phil-b259

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.

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?