phil-b259

Correct! The LBSCR used a similar setup when it electrified the South London Line because they recognized that AC transmission was far superior to DC methods and that providing the frequency was kept low enough DC traction motors could be used without the need for conversion of the supply. The only reason long length DC schemes became economic was the invention around 1930 of the Mercury Arc rectifier, thus permitting unmanned compact substations over the large, staffed rotary converters needed in earlier schemes to turn AC into DC.

Ahh I see - the significant thing is (i) it was before the nationwide installation of TPWS made the risks attached to such a operation minuscule and (ii) It was also in an era before ROGS, where the HMRI had much more direct involvement in the specifics of infrastructure modifications where as now its less about them saying an absolute yes / no to a proposal and more about the infrastructure provider proving the propose solution addresses all risks and can be operate safely. Were platform sharing to be proposed today then assuming suitable signalling (inc TPWS, etc) was installed then I see no reason why it wouldn't happen. However given the pressure on signalling resources I wouldn't expect that to happen any time soon.

Do you have a source for this statement? I ask because through the use of TPWS and approach controlled signals there is no reason why the potential for a collision between two trains cannot be eliminated, which means such a move is perfectly safe. Also what about platform sharing without mid platform signals which is used extensively across the network using call on signals to allow a second train into the occupied platform. This is due to go in on the 100% new build platform at Redhill.

There is a definite plan that when Platform 0 at Redhill is built next year (signalling surveys and ground investigations have been underway for a while now), the North Downs service will go to 3tph. Two limited stop Reading - Gatwick trains at evenly spaced 30 minute intervals with a 1 tph all stations stopper between Reading and Redhill. The fasts will overtake the stoppers at Guildford I believe.

In General there aren't any 'fail safes' as you put it - the railway assumes, with some justification that once the crossing has been scanned for obstacles via the operators eyeball (or the Radar / LiDar on Obstacle detector crossings) it will stay that way for as long as the barriers remain lowered. (Note the railway in the UK is PROHIBITED from having automatic barriers that close off the whole road like you get in France. If the road is totally closed off with no escape route then the crossing MUST be monitored and proved to be clear of Vehicles and people before the protecting signals can sow anything other than red - either by an on site signaller or remotely via CCTV or by fail safe Obstacle detection Radar & LiDar equipment.) However were the barriers to be ripped off say after being lowered and the CCTV picture being turned off the boom proving (confirms the barrier boom is still actually attached to the pedestal) circuit would be broken, generating a 'barriers failed' alarm and replacing the signals to red. Also if someone lifts the barriers beyond 5 degrees from Horizontal the 'Down proving' circuit would be broken - again causing the signals to revert to red. As for the monitors turning off, this is for a VERY good reason - distraction. The signallers duty is to signal trains and as such they should be concentrating on their signalling panel / frame / box diagram etc. We therefore arrange it such that the picture only appears on the monitor when approaching trains occupy a particular track circuit - the exact choice being sufficiently far away that the signaller has the chance to react and lower the barriers then clear the signals so that the driver receives a green as aspect (which can be some distance in 4 aspect territory) Once the barriers have been lowered the act of pressing the 'crossing clear' button allows the protecting signals to clear to a proceed aspect and turns the monitor off, thus allowing the signaller to return to signalling trains without distraction. If the signaller wishes to monitor the crossing they have to activate the picture manually*. As for what happens after the train has passed - well the railway works on the assumption people are not stupid enough to tie their dogs or have their children hanging off the barriers etc so raising them can be done without visual observation. Most remote barriers also have what is called an 'auto raise' function which means that once the train has passed and no routes are set across the crossing the barriers rise with no intervention or observation by the signaller. * For testing purposes the picture may be called up on the panel at any time should the signaller request it. They can also turn it off again at any time outside the lowering sequence.

I had to rush out so the post was brief, but yes as you say the fundamental cause was a lack of approach locking being applied to the signal protecting the crossing. For those not signal minded, this can be achieved on a mechanical signal box by the provision of electric 'backlocks' on the signal lever that prevent it being fully returned to the frame unless (1) The train it was pulled off for has been proved to have passed via the occupation of a track circuit (or other detection device) OR (2) A 2 minute timer has timed out. As the barrier controls will require the signal lever to be fully back in the frame before the barriers can be raised the potential for a train arriving on a un-activated crossing is prevented.

While not the crossing may not have functioned entirely correctly the first thing I note from a brief reading of the linked page is that the red road lights were flashing at the time the train passed over the crossing. Pedestrians and motorists SHOULD have therefore stopped clear of the crossing and not been in harms way. This is why it is ESSENTIAL they are obeyed barrier or no barrier. Remember while a barrier may be a useful aid - the legislation is written around the red lights for a very good reason. Incidentally the incident described in the report occurred before the fatal incident at Moreton-on-Lugg which highlighted that lack of interlocking between barrier controls and the signals at some mechanical / lever frame signal boxes. As far as I am aware where level crossings have come under the control of large power boxes during resignalling projects, interlocking between the signals and the crossing controls has allways been provided.

