DK123GWR

Thank you very much for the swift response. I thought that this might be the case but decided it was best to check.

I've recently been looking around the internet compiling information on a few different models (I've been doing some detective work to find likely christmas presents so that if I open the box to discover one of them I already know what work needs to be done). One of these is the Bachmann class 121 DMU in BR Blue, product code 35-536. This review by Andy York, as well as several other sources, suggest that the model was released in Spring 2020. However, Model Rail Database appears to contradict this, stating that the model was released in 2016, and has remained in the catalogue until the present day. Please could somebody clear up whether Bachmann have produced multiple models with this product code, there is an error with Model Rail Database, or (as I suspect may be the case) the confusion is simply down to the way that information is displayed on Model Rail Database, with 2016 being the year the model was announced rather than the year it was released.

Thank you in advance for any information you may be able to offer.

14 minutes ago, Kris said:

 

In theory this would be a good idea but, taking Trowbridge to Chippenham as an example, the single section of the line does not start close to the centre of each town. At the Trowbridge end you would still need to get out to Staverton to get there. The Chippenham end is more problematic with the line from Trowbridge joining the main Bath - London line just to the west of the A350. This is away from any sensible road access point. Even if you were to build a new cycle path from this point to the other side of the A350 (massively expensive given you would likely need to bridge this road) you still end up on busy roads heading into Chippenham. 

 

This situation is common with many singled lines, so unfortunately would provide limited benefit for the expense. 

That's why I suggested using the existing NCN 403 (click here for map) to leave Chippenham before reaching the new path. The busiest road used on this section is Hungerdown Lane, which has reasonably good cycle lanes and so is safer than some other roads. The existing route via the NCN 4 (the canal) also passes along the border of Staverton, and the journey from Staverton to the town centre is traffic free for most of the way as it follows the canal towpath and an existing path alongside the railway. The ends of the journey would therefore be very similar to the present situation, being lagrely on quiet residential streets in Chippenham and shared pedestrian/cycle paths in Trowbridge.

An idea struck me after commenting on a thread about railway tresspass. There are a number of lines in Britain which were once double track but were subsequently singled. Many are important public transport links, but it is hard to conceive that they would ever revert to double track. A nearby example might be the Chippenham to Trowbridge line. On some of these lines, why not convert half of the trackbed into a path for pedestrians and cyclists to use? The Avon Valley Railway shares the former Mangotsfield to Bath line with the Bristol and Bath cycle path, which shows that cyclists, pedestrians, and trains sharing a route could be possible. This would help to facilitate cycling by cutting the distance travelled and moving most of the journey onto relatively flat, traffic free routes.

I have investigated the effects of such a policy on a journey from the bottom of Chippenham High Street to The Shires in the centre of Trowbridge. The overall distance travelled would be cut by 19% from 25.9km to 20.96km. This is based upon a current route which follows the NCN 403 and NCN 4 (a canal towpath which is probably too narrow at several points to cycle safely, and requires regular stops to let pedestrians pass) before using the path alongside the railway to reach Trowbridge town centre. The new route would begin the same way, initially avoiding Bath Road, before crossing it and using Easton Lane to leave Chippenham. You would then turn left at the crossroads and cross the GWML, having followed the NCN 403 to reach this point. However, there would now be an option to turn right onto the cycle path along the railway. This would carry you for 12.06 km to Marsh Road in Staverton. You would then be able to cycle a very short distance along Marsh Road to join the NCN 4, where you would rejoin the existing route along the towpath and the existing path next to the railway. This would also increase the traffic-free milage by 6.51km from 8.35 to 14.86km. This would take the route from 32% traffic free to 71% traffic free, a huge change in the nature of the route. Other benefits would include avoiding Lacock (which is full of tourists walking wherever they please whenever the weather is remotely warm) and Melksham town centre (which can be busy, even if the traffic is slow-moving). It would also eliminate the need to cross the A350 twice, once near Whitehall Garden Centre and once to the south of Melksham.

