phil-b259

According to this document (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/network%20code/network%20change/completed%20proposals/south%20east/ncg12015se002%20redhill/d%20ncg12015se002%20gbrf%20response.pdf) the platform 0 loop will take 72 SLU It will basically replicate the existing situation in terms of the number of SLUs that can be handled rather than add any extra capacity.

All part of a DfT grand plan that has gone seriously wrong because of incompitance and procrastion by them / the Treasury. And some people still think nationalisation is the answer.

Yes I made a mistake with the numbers - its 80 vehicles, not units - but I was unaware the GWR units were in addition to (as opposed to part of) the Porterbrook order

Actually GWR will be getting some new 387s (4 IIRC) simply because the current 387 fleet temporarily on hire to Thameslink* is slightly too small for the future GWR fleet requirements. *(covering for the late running Siemens stock plus the transfer of some 319s to the North West so they would actually have something to run under their new OHLE) The 4 brand new FGW ones are I believe coming from the speculative build of 80 units ordered by the ROSCO Porterbrook on their own initiative (thus disproving one of the DfTs often quoted complaints that ROSCOS are not investing enough) who could see further electric stock being needed. As such its entirely possible the Green + Silver ones pictured at Derby could be the extras for the GWML. On the future of the rest of the speculative batch, C2C are apparently getting 16 or so so as to boast train frequencies and lengths as part of their franchise commitment.

Erm, the whole point of 'Ali G' (Sacha Baron Cohen) was to take the piss out of young middle class youngsters from relatively affluent places in the UK (like Stanes), who for some reason decided it was 'cool' to dress, act as though they lived in the Bronx. As such its one white upper middle class broke taking the mickey out of his compatriots - not the working class as such. However to return to the topic in hand, I scored 38 - which isn't a surprise to me.

The GWR ones were certainly popular as they were the first 'decent' true GWR stock we have had. A similar sort if thing happened with the very 1st batch of Maunsells Hornby released. The big difference is that when the Maunsells came out before the big financial crash and Hornbys production / financial woes which meant that Hornby could quickly announce further batches and variants. Thus in todays climate, while its a pretty sure bet that they will be released again - this will not be happening until 2017 at the earliest. Even then its quite likely that the livery may be altered - the Shirtbutton style is a simple one to do as far as Hornby is concerned although I'm sure there are plenty of people who would quite like the physudo panelled livery or the post WW2 Hawksworth style. So if you do want the GWR ones released a month or two ago and cannot wait another 12 months or so, its very much a case of scour the internet and model shows to find a trader that still has the odd one or two hidden away somewhere - because, as you discovered all the main retailers have long since sold out of them.

One thing I don't quite understand is that the new access to Heathrow from the relief lines appears to share a stretch of single track despite the Crossrail service proposed to be more intensive than HEX. especially with the possibility that after 2025 HEX might be abandoned anyway. Why was it not possible to simply make the current up Heathrow - up main ramp a bidirectional one carrying stuff from the down relief to down Heathrow as well - rather than setup currently being built.

I think East Grinstead - Haywards Heath would have gone regardless - without massive new house building at the likes West Hoathly there simply would simply be no demand. Passengers from the south coast could have changed at Three Bridges on to the East Grinstead branch there - which with the growth of Gatwick and Crawley new town would have made sense to keep open. Other lines that would have probably survived include the Guildford - Christs Hospital (with electrics extended from Guildford to Cranleigh) and Christs Hospital - Shoreham (with the Horsham electric terminators extended to Southwater). In both cases no new substations would have not been needed - being fed on a stub end basis like Haywards Heath to Horsted Keynes of Redhill to Reigate. Over in East Sussex the Oxted / Tunbridge Wells / Lewes lines would have survived and been electrified (BR drew up plans to do this under the modernisation plan before Beeching / the cuts in the 60s dropped them in favour of closures) but the future of the East Grinstead - Ashurst and Eridge to Hailsham is less clear cut. Hailsham to Polgate would likely to have survived (BR kept that stub running a good 5 years after the rest of the Cuckoo line was shut). In Hampshire the Alton - Winchester line would still be with us but again, others are less clear cut. The test valley line from Andover when examined form today's viewpoint looks like it might have scraped through but the Sailsbury - Ringwood would probably have gone. Brockenhurst - Ringwood - Poole would most likely still be with us but I can see the S&DJR succumbing to closure north of Blandford, with the line southwards being kept and feeding commuters into the Poole / Bournemouth area. The Swanage branch is a difficult call because much of its traffic was seasonal and even if nationalisation hadn't happened, the advent of jet engine powered mass air travel would still have occurred with the resultant knock on effects to UK seaside resorts. In Devon the Lyme Regis Seaton and Sidmouth stub would have scumbed to the closure but the line via Ottery St Mary to Exmouth could have developed into quite a popular commuter route for people working in Exeter

i have had issues before with Dapols 6 wheeled milk tanks derailing and found that swapping the outermost wheel sets cured the issue. When examined closely there was definitely something different about the wheel profile compared to the Bachmann and Hornby equivalents. As such replacing the wheels on the fruit D may well solve people's problems

