Jeremy Cumberland

What used the short platforms? They're not electrified, I see.

I can't abide out of sync sound.

What LNER 0-4-4Ts had Westinghouse pumps mounted on the smokebox? This was a conscious decision by the previous owner, with no need to make compromises around the locomotive's previous incarnation as an M7. I do wonder whether the previous owner mistook a push-pull smokebox regulator for a Westinghouse pump, and the model is intended to be a G5. As far as I am aware, G5 Westinghouse pumps (which push-pull locomotives mostly did not have) were mounted on the front of the left hand tank. The dome position is okay for a G5 with a later boiler, but wouldn't do for an original boiler. Not the E class though. There were only 7 of them. LPTB they withdrew three (78, 79 and 82) almost immediately they took over, and 80 (L47) followed in 1941. As far as I am aware, all four locos were scrapped rather than sold on.

Liverpool overhead? Hardly a twin track mainline, and a single line branch above, but very interesting nonetheless. A small dock locomotive running beneath the Overhead Railway Credit: JBC McCann, from this page: https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/nostalgia/gallery/remembering-liverpools-overhead-railway-pictures-3239674

Maintained by the railway, surely. Railway companies were/are responsible for fences and gates.

At least unti 1883 (I still haven't read the 1883 Cheap Trains Act to know exactly what the situation became afterwards), railways were obliged by the 1844 Act to run at least one train a day with third class passenger accomodation meeting minimum standards, which stopped at every station and was charged at no more than a penny a mile., so third class needed to be retained for Parliamentary trains, even if it wasn't used for anything else. Many smaller railway companies used the same carriages for Parliamentary and non-Parliamentary trains, but I don't know about the big companies. I suppose that "first" and "second" for ordinary trains and and "third" just for Parliamentary trains was an option. Class consciousness was important in Victorian England, and I wonder whether at least part of the reason for choosing first and third rather than first and second was aimed at getting most former second-class passengers to pay more for first, so as not to have to mix with the hoi polloi in third. Thank you. I knew that quote, but had forgotten it. I always took it to be railwayman's jargon, and each time I read it I wonder whether it applied to all stopping trains, or just to the first one of the day (it was common for Parliamentary trains under the 1844 Act to be the first train of the day). By 1915, there were no "Parliamentary" trains in timetables, as you can see from the 1910 Bradshaw, available online here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951002200476y&view=1up&seq=1&size=125)

A bit like the imagined Gresley design for a 4-6-0 streamliner, cut and shut from an A4, eh? (Image from this thread: https://www.rmweb.co.uk/forums/topic/176497-Hornby-2023-new-tooling-streamlined-b175/)

I think all the carriage heating units retained whatever emblem they had when they were converted, and the class 31s weren't converted till 1979/80, so of course they had double arrows (but Stratford couldn't resist giving them fancy paint schemes). As far as I know, the only carriage heating unit that ended up without any emblem at all was former class 15 ADB968002. This started off in green with very faded lion and wheels. Very late in life (1979 at the earliest) it was repainted in blue, but didn't get a double arrow. As far as I am aware, class 15 ADB968000 had green FYE with double arrows from the outset, so this was presumably the livery D8243 had when it was withdrawn.

You wouldn't be in favour of Duke of Cumberland, then?

Report it to your bank at the very least. As others have said, £140 is far too much to pay for an antivirus, and this amount in iteslf points to something illegal.

It occurs to me that this is still one area where drivers are required to retain an awful lot of very specific knowledge, with (perhaps in this particular case, although we don't know the cause) no back up system when they get things wrong. I expect the driver of the class 86 signs for at least London to Carlisle, with all the diversionary routes around Birmingham and Manchester. That's an awful lot of signals, most of which they will never have to obey in anger ('What '$/&*ing dummy?' as @The Stationmaster wrote in a different thread recently): Unlike in many other situations, there isn't really anyone the driver can ask if they are not sure. Do drivers carry route maps in their bag, to be able to check? I imagine it would not be acceptable for the driver to contact the signaller to ask which signal applied to their route (although I have heard, on a heritage railway, a driver quietly asking the signaller the exact operation of a particular signal - but this was at the end of their turn of duty, not while their locomotive was stood at at the signal in question). Is route knowledge still largely done on a self-assessment basis?

