DK123GWR

When is a bus not a bus?

When it turns into a road!

When is a party on a bus not a party?

When the bus turns into Downing Street!

34 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

What branch of industry or office work did the studies pertain to?

Only because simple maths says that in transport, halving the average hours from 60-plus to 32 is going to halve the distance that can be travelled/goods can be moved. Hardly "improving productivity", is it?

As a thought, might better conditions/shorter hours help with retention? I understand that several road haulage firms have had concerns about the number of drivers leaving the industry.

Of course, there are also political/philosophical considerations which could be used to advocate a shorter working week (do we believe that people have a right to a decent quality of life, both in terms of having enough (food, shelter, etc.) to survive and sufficient time to persue personal goals (education, hobbies, sports, social interaction, etc.) which make survival worthwhile. These are getting even further away from the scope of the thread though...

To return to topic, I have enjoyed the programme, and in particular I'm glad about how diverse the material was. A brilliant demonstration that there is something for everyone in this hobby, and hopefully it will get a few people involved.

The 0-6-0 ST has moved forward a little. The tank has now been joined to the cab using Polyfilla. The adhesive used initially (Gorilla Glue) forms a very flexible bond, but it is strong enough to hold the pieces together. Therefore, I put some heavy objects on top while the Polyfilla was drying, and because this sets hard, it held its shape afterwards. This means that the rear buffer height is now better again than it was in my last post. I have also added a front bufferbeam (from a Dowlais 0-4-0, I think) although this is slightly too long, and will need sanding to fit the width of the loco. The couplings have been added as expected. Testing has revealed that there is enourmous variation in the height of tension locks on RTR stock. I think I will be able to adjust the couplings so they work with almost everything. The loco was also involved in an accident with a soldering iron (front left). The damage was a lot worse, but I managed to undo the worst of it by clamping the distorted section with some pliers and heating the pliers with a soldering iron. Meanwhile, another loco (on the modified frames of a Hornby Percy) seems to have found its way into the works, but that is a story for another day.

Which plant did the Romans most closely associate with the number 4?

iv

29 minutes ago, PhilJ W said:

I see now that there's two figures on the footplate so the third figure must be the guy who steers it.

My sister insists that a train driver's job involves steering, and whenever we go to a museum she will point to any circular control (there are ususally loads to choose from on a steam loco) and 'prove' that she's right because it has a 'steering wheel'. She struggled to find one on the APT at Shildon!

When I got up this morning I thought about the logic worksheet I had planned to do a few questions from, and decided I didn't want to do it at that time (I will as soon as I've written this). So instead, I took one of these:

One of these:

And one of these:

Sadly, an unfortunate accident involving a saw befell two of our friends shortly after we met.

Perhaps Toby would fare better. Or perhaps not. Here he is with two screwdrivers, pretending to be some sort of rocket-propelled loco from the Triang Battlespace range:

In reality, what we have is a new footplate being glued to the underside of the fixed parts of the motor mounts. The screwdrivers are the right diameter to hold it in position. It's a bodge which kept the footplate high enough to avoid the driving wheels. While it may have looked better lower down with splashers, I haven't attempted anything requiring a scratcbuilt component more complex than a boiler before. there is an additional complication here, since the footplate can only be attached to the chassis, not the body (which might be the more natural approach) since if it were attached to the body it would have to clear the very bulky motor and mounts - this would need it to be far more delicate than it is, and I don't have confidence that it would survive until the loco was assembled (at least not when I am the one assembling it) if it were any thinner. There is also a limit to how low I can make the cab footplate (see below) and mounting it like this means that they are as close to in line as I am likely to be able to get them.

You can also see in the above photo that the rear motor mounting (one of the few plastic pieces on the chassis) has been filed down to clear the saddle tank, and that the rear of the chassis (which is not plastic) has been filed down to accept the cab. When I first test-fitted the cab, the buffer beam sat far too high, so I removed the bunker from the cab and cut away the central section of the cab floor. I then reinserted the bunker, so that I had effectively created a large notch in the base of the cab. The chassis now slots into this. The buffers still sit too high, but it is far better than it was. 