They are independent in the same way AHB crossing are totally independent of the signalling system. Just as an AHB installation uses trains operating treadles or track circuits to trigger the sequence and are not interlocked with signals (though a crossing failed indication is provided at the monitoring - note NOT 'controlling' signal box), the EBIgate system uses axle counter heads to determine if a train is close to the crossing and thus whether the user gets a green or red light - there is no interaction with the wider signalling system. As with AHBs, EBIgates will generate a 'failed alarm' at the monitoring signal box if something goes wrong but it is up the signalman to manually replace any suitable signals to red to protect the failure. In short 'Manned or 'Controlled' crossings ARE interlocked with the signalling system and a failure WILL automatically hold / revert signals to red to protect the failure. 'Automatic' crossings - which includes those fitted with miniature warning lights, EBIgates, AHBs, etc ARE NOT interlocked with the signalling system and work on a self contained basis.

The other thing that springs to mind is the tendency to see a crossing as 'failed' when users perceive the red light having been lit for 'too long'. Perhaps because the red light doesn't appear until they request it, the thought is that the crossing equipment ,having responded to a users deliberate action might make the user pay more attention to the lights.

It might be because having a button is more intuitive to the general public. If you think about it lots of pedestrian phases at road junctions have 'dummy' buttons which have no input to the traffic light controls but are there because people expect them to be there. Similarly I was told that telephones at level crossings have a 'press to call' button, not because it is needed by the railway (they are direct dial phones to the controlling box) but because the public 'expects to see one and valuable time could be lost while the public spent time looking for it.

Firstly there never has been, and never will be an official 'no diesel' policy on the Bluebell Railway - requests to bring in any particular piece of motive power can be made to the board and they will consider things like who will look after it (i.e. we don't want it just dumped in the sidings), who will maintain it and how useful it would be for the wider railway before making a decision. What does however exist is a preference to work all ordinary timetabled passenger trains by steam so as to provide a 'unique selling point' and help mark the Bluebell out as 'different from the rest'. Now obviously with the latter preference in place, it does somewhat limit the potential use of diesel traction - which is presumably one of the reasons we have never had a home based fleet of mainline diesels (the ones the Bluebell have used were hired for specific purposes and left once those purposes had been completed (the jobs the 09 and sentinel were purchased to fulfil still exist - hence why they are still on the railway). As I have said before the fact that the Bluebell has decided to hold a single, well publicised diesel gala (at a relatively slack time of the year) using almost exclusively hired in / donated / whatever you want to call it diesel traction does nothing to change the railway or the society at large. In crude terms it is simply a revenue generating exercise so as to bring in funds to help restore further steam locos and period rolling stock - upon which day to day services depend.

SWT did not just 'give up' on serving destinations beyond Exeter - it was a rolling stock shortage which meant either they carried on sending the odd train beyond Exeter OR provide an hourly Waterloo - Exeter service only. Given the investment in the extra passing loop at Axminster, plus heavy pressure from official stakeholders and users of the line it was a pretty obvious which way the decision would go. People forget that while the GWR route might be quicker end to end, it has very little by way of intermediate traffic generators once past Newbury. The SR route by contrast does serve some quite substantial places (either directly or indirectly as people drive to places like Templecombe for trains to London).

I thought the idea of the piles was not to stabilise the embankment - but rather to act as supports to a concrete deck. Such "land bridges" have been used to get round subsidence caused by coal mining on the ECML or marsh land on HS1. In fact were they available back in George Stephenson's day then the line across Chat moss would undoubtedly use the same principle. As such it doesn't matter if the wall eventually fails - but what they do need is for it to stay upright for as long as the work to create the "land bridge" is going on.

While its not great (and if I can find something better i will post it on this thread), THIS is what is being installed at Redhill trackwise.

Sommerfeldt and Veissmann produce European OHLE kit which naturally encourages the desire to use it as a power delivery system for European models. None of it is remotely like UK OHLE and it is no more authentic on a UK layout than the Triang system of old. The only RTR OHLE kit in the UK is Dapols recent Mk3 masts - which are clearly not designed around being a power delivery system like the European products you highlight. As such there is no pressing need for UK 25KV locos to have a 'working' pantograph, and in an age where cost is frequently complained about by modellers (not least on here) UK manufacturers would be foolish to provide 'working' pantographs if it increases the end RRP of the model or means compromises in the pantograph design.

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.