Jeremy Cumberland

Take a look at these, which have been mentioned in previous threads (I haven't tried either): https://blocksignalling.co.uk/Shuttles/SAS2-BR https://railroomelectronics.co.uk/Modules/Shuttle-Module/Product-88499.aspx

Aren't the tubes in taper boilers parallel, so the tube spacing in the firebox tube plate is the same as the smokebox tube plate?

My boss when I worked for London Underground was always rather amused by the "H A M" destination blind. Always on its own, with wide gaps between the letters to try to fill the space. The more usual practice was to cram in as much as possible with supplementary information, so we had things like EALING RUISLIP ROAD EAST and NORTH ACTON GYPSY CORNER.

Name it after its end points. The Hammersmith and Edgware Road Line would be too much a mouthful, but shorten it and Ham and Egg would go down a treat.

It is a long time since I lived in London, but platform signage didn't used to be connected to any official designations. The Metropolitan line had northbound at places like Baker Street (and Aldgate, if I remember correctly), but Eastbound and Westbound along the top of the Circle and between Uxbridge and Rayner's Lane. London Underground used to (and probably still does) designate the two directions of the Circle Line as "inner rail" and "outer rail". These aren't used used in any public announcements, though. I think these names date from when the circle was completed in 1884.

It was Lot who got drunk and was basically raped by his daughters. All Noah did when he got drunk (on ordinary wine) was forget to put his pyjama bottoms on. Ham took a peek and told his brothers to come and take a look at the old man's willie.

The Mayor cannot act with impunity, but being the ultimate arbiter of what names to use for TfL routes is probably within his remit. In any case, if the people of London don't like his choices, they can always vote for someone else in May.

There might be enough people in Watford wanting to go to Rickmansworth and beyomd to make it worthwhile running regular trains over the North Curve. The trouble is that most of them would not be willing to traipse out to Waftord Met. What you are likely to end up with is a service that few people use, which could then be used as evidence to scupper any remaining hope there might be of building the Croxley Link. Unfortunately the local councils' hands are pretty much tied. TfL have ruled out the Croxley Link as being unaffordable, and Hertfordshire and Three Rivers have neither the money nor the clout, and they don't have any control over railways in their area anyway.

I also recommend this page for current track plans: https://cartometro.com/metro-tram-london/

To be fair, TfL, and London Underground before it, have rather choen to honour rich white women.

You're rather behind the times, though. The old West London Line is now fully integrated into the North London Line, with trains from Stratford going alternately to Richmond and Clapham. Similarly the remnant of the old South London Line is now integrated with the former East London Line and now terminates at Highbury & Islington. The core route is Dalston Junction to Surrey Keys, with every other train continuing beyond Dalston Junction to Highbury & Islington, and south/west of Surrey Keys the line has branches to New Cross, Crystal Palace, West Croydon and Clapham/Battersea Park. What trains go where on the Overground was difficult for people not already familiar with the routes to grasp, and until now there hasn't really been anything to tell them. The new "lines" and colour coding will make it a lot easier. By all means argue about what names should have been chosen (like others, I am a little disappointed that "Goblin" wasn't made official), but surely you don't really think that a ubiquitous orange "Overground" is better.

@Compound2632's "including" looks to be a mistake, and he should have written "as well as". The gauges were legally sanctioned by the Gauge of Railways Act 1846. I've just read through the Act (it is very short: https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/HMG_Act_Reg1846.pdf), and note that clause 2 appears to allow any future railway "which is in its whole Length Southward of the Great Western Railway" to be constructed to any gauge the promoters wished; the mention of 7 ft applies only to the railways in clause 3. I had not been aware that the Act made it illegal for broad gauge passenger-carrying lines to be converted to standard gauge.

I assumed that was one of the three. Apart from "Standard" gauge, the other was, of course, 5'3"

Glasgow is thinking of copying London's idea with the Clan Line.

The LEDs (the one on the switch and the two in the background) come on for both switch positions. Is this what you intended?

I think @WillCav must have made a mistake with 5, perhaps not realising the bottom two lines are non-passenger (there are no labels on the "blue" diagram). It makes no sense to me for 4 as drawn to be normal the other way, but 4b and 8 could form a crossover on one lever (with the normal direction as shown on your drawing), and 4a (the platform 2/3 points) would then be on their own and could be normal either way depending on whether platform 2 or platform 3 was the main arrivals platform, but this has already been covered: Ideally, the main route into the station and the main route out of the station will both have all points levers normal in the frame. You have this in your latest plan with arrivals going into platform 2 and departures starting from platform 1.

There was an accident at Quintinshill on January 12, 1973 similar to the one you describe, but far less dramatic and with no fatalities. There wasn't an accident report that I can find (nothing unusual for the period), but there is a set of photos on Flikr, mostly of the Kingmoor breakdown crane log, with some commentary. First entry here:https://www.flickr.com/photos/36034969@N08/45485302592. Scroll backwards/left for the others. I can't see anything concerning a fatal accident in 1969/1970. In absence of an official report into the 1973 accident, I wonder if the tale grew in the telling.

Don't you remember this? Actually, this is a modern one with the Circle Line that doesn't go in a circle, and some of the patterns have changed. I'm sure the Circle Line was just an empty outline, and I had in mind that one line (the District, perhaps) had black circles. The Northern, Victoria and Metropolitan Lines are the same as I remember. Of course the Fleet Jubilee Line didn't exist back then, and the Hammersmith and City was part of the Metropolitan.

Oh, come on! I certainly won't begrudge the Duke of Wellington his two statues, nor General Fochs outside Victoria Station, since both actively resisted aggression, and Britain owes a lot to them and all the men they had under them. Who else is there? A load of royals, including two of the worst monarchs (Richard I and George IV) that Britain has ever had . A number of imperialist aggressors. Okay, so it could be said they were only doing their job, but in the case of the Duke of Cambridge, they seem to have done it particularly badly. Then there's General Haig. Who, exactly, did you have in mind?

5N has to be down main to platforms 2/3 and Loop/Carriage siding to Turntable road. I think you might have drawn the double slip (underneath the number backgrounds) with the X as the normal position and the two slip lines as reverse. If you have separate control of all four pairs of switches, this is possible (unusual, perhaps), but you can't have this if both pairs of switches at each end are co-acting. Double slips take a bit of getting your head around. If you have the track laid out, though, then you can easily see which route results from each switch setting. It's far easier with an actual double slip and turnout in front of you (and perhaps a wagon to run over them) than it is looking at a piece of paper.

My left and right hand are as you look at the plan.

The crossover to the loop and carriage sidings goes from 5 on the down main to the left hand switches of the slip, not to the right hand switches of the slip. The right hand switches determine whether trains go to/from the carriage siding or the loop, and since both of these are separate from the running lines, they could be hand worked (although this is a bit unlikely in what appears to be a busy location, and it is not compatible with having separate signals for the two lines). This crossover needs to work together since 6 acts as the trap for the loop and carriage siding. It needs to be set to the turntable road unless trains are being crossed to or from the running lines, via 5 on the down main. Absolutely! It is rare for traps to be operated independently. You might have it with the slip, since there are 6 switches, which seems a lot to put on one lever.

Alpha was Hudswell Clarke 183/1876, an 0-4-0 ST built for contractors Wilkinson and Jarvis of King's Lynn and used on the Lynn and Fakenham Railway (for hauling trains as well as construction. It passed, via the L&FR into the hands of the M&GNR. It was sold to Colman in 1917, and scrapped in 1928. The name Alpha (and the number 4 as well, according to the Leeds Engine database) were given to it when it was built - they weren't chosen by Colman's. More information, and a photograph, here: https://transportsofdelight.smugmug.com/RAILWAYS/MIDLAND-GREAT-NORTHERN-JOINT-RAILWAY/MIDLAND-GREAT-NORTHERN-JOINT-RAILWAY/i-dMnFKFs [Link rather than embedded image as per the request on the linked page] The Peckett was a diminutive "Yorktown" 0-4-0ST, No 1669 of 1924, built new for Colman's. I don't know what name it carried, but it looked something like this (this is the original of the class, 1197/1909). There is an article in the March 2021 Railway Magazine about Teddy (another "Yorktown", Peckett 2012/1941) which says that the Colman loco had the chimney, lubricator and cab of this original design, all of which were changed for later builds. It doesn't mention the dome, but Teddy's dome has the safety valves exposed. Finally, of course, there is this one, of unknown origin, which I have failed to find any more information about. Ex-LBSC, perhaps?

5 on the down main needs to work with 6 on the slip (not necessarily on the same lever). 5 on the slip is independent (and could even be hand-worked (but not if you are giving the loop and carriage siding separate exit signals). 10 and 11 work together, probably on one lever.

Many, and I think this is fine. Just like I am happy to see non-prototypical signalling on many layouts, where it is clear that the owner makes no pretense of prototypically-correct operation, but chooses to focus on other things instead. There is also the practicality of moving tiny model oil lamps between vehicles when remarshalling trains. The model-buying public do seem to be inordinately fond of bells and whistles, though, and working lights have been a selling feature of model trains for decades. Purchasers believe the working lights are realistic because the manufacturers tell them they are, so who is going to be the Jonah telling them that they'd do better to leave the lights turned off or disconnect the bulbs. Even when the lights are displayed correctly, they are almost all of them too bright, and a more realistic model for any period up to the late 80s would do better not to have working lights at all.