This is roughly where we are at the end of the day. I have attempted to glue the cab to the saddle tank, but because I didn't cut up Smokey Joe as straight as I'd have liked it is difficult to get good contact while keeping both pieces level. I'm leaving it overnight to let the glue dry - if it doesn't work, a rethink will be in order (perhaps glueing the cab to the chassis, taping paper/cling film to the cab, using some sort of filler to tidy up the saddle tank, and then peeling off the paper/cling film, leaving the saddle tank as a simple friction fit onto the chassis, which sits against the cab). Whatever happens, the gap will need to be filled at some point- is there a household/DIY material suitable for this? If not, what should I get? The body should eventually be a friction fit onto the chassis (because of the motor mounts against the saddle tank). The other point worth noting is the start of a frame extension at the front of the loco. This needs to be tidied up cosmetically, which will probably just involve a sheet of plasticard down each side of the supporting structure. Working with glue in this area was quite scary, as any accidents will see glue end up on the gear train - which I don't think will do much to help with smooth running.

Still to do:

- Tidying up the frame extension

- Making the front bufferbeam

- Fill gap between cab and saddle tank

- Hide the underside of the motor

- Add couplings (probably wire loops compatible with standard tension locks)

- Painting

- Adding some representation of outside brake gear, as seen on Terriers and Panniers (aspirational)

Here is a photo of it at a slightly earlier stage, sat in front of a Hall class (so I could check buffer heights). The loco is an 0-6-0ST inherited by the West Country Railway (the railway company operating on my much larger version of Lundy, whose name will probably change soon) from the Norton and Letchmouth Railway, when all of the island's railways were grouped. The GWR 101 cab seems to have become the N&LR standard, which has left me with a few spare 101 front ends. Any ideas for these?

2 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

 

I read every line. If the fast service is obstructing slower services, by definition it is NOT a success and needs replacing. Let's stick to logic.

 

 

 

Within 12 months there would be no-one left in London.

 

Martin.

The service is a success, its just so successful that its competing for resources needed by other (also succesful) services. HS2 allows all services to continue to grow without this competition.

'm not really sure what you're arguing though. This comment suggests that you see the WCML services as unsuccessful, and in need of replacement, the previous post the reverse of both.

40 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

Am I missing something? Why does putting a face on a crude model of a 9F make it worth over £1500? Several sellers seem to think it does.

Because people pay that sort of money for Hornby Thomas stuff. Unfortunately, my Hymek was used as intended (on a train set), by it's intended audience (me, as a child). If it ran well and still had its horns I could probably (based on the prices the last time I looked) sell it for the best part of £300.

10 minutes ago, martin_wynne said:

If it's a success, why replace it?

If only you'd read on two sentences, you'd have found out:

26 minutes ago, melmerby said:

The paths released on the fast lines will be used for better outer suburban services, releasing some paths on the slow lines for extra freight services.

Disciples of Swindon, cover your eyes. The ideas contained within this post are heretical and will defile your mind with their filth. You have been warned.

I've been doing some thinking regarding the locomotive for heavy, continuously braked freight trains. I started by suggesting a 47xx could be suitable, but tonight I wondered what you might end up with if you decided that wasn't enough (basically, I got bored and wanted an excuse to dream up something far too big fun, rather than wondering about using side-tanks instead of panniers, and weighing up whether it would be better to start from a model of a pannier or from an 0-6-0 tender engine with the same boiler).

The idea is something along the lines of a 4-8-0 with 5 ft 8 inch driving wheels (so a 47xx with an extra leading axle) underneath a Standard No. 12 (King) boiler, which has the same diameter at each end as the 47xx's Standard No.7, but is 14 inches longer and a larger firebox (18 inches longer, with an extra 4ft^2 (I think) of grate area). I don't know whether 2 or 4 cylinders would be more suitable. The front bogie would be entirely inside framed because:

1) The King bogie was a bodge which I have been led to believe could have been avoided (in hindsight at least) by making other changes

2) I've always thought that it looks rather ugly, and causes the loco to look unbalanced (I was hesitant about writing this, but as it is certainly the lesser of the two sins I have committed today, why not?)

I'd be interested to know why this beast is so impractical (I know I might be pushing my luck with weight limits, but I'm hoping the extra driving axle vs a King will help in this regard) and what a more sensible solution to the problem might be. Also, please don't burn me at the stake - I love panniers really, it was just a thought experiment you see...