There are already a number of pedestrian level crossings near Beanacre, and connections to the new cycle path here would allow residents of Beanacre to cycle to Chippenham, Melksham or Trowbridge without using the busy A350. In Melksham, connections could be provided at Dunch Lane and the station, and it may be possible to provide connections to Lacock's Corsham Road estate and Station Road, Holt.

I have written about this line as I am reasonably familiar with the geography, rather than because I believe that it should be the top priority to receive a shared path. However, I hope to have highlighted some of the potential benefits of constructing shared paths parallel to railways, such as cutting journey times with shorter, flatter routes, improving safety by drastically reducing the amount of cycling on roads used by motor vehicles, and providing better connections for communities without viable cycle routes (eg. Beanacre). Any increase in cycling rates should also take cars off of the road, leading to the associated environmental benefits which have been widely acknowledged. I hope that this will start a debate about whether there are any lines where it might be a viable proposition to have a shared path installed alongside an existing railway in order to facilitate active and environmentally friendly transport solutions by optimising the usage of existing corridors (albeit at a higher cost than selectively closing roads and turning them over to pedestrians an cyclists - which would acheive many of the same objectives).

Just now, Phil Bullock said:

Hmmm....can a train driver take avoiding action?

No, but on a former double track they most likely wouldn't need to, provided the walker was sticking to the edge. I would also suggest that there are enough distracted drivers that there would be at least one road vehicle driver unable to take evasive action for every train driver unable to do so. From a purely logical point of view I still don't see that the risk is any higher (though this is not consistent with my strong emotional aversion to railway tresspass). However, this discussion has sparked a (completely irrelevant) thought. On former double track branch lines which are unlikely to be redoubled (Chippenham to Trowbridge for instance) why not keep the railway to one former trackbed and install a joint cycle and footpath on the other. The Avon Valley Railway has a parallel cycle path, so could the same work on the national network? Does UK Prototype Discussions (not questions!) seem like the most suitable subforum for a new topic?

It does strike me that British attitudes to railway tresspass do seem to be based on an overestimation of the risks. With due care and attention I don't see any reason why walking along the edge of the pway of a 60mph single track branch line (particularly a formerly double track line which has since been singled) should be any more dangerous than walking down a country road with a speed limit of 60mph. However, many people (myslef included) would have absolutely no concerns about doing the latter while not even contemplating the former.

On 07/12/2020 at 19:46, Northmoor said:

He's not even consistent in whether he dislikes railway enthusiasts or not!

 

Don't assume the local paper in printing this, agrees with a word of it.  Sometimes editors see a letter like this as a space filler that might generate further stories and even, give a safe outlet for lunatics to rant often about weird and wonderful conspiracy theories.  The Hartlepool Mail used to frequently print letters from someone who would rant about things like coffee being an American imperialist introduction to Britain and that therefore all Britons should drink tea. They gave their address as "The People's Republic of Hartlepool".

When I was given training on campaigning effectively on local issues last year, and the section on local newpapers can be summarised as:

- If you send them a press release, there is a 90% chance that it will be printed without editing.

- It is entirely possible that they won't even read it in full

I have no idea how the editorial practise of this paper compares to the ones our trainer had experience with, but I thought at the time that it must be possible for all sorts of crackpots to use the local press to get their points across.

A few years ago now, I was walking towards the viaduct in Chippenham when I saw an HST crossing it. Of course, there's absolutely nothing remarkable about that. The train was a mixture of the new GWR liveried stock and some older FGW coaches, which is again typical of the period. However, this one stood out due to the unmistakeable presence of a first class coach in Intercity livery. Does anyone have any idea how (other than a strange imagination) this may have happened? Surely all pre-privatisation liveries dissappeared outside of preserved railways long before this point in time. If I was old enough to be out for a walk alone it can't have been before 2014, and the GWR vehicles would place it in 2015 or later. Did I make this up or has somebody else seen this strange sight (or even better, photographed it)?

Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. It's a memory which always bugs me when I think about it (specifically because I worry if I'm going mad) but this is the first time it's hit me at a moment where I can ask people who might know something about it.

