Edwin_m

I can certainly remember at least one centre road in the 70s.

If it's where I think it is, part of the alignment is now a highway called Invincible Road.

If the stock is too expensive for CrossCountry then it will be even more so for a TOC that doesn't need its costly special features. You'd be better off obtaining some appropriate stock for TransPennine, which can't make much use of a 125mph capability but really needs a layout with wide doors at one and two thirds positions so as to handle the amount of boarding, alighting and standing (hopefully only for short distances). The most sensible option might be an EMU with couplings and push-pull equipment to work with a diesel loco between Middlesbrough and York or between Leeds and Hull. Scarborough would be taken out of the Transpennine network and served by extending the Blackpool-York trains.

I had a rare journey over it yesterday and passed a "binliner". I've also seen intermodal trains, but nowhere near as many as on the main routes to the ports. Freight between the South East and the North East is having more and more trouble getting onto the double-track parts of the ECML and the alternative via Lincoln isn't electrified. With Transpennine done, electrifying Stockport to Stalybridge creates an alternative route via WCML.

I think the 220s would still all be needed on CrossCountry. Maybe scope for Siemens to combine bits of the 350 and 185 to create a bi-mode Pennine unit, but not as easy because the 185 doesn't have electric transmission so can't just be fed power from the transformer.

You'd still need quite a few units for Oxford and Newbury services, and in the absence of any announcement on rolling stock for Transpennine we must assume that 185s are replaced by 319s on journeys as long as Newcastle to Liverpool. Are you suggesting that the South gets new build yet again and the North gets more cast-offs???!

Providing 4-aspect for a distance out of Stalybridge and also Huddersfield, but not necessarily the bit in the middle, would allow closer running of trains, since the stopper must follow closely after a non-stop leaving one place and the next non-stop will be close behind as they approach the other. Headways are in any case limited on the central section unless you want to risk stopping trains in Standege tunnel. I still think it will eventually be 4-aspect from here both to Guide Bridge (because it's too short to go to 3-aspect and back again) and Miles Platting area (because there will be even more trains on this part with the Stalybridge terminators). We discussed on another thread somewhere that NR is looking into electrification of various connections incuding Stalybridge to Stockport.

Yes 4-aspect will increase the capacity and small "islands" of 4-aspect in otherwise 3-aspect territory have been used in the past. However they are frowned on today because frequent changes of signal spacing create a SPAD risk if the driver gets confused about which signals need immediate braking and which don't. My guess is that 4-aspect will eventually extend from the vicinity of Stalybridge to link with the existing 4-aspect at Guide Bridge and also near Miles Platting. I can't remember if the latter gap is filled as part of this scheme but I would have thought it was a definite to happen before electrification. The LED signals are pretty much standard for any signal work these days. They are a drop-in replacement for the older style so you see individual LED signals in areas where all others are of the multi-lens type, and also wholesale replacement in the areas of powerboxes that have a long remaining life.

I once got a visit to the Solari control room at Waterloo (they were universally so named in my experince, after the company in Italy that made them). It's a while ago (1988) so some of the details may be a bit vague. At that time at least the board was manually controlled but this may be because the signalbox was old-tech and it is possible the boards could have been run off the train describers if the latter had been capable. The control room was I think in the range of offices facing the councourse, with a direct view of the Solari, but I think they also had controls for a pan/tilt/zoom CCTV camera so they could check everything was working. This particular system was driven off punched cards, obsolete for computer use even then. Presumably a sequence of pulses sent out from something a bit like an old telephone exchange, each one dropping one flap, but I didn't get to see the workings. Now you have the company name Google may tell you more. IIRC there was one card for each scheduled train and for credible alternative schedules. To cut down on the number of cards this may actually have been one card for each calling pattern with the departure time being added separately, and there were also ways of amending the display to show delay, add a special message or create a bespoke stopping pattern. At Waterloo at least, there weren't enough flaps to display all credible calling patterns so the display was split with the columns of flaps on the right hand part being marked with different stations from those on the left. Putting a card meant for one side into a slot applying to the other gave interesting results. Most airports had what looked like the same kit, but with a separate set of flaps for each letter, so they could in theory display anything up to their character limit but the limit was a lot less than with the railway version.

Moorgate is an interesting one but there is no need for loops near Stalybridge as they are already provided in the form of the goods lines and the remodelling will create three through platforms and therefore allow passenger to overtake passenger and probably goods too. There are certainly better ways to do it than emerging from a tunnel straight over a river and back again, on a new and tightly curved structure built in a conservation area.

From a recent visit between Oldham and Greenfield: Most of Glodwick Road to Lees is a landfill site complete with methane vents. From Lydgate Tunnel right down almost to Greenfield has been built over with housing. Plus there's no easy way of connecting to Metrolink once the route through Mumps station is replaced by one through the town centre in a couple of years time. If you really wanted to you might be able to rebuild to Grotton but no further.

Greenfield is a better bus interchange than Diggle, because it has reasonably frequent buses to all parts of Saddleworth. However I doubt many people make the change off the one train an hour at present, considering most of the buses carry on to/from Manchester. I agree there's not much room for parking at Greenfield though. The three-tracking through the tunnel would provide some overtaking facilities with the advantage of being level so freights can restart more quickly if they have to stop. You could extend this at the Diggle end as far as the old divergence of the Micklehurst line as well as joining to the existing three-track at Marsden. Another idea might be to create a bay platform at Diggle and increase the local service to half-hourly with half the trains terminating there. You could perhaps create some loops at Greenfield where the goods yard and branch platform used to be, but they might not be long enough.

Micklehurst loop was mentioned in a recent Network Rail strategy as a long term candidate for reopening, but I've also looked at it recently I don't think there's any chance.

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.