If the trains are built on schedule, but Phase 1 is due for completion in 2029-2033, where will the they be tested while awaiting completion of the railway? Or will the line be built to a stage that some testing can be performed by that date, but not yet ready to open? Or, will the line be fully built, but 2-6 years are needed purely for testing?

3 minutes ago, F-UnitMad said:

As for ...

The only thing drivers refusing to work (which in essence is the reality you descibe) would get is a P45.

This depends upon whether workers compete or cooperate with each other. An effective union could restrict working hours (and hence force a wage increase) because it would be impossible to replace people issued with a P45. We don't have those in most UK labour markets though.

9 hours ago, Nelson Jackson said:

Another enjoyable episode to watch I thought. 
 

Does anyone know the name of the Pete Goss layout featured in the programme however? Would love to see more pictures of it either online or in print. 
 

Edit: answered my own question. https://petegossrailwaymodelling.bigcartel.com/current-layouts

Also on this thread, linked to at the bottom of the page. The 'round of applause' reaction was created specifically for this layout.

17 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

However the test really did show up the situation with the flangeless (non) carrying wheels at the back end of the engine.  I know why Hornby do it and i know they have to satisfy a mix of markets but surely with that extra carrying axle of the W1 there was an opportunity for a bit more ingenuity?

 

I missed Sam doing his stuff - terribly sorry an' all that but I dropped off to sleep   (I shall try to stay awake during the repeat tonight)

He shows us that locos with traction tyres can pull things up a steeper incline than those without*. Then he says (I'm paraphrasing from memory) that the P2 (an eight-coupled loco) was built because the Pacifics didn't have enough grip for the gradients on the Scottish lines.

*From memory, they imply that he has fitted traction tyres for the test, which strikes me as odd since he has never hidden his dislike for them. I'm not familiar with the locos used in the test (something from the Southern), but is it more likely that he uses an old model with tyres and a newer one without?

44 minutes ago, GWR8700 said:

Watchint this programme I just find it surprising that Hornby don't introduce plastic wagon kits for the railway range.

They have the skills to do it in their Airfix department, why not add it to the Hornby range?

The funny thing is, given that they appeared to quietly announce improvements to the HST, I thought that was exactly what they were building up to when Simon Kohler was telling us that the railway customers were just like the Airfix ones, but just as I was wondering whether we should get excited he said that we all wanted ever-finer detail (he wasn't talking about me).

Perhaps this is a stupid question, but how likely is it that somebody watching the TV program is going to:

(1) recognise all of the electical equipment being used AND (2) know how to source it AND (3) not recognise the dangers involved?

I don't think anyone who knows how to try it at home is going to be ignorant of the risks, and I don't think anyone who is aware of the risks but chooses to try it at home regardless is going to be dissuaded by a 'do not try this at home message'. Perhaps from a legal standpoint they are leaving themselves open, but they are the ones who would suffer in that case. Morally, I'm not sure that they're doing too much wrong though, for the reasons outlined above. That said, I would probably give a warning if it were my decision, and I think Sam usually does in his videos when messing around with stupid stuff.

From the above posts, I have been left with the impression that once the loco finishes its run:

1) The ashpan must be emptied (I assume this one of the main tasks involve in what @jools1959 meant by 'needing a clean out' - is there anything else?)

2) Coal and water must be filled up

3) The locomotive must be turned

4) About one hour further is needed to raise steam

5) The locomotive is now ready to return, crew permitting

Have I understood this correctly? If so, how long would the previous steps be likely to take?

26 minutes ago, Metr0Land said:

Only got space for 1 carriage with your prototype Deltic?

 

 

 

Simon Kohler wants to know if you have a similar shot of a Bulleid Pacific...

6 minutes ago, Miss Prism said:

You won't get very far up the Barnstaple line with a 4-6-0. Try changing locos at Taunton:

 

 

 

When I said it's a main line in this universe, I meant it - it's double track and well built, with any severe curves smoothed out - that's only a relatively small application of rule 1 given the amount of extra land I've created (along with the people and industries to fill it).