1 hour ago, Christopher125 said:

 

It wasn't actually real! Just a bizarre error-ridden hoax...

 

Chinese HS2 letter was ‘fake news’

 

"Speaking at Chatham House in London, ambassador Liu Xiaoming said: ‘The Chinese railway authority did not write a letter to promise it can deliver the HS2 project within five years’. He also used the phrase ‘fake news’.

 

The letter included an email address which did not have an official domain name connected with the railway in China and quoted the postal address of a ‘representative office’ in Malaysia. In reality, the railway’s head office is in Beijing. The letter was signed by someone who also does not seem to exist.

 

According to City A.M., the China Railway 16th Bureau Group has since denied that it wrote to HS2. It is quoted as saying: ‘Our company knew nothing about the letter which appeared recently in certain media and was written in our company’s name to the chief executive officer HS2 before our company read the letter in the media.’"

And there we go. I've either forgotten or missed that it was fake (as well as everybody else reading the forum in the eight hours between our posts). Who knows what people who don't make a habit of following political or rail news might think happened? I don't know about older generations, but politically disinterested people of my age tend to get their news through social media, which rarely gives the full story even when it is accurate. Hopefully, this illustrates why there is likely to be so much misinformation circulating about the project (as well as many other issues) even without any malicious behaviour.

2 minutes ago, caradoc said:

 

It would be very interesting to know how the Chinese proposed to achieve this, while at the same time complying with all relevant UK laws and regulations, and also dealing with anti-HS2 protestors.....

 

They never really explained that part, which is part of the reason it isn't happening (alongside national security). However, I can imagine many people I know asking 'why can't we build it that quickly?' rather than realising that without an enourmous army of underpaid (or even unpaid) people working in very dangerous conditions, it simply isn't possible for anybody to undertake such a large project with the timescale and budget proposed by the Chinese.

22 minutes ago, Richard E said:

it is Chinese funded so that they can take over the country.

Perhaps a more understandable misconception for those who don't follow current affairs closely, given that there was an offer from the Chinese to build it in a much shorter timescale than planned which drew a lot of media attention. I don't recall the decision to reject this offer being so well publicised.

I know this sounds like a stupid question, but I have just had a very frustrating afternoon trying to build the prototype for a set of modular baseboards. This is the process that I followed:

1) Use a rectangular template lined up to the edges of a piece of wood to draw lines parallel to the long edge

2) Do the same on the short edge - This created a pattern with 9 sections - the top in the centre, the sides and ends adjacent to the top, and the corners to be discarded

3) Verify that all lines are the correct distance from the edges and parallel to them

4) Cut along the lines, ensuring that the same point on the saw blade follows the line

The result, one would expect, would be two side and two end pieces of equal height, and yet while the two end pieces were identical and the two side pieces also identical, the height of the sides and the ends were different. In the past I have had similar issues with the casing for a controller, although in this case I had drawn the pieces as a net rather than using a template to ensure (in theory) that the dimensions were the same. Can anybody suggest what I might be doing wrong? While I feel like I have taken all variables into account, clearly this is not the case as I cannot acheive consistent results. Thanks in advance for any advice you may have.

I've been looking at XLRs and they seem to tick all of the boxes. I'll most likely go with those.

1 minute ago, Oldddudders said:

Yes, do use a mains plug and socket, for all the robust qualities they bring - but put the plug on the controller lead and the socket on the layout. No chance of any mains supply having a plug, rather than a socket!

A good idea if I can get it to work. It may be harder to fit the socket to the layout than the controller and I guess that putting the wrong plug in would kill the controller, but it's certainly preferable to putting the mains supply into the track.

I am currently building a small 00 BLT which is operated on a one engine in steam basis and can be easily stored when out of use. The design of the baseboard and layout is complete however in order to store the layout I will need a way of disconnecting the controller. As the controller is self-assembled, I am able to use any sort of connection between the track and the controller, however it needs to meet certain criteria.

