rodent279

Yes, I think in many cases it's more than just clearing vegetation & relaying track. When you get to renewing drainage & rebuilding formations, you are effectively starting from scratch anyway. Even if & when HS2 gets built, the bits re-using the GC will not really see the GC reopened, it will effectively be completely new railway.

I guess it's a case of "If I was going there, I wouldn't start from here." Perhaps, if it had been possible, it would have been viable from the start of the NYMR as a preserved railway, but now, I can't see it being worthwhile. Though Pickering-Malton is nowhere near as scenic as the line north of Pickering.

I vaguely remember seeing some stuff about this, but thought it was a bit earlier, around 2002-ish. I always thought it was a mad idea. Couldn't see what was in it for the NYMR, it's not going to attract vast numbers of extra tourists, and if it did, they would struggle to cope with the numbers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't really know about the costs involved-but I would imagine replacing track is only one element in reopening a line, and not necessarily the most expensive part either. If it was due for renewal before closure anyway, or the trackbed needed renewal, then it's going to be replaced anyway. I've siad earlier in this thread that closing lines is not the problem. The real issue is losing the right of way, and supermarkets etc being built over the formation. If current traffic patterns mean you don't need a line, then there's no point in diverting money & resources to it, but giving up a piece of physical infrastructure is depriving future generations of the means to reinstate it.

I think a lot of the "reversing Beeching" idea is misty-eyed nostalgic romanticism for a long-lost past, which is why I said earlier in the thread that it's distraction politics. I reckon a fair few people are daft enough to think they are going to get chocolate-box type country branchlines back, complete with uniformed porters doffing their caps, ma'am. That's not to say that I think there aren't lines that shouldn't have closed, or that there are no lines worth reopening. I'd certainly love to see some additions to the network-but I, cynical as I am about slick, manipulative politicians, think that they see this as an opportunity to dupe people into thinking they are getting something they will not.

I think it's more complex than that. Nationalisation may or may not be the answer (depending on the question you are asking), but in my view, integration is the key factor that is needed. The unified, intergrated BR did a lot of things very well. The rationalisation of the railways was as much a political decision as an operational one, and one that stemmed, in my view, from the haphazard, unplanned, literally dis-integrated, way in which they grew.

I guess a society could be extremely productive, in terms of GDP, and therefore presumably wealthy, but that does not necessarily translate into a "happy" society, however you want to define that. Which makes sense to me, because I suspect the reverse is also true-a society could be poor, with a low standard of living, at least in western terms, but not necessarily "unhappy".

For me, engineering standards should be at the foremost. Be the best you can be. When you do things for money, you tend to lose sight of quality, and focus on costs & revenue. We led the world when there was little or no serious competition. We led it, then sat back, watched the moeny roll in from far-flung parts which we ruled down the barrel of a gun, then when those far-flung parts went their own ways, we had to compete in what were closed markets-and we couldn't. GB plc is still coming to terms with the loss of empire, never mind Thatcherism. And I have thought for a long time that the real mistake was not so much in closing lines, as in abandoning them, letting the infrastructure go, literally dis-integrating them, as in the reverse of integrating. Building bridges is one thing, but once you are in the game of re-claiming long lost rights of way, that's a different ball game. You might as well start from scratch.

I don't really buy the idea that loads of Victorian railways were local concerns funded by socially minded promoters, who put up the cash knowing that they had little chance of seeing a return. I think they were either heard-headed businessmen out to make a profit from what they saw as a natural monopoly, or somewhat misguided investors, who jumped on the era's popular bandwagon-which eventually turned sour for them, much the same as the dotcom crash in the late 90's. I think there were definitely lines that either shouldn't have closed, or that would have a place in today's railway if they were still open. The GC is one, Woodhead, Waverley, the Lowlands route to Stranraer, S & D, D, N & S, MSWJ, these definitely should have been retained in some form, if not as full-blown main lines. Woodhead closed mainly because the traffic for which it was built, and later electrified, simply disappeared. That said, I think if it had survived even another 5 yrs, it would not have closed, and there would be a place for it now. I'm not advocating reopening it though, it's too far gone now. Maybe in 1990 it would have been possible, but not now. The S&D is another, had it been retained it would have had a worthwhile place, but it's too far gone now. But many Beeching victims simply had little purpose once motor buses became widespread, and I believe would have been closed anyway, Beeching or no Beeching. I don't see any value in re-opening chocolate box lines like Brixham, Ilfracombe etc. The ongoing Portishead & East-West Rail Link sagas have been mentioned already. I remember not so long ago there was serious talk of re-opening to Chinnor, & to Thame, from P.Ris. If something like that can't be pulled off, connection to a busy commuter line in SE England, with all the commuter potential it must have, I don't see much hope for towns like Buckingham, Brackley etc. I still think it's distraction politics.