This is one of those topics which has surely been discussed before, but I'm struggling to find where. How much work could an express passenger locomotive reasonably do in a day? The route I'm interested in is Paddington-Barnstaple via Westbury (the line from Taunton to Barnstaple being a main line in this universe) with probably another 60-100 miles (the range accounts for there being two possible destinations, as well as difficulties measuring wiggly lines) into the sea. The longer of these routes would involve tough gradients. The closest locomotives to mine would be whatever the largest 4-6-0 GWR had during that era was. To show the sort of information I'm after, I picked a random departure from Paddington this morning and tracked that unit for the rest of the day. It happened to be 800319.

As the photo shows, it worked ECS from North Pole IEP depot, two return journeys to Swansea, and then a one-way journey to Hereford, followed by an  ECS working. I assume a steam loco would do a lot less than this in a day. Could it do a single return journey on a route like mine, or is even that too much to ask? Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer.

I find the location of Titfield interesting. Based on the comments for Mossy Bottom being in South Gloucestershire or Wiltshire (the Shaun the Sheep farm (which the author of the Wikipedia article believes is in the North - which would make sense given that Wallace and Gromit is set in Wigan) they must have placed it somewhere in the Marshfield/Colerne area. That would place Mallingford as Bath, and based on the relative positions of Mallingford (assumed to be Bath), Melchester (Salisbury), and Corinium (presumably Cirencester, since that was its Roman name) Titfield must be near Devizes. None of this seems to fit naturally with the national network, given half of the real line from Bath to Devizes is still open - and not really a branch line. Wouldn't it have made more sense to place it somewhere in Somerset (like the filming location), as a small branch off of one of the many other small (and now closed) branches in that area?

I've had to Google this, and it seems that there is a joke about the time that Chinese people (an offensive term is usually used) have dental appointments. I assume it is meant to imitate their accents. The joke in this thread did not make reference to people of any nationality. Having never heard the racist version (at no point in my short memory would that have been acceptable, and since racist jokes aren't funny I don't tend to seek them out) I read it in a British accent and it the pun worked. I think those who have heard another version of the joke previously would find it hard not to be reminded of that version's racist conotations, but if somebody was not aware of that version I don't think it's fair to criticise them for using this version, which is not in itself racist (though we might give a polite explanation of the potential for offence, rather than a short, crude, judgemental statement). Of course, we are all now aware of the offensive connotations of the punchline because of its use in other contexts. Perhaps we ought to consider whether it is adviseable to use it in future given that it could be so easily (and reasonably) misinterpreted.

EDIT: I would also like to point out that if a joke is offensive, you can click on the three dots in the top right corner of each post and click 'Report' to ask for it to be dealt with, rather than starting a public argument and derailing the topic for all. I can confirm that this works - a blatantly transphobic joke made (and reported) earlier today has already been removed.

Cascading would seem to make sense, at least to the casual observer (i.e. me). If you cascade the newer bi-modes to XC you build a new set of straight electrics for the MML. If you don't, you have to build more bi-modes or diesels, either new for XC services or to use elsewhere to allow cascades. It's often mentioned on here that the Pendolinos will be reaching their expiry date when HS2 is complete, but the Voyagers used on XC services and the EMR 222s which Wikipedia suggests could be cascaded when the 810s come in are of a similar vintage. The HSTs are of course even older. Surely at some point there will need to be a major fleet replacement on XC services, and as there is no sign that their routes will be fully electrified in the immediate future, this will almost certainly require bi-modes. Why would you pay to build a set of bi-modes and pay to convert a set of bi-modes to electrics when you could just pay for a new set of electrics and use the bi-modes where they're needed? The only reason I can think of is that the 33 810s would cover only a small part of the XC fleet, so you would still have to build or cascade, at which point you end up with heterogenous units on XC services, which is probably a pain for maintenance, pathing, etc.

I've posted this before somewhere, but I have a 1970s book (I think part of a Children's Brittanica series) which suggests that about now we'll be producing coal-fired mechanincally-stoked steam turbine condensing locomotives in a streamlined casing in response to the depletion of oil reserves. I suppose they were right that there would be some effort to phase out oil, they were just a bit completely wrong about the reasons and the solution.

I didn't know where else I could put this.

In case you wanted to know the answer: