phil-b259

'Abiding by' does not mean the same thing as 'agree with' in any dictionary I know of.' do I have already said I abide by the rules in spite of my own views because because:- (1) I have to (not because I want to - which is how it should be with H&S rules*) (2) I do actually enjoy my job. *Give me the risk assessments that show I am at serious risk of having a head impact while out patrolling and I might change my mind.

Don't be ridiculous. If I set off down the track and I don't know where the hazards likely to need a hard hat are, or have not considered the tasks I will be doing and the PPE necessary to complete them, then I am clearly not acting in a responsible manor and shouldn't be on track in the first place. Fact :- NR have invested lots of money training me up and now trust me day in day out to ensure vital signalling equipment is safe (to put that comment into perspective, if I get things wrong I could very easily cause a Clapham Junction style crash) - but the very same company won't train / trust trust me (or any of their staff) to make a pretty straightforward risk assessment over whether I am likely to bash my head and thus need head protection. If a hard hat* is not necessary for the entire time (as defined by a proper analysis of the risks) then I could carry it in my hand, attach it to my backpack, or yes put it on my head - but if I wanted to but take it off when stopping to undertake tasks that do not require it I could do so. They key point being that I would not be forced to wear it - it would be worn when necessary as determined by a proper risk assessment. *In any case, many of the tasks I am involved in would only require a 'bump cap' rather than a full helmet. What about you? do you constantly carry around an umbrella with you whenever you go out doors? if you adopted your thinking then it would be necessary to carry one with you at all times "just in case" you encountered a rain shower - even if you had checked the weather forecast. in fact I could take it further and suggest you should have it open at all times - it could prevent you from being hit by bird poo (just as a hard hat might) or conkers falling from trees in the autumn. A responsible H&S policy is not one where management say "everybody must to this" rather it is where front line staff are given the training, PPE and the ability to make decisions for themselves based on the work they will be doing - not be forced to comply with requirements that are designed around other departments or which are either an inability to undertake proper risk assessments or which are basically cooperate arse covering.

I can get as 'sniffy' about the law as I want to thank you. Just because something happens to be the law doesn't make the law 'right'. Yes I have an obligation to obey such laws, and grudgingly do so because I have no choice - but don't expect me to pretend I agree with them.... In any case, if you actually bothered to examine the photo clearly you would note that the signal gantry handrails of such a structure etc are not designed to withstand the weight of somebody dangling from a safety harness like a conker - thus the decision not to use a safety harness is acceptable on this occasion. Its exactly the same when you use a stepladder, safety harnesses are not required use to the lack of something suitable to hook onto. I happen to believe that if you want people to respect H&S rules then the rules require clear justification. For example, when working in a confined space where you may bash your head a hard hat is a perfectly reasonable H&S measure. Walking along the cess on a nice sunny day doing some paroling does manifestly does not expose me to anything like the same sort of risk and the inability of NR to actually recognise that and demanding blanket hard hat wearing in all situations simply brings the whole policy into disrepute as far as I am concerned. On the other hand I have no issues with the requirement to wear safety boots or 'all orange' when trackside because sufficient justification has been made for the move and many of the risks said PPE addresses are present at all times - which is not the case with regard to hard hats, safety glasses or safety harnesses.

The thing is a full buffet vehicle is rather wastefull in seating terms. ScotRail will not be serving full meals so they don't need to cart a full kitchen around with them - a counter, espresso machine, a water boiler, sink and a microwave / grill thing to to toasted sandwiches is probably all that is required - which can easily be fitted into a couple of seating bays like Cross country did with their Mk2s

Close..... right failure mode, wrong aspect

Spot the problem with the signal on the right* Out attending a fault on the mainline between the two sides of the Siemens depot at Three Bridges in the early hours of Wednesday morning. *(OK so it doesn't have any people in shot - not everyone wants to be famous )

My view from the box last Sunday as Bluebell Railway S&T staff attend to a dodgy signal wire wheel on a gantry at Horsted Keynes. (And - NR H&S managers take note, all done without hard hats, safety glasses or climbing harnesses, with no ill effects - the staff being quite capable of / being trusted to evaluate the risks themselves as opposed to some office bod mandating every single bit of H&S kit they can find in the stores catalogue for every job).

I actually say that having the rounded on them - even if it is not authentic makes the coaches look far more atractive. Every other 'mainline' BR livery features contrasting colours or lining to break up the slab of base colour. But back to 73s....

But thats the problem. If the BBC are to continue to have success with selling the show overseas (it was a very high earner for the BBC) then the emphasis has to be one of "the presenters may have changed but the show hasn't". Going round emphasising the new top gear will be different from its predecessor in TV buying circles is more likely to put people off buying it than getting them signing up for another series (Broadcasters generally only buy 'imports' if they think they have a proven record of attracting viewers).

Not so - given the publicity over the 'incident' at the hotel. However you dress it up you cannot ignore the fact that JC assaulted a fellow BBC employee. Most people understand workplace violence is not tolerated in other organisations - so why should the Beeb be any different? Ironically had the Beeb not purchased Top Gear off Clarkson and co several years ago (i.e. been in the same position they are by buying in HIGNFY from an independent production company) then neither JC nor the person he punched would have been Beeb employees and the Beeb could have tried to fudge it by saying that it was somebody else's problem to sort out.

Which does beg the question of how they prevented tampering with the guards controls or any luggage carried in the brake van by passengers.

