phil-b259

Because the class 700 is a commuter train - not a flagship InterCity one. In any case the 700s being built for Thameslink are fixed formation 8 and 10 car units (though the forthcoming SWT sets will be 5 cars and the Moorgate replacements 6 cars) With some being 5 cars in real life you also get the oppotunity Bacmann had with the Voyagers - sell a shortened version in a train pack and the extra car(s) as separates.

The concept was sound - Crossrail will be up and running before HS2 and due to capacity restrictions on the GWML around half to 2/3rds of trains coming from the East will turn round in the Royal Oak sidings. Rebuilding Euston for HS2 will inevitably cause problems - and like London Bridge the suggestion was to divert some services away from there which gave more room for manoeuvrer when it came to actually phasing the rebuilding etc. (again London Bridge highlights some of the potential pitfalls). Finally with TfL working towards putting stations on the NLL / WLL in the vicinity of Old Oak - the addition of regular services onto the WCML improves the potential for it to become a Stratford style rail hub and the redevelopment potential (should TfL get their way and build over / move the various train servicing depots to new locations.

Apparently the DfT have vetoed the connection to the WCML on the suspicious grounds that 'it doesn't offer value for money' What isn't explained is how NR will cope with the extra trains Euston will have to handle during its rebuild. http://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/news/crossrail-off-the-tracks-as-plans-are-shelved-1-7513704

All very true, but none of that prevents the line being mothballed does it? As a general rule, people in positions of power are very wary of actually officially 'closing' a railway - one positive legacy of Beeching and the recent resurgence in passenger numbers being a reluctance to rule anything out for good.

For many years there have been occasional investigations into the resumption of passenger services and although the cessation of oil trains is unlikely to make that bigger difference overall it might start a fresh bout of discussions. Certainly anything that completely removes the possibility will be resisted and is likely to be more hassle than its worth. As such, while the operational railway may well be cut back to Marchwood, the most likely situation will be similar to the Heathfield branch i.e. the line onwards to Fawley will simply mothballed. (Note:- The Leamside line near Newcastle-uipon-Tyne is still offically owned by NR and is offically 'mothballed' despite the track having been completely lifted my metal theaves / NR)

Happens time and time again on NR with major projects too and for much the same reasons - though in truth it is not confined to railways Frequently local people are seen by the cooperate machine as:- 'too stuck in their ways', 'not ambitious enough', 'not having had enough experience of the real world solutions', 'unable to grasp the bigger picture', 'not up to speed with the latest technological trends', 'always bringing up problems rather than embracing new solutions', 'not being sensitive enough to customers needs', needing to be spoon fed the obvious', etc with result that they repeatedly get ignored by HQ, with energy instead focused on replacing / changing the people / systems at who then do the same thing all over again.

True, but the fact remains that the lady had a perfectly suitable escape route available - even if it required her to step off the pavement and round the end of the lowered facing barrier. Increasing the length of time between the red lights coming on and the barriers lowering means the barrier sequence must be started even earlier and the road remain closed for longer. While an extra 3 seconds between the reds coming on and the barriers starting to lower may not sound like much, at busy crossings this soon adds up...

Its also complete scaremongering by the BBC. This particular crossing has barriers that completely close off the road so by law it must be interlocked with the signals and be proved to be clear before the signals can change to proceed. Up until a couple of years ago this duty was performed by a person - but now its done by the Obstacle detection system - which is not only completely fail safe, but also cannot suffer from the 'look but did not see' syndrome that (speaking as a S&T technician) we have plenty of evidence of happening at CCTV crossings or ones observed directly by the human eyeball. The only significant difference with OD crossings is that the facing barriers will always descend 7 seconds after the red road lights were activated, while at most CCTV or traditional barrier crossings if the signaller lets go of the lower button to do something else, it could be longer (but never less) than that. At Polgate many of the elderly residents had got used to the signaller letting go of the lower button until they cleared the crossing, thus allowing them more time to finish crossing. Since the installation of the OD system this is not the case. HOWEVER observers should note that the trailing barrier remains raised - precisely because an obstacle (the elderly lady) was still on the crossing. Under such a situation the trailing barriers will remain up for a maximum of 60 seconds before lowering - BUT if an obstacle is still detected on the crossing after this the trailing barriers will raise again after 10 seconds. If the obstacle is still there then the crossing goes into 'Failed' mode. In Failed mode it is impossible to change the protecting signals, just as they cannot be cleared with the barriers up or of an obstacle is detected on the crossing. So in short, as a colleague observed, she may have had a bit of a fright but she was in no danger at any stage.

