretty good even at a first attempt. I would think the clear plastic sides with vinyl livery would be perfect for this model, especially as the sides are totally flat. If it was me I'd include the window bars in the exterior vinyl as they are genuine separate panes rather than Turbostar-style ribbon glazing. Doors slide on external runners so could be separate rectangles stuck to the outside, using glue only round the edges to keep the glazed parts transparent.

Railwaysarchive.co.uk has a large number of accident reports. It doesn't have this particular one, which either means it wasn't the subject of an Inspectorate report and they haven't got any other documentation for it. However there are quite a number of accidents involving blowbacks, including if I recall one to one of the LMS Pacifc classes, and these often caused severe injuries on the footplate.

This would seem to be the main role of the station "near" Birmingham airport.

They're re-signalling Stalybridge as well as remodelling it so the location cabinet will probably go in any case (no pun intended) .

I don't know but I wonder if some or all three of the through platforms might be built out a bit, but perhaps not a full track's worth, with the tracks realigned accordingly. If they no longer need both tracks beyond the island, and they don't plan to put back the former centre roads, then there should be plenty of room to do this and it could sort of explain the comments made by the station staff. As you say I think this would avoid the need to cut back the canopy on what is now platform 1, which is probably listed. It might also allow the new through platform to be continued behind the subway ramp, and perhaps also allow non-stopping trains to go through a bit faster. I think it would still be possible to fit the realigned tracks between the girders of the Rassbottom Street underbridge.

I understood that Stalybridge was to have three through platforms, the two existing ones plus the back of the island where the goods lines now are. The existing Up through platform would become easily accessible in both directions and used for fast trains overtaking slower ones, with the Down platform used as now and the new third platform mainly for Up trains. I agree on the bay on the station building side but I had the impression the other bay would stay as well. This was from a posting on another forum so may not be accurate. Google found me this story, posted four hours ago, which is consistent with the above but does not fully confirm it. Some sort of passenger overtaking facilty around Stalybridge is probably essential to the re-routing of Transpennine via Victoria, since (unless they plant to send the local to Piccadilly instead) the local will share the same tracks as the Transpennine for a longer distance so is more likely to be "caught up" by the following Transpennine.

It would be quite easy to work out that the telephone was probably intended to commmunicate with somewhere else, and that cutting the cable coming out of it would stop it working. But was there a parallel signal and telephone on the slow line? The "driver" they had recruited to the gang may have known enough to tell them about distant signals.

The GC has been mentioned several times already on this thread. Rebuilding the lost section through Nottingham would on its own affect far more properties than the entire HS2 route.

Since the original HS2 reports Network Rail has suggested that the slow lines out of Euston should be connected to the Great Western in the Willesden/Old Oak area so that those Crossrail services that reverse at Westbourne Park can continue as WCML suburban trains instead. I think they were thinking of the AC services running beyond Watford rather than the DC lines. This seems very sensible, as it will remove some trains and passengers from Euston and probably therefore reduce the size of the combined WCML and HS2 terminus. It also gives Euston commuters a greater range of through destinations.

The programme showed the crime investigators wandering around on a line with all 25kV infrastructure in place, so I presume the electrification was well advanced but not yet energised and the new signalling not yet commissioned. If there was a track circuit replacing the IBS signals then it would certainly have been indicated in the box, as also probably would any disconnection of a lamp. But then again if this had been noticed, or when the train was noticed to have been a long time in section, the only result would have been someone walking down the line to investigate. He could easily be "dealt with" if the gang had positioned lookouts hiding on the lineside a few hundred yards each way from the scene. I presume no other trains were in the area at the time. One passing might have stopped to report a divided train, leading to earlier discovery of the situation. It if was a little later then it might have been cautioned to examine the line.

The lower population density also means that France has a lot more empty space where railways can be built without upsetting people. Also the distances between cities are greater so the journey time saving is more signficant.

I think on one of the earlier street shots I saw a set of "modern" traffic lights in the background, the ones with the larger faceplate. When did these first appear?

For those thinking about the Great Central, it is largely intact as far as the southern edge of Leicester but has pretty much disappeared through Leicester itself and from the Trent crossing northwards. Central Railway were planning to use it to link to the Birmingham-Leicester line thence the Midland slow lines through Leicester as far as the Beighton area before rejoining the GC over Woodhead.

Mossley?

That's some excellent information Karhedron. I do however wonder about scattering magnets too widely, as this would surely end up with unwanted uncouplings when stock happens to be stopped over them. This is why I'd like to see someone produce a suitable electromagnet - It's on the long list of things I intend to try when I manage to get hold of that confounded round tuit. There are also situations such as loco changes where the train will be uncoupled and recoupled in exactly the same place, and shoving the coaches back a couple of inches would seriously endanger your passengers! I wonder if a couple of coils stripped out from a Seep point motor would work when mounted under the board, with nails through them in the same arrangement as in the photos?

Why would the stock necessarily be maintained in Leeds just because it is now? Only the diesel HSTs are maintaned there, and they would no longer be needed if the route was electrified.

I doubt BR would have put up the money to provide electrification clearances when there was no electrification project agreed. However, if they needed to do something fairly drastic to the tunnel for other reasons then it might not be much extra work to create electrification clearances at the same time. For similar reasons pretty much any bridge replacement anywhere in the network is likely to create clearance for 25kV and probably W10/W12 as well,

Hmm, we seem to have a post saying they should be shorter, closely followed by one saying they should be longer! I guess as most other couplings, even the Rapido, are available in a range of lengths then the new one needs this too.

High Level looks a seriously strange box. Downstairs doesn't look like a locking room - was it perhaps a messroom for the shunters? Was there much in the way of signalling controlled from here? Perhaps it was power signalled as part of the GWR's scheme so didn't need a locking room.