phil-b259

Don't worry - with the GWR fleet still having 'dump' toilets it won't take long for the more familiar brown look to establish itself

But the front end plumbing was on the real '207', so unless you are planning to renumber it as well then the model is now inaccurate - which is heresy in the eyes of some modellers That said the removal of said plumbing does make the loco look more pleasing on the eye - and if Kernow were minded to make another Southern variant in olive without the PP equipment (possibly in the pre 1931 livery with an E prefix to the number) then I would be in market to increase my stud of O2s

Note the word usually in the article. While it is true that as manufacturing standards have improved over the decades the chances of a model suffering 'zinc pest' have reduced, that does not mean its gone away completely.

Modern practice seems to be to add geotectile membrane to areas where the underlying earthworks are suspect to prevent ballast becoming contaminated. Was this technique used back in the day by BR or is the technology more recent. I can imagine that if it was simply a case of achieving a good base by stone alone the depth of the base stoning / balls sting must be grater than if membrane is used as well.

As for the first point - no there isn't a 'Gizmo' as you put it - and its not unknown for the signaller working the panel Brighton tried to stick an 8 car on top of another 8 car (Each platform has 2 track circuits - an 8 car length one closest to the buffers and a 4 car between that and the starting signals). As to 'another go at it' - then yes, its already planned for! The current scheme is very much a 'do minimum' (in reality doing as much as there are the signalling design / installation / testing resources allow) and is designed to provide for the enhanced Thameslink and a 3TPH service to Reading with the emphasis on getting it completed by 2018. However NR, in their route strategies for the BML have an aspiration in CP7 IIRC to remodel the south end of Redhill (the same documents also talks of full grade separation at Windmill Bridge Junction, grade separation for Keymer etc) which will unlock further capacity on the Redhill corridor (though unless you sort out the other bits as well Redhill won't be much use in isolation). When I am back at work will try and post up a plan of the current works.

Platform 1 will remain a through platform - not be turned into a bay. What will happen though is because of the position of the points leading into Platform 0 at the country end (whose track layout is receiving the absolute minimum of alterations) and the inability to compensate at the London end, Platform 1 will be effectively be shortened and only be able to take 8 cars. This will however be compensated for by Platform 0 which will be 12 cars long.

The new trackwork and layout configuration at the north end of Redhill for Platform zero has been specifically designed so as to allow Platform 0 to act as a run round loop for engineering trains. (For the benifit of locals it incoperates much of the current Up siding north)

Erm.... The Southern kept those 'Victorian tank engines and fin de siècle 4-4-0s' going precisely because they were prioritising investment into their sucessfull electrification programme rather than building steam locos as like for like replacements of said Victorian designs. As with today railways are not the playthings of enthusiasts and decisions over investment must be made on what works for the business and day to day users - electrification and multiple units being a prime example. Agree about the video though.

Thats largely because the DfT / Treasury made a pigs ear of procurement (and thats putting it mildly). Ironic given the whole reason they did it themselves was the "rip off" nature of RISCOS allegedly.....

The document you included is an 'artists impression', not an engineering document - as such its not surprising there are slight differences between the two. The real question would be what did the original plans sa,y plus were there any changes needed as works progress. My friend who is involved in planning enforcement has commented in the past that in respect of minor variations (which I would have thought 4 additional steps and a slight repositioning of the intermediate landings counts as), its not necessarily worth taking action over any sanction not viewed as proportionate will be thrown out on appeal with costs awarded t the planning authority.

As a general rule the Olive Green Maunsells sold well (with the exception of the all 1sts where it was the usual story of manufacturers not understanding that demand for such vehicles will, as with the prototype, be less than 3rds / composites / brake vehicles) - as did the BR green versions. The ones that retailers struggled to shift were the crimson & cream versions and the Malachite ones (which many modellers feel were in the wrong shade if green despite Hornby's protestations to the contrary).

Why the hell would any bank accept that - I know my bank wouldn't tolerate me acting like that - "Aggressive banking" by me would more likely result in my account being closed rather than a loan being given on such terms.