Maunsell era stock didn't have any form of partition in the guards / luggage area so the end gangway could only really have been for staff use - as passengers would have easily been able to tamper with the handbrake or goods being carried in the luggage area. Bulleid designs by contrast and the later Mk1 stock had the luggage area - and more importantly the guards brake valve + handbrake wheel - behind a lockable partition / door thus allowing passengers to be able to pass by and through the end gangway to the rest if the train. I am not sure what other companies did but it would be interesting to know if there was a similar split between say Collet and Hawksworth designs or Greasley and Thompson designed brake vehicles

Hmm, so not as bad as it initially appears then - mind you even if the amount of permanent demolition is small, its still not exactly a cheap scheme and I cannot see anyone rushing to take on the challenge when there are more pressing matters to address.

I'm not so sure that your scepticism is justified. The GWML at present has very poor connectivity to radial rail services - namely the North London and west London Lines. As such an interchange at Old Oak with both of these lines (as TfL are pushing for) has lots of potential - Just look how rammed current WLL services get from Clapham Junction / South Croydon with people wanting to avoid going into central London or how popular getting off GEML services at Stratford is. Similarly the current Southern service along the WLL to Watford / Milton Keynes is very popular with those heading to the NW, who wish to avoid using the tube. Being able to connect with HS2 at Old Oak would be just as attractive. The other big reason for having interchange between HS2 and the GWML is I imagine a significant number of HS2 passengers will find Crossrail a more attractive way of getting to where they want to go in London than taking the Tube from Euston. As you correctly highlight however the whole HS2 - Heathrow flow is in many respects the weakest of the linkages Old Oak provides in justification terms. However when you consider all the other elements outlined above there is definitely a case for having a station on the GWML at Old Oak - though I accept that stopping express services to the likes of Bristol / South Wales or the West Country may not be worth doing and as such a better track layout may be possible.

True, but its not as if its exactly hard to read the previous couple of posts first is it? I might be a bit more sympathetic if my initial response the first was buried several pages back - but it was on the same page and only around an hour elapsed between the two posts asking exactly the same thing.

The consensus established earlier on this thread (by those why have been heavily involved with advising Hornby on such matters) was the "BR green" seen in various photos was actually re-varnished malachite with BR lettering. Thats why Hornby dropped their initial plans to do the vehicles in BR (S) green and are releasing them in crimson instead. It is a fact that the Southern regions policy of re-varnishing and touching up paintwork, rather than a complete repaint, means that stock still in Malachite can look very much like BR (S) green in photos dating from the early - mid 50s and modellers should be very careful in assuming that older stock such as these vehicles lived long enough to get a proper repaint in BR(S) green.

NO! Please see my earlier post.

The problem with all such ideas is the fact that the GWML between Ealing Broadway and West Ealing is only 4 tracks wide and in a cutting hemmed in bu suburban development. There simply are not the spare paths to send anything more down there in the way of traffic (which is partially why the Greenford trains are being cut back to a shuttle from West Ealing and a significant proportion of Crossrail trains from the core will have to terminate at Paddington until Old Oak Common HS2 station / the link to the WCML is built. If you want to run any more trains between West Ealing and Ealing Broadway then you will have to undertake lots of property demolition to widen the railway formation - which would never be tolerated these days. For your idea to work it would have needed the District Railway to have thought of it back around 1900 or so when building their own tracks parallel to the GWML was a feasible proposition Also (Please don't take this as an insult), but before getting the Crayons out (so to speak) and proposing things simply because they sound good, have a little look at the online satellite imagery of the area concerned - it will very quickly show whether any idea is remotely feasible and saves your blushes when someone points out the obvious flaws in your scheme.

Why? These coaches were used on rural branch line services and never carried such colours in real life - like most such vehicles they carried plain Carmine / Crimson if repainted by BR before scrapping. As such your hope is in the same category the same as asking for them in BR (S) green - namely asking Hornby to produce a totally fictitious livery.

No your not being dense - I am! Its the way Hornby have pictured them. If you flip the bottom coach © round then it is correct livery wise.

One problem with Hornbys livery rendition is the coaches. As I understand it the red swirly bits on the ends of the carriages change orientation at the buffet car - i.e. the standard class coaches have them going one way (to match the 91) and the first class coaches have them going the other way (to match the DVT). As such the inclusion of two standard class coaches with differing livery applications is plain wrong. It doesn't match the prototype and anyone adding further 1st class coaches to the rake will find they have a standard class coach they cannot use. The easy way to resolve this is to do what Lima did with some of their train packs - include a single first class coach and a single standard class coach, which would allow the VTEC livery to be accurately applied to all vehicles and make further expansion of the set a more attractive option.

Nope you are not missing something, the absolute minimum of changes are being made to the south end layout. You also need to factor in the fact that the deadline for it all being up and running is the 2018 timetable change and due to a lack of signalling design resources at a National level the exsisting Westpac (relay based) interlocking is being retained. As such there is a limit to what can be achieved within the timescales set for the project. NR are awere of the shortcomings of the south end layout and there are tentative plans for it to be remodelled to allow for parallel moves but this is presently unfunded and needs to be seen within the context of grade separation to the north of East Croydon (Windmill Bridges junction) which allows a significant increase in trains and makes doing something about Redill south end far more imperative.

I hope the powers that be have remembered that there are several S&T cases inside the 'wall' relating to the operational railway that we need access to. You would be surprised on jobs like this just how many projects overlook this aspect and hence cause problems when we need to gain access to 'their' site

While not condoning bad driving, I believe undertaking is, contrary to popular belief, not in itself a motoring offence - the key being the use of the official language used, i.e. "should not "undertake as opposed to "must not" undertake in the highway code. The term "must" indicates something specifically mentioned in law where as the term "should" indicates good practices but that there is no specific guidance on the matter in law. Of course if a motorist performing a "should not" action is involved in an incident then such behaviour could be used as evidence for a charge of dangerous driving.