A) The fact is, a lot of those closed railways should never have been built, let alone closed. Many of them barely paid their way for a decade, let alone form the start. Beeching is much maligned, but if he hadn't done it, someone else would have. He was blunt, too blunt, but many of those lines & stations had to go. B) This is a distraction from the b@lls up the gov't is making of the B-word, and everything else at the moment.

If I had £30k spare, I'd have better things to spend it on. I am about to be made redundant. £30k is what I will have to live on until I find a job.

How's this? (not my photo) https://flic.kr/p/eixfY3 https://flic.kr/p/GUtX6B

Yes, I have a soft spot for Glasgow Central too. And Waverley-gateway to the Isles.

I wish I'd seen Snow Hill in it's heyday, in the 50's. Also Sheffield Vic, Nottingham Vic & Leics Central. Sheffield Midland in the 1980's was a pretty fascinating place for a teenager to waste his life at! But I still come back to Euston. 1980's Euston, with it's bleu electrics, blue EMU's, that distinctive musty smell, hissing air brakes, silent electrics ticking away, intense activity as a train arrived, then eery stillness. And that lovely, big spacious open concourse, until they spoilt it with kiosks. Purists & design fascists hate it, but I love it. Anything that Charlie Windsor hates usually has some merit for me.

Ha ha ha! Best bacon butties-that's the best reason you can have for liking a station!

Coventry is another good one.

Yep, pretty much spot on, and a Western, slightly heavier than a Deltic at 110 tons, but with around 16% less installed power, comes out at 18.3kW/t. Horses for courses, a lightweight, powerful engine might have a problem starting a heavy load without slipping, where a heavier, less powerful loco may have no such problem. What is a reed valve? What function does it perform, and where in the engine does it live? cheers N

Well, for less than 25% more weight than a 31, they have over 75% more installed kW (135t against 110t, 1865kW against 1096kW). I reckon in practical terms, that makes a Peak worth about 4 coaches over a 31.

And yet, in terms of power to weight ratio, a class 20 is virtually the same as a 31, at about 9.5kW/t. For comparison, Deltic=24.6kW/t, 24-27 ~ 11.5kW/t, 37 = 11.8kW/t, 40= 11.5kW/t, Peak ~13.5kW/t, 47~17kW/t, 50 = 19.5kW/t.

I guess I'll get a bit of flak for this! Three suggestions from me that I guess are bound to be unpopular. Euston (the "new" 50year old one) Milton Keynes Central Reading, the new one All new, bright modern stations, but with very different styles. I particularly like the marble floor in the hall at Euston. Milton Keys is functional, has clean lines and an impressive glass building that when it was first built, really stood out.Now its a bit crowded by more recent developments, but I still like it. I never visited the old Euston, but from what I can gather, it was dark, dingy, cramped, and simply didn't have the operating flexibility, or work as well for passengers as the new one. And as for that monstrosity, the Doric Arch-best left in the river I say. Why on earth would you disguise a railway station as some sort of temple? There is a group that wants to salvage as many of the remaining stones as possible & rebuild it. Why? Can't we do our own thing these days, why do we have to look backwards and copy what has gone before? The new Reading is well designed, and a bold imaginative step, in line with the upgrading of the line. It maybe lacks the interesting & varied motive power of a couple of decades back, but I think it serves passengers needs well-and that is what it's there for. Cheers N

And why exactly are 31's so heavy? For a similar power, classes 24-27 & 33 managed with 25 or so tons less? Is it the design of the bodyshell, or the fact that they used a 12cyl engine? You'd think re-engining with the Sulzer 8-cyl machine used in 33's would have made more sense, that would have made a lighter engine.

What interests me is why 31's were A1A-A1A, why not 1Bo-Bo1. Why put the carrying axle in the middle? Weight distribution? And as for coupled axles, apart from the hydraulic transmission diesels, most French electrc locos are either B-B or C-C, with monomotor bogies, a single motor driving all axles through a gearbox & final drive. I can't think of any diesels with monomotor bogies-can anyone enlighten me please? cheers N

Does that have a Buchli drive?

I have a suspicion that if it had been left to it's own devices, BR/BTC would have quite happily settled for a fleet of class 20/37/40's. That would have handled 90% of traffic requirements-all except the heaviest freights & fastest passenger jobs. I also wonder why a leaf was not taken out of the DB book-in both locos & MU designs from the 50's & 60's, engines & transmissions from different manufacturers were completely inetrchangebale. I think the V200's could, and did, have engines from 3 different manufacturers & and transmissions from 2 different suppliers. Surely if that was possible, loco designs could have been specified to have either Sulzer or EE engines, and EE or Brush or C-P transmissions, and be used interchangaably? I suppose that did happen to an extent, in that the class 45 & 46's had different transmissions, & class 25's had AEI, GEC & C-P transmissions, but to my knowledge it was not interchangeable. And of course, some HST's have Brush traction motors & control gear, some GEC.

I notice in cold wetaher very often the couplers on Sprinters etc are covered with a plastic bag. I assume this is to prevent icing up. Is there a specially designed cover for the coupling, or do they just use the nearest available bin liner? cheers N