Erm - have you actually looked into HS2 at all. If you had you would realise that a new alignment (be it a road, railway, pipline, canal) is far cheaper, quicker and effective to build than upgrading an existing asset. For example many of the current difficulties being faced on the GWML like piling into embankments that have been filled with concrete, massive track layout and signalling alterations requiring lots of disruptive possessions or road closures because bridges need rebuilding are non existent on new alignment. The biggest cost when it comes to converting motorways to the now preferred "Smart / All Lane Running" versions is not the cost of the materials or the workers installing it - rather its all the 'traffic management' (Lane closures / contraflows / night time closures / temporary surfacing / temporary lining / temporary lighting) that is needed to allow the upgrade to happen on a 'live' road. The same is true with railways - on the GWML the biggest cost is not the kit being installed but rather the army of testers and engineers who have to alter stuff bit by bit thus allowing construction to continue, yet something approaching normal service to be maintained. So if you took the money being spent on HS2 and used it to widen the WCML / ECML / MML / Chiltern lines, at the end of it all you would have much less extra track to show for it - which is important because the primary reason why HS2 is being built has precious little to do with speed and everything to do with the fact that at current rates of growth the WCML cannot cope with the amount of people and freight that will want to use it in two decades time. The speed thing only comes into it because once the decision is made to build a brand new line (and save on all the extra costs and years of disruption on existing lines) it makes economic and financial sense to improve journey times while you are at it. The rationale behind HS3 is similar - we need extra Trans-Pennine capacity which is disruptive and expensive to do properly on any of the current rail corridors. A new line adds capacity but because its being built to the latest standards it will be faster and journey times can be less.

Why do people in finance dress things up on fancy language? (This is not a dig at you by the way - just an observation) I mean what is "Aggressive refinancing" - that sounds more like hitting the bank manager over the head untill he hands over the amount of cash you want.

Nice idea but the figures simply don't stack up whenever such things have been considered before. In shades of the M6 toll round Birmingham (whose owners are effectively bankrupt due to low traffic volumes), the presence of a slower and free to use (if more congested) alternative in the shape of the M62 means it isn't viable solution.

Oh so, so true. Be it education, health services, transport provision......in fact pretty much anything useful or essential for a decent society.

The 'Bulges' are where the conductor rail insulators have been broken / displaced due to the actions of RRVs - the bits of wood are probably to help them get on or off the line. Yes they will require fixing before the line reopens but given that won't be happening any time soon its hardly a priority - particularly as its entirely possible more damage may occur (though if that were likely NR should be looking at removing the conrail and relaying it when the track goes back in to the area under repair so as to avoid wasting money).

It is, but as that doesn't sound as good as London bashing it gets ignored. Transport provision has to be directed where the greatest needs are - just because the SWML into Waterloo may already host 10 car trains does not mean they are not as rammed to the rafters as a 2 car unit in the North West. The key difference in this scenario is that, in general longer trains are still possible in the NW with relatively modest investment - while in London there is no such option. Hence Crossrail 2 to provide relief on the SWML approaching Waterloo and WAML approaching Liverpool Street, neither of which can have the existed infrastructure enhanced to cope - unlike Manchester say, where the Ordsal curve and works along the Deansgate corridor will expand the capacity of existing infrastructure. You also forget that, as with Crossrail1 at least half the money for Crossrail 2 will be raised by GLA taxpayers paying a surcharge on their council tax plus businesses in the boroughs deemed to benefit from Crossrail paying a surcharge on their business rates. Would the residents of Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, etc accept a similar funding method?

I think people are rather forgetting that a key constraint faced by the Channel Tunnel is noticeably absent from the Pennies - namely a 26mile stretch of water! Also while the Pennines are high - they are tidily compared to the Alps. Both of these factors mean that combined emergency exits and vent shafts to the surface (with suitably disguised surface structures) can be built at regular intervals - just have a look at HS1s London tunnels or the other long tunnels being proposed by HS2. With the Channel Tunnel or many Alpine tunnels it is impossible to provide similar facilities and hence the principle of a 'safe have' service tunnel or 'survival rooms' at regular points along the tunnel being required.