Well yes and no. Granted the S rock can only be seen in London, but it will last for the next 40 years and because it is replacing every other type of surface stock on LU, it runs alongside C2C trains, intermingles with freight at Barking, runs alongside / shares tracks with Chiltern trains and can be seen running alongside SWT Desiros at Richmond and Wimbledon. Thus while at the moment it is very restricting in timeframe at present, when we get to say 2025 you will have had it in service for 10 years and who knows what the national network will look like then. The best way to think of it is imagine Bachmann were producing a super detailed model of the 309 in 196x (when they were first introduced). At that stage nobody could have known just how many liveries they would carry by the time their time was up, nor could anyone predict the way the railway scene would change over the decades. Hindsight tells us now they are a signature unit for the GEML but at the time of building nobody would have known that.

No firm plans as yet - but it has been talked about because of service patterns (I think the service runs Matlock - Derby- Nottingham) which means with at few extra miles of wiring you could free up some diesel units for elsewhere. Also at one stage (post privatisation) there was a service direct to London to consider. Though if they go for a low cost scheme like Paisley Canal, main line trains may draw too much power to be used. Its the sort of thing BR may have done (like they wired the North Berwick branch when doing the ECML) and given some of the Thames valley branches are getting wires under the GWML scheme Matlock is in with a chance.

You are still perhaps looking at things a little too deeply here. The use of 'non brainer' is, as with the use NIMBY, a generalised overview. Surely you can appreciate from an operating, stock management, performance perspective swooping from electric to Diesel between Matlock and Chinley does not sound in general terms as a very sensible or efficient thing to do from a railway perspective. Therefore were such a reopening to be proposed for use as part of the national network it is almost a dead cert that the reinstatement would feature OHLE equipment. Nobody is saying you have to like such a proposal, nor support it nor that you might wish to campaign against it. However denying the exsistance of the most likely proposal (the 'no brainer' one as I put it) actually does little to make people take your concerns seriously.

I didn't read it as the Jamie92208 dismissing anyone's views, rather a somewhat tongue in check post indicating that any such proposal would certainly bring protests - where as adding wires to the Doncaster - Grimsby line would be much less controversial. For what it's worth we are ALL NIMBYs, including Jamie92208, it just depends on what is being proposed. I have yet to encounter anyone who doesn't give a sod about what happens beyond their boundary fence regardless of what the proposal is. However assuming the MML electrification goes ahead AND it is decieded to reopen the route then you have to acknowledge electrification is a no-brainier so to speak. Those who dismiss electrification as 'ugly' etc, need to understand it is bar far the most efficient, enviromentally friendly (as in power can be greater from green / natural / clean / renewable resources) plus the performance charichteristics are way better than diesel traction.

Indeed. Wiring up the Hope valley route would be of far grater benefit overall (Trans-Pennine / Northern local services along the Manchester - Sheffield axis could also make use of it) as would investment in HS3. Unfortunately, as with the Woodhead route, too many people approach it from the 'railway looking for a situation' angle rather than a practical and real world assessment of whether its reinstatement brings enough benefits to make the exercise worthwhile.

HS2 will not serve Coventry, Rugby, Milton Keynes, Lemington Spa, Banbury, Bicester (massive amounts of new housing being built over the next few years) or High Wycombe so there will still be plenty of demand along the traditional routes. Furthermore HS2 services will include a premium mark up (as with HS1) so travellers on a budget or those with time to spare will still look for less expensive options. After all the MML didn't exactly die after it lost the St Pancras - Manchester trains did it. Derby Nottingham, Sheffield, Leicester are not on the WCML and still required a decent service.

That may be true but if you step back from the railway modellers rather precise view of things it is worth noting that the contents do vaugely complement each other in general terms terms*. That is to say we have an apple green loco with LNER on the sides, teak finish coaches with LNER on the sides, a mixture of 1st and 3rd (unbranded) accommodation for passenger plus one of the coaches being a brake type. * Its certainly a lot better than some offical freight "train sets" we have seen in he past mixing say a class 58 with private owner wagons or a steam pack having a TTA as one of the wagons - Neither 'look' right.

Did any other company also use the GWR method of identifying which line the signals related to via different painting styles on the relevant levers.

Erm, I am still not quite clear as 33 & 36 are represented by different symbols on the diagram while no. 39 is the same symbol as 36. I'm guessing from the Hemsworth diagram that you meant to say no. 33 is the shunt signal while no. 36 & no.39 are point indicators

For clarity are the point indicators they the white circle with the red centre or the all red circle?

