62613

Remeber that council tax isn't the main source of local government income. That is,or was, the central government grant. In some LAs, it was 85% of their income. Seemingly, a 1% rise in council tax in our borough raises £850 000, which is really a drop in a bucket when they've lost several tens of millions in central funding over the last ten years.

But, according to Lord Berkeley, revenue from HS2 will be less than the building costs.

Some fearsome acceleration there!

Agreed!

You'e correct, it's a non-gangwayed twin-art. Brake third/composite with the first-class accommodation in the middle? Suspect D210, 3rd brake with 6 compartments/lavatory composite, with 2 first and 5 third class compartments. Info from M. Harris, Gresley's Coaches

252 again; 1470 was the first LNER pacific, class A1, in 1922. It was still class A1 when Edward Thompson selected it to be rebuilt to his new "Standard" class A in 1943 (?). All the remaining class A1s (180 psi boiler) were then reclassified A10. Renumbered no. 113 after 1946, 60113 under BR. Not sure when it was scrapped. No. 61475 lasted until May 1949. The number was re-used in December 1949 as B16/2 no. 61406 had to be renumbered to clear the way for a new B1 class loco.

What made me guess that was the train/loco combination; I thought it might be one of the cattle trains connecting with the Irish ferries at Liverpool, and which ran via Standedge. When was the speed signalling, featured on Phil's photo, abolished? Sometime in the mid-60s?

The loco number is noted in the caption to the photo.

Utter wild guess, which may be entirely tosh: Mirfield

The renumbering scheme, when the V2s became nos. 800-983, didn't actually start until 1946, even though the number lists were issued in 1943. The atlantics were probably withdrawn before the renumbering took effect. Of the 4-6-0s, No. 761, LNER class B13, was a curiosity. It was withdrawn 9/34 and put into service stock as a counter-pressure locomotive, for the testing of other locomotives on the road. It was renumbered 1699 in 10/46. It was withdrawn as such from the Rugby test plant in 5/51. No. 820, LNER class B15, became No. 1696 in 5/46 and was withdrawn in 12/47. Information from the RCTS "Green Book"

The last one (245) is definitely post-1946. The loco. is a V2 and has been renumbered. 240) "Stirlingshire" became No. 2704 after 1946. I don't think any of the others survived long enough.

In fact, in the USA, the weren't called "Frames"; they were called "Engine Beds", and stuff like cylinders and so on used optical methods for accuracy of alignment of the various parts. There was also stuff like using roller bearings throughout. Could part of that be due to the economies of scale in production making the investment in the equipment needed worthwhile. Did any locomotive builder (private as well as railway) have the throughput? The other thing is that pay rates were generally much lower in the UK than in the USA, so there wasn't (some might say still isn't) the incentive to invest in the kit required in the UK.

237 & 239) are photos of ex-NBR locos in the condition shown rare? Both still have their ex-NBR numbers without having 9000 added to them; they would become 9162 and 9628, respectively. No. 628 carries the 'B' suffix first allocated to ex-NBR locos, and No. 162 has the ampersand in LNER, which only lasted for a couple of years. Moving the running number to the cabside began in 1928. The loco. stock of the LNER was completely renumbered from 1946 on; No 628 (class J36) became No. 5216. No. 162 I don't know. The K3 no.114 was renumbered between1800 - 1992.

I suspect they might, but do the various TOCs do operational analysis? If certain trains are consistently late, for instance, what is causing it? If there is a consistent reason more than others, could action be taken to eliinate the problem. i suspect that most of the solutions would come back to Rockershovel's strategic oversight. However, a couple of examples; when taking the train into Manchester, I use the Glossop line, more or less a self-contained system that uses any of platforms 1-3 at Piccadilly. Almost invariably, the train is held outside the station for an outgoing service to clear. In 2006, I had a short contract at Simon-Carves in Cheadle Hulme; the most convenient way to get there was by train. Again, almost invariably, the morning train (to Crewe) was held outside Cheadle Hulme to allow a Virgin service from Euston via Stoke to cross in front of us. It's eliminating these sorts of thing that I'm on about.

Can you get in touch with a solicitor, pdq? The writ is in the post.

Absolutely no doubt about it!

Why is it always "The Unions"? Nobody strikes for the fun of it, and anyone that says different is having you on. As has been said already on this forum, it takes two to tango. I'm not sure about splitting East/West either; it sounds a great idea, but in the more southerly part of the franchise area, Liverpool/Manchester/the heavy woollen area of Yorkshire, etc., the routes have always run West to East, and each route was run as a homogenous whole. Putting an artificial border on the Pennines breaks that up. Wasn't that tried in the initial privatisation phase with Northern Spirit/North West Trains? I'd agree that local public transport needs to be controlled more locally. If local authorities and/or other bodies were to take control of local public transport, that would imply (to me) transport funding being raised locally as well, rather than decisions and funding coming from Whitehall. How would the services which crossed major boundaries be managed? A co-ordinating committee? On the score of local control, I'm pretty certain that if they were given the powers and the funds, electrification could be extended, albeit in a piecemeal fashion, but e.g. Manchester Vic. to Stalybridge, for which the civil works were completed almost three years ago shouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibility. Would most of the rest be infill electrification?

What? Everything in the world is "political"; and that includes relationships between a workforce and its employees, whether you like it or not.

Just seen Grant Schapps, or whatever his name is, on the TV. he says he's going to strip Northern of their franchise. What will he replace it with?

Wouldn't say required; more like the position for which the degree is needed is oversubscribed. Or it's the only employment available at the moment. Or the person flipping the burger is at university, and needs the work for day-to-day living, Life isn't as simple as all that!

More to the point with STUFT, they were all UK-crewed, were they not? Would we seriously ask non-UK seamen to enter a combat zone which has nothing to do with them?

But Vardy scores on the rebound!

I suspect that that is the then UK government's interpretation of what was an EU directive. Did the Working Time Directive mandate the 48-hour limit? Genuine question to anyone who might know.

Local councils haven't run either of those since the mid-1980s. They lot control of tertiary education (6th form colleges, technical colleges and the like) at about the same time. Round our way, the police are run by a county-wide authority, as are the fire services and waste collection, relics of the strategic authority also abolished in the mid-1980s. About 18 months ago, our local council lost control of its social housing stock, when the stand-alone company running it privatised itself. Increasingly, primary and secondary education is being taken from LA control. You want me to go on? Besides, the new government has said it's going to increase its transport budget for the North (we'll see!)

The DafT have hardly covered themselves with glory, have they? Neither, really, have the privateers. Considering the assault on local government that's occurred over the last 30 or 40 years, it's a wonder councils achieve anything. I would say they have a better idea of what their citizens want than some bureaucrat in Whitehall.