Regularity

I struggled massively when learning to use polystyrene, until I switched to Evergreen.

The OLE was 6,600V/6.6kV.Well, my understanding was that.

Back to rolling stock and 6 wheeled coaches: https://highlandmiscellany.com/2018/02/20/sliding-axles/

Half right: 6,600v.

Is the Coal tank available for DCC sound?

Some traders show videos, and have them running quite loudly...

There used to be a policy of inspecting random parcels cages (airway equivalent to BRUTEs), but since 9-11, all parcels get scanned so they reckon they may as well raise the VAT. Not sure of the logic there, but if they are going to scan everything, then the £8 charge is out of order. That said, I needed Atlas code 83 rail (it has a wider head) which I couldn’t find available separately, and Gaugemaster were out of stock of the flex track, so I bought it from Micromark, who had it on offer. Worked out cheaper even after paying the VAT and the extra fee. Only took a few days, too.

Respectively:Good, and whilst I understand, that’s a shame. You sound like you have made up your mind: the rest is just prevarication...

So, with 8’ of width, we can probably get 2 seats plus a walkway in what is becoming a very claustrophobic space. Given that we also require bigger areas for entraining/detraining of passengers, plus stairways up and down, I suspect that the gain in number of seats is marginal - or possibly negative. As someone who commuted into London for 4 years, usually on semi-fasts that didn’t stop between Woking and Waterloo using Mk1 based slam-door stock, standing was not usually necessary except for a few people between those points, and then for 30 minutes. This stock had 3+2 seating, except in first class. Replacing the first class compartments - about 25% of the available units - with standard class would have done more for creating extra seats than anything else. On stock working a more obviously suburban cycle, there were plenty of vacant seats off-peak, and the real need was to increase the standing room during peak hours, which modern stock - particularly London Transport’s (tfl?) surface line trains - is now doing. This is a far more effective (in terms of passenger capacity and cost) way of doing things than creating elaborate engineering solutions that don’t really solve anything.

Nice, but the connecting rod big end appears to connect to a brake hanger.

Yep. Easier, too. So I am told.Frequently.

On the prototype, sleeper spacing on curves is determined with reference to the outside rail, with the spacing closed up on the inside rail. To get the right effect, cut the link strips on the inside - although as this is not a high speed main line, it might be purely academic...

Underrated by whom? Edit: Make sure you get the Barbirolli recording.

There were large placards at various places along the line advertising the funding. I recall seeing them circa 1990.

Keep the horizon low, and use devices like hedges, fences and dykes (which are the banks, and not the water channel) to disguise the join, and you should be ok.

Yes, from underneath.

Ah, so it was you hiding underneath the hoops?

The ECML electrification northward from Peterborough was part-funded by the EU (or whatever or was called then): stepping in where (Thatcher’s) UK government fell short.

Can he borrow yours?

Chicken.

Ah, but they weren’t doing using money donated to a worthwhile cause. That said, I think it has all been blown up out of all proportion. What happened to “lessons learned, expectations revised, corrections made clear, move on”?

Get a block of wood about 2” all round, drill a hole through the middle, diameter to suit you bottle with a small gap. Place on workbench with hole vertical. Insert bottle into hole. Much harder to knock over.

It matters if you can see the holes. I always thought the aim of modelling was to model what’s there (and visibly there), rather than what isn’t there, and holes in the boiler to accommodate wheels ain’t there. But that’s not my point. My point was that sometimes, “finescale” can be easier, and it was a shame that RJE didn’t make more of that reasoning, rather than preaching about it being more accurate. (Which it is, but that tends to make people twitchy because they then confuse accurate with accuracy, and accuracy with engineering tolerances. The latter apply no matter what you do, and are why we have things like track gauges to save us having to think about it.)

Post got duplicated.

Re loading gauges, read this: https://www.rssb.co.uk/Library/groups-and-committees/2013-guide-vehicle-structure-sic-guide-to-british-gauging-t926.pdf As it points out, various changes to accommodate wider and taller containers, plus vat]riots other factors, mean that steam locomotives are now classed as “out of gauge” for general us, requiring clearance for specific routes, and the removal of “go anywhere” permissions. Also, the key issue for expanding the U.K. loading gauge is not so much the time and cost for widening the envelope, but the impact this would all have on existing stock and new stock: it would all require power-operated retractable steps capable of working interchangeably with both old and new platforms. Moving to double deck trains, even if you set aside the loading gauge issue (!) the key impact is the increased dwell time at stations whilst passengers entrain/detrain: that is going to decrease the line capacity far more than the increase in the number of seated passengers that can be carried. Page 63 of the document referenced above makes specific reference to this point. At grouping, the railway companies found that a composite/universal English loading gauge had a height of 12’ 10”, whereas in Scotland this could be increased - at the apex - to 13’ 6”. I have no idea what the GWR had, but it is entirely feasible that theirs was more generous, and that the W6 “universal” loading gauge is lower, hence the problem with the Kings. In short, the biggest single issue with our loading gauge is the reduced width below 43” above the rail, to accommodate our platforms. That’s not going to change. All of the other issues generally relate to putting square boxes on top of this (for containers). No one would design an imaginary locomotive based on a requirement for, say, a broader gauge (larger inside cylinders, say) so what is the point in taking that approach to the loading gauge? The simple fact is, double track trains would only be practical on a newly built dedicated railway, and would lack any form of interchangeability with the rest of the system, so may as well be built to a different track gauge. No amount of playing around with designs is going to change that.