Doh! Must read already posted comments more carefully - and not for the first time guilty as charged of extrapolating current practice backwards in time. Interesting to hear about the Westerns use of mixed colour levers to indicate the relief lines though, makes you wonder what other quirks (or elephant traps for me) there are out there to find. Anyone able to answer The stationmasters question?

There is no requirement for an FPL unless it is PASSENGER TRAINS that will be using the points in the facing direction. Providing this requirement is met then it is perfectly acceptable for a FPL not to be provided.

Red and Black. Where a single leaver operate two different functions the colour scheme is usually a hybrid of the two. A combined stop and distant signal lever will be split with the tip half red and the lower half yellow. A set of points where the lever both moves the blades and operates the FPL will be Blue and Black. See here for pictures http://flickrhivemind.net/Tags/preserved,signaling/Interesting

I believe that system has only been in operation since their website was revamped earlier this year and is related to the software their web developer used for online sales. Before that no monies were taken at time of order as the older software did not require this. Had the latest system been in place then the OP could have potentially had evidence from his payment card to back up his claim, but this would not be the case for orders placed back in 2012.

Its a shame that you cannot find any proof from your side, but surely you can understand their position. If they sell the models to you at the pre-order price without any proof whats to stop a dishonest person (not that I am accusing you of being such a person by the way) trying to do the same even though they haven't pre-ordered? While they have your details that doesn help because again - someone may have bought, say a couple of packs of rail joiners in the past yet use the fact that Kernow have their details to claim they put in a pre-order for an O2 tank when they didn't. Were you to find some evidence from Kernows website or you e-mails then I'm sure Kernow would have another look at the matter. As it happens I thought I was in the same boat as you earlier today because I couldn't see my order for the Black Southern version listed on the "my orders" section of the website and I had no e-mails to prove it either. However I did note a voided order for another O2 variant and after contacting them I was informed that where alterations had been made to a web order retrospectively (swapping my choice of model) they were not accurately captured on the website, but were recorded on their internal system. At the end if the day I guess it shows just how important it is to keep proper records of all orders as a buyer, particularly given the long leed times now prevent in the railway modelling sector.

And whats the problem with that - Mankey urban pigeons are hardly the most attractive of creatures in the first place and the less of them the better.

Actually various scientific studies have shown the social conditions in which a child is raised make very little difference as to their preferences with regard to toys clothes, future jobs and partners. In a word its all down to Chemistry - certain combinations of hormones, etc be they in the parents body during pregnancy or as seen in the person once they are born seem to produce what we would think of as 'feminine' tendencies while other combinations result in more masculine traits. This is then overlayed with the physical gender we are born with and can result in either a very girly girl / masculine boy or at the other end of the spectrum a boy / girl that feels trapped in the 'wrong' body and undergoes gender reassignment to become the person they feel they really are. What does seem to be true however is that females usually have a certain combination that naturally makes them gravitate towards the caring aspect of life and boys the action man aspect. This is hardly surprising as we now know that mother and baby binding involves all sorts of chemical and pheromones which only occur in the female body and are as much of a product of our evolution as learning to walk upright was. I recall this inbuilt preference being demonstrated on monkeys - a toy truck and a doll (neither of which the animals had seen before in any shape or form) were placed before the group and it was noted that most of the males found the truck the more interesting toy to play with while the females seamed more interested in the doll. They had not been 'taught' to prefer one over the other by anyone before the test took place yet the results seemed to confirm stereotypical human behaviour. Equally i recall reading a study where a set of parents - who were very much of the belief that i was the fault of toy makers etc that girls liked dolls and boys like trucks attempted to ensure that their daughters were bought 'male toys' in exactly the same ratio as 'female' ones. They were most upset to find that their daughters still preferred playing with the 'female' toys over the male ones thus reinforcing the thought that thee is something far more fundamental than what toys we play with that governs our position on the male / female axis. So what does this mean? Well basically that while we should not pigeon hole someone into doing a certain job or liking certain things based on their sex, there is nothing wrong with observing that the majority of males / females will confirm to the stereotypes. However those that do not follow the chemical / gender make up of the majority should be encouraged and accepted for who they really are and not subject to any restrictions on their potential for life fulfilment.

Does it have to be an 0-4-4 if its just the sound of the pump you need? All operational Isle of Wight locos have one (Austeritys, Terriers and the Ivatt, etc) because ALL the island coaching stock is all air braked. The Bluebells E4 has a Westinghouse pump as the engine itself is air braked and has air brake connections (the LBSC was an air braked railway) though it also has vacuum brake equipment for hauling trains comprising of vacuum fitted stock.