tgk300

Are opinions differing from your own not allowed? Must all opinions agree with yours or else they are worthy of a warning? Is this one of those forums dictated by mods with their own ideology and anything else is totally supressed? Seems that way to me.

Well, who ever has the job within Hornby that gets to decide on what to release has not done a good job and needs sacking. Some of the stuff is alright, most of it is random "Sugar Honey Ice Tea" that quite frankly knowone wants. There is no new GWR Steam Loco's apart from one Star Class, the Class 20 looks like something you would get for free in a magazine from Lidl and then they are doing stupid things like the Stephensons Rocket Train Pack. I mean, where are the Class 68's, GWR IET's, Castle Set HST's, TPE and Caledonian Mk5's, GA 755's and 745's, Class 70's, full detail Class 20's, Manor Class, a decent GWR Panier tank and also a 3 car SWR Class 159. There are two good models in this years January announcments, and those are the GBRF Class 50's and the GBRF 47's, the rest is junk. If this is the standard are the class of model that Hornby are putting out, no wonder the company is basically bankrupt. They are appealing to the wrong people, old LMS and LNER steam is fine if you like that stuff, but don't forget the superior GWR stuff and of course modern image stuff that Hornby's future customer base are growing up with. Eventually Hornby need to realise that the kids of today don't give a toss about LMS coaches and their numbers, a stupid amount of old wagons and Stephensons Rocket. What they want is modern Sprinter units, pacers, aventras, CAF 195's. I am sorry if I come across angry, but I am.

The reason for the sensationalist terms is simply for views/clicks. The phrase “leaked footage” has a far better chance of capturing a readers attention then “official footage”. That would be the reason, it’s just clicks and money.

I would say that it’s quieter then a 15x, but any noise it does make sounds far nicer then a 15x.

They’re a lot quite then a class 15x, although the engines are idling. What I was on about is where they are starting at a station and going to full power straight away almost, that’s when we will be able to see how much noise these units make.

How loud are the engines from the outside of the train when pulling away in comparison to a Class 150 or 158/159? My guess would be considerably louder due to the close proximity of the engines, but having never heard one of these in real life, I can only guess .

Thank you for that. Do you have any links to the afore mentioned DDA regulations before we close this topic for both the near and distant future? I believe that it is safe to say that anyone who wishes to continue this topic beyond this point will need to create an additional thread dedicated to the matter. If one does make a dedicated thread, I would be happy to participate in any and all convocations within it, but until then discussion on this topic should cease.

Do we know what the cause of these occasional failures are? Is it any one thing in particular or a multitude of differant things at differant times?

What do you mean "units are still sitting down"?

I will admit that between myself and a few others we have dragged this thread a bit of course, although I am in no doubt that I was the main culprit. My suggestion would be a sharpish return to the Class 755 and 745 units and also that we leave all the joyful discussions about the intricate details of NR pedestrian bridge design and all the politics behind them for another day, unless of course anyone wishes to make a specific thread

That wasn't this video was it? The guy got very lucky in this case. Note the "Euuueowoo" from the camera man.

£1,500,000 was the price tag apparently. I would of thought that it would of been more seeing as it has to be designed, built and installed; none of which comes cheap these days. The ramps seem very gentle which is good for those actually in a wheelchair, although i do find it quite amusing that they have provided stairs for those who don't want to do the long walk all the way up and then down the ramp, I have certainly not seen that before.

They do have such a policy, I am just putting the idea out there. In reality they can only work if staffed, something that introduces consideralbe costs.

I have just looked it up and seen it, what a beast. I would say that we are entering an era where these bridges will become standard at many stations and ex level crossing such as the one you mentioned at Thurston. Out of interest, was the ability to take horses a requirement, or was that just a joke? Done a bit of research and apparently the bridge was not popular with the locals. Looks like ramp gradient is not all that steep, it would be interesting to know if there is a recomended and a maximum gradient.