1) Durability - I will be connecting and disconnecting the supply frequently and need to be able to do this without breaking anything.

2) Cheap - and preferably available from non-specialist suppliers (supermarkets, pound shops, DIY stores, etc.)

3) Not a mains plug - I had considered this as it meets the above requirements until I realised that there is nothing to stop somebody accidentally plugging the layout directly into the mains and making the track live at 230V AC, which could easily dispatch any locomotives on the track, as well as the idiot that plugged it in.

Thanks in adavance for any suggestions on what sort of connection may be appropriate.

Thank you all for the interesting replies. It seems that for both situations the answer falls into one of two broad categories: wearing away rough parts which interfere with running and overcoming problems caused by old/poor lubricants. Is that a fair summary?

It seems to be a commonly accepted fact that locomotives do not always work to their full potential straight out of the box and that a period of running in (often for around half an hour in each direction) can lead to an improvment in running qualities. I don't wish to challenge this idea as I don't have any evidence to support or contradict it, but what does running in actually do to the locomotive's mechanism in order to cause this improvement?

On a related note, I have noticed that some of my locomotives do not work well from a cold start. The best example that I can give is my Lima class 47, which intitially has two speeds: 'off' and 'full speed'. Any attempt to run the loco at a lower (but still very high) speed will inevitably cause the motor to stall. However, following a few laps of the track at full speed it always runs far more smoothly and can get down to reasonable speeds (I would estimate around 10mph) with no risk of stalling - which isn't bad considering the age and costs of production of this particular model. Again, I would like to know what changes this 'warming up' process causes which can improve running (and fairly dramatically in some locos).

Thanks in advance for your help here. I have tried a search but as every other thread contains the words 'running in' it brings up a lot of irrelevant content and not a lot of answers.

Thank you.

Seen today near Chippenham, I believe running from Didcot to Westbury (photo 3) and Reading Triangle to Westbury (photos 1 and 2).

Thanks in advance for the help.

14 hours ago, The Johnster said:

Something like this in principle, but with electronic on board control circuitry and smartphone NFC, perhaps improving the efficiency of the motor and drive system by using direct drive slow running miniature coreless motors whose drive shafts are the actual axles (direct drive hi-fi turntables were doing this in the 80s), and improving traction with wheels and track made entirely of non conducting material, might be a way to go.  

And it would also reduce issues caused by careless track weathering/ballasting getting the track dirty.

7 hours ago, meatloaf said:

another with murdoch with the same pics, starting at the price the last one ended at

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RARE-Hornby-THOMAS-THE-TANK-AND-FRIENDS-R9684-MURDOCH-Locomotive-DCC-Ready-/174493757421?fbclid=IwAR32ECAEQSs5ei2wCRP7kz-8jK0Tqq78HMqpKqwO8my-ESQ42f0Jdw9NwRc

 

Won't the next one go for less simply because there is one less person competing for it?

3 minutes ago, Paul H Vigor said:

Well, out of morbid curiosity I had to watch Murdoch go! £2,250.00. And someone, somewhere will be sleeping in the shed tonight!?

No - they had to sell the shed to buy the loco!

14 minutes ago, Paul H Vigor said:

The bidder IDs suggest mostly dealers? The current leading bidder was the first to bid back at £62.00!

If they're buying this with intent to make a profit then I hope they get what they deserve - several years staring at the mustard monstrosity until inflation makes the price seem reasonable.

Generally a pleasant read, but I think the last line is one of the most important in there - how many of the people who have picked up modelling over lockdown are going to stick with it? As an aside, is the photo deceptive or is the Hogwarts Express headlight really that bright?

42 minutes ago, jcredfer said:

 

I have to wonder if the bidders are bidding up until the last moment, before withdrawing their bids at the last moment.  Perhaps they want to teach the seller a lesson, or maybe they know the seller and want to mess him/her about, for some previous event?  Time may yet reveal.....

 

Julian

 

It's a shame it didn't start at 99p with no reserve, otherwise I'd bid in just in case.