Please remember that British and American airships used Helium as a gas - which is NOT flammable and is perfectly safe. Nazi Germany was not so fortunate and was forced to use the highly flammable Hydrogen gas due to the cost of buying Helium and the inability to manufacture it on a large scale post WW1

Its worth noting that most RTR manufacturers have settled on 2nd radius being the minimum recommended for most models they produce and as such 1st radius curves tend only to be found on 'starter sets' (i.e. the ones with an 0-4-0 tank engine and a few wagons). While specifying a larger minimum radius would make life easier in design terms and allow more detail, it is a fact that doing so excludes a fairly large chunk of your prospective buyers who through space considerations, etc. who use 2nd radius curves. Thus Rapido have felt it necessary to ensure that their APT-E also complies with the '2nd radius' minimum spec while not compromising on the detail - which results in some pretty big gaps and overhangs if used on such curves. However the good news is if you have the space to install prototypical curves the large gaps reduce and the model looks far better.

The passing loop at brading was removed in NSE days as part of a cost saving measure that also saw the abolition of Sandown box. Its removal meant that you either got a roughly 20minute interval service (with 3 trains passing at both Ryde & Sandown) or the current uneven 20 / 40 minute setup with 2 trains. As with many rationalisations in the 80s and early 90s, the real cause was lack of funding from the Treasury forcing BR to make some very short sighted / daft decisions.

No - and because of delays to TfLs investment programme, there won't be any tube sized ones for a good few years yet. The Picadilly line is the next one to be upgraded so it's a case of tag on a small order of replacement vehicles (a la NSE with the Waterloo & City which got 1992 Central line trains) or wait for the exsisting Picadilly line trains to be released. I allways thought an opportunity was missed when the original 1983 Juberlee stock was scrapped. While things like single leaf doors may not have been a good idea in London, that would not have been an issue on the IOW. However to return to the thread title, conversation to a tramway, while not cheap, would put the line on a sound footing for the future equipment wise. Relying on ex London cast offs and an aging power supply (I believe the 3rd rail switchgear dates from the 1960s and was ordered at the same time as the Bournemouth kit) is basically perpetuating the same problems for future generations. The other advantage of a tram replacement is the potential for expansion - if desired Newport could be connected back to Ryde via Fishbourne ferry terminal and Newport connected to Cowes thus improving public transport on the island while avoiding most of the obstacles that have since sprung up on the closed trackbeds.

Indeed. I would urge any forum members observing such behaviour in the UK to not hesitate and report it to the BTP. It doesn't matter whether you (or the person concerned) thinks they are in a 'safe' place, that they are 'only just the other side of the fence' separating public and private areas, or that 'other countries aren't bothered' about such things - this is the UK and you play by our rules, which quite clearly state that the only people who should be track side are those who hold the valid Personal Track Safety Competence for the railway organisation concerned. If it takes rail tours to be banned from our mainlines to get the message through to the selfish minority who think the rules don't apply to them so be it.

Please remember that if the DfT had got their way 6 years ago or so the whole project would have been put on hold. The only reason it survived is because TfL kept up the pressure - particularly be reminding the Treasury that they would face a big bill for compensation from all those business in the GLA area that had been forced to pay an extra Levy on their business rates to help fund the scheme. By contrast the Thameslink scheme, being entirely DfT funded scheme has been through frequent 'pauses' due to problems with 'the nations finances' - the original name of Thameslink 2000 should show just how much it has been delayed by. So in one sense, yes Crossrail is suffering from being a TfL project in that they are treating it very much as another 'tube line' (from the train interiors, extensive use of roundels rather than the NR symbol, giving the line a 'name' and so on). On the other hand it is arguable that without TfLs involvement there wouldn't be any line in the first place. As such, its worth putting up with TfLs nonsenses because regardless of what the line is called or whether the trains have loos, London needs the extra capacity Crossrail provides.