Ah ok, I get it now. They don't look great, but I suppose they're needed to avoid stairs.

What on earth is a "Donkey Kong foorbridge"?

Why is this? I am not saying that it is a good nor bad thing, I am just curious as too why this is done. The only reason I can think off is that it makes the track more difficult to access from the platform which would hopefully prevent those unauthorised to do so wondering onto the track. Is this somthing that is being retrofitted to existing stations or is it a new build policy only? Regarding barrow crossing, would it not be possible where is bridge cannot be installed to have them but with level crossing style barriers & lights? Having barrier and lights would surely then make them just like a normal level crossing used by both foot and motor traffic? Forgive me if I am missing somthing, but would that not pose jsut the same risk if not less as it only pedestrianized traffic and not road as well? Would have then is basically just a mini level crossing with all the light and barriers, but scaled down somewhat. I am not saying this is a good idea, I am just wondering if It has been considered or trialed.

Exeter St Davids in my local mainline station, so I can confirm that the practice you described does happen, although it is not common by any stretch of the imagination. Appology accepted, sorry if I came across as almost agressive in my response. It is also interesting to me that you have many local stations that are accessible. It might just be a coincidence that I don't seem to be so lucky and that my most local station (the previosly mentioned Polsloe Bridge) is not accessible. It must be the differing topographys of our respective local areas that has caused this rather large split of non accessible and accessible stations.

Exeter St Davids in my local mainline station, so I can confirm that the practice you described does happen, although it is not common by any stretch of the imagination. A MOD CAN DELETE THIS AS IT APPEARS TO OFF DUPLICATED

That there is the issue, many stations won't have a feasible design that is possible. We can almost be certain that the easy ones will get it first, leaving the slightly more challenging ones at the bottom of the pile with less money to do it. Regarding the station I mentioned earlier, when the second platform is reopened, you would need either a lfit on both platforms or a lift one on side and a bridge connecting both platforms, both of which is a little more costly than just removing steps and adding a ramp.

What are you on about? I initally said that all stations apart from new builds have stairs suggesting that ONLY new build are accessible. My next post says that many surburban routes don't have many accessible stations. Both posts suggest that accessible stations are rare, which where I am from is certainly the case.

That maybe true, but many smaller surburban routes don't have if any accessible stations.

I'm not expert, but I can say for certain that they are. I cannot imagine that the fuel can be in one car, and the engines in another. That would mean pumping fuel through hoses along the train, somthing that, in the event of a derailment, would be diasterious. That's interesting, down here you would struggle to turn any decent sized wheelchair on a double decker, especially if there are other people aboard. Regarding new build stations, I was saying that all stations apart from new build ones only have only stairs. Suggesting that only the very latest stations are accessible, the other 99% are not. Sorry if it was poorly worded and lead to a misunderstanding. It is the same story down here in Devon, the two new stations within a few miles of my house have both stairs and ramps to access them. Although, both of these stations are on flat ground making access very easy, my most local (branchline) station, is well above road level at the same level as an overbridge making any kind of ramp impossible, a lift is the only way. The station is called Polsloe Bridge, it is not a new build station (in fact, it is still the orginal concrete from the 1920's) but it's an example of a station that is almost impossible to make acessible, I mean just look at those stairs. The link is below. https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiW-fPg0-LmAhUmxYUKHdQRBogQjRx6BAgBEAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPolsloe_Bridge_railway_station&psig=AOvVaw2RYkhXzEGk_JxBIDaPkBrn&ust=1577976784972832

Although saying that, now we know that the unit is actually 163.4 tonne with what I think will be 53 tonne on powered axles, they actually look like they're in a much better situation in terms of adhesive weight.

What gets me is the fact that they push for trains to be "accessible", but all but the latest new build stations have stairs and only major stations have lifts. Its all very well and good having disabled friendly trains, but if they can't get too me whats the point?