There need be no specific awareness by drivers of TORR, or indeed anything else that the signalling system might do after their train has passed. What the driver needs to understand (and almost certainly does) are the rules concerning reversing movements. I have no idea what the current rulebook says, but previous versions have been quite elaborate on the subject. For most light engine shunting movements in a busy station, this means taking the locomotive beyond the signal controlling the reverse movement, changing ends (where appropriate), and only moving when the signal shows clear. This is, of course, entirely undermined if the driver thinks a different signal applies to their route.

Agreed. It is something I usually have to teach new starters on the heritage railway where I volunteer. Having seen this, I now try to avoid these terms when I am unsure of my audience (and when they don't need to be taught). These, at least, are easy enough to avoid ("clear" and "at danger/caution" are obvious alternatives). "In advance" and "in rear" can only be replaced with some other specialist term which seems just as likely - or more likely - to be misunderstood.

It is usual to show the adjacent signal box names, often with "From X" in the down direction and "To Y" in the up direction.

Rumour in Carlisle has it that McVitie's is planning an invasion of Crawford's. I expect they are trying to gauge how many biscuit-lovers will rally to their banner.

Oh what a minefield terminology can be. In absence of any other information, the expression "fixed signal" is more usually a signal whose position is fixed (it is firmly secured to the ground), not one whose aspect is fixed. Topsy-turvy indeed!

The name isn't correct for two-tone green livery. The locomotive was still GEORGE JACKSON CHURCHWARD (a monster, or even a monstrosity of a nameplate) when it was painted into blue. It didn't get G.J. CHURCHWARD plates till 1979. There were at least two different styles of G.J. CHURCHWARD plates. Apart from the standard class 47 sans-serif plate fitted in 1979 (similar to the one currently fitted, so far as I can tell), it was one of four class 47s painted into Great Western lined green for the GWR 150 celebrations in 1985, when it gained a GWR-style nameplate with serif lettering and wide spaces at either end, as well as a cast and painted GWR crest below the nameplate.

The 1921 Railways Act had specific provision for pairs of companies to amalgamate before 1923: The Act gave the Minister of Transport wide-ranging powers that made the process of amalgamation and absorption much easier than they had previously been. I can easily imagine some companies wanting to get the easier mergers out of the way first, before entering into detailed negotiations for the remainder. I've just looked up who the Minister of Transport was at the time, and was astounded to find that there were four of them in the space of a year: Up to 7 November 1921: Eric Campbell Geddes 7 November 1921 - 12 April 1922: William Peel, Viscount Peel 12 April 1922 - 31 October 1922: David Lindsay, 27th Earl of Crawford 31 October 1922 onwards: Sir John Baird There were changes in government during this time: Lloyd George ran a post-war coalition government up to 19 October 1922, when he was forced out as the Conservatives ended their support, and there was a general election on 15 November 1922, which the Conservatives won. However; all four ministers were Conservatives, and there is no party political reason that I can see for the frequent changes. Geddes resigned, Peel was promoted to Secretary of State for India, and Crawford was moved out by the new Prime Minister, Bonar Law.

I've done land surveying using chains, but they were metric by then: 20 metres. They were still divided into 100 links, though, and seeing this finally explained what was probably the weirdest measurement on the back of my school exercise book: 1 link = 7.92 inches. Also, 25 links = 1 rod, pole or perch = ¼ chain, which is probably rather more informative than the seemingly random 1 rod, pole or perch = 5½ yards.

It's a late batch 24 rather than a 25, and there's a piece about AEI (illustrated with the same poster) on the Derby Sulzers site: https://www.derbysulzers.com/24130.html Anyway, it could have been worse - they might have used a class 28 MetroVic.

Okay, so who else read that as "we really need a military historian", and wondered what military history might have to do with Yorkshiremen playing cricket?

It's fairly typical for an illustration of a late Rocket class, but surely ten years out of date for the Birmingham and Derby Junction Railway.

Panama hats. Cricket. Yorkshire.

The locomotives survived as long as they did because of the Southend service, but they were primarily built for the MDR/LNWR Outer Circle route from Mansion House to Broad Street via Kensington Addison Road. I don't think the Southend service started till 1909. I am a little surprised that the RCH plan doesn't show the London and Blackwall Railway as a separate concern. The line to Fennchurch Street is shown as GER.

It's been called off now that LNER have agreed not to enforce minimum service levels on "ordinary" strike days. I think that this is the first time the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 has been tested.