Edwin_m

Different IQ test give skewed results. To qualify for MENSA you have to be in the top 2% of scores measured by whatever test you do. I use Opera but I find it a bit of a performance... but perhaps I might take a shine to Chrome...

My experience is that once you are on the plane (including on Ryanair) they are very good at keeping passengers informed of the likely length of and reason for any delay. This is often better than the rail industry, not a criticism of on-train staff but simply because the flight crew are involved in dealing with the problem so normally have a pretty good idea what is happening. On the railway the important decisions are often made elsewhere and sometimes nobody bothers to keep the train crew in the picture. I can imagine passengers in the terminal could be similarly kept in the dark when a flight doesn't turn up, as the ground staff don't have the same involvement in handling the problem and possibly don't even work for the airline in question.

What happened to the bloke anyway. Was he remanded in custardy?

Divide any measurement by 76 and you get the scale measurement, measured in the same units, in 4mm scale. 632km is 632,000m. Divide it by 76 and you get 8,315m or 8.315km.

The Rail Engineer is recommended for people who like some fairly technical content but (usually) written up in a very approachable way. The latest issue includes an article on the Welsh Highland and May 2011 and December 2010 had detailed articles on the Cambrian trial. ERTMS is fundamentally about standardising signalling and on-train equipment so as to create ultimately a single interoperable signalling and train protection system across Europe. This is obviously important to the increasing number of international services on the Continent, though it will take decades or possibly centuries to deliver in full! For the UK this benefit is less significant, though HS2 would have to use it and current resignalling schemes include provision for ERTMS to be added later. Perhaps more relevant is that having interoperable equipment from all suppliers, standardised across the large European market, ought to realise economies of scale and reduce costs for signalling schemes. It has to be said that there is a lot of doubt and cynicism about whether this is going to be workable and affordable in the UK (remember that Railtrack was expecting to have the most advanced level working on the WCML around ten years ago). As people have suggested, the equipment prices somehow sometimes seem come out higher than the equivalents for the old national systems. In the UK, except on high speed lines, traditional colour light signalling meets all likely needs and the introduction of modular equipment and processes promises to reduce scheme costs by more than 50%. The success of TPWS in capturing about 60% of the safety benefits of ATP means that there is now much less justification to upgrade to ERTMS on safety grounds. The Crossrail programme has been structured to keep the options very much open in terms of whether and when ERTMS is running on the GW main line. The Cambrian scheme is driven by trialling the system in UK conditions rather than what is best for the Cambrian. ERTMS in its current form is not cost-effective for this type of route, and the replacement for the other RETB systems is likely to be something very different.

As posted by eastwestdivide 47400-420 and class 55s couldn not heat certain Mk2s. As these 47s were the original ETS batch with generators I guess it was something to do with that equipment needing AC on the ETH supply. IIRC the coaches in question were all allocated to services where they wouldn't ever get near an Eastern Region loco - out of Paddington I think?

Indeed poured concrete footway (the correct technical term!) is almost unheard of in the UK though it seems quite common in the suburbs of Dublin. I remember the "tyre noise" signs on the M1 (Watford-Luton area IIRC) in the 70s. Concrete pavement (technical term for the road surface) is more uneven due to the need to pour it in sections, so your really feel it with a harder car suspension.

Is this the idea that was kicking around a few years back to put a curve in between the Midland and the WCML just north of Carnforth so that WCML trains could call at the "branch" platforms? In fact it looks on the aerial photography as if there used to be just such a curve at some time. Would seem to have some benefit, though I can't see anything other than the Windermeres (if they survive as through trains) and the Manchester-Scotlands calling there. And I doubt it would be cheap...

As the breakdown truck carries a guided busway logo it has probably also been fitted with guidewheels to run both forward and reverse on the busway (can't tell from the video). But I agree it could take some time to get there if it has to back in from the next exit ahead.

For information Metrolink doesn't share any track with Network Rail but Network Rail signals, and I think owns, the section between Deansgate Junction (Navigation Road) and Altrincham. Whatever the ownership, the track workers would need to be aware of the hazard. There is similar unfenced adjacent running on Metrolink for a short section near Cornbrook and there soon will be at Dean Lane, and on Tramlink between Birkbeck and Beckenham Junction.

Used mainly on Manchester/Liverpool/Glasgow if I recall correctly, with West Midlands sets mostly being Mk2s although they got Mk3 buffets and DVTs later as well. So they mostly stayed under the wires except for diversions when various unsuitable machines like no-heat class 40s could be pressed into service. From about 1979 the Glasgow-Edinburgh sets were Mk3 with a Mk2 DBSO, push-pulled by a Class 47/7. These were about the only routes where hauled Mk3 day coaches could regularly be found in the blue/grey era.