They are not Maunsell coaches The 'Lancing Belle' was a train put on for railway employees only when the LBSCR moved its carriage works to Lancing from Brighton. As such the coaches that formed the train were always 'hand me downs' and stock otherwise retired from public use. I believe the rake of coaches in the picture were put together in the early 30s from pre grouping compartment stock (ex LSWR IIRC) displaced either by electrification or the cascade caused by new build Maunsell stock and this displaced an earlier rake which included 4 and 6 wheel coaches.

I secumbed to all 8 versions - and they are superb models. However, a question for those with access to the appropriate resources. The Olive versions are unlined - which I don't doubt is genuine for the models being produced, but any of these coaches ever get any lining while in Olive? I ask because although I am awere the quantity of lining and its complexity did get progressively less / simpler as the years passed after its initial ntroduction in the mid 20s, I was under the impression that the only coaches that didn't get any at all (during the Olive era) were some real antiquated stuff used in Hop Pickers specials and things that got repainted after 1938 when Mr Bullied took over / WW2 intervened.

According to this article, http://www.londonreconnections.com/2016/pictures-crossrails-trains-make-debut/ "Before leaping into photos and videos, it is worth pointing out that the internal fitting out is far from complete. The moquette is not the final design, nor have internal features been fully painted. Nonetheless, this represents a good opportunity to get a good feel for the new class, both within and without."

All goes to show what a nasty thing un-shielded conductor rails are - and the understandable desire not to install any more or let the Heritage sector start messing around with them.

As with most things involving physics, esblishing an effect actually requires far more energy than that required to simply continue it. In any case once the Arc started, you had molten metal being thrown off from the conductor rail / running rail (as seen in my pics) to keep the connection going even after the bulk of the can was destroyed.

I am not awere of any industrial disputes brewing within NR yet, so I would be interested to know where the rumours are coming from. That said, given the current aggresive stance of the RMT, TSSA and the DfT (who tell NR what to do these days) I wouldn't be surprised if the next round of pay discustions for either us in maintenance or operations (the signallers) didn't end up in a official dispute. If I hear any more I will keep forum members updated.

And what remains of the culprit So 3 sets of points significantly damaged, plus a sizeable chunk of conductor and running rail damaged by a metal drinks can costing only a couple of quid.

More trouble for Redhill travellers today. A carelessly discarded tin can has shorted the conductor rail to one of the running rails on the slow lines at Gatwick causing quite a lot of damage to a couple of sets of points. My colleagues have got a busy day ahead of them as a result.

That fence / wall is as close to the track as it can be (i.e. no places of safety for staff) and its extension further round the corner forces the line curving round to Reigate to be added to the list of "Red Zone Bared" areas where work cannot be undertaken without line blockages. Not very helpful given:- (i) the intensive service at Redhill effectively preventing daytime blockages, (ii) the exsisting signalling layout and the blocking options available, and most importantly (iii) the 'Platform Zero project' have already grabbed pretty much every single possestion opportunity that exists! Why do I get the feeling the needs of maintenance have been ignored yet again? Incidentally there is a rumour going round that a cash shortage in NR might actually force the commissioning of Platform zero to be postponed with just the flats / supermarket / platform structure completed - with the difficult bits affecting the actually railway to follow at a later unspecified date.

As far as I am aware there are no trains in the world that pass 25KV between two self contained units - designing auto couplers capable of handling 25KV (with its flashover potential and insulation requirements) is simply too difficult, particularly as in most countries the OHLE is properly engineered to cope with multiple pantographs up at once. Its the UKs adoption of cheap and lightweight OHLE equipment that constrains things - which is why the GWML (and other NR electrification schemes) have gone for more robust equipment which allows two 5 car IEPS travelling at 140mph to both have their pantographs raised. Within units its a different story. As I have highlighted before the French way back in 1980 were quite happy to have a 25KV powerline running along the roof of the passenger coaches to connect both power cars allowing a single power car to be used. In the UK the H&SE (or whoever they were back in then) vetoed the idea - forcing the APT-E to put its two power cars in the centre of the train and duplicate prevent passenger access from one half of the train to the other. The first UK train to feature a 25KV power line throughout the unit being the Pendalino.

Spot on (at least as regards to what has been used from the early 80s in Sussex). Most UTX chambers are basically very similar to those you get n the road or the pavement for the utility companies to access their cables. The thing is surface routed cable (across the track) is very susceptible to damage and, more importantly has to be disconnected and and moved out the way if complex p-way work is undertaken. As such having multicore signal cables (up to 48 cores in the largest cable) requiring disconnection affecting multiple pieces of kit (many of which may not be affected by the work in the case of quad track lines) is not a viable long term solution. Such cables will therefore be run in UTX and troughing routes with only the 'tail cables' running out to individual equipment being run on the surface and going through orange / yellow pipe or clipped to the sleepers (depending on date of install). It should be noted that while theoretically possible BR / Railtrack / NR does not generally use signal gantries or bridges to swap the main cable route from side to side. This compares with the situation on London Underground where their approach has historically been to use elevated cable hangers and special cable bridges as opposed to UTXs (thus avoiding the issues of them filling with water / mud or collapsing) when it comes to swapping what might best be called 'system' (as opposed to individual equipment) cables from one side of the formation to the other.

Or to be more precise, the cost of a DDA compliment footbridge sent the BCR into very negative territory so it was a case of the current setup or no loop at all!

It depends on the era. At places where space was tight (Borough Market area outside London Bridge or Holborn Viaduct space restrictions required drivers pull up tight to the signal to avoid obstructing other routes. Equally there are plenty of photos of locos standing at Waterloo, beyond the signals due to the length of the train but crucially still within the track circuit running along the platform (and thus not locking up the station throat). Nowadays however the emphasis is very much on making sure signals are visible from the drivers cab wherever they stop as part of SPAD mitigation measures and drivers are expected to hang back from the signal if necessary. Of course a great deal depends on the location of the signal itself. If it is mounted on the left hand side of the track at drivers eye level then the driver may be able to get closer than a gantry mounted one for example. Other options may include having co acting signal heads, approach control at the signal in rear or simply preventing trains from approaching the signal when it is at red (not a lot of use at platforms where trains terminate of course) As I said in an earlier post - as this layout is designed with more of an eye to play than slavishly following the prototype I would suggest you don't get too hung up about such matters. As long as the signal placement and types look plausible then I wouldn't say the stopping point of trains is that important in the grand scheme of things.

Ignoring short term factors, I would say the H tank is more likely to emerge from Bachmann than Hornby. If you ignore the lead time issues Bachmann already have suitable stock (the birdcage)s in the pipeline plus they sell the C and E4 classes with which the H tanks regularly worked with, which makes the H an attractive proposition for them. Hornby by contrast have gone down the western section with their SR releases - the M7, 700 and the rebuilt ex LSWR compartment stock for example. The big issue with them is their finances and whether they feel like making an entry into a part of the SR that they have tended to ignore henceforth is worth it. On the real Southern Railway the Brighton main line was very much a dividing line between the two spheres. M7s were hardly ever seen east of it - where the H tanks held sway on Pull Push work with birdcage stock, while to the west of the BML it was all M7s and ex LSWR stuff. Ex LSBCR locos tended to mingle with both SECR OR ex LSWR stock depending in whether their duties took them east or west of the BML, however given their coaching stock was mostly air braked it tended to be scraped upon electrification rather than cascaded as was the case for ex SECR & LSWR stock (both vacuum braked)

Indeed it did - the worker concerned was bending over to look at something in the 4ft while wearing only a high vis top and blue jeans (on the Cambrian line through mid Wales). As he bent over the orange top disappeared from view so an approaching train driver almost failed to spot the person until it was too late. Before I saw the briefing materials I was of the opinion that "all orange" was more about cooperate identity (NR having recently taken infrastructure maintenance and staff like me back in house not long before the time the incident in Wales occurred) than anything else. After said briefing however, and a particularly effective video presentation my mindset had changed completely - and that change had everything to do with the fact that the activity featured (bending down to look at stuff in the 4ft) is one we undertake very frequently while on the line and how an 'all orange' PPE policy could be shown to make a very real difference in terms of drivers being able to spot us. I have yet to receive a similarly effective explanation that justifies the policy of mandatory hard hat wearing, or to a lesser extent safety glasses at all times. However to go back on topic, we recently were shown a video montage of how work (and indeed fashions) have changed through the ages. Its interesting to consider how things have evolved and if I can find it I will add a suitable link as it could bring back a few memories for some ex BR staff.

(1) Possibly, however given you have said this is a layout built for fun (particularly youngsters) - i.e. you have gone for lots of bi-directional working, lack trap points etc then I don't see it as an issue as such. (2) Feathers and the Theatre indicator seem Ok, but I would think again about the 2 aspect signals at the station as that is very unrealistic and stands out. The real thing avoids mixing 2 and three aspect signals as you must never have a green leading on to a red situation* (mixed 3 and 4 aspect signals are far more common) (3) It depends. If the main aspect is used to signal into the yard then yes a feather is acceptable, but unless the yard is particularly large (and yours is not) it would be most likely to be done using a subsidiary signal (two white lights at 45 degrees below the main head) and a small 'stencil' route indicator. (4) Again the real railway used both main aspects or shunt signals depending on era, regional preference, yard size, etc. As such main aspect signal leading out of the yards (a signal allowing exit from the top yard is missing by the way) is certainly not wrong. * Yes I know that in certain situations this used to be acceptable, but it wasn't the norm.

Well, lets just say many of my now retired collogues had some very interesting stories to tell on that score.......