That foundation is similar to the one I mentioned so maybe not so unusual after all.

This link shows a solid mast with a larger REB very similar to that on Blackmill. I've had to post the Google image because if you click through to the site the image is cropped to the point of uselessness. It also appears to be on a very unusual foundation! Like other mobile phone masts they are likely to come in a range of types and sizes depending on the needs of a particular site.

Hardly any tram or rail schemes do, so it's not reasonable to expect a busway should.

Presumably any preserved production HST would remain in its final MTU form - I'm not sure how easy it would be to reverse the conversion and put a Valenta back in. So re-activating the prototype, though I think it's ambitious, may be the only way of seeing the Valenta version in action again.

According to Wikipedia Eaglescliffe is allegedly a mis-spelling of the nearby village of Egglescliffe, and the community of Eaglescliffe later grew up around the station. Then there's Newhey/New Hey, and I recall a debate many years ago about whether Tooting Bec had a full stop or not.

But as I'm sure Gordon is aware, but may not be obvious to others reading this, you can't use a wire with a rating of 3A just because you have a 3A booster. The rating ensures the wire doesn't overheat at maximum current but model railways also have to consider voltage drop and its effect on short circuit protection. If you have too long a run of wire of relatively low rating then the short circuit cutout won't operate when a short circuit happens! It is essential to make sure that the short circuit protection operates reliably with a short circuit anywhere on the layout. This can be done by a simple coin test or by measuring the resistance and checking that the short circuit current will exceed the booster rating and therefore operate the cutout. I suspect the OP will be OK with a small layout and a 3A booster using 13A cable or similar, but it's something other people reading this thread need to know about.

I don't really get them either. But road conversion is one reason why people may favour a guided rather than an unguided busway. Councils sometimes open bus lanes to general traffic moreorless on a political whim, and could easily do the same with an unguided off-road busway, thus increasing noise and pollution for the locals.

There are indeed designs of bin that can direct a blast upwards where it does relatively little damage. However that may not be a good idea underneath a station canopy. Also no doubt these designs are much more costly than the traditional ones, and the operator probably considers it is cheaper just to get the cleaners (who would be there anyway) to pick up the rubbish. The fact this makes the station look like a pigsty is unlikely to be a factor in these calculations!

That picture confirms the China-built Class 91 is of similar construction to the other split-chassis China-built locos featured in this topic. I guess the lower roofline for the pantograph means there is no room on top of the chassis, and the chassis itself also takes up most of the space between the bogies. Is there room for a small decoder in the blunt end cab? If necessary you could look at something like a Zimo MX621 or a CT decoder, both of which are very small and have an excellent reputation, but will cost more than the likes of Digitrax.

Are you referring to the Poole-built version? As I understand it, and as implied by prevous posts, prior to the introduction of the PCB/DCC version with the Class 66s all the China-built D&E models except the 08 and the 20 used variations on the same split chassis concept.

I've done a 47 (pre-2009 version) and several 158s and 170s. All were still very quiet after conversion, but I didn't have to remove any of the chassis apart from the small parts over the two brushes. Have you had to remove more on the 91? Also have you fully tightened the screws and included all the spacers - there's probably supposed to be one underneath the motor?

I agree with that. We need to know if the busway is workable before too many others embark on similar schemes. That doesn't follow. If they'd followed the same contractual process to deliver a railway then they'd probably have got themselves into a very similar situation, just as the Edinburgh people have with the tram. And as to heavy rail, how long did the Robin Hood line take even with all local authorities and industry bodies fully behind it? I hope you're not suggesting DfT would be a better option! Consider for example Manchester Metrolink, a much larger transport project also being run by local authorities, and shaping up to deliver pretty much what was promised.

As I think I posted further back, both the busway and Edinburgh are suffering from disputes between the contractor and the local authority sponsors. This type of problem can occur with all sorts of civil engineering projects and there's no particular reason why a busway is more likely to suffer this type of delay than any other transport system. Very much still in use. See this list of busways.

Your diving loco wasn't a 66 perchance? I find, with the Farish ones at least, that the lifeguards that project downwards ahead of the wheels will catch on the slightest upward step in the rail and stop the train dead (amazingly not snapping the lifeguard!). Regarding wobbles on points, these seem to be unavoidable for current British N gauge stock on Peco pointwork - something to do with the points having to accommodate older and coarser wheels I think. I've had interesting events where the front of a train being propelled catches in a point but the loco carries on by compressing all the coupling springs, until the resistance is overcome and the front end suddenly jumps forward.