phil-b259

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.

In discussions about points it is important to distinguish between the individual parts, i.e. switch rails, stock rails, common crossing, V crossing, K crossing, etc and the overall function of the arrangement of the rails. The term single slip, double slip, turnout, fixed diamond switch diamond, etc all refer to a arrangement of discrete components - most of which can be renewed / repaired on an individual basis. A turnout will consist of at least 2 sets of switch rails & stock rails, and at least one crossing unit - the type depending on the geometry of the installation and the rail profile being used. The terms "diamond crossing" and "frog" are not used on the real thing despite their widespread use in the model world, the former being a mixture of two completely separate things. It would appear that in the course of your discussions at the club some significant confusion has crept into the conversation which has led to you asking a question linking two things that belong to totally different categories as it were. This is understandable as unless you have experience of the real thing and deal with p-way then it can be hard to get to grips with all the terminology used.

If clamp locks (hydrarlic points) are employed, a single pump unit can drive all 4 rams (2 rams per end) together both sets of switch rails will move at the same time and in the correct direction (It doesn't matter weather you are hand pumping or moving them under power).

Glad to see the problem has made the press. Reigate station is my maintaince area and more than once I have been forced to repremand someone for chosing to take a short cut across the cattle grids and i know the signalmen have been complaing about it for ages to their bosses.

This is what happens when you don't employ Bachmann's policy of "no UK retail premiss - no Bachmann products". They are also quite active in taking action / publicising the names of those who try and get round the policy. From a economist and City (of London) shareholders perspective such terms would be perceived as "restrictive" and "not offering the best return for shareholders" - who only seem to care about making a quick buck these days and to hell with the consequences. Bachmann being a small part of a much larger overseas organisation are thankfully immune from such pressures.

FPL & Detection testing on Clamplocks Whats more impressive is the pic was taken from the NR helicopter showing just how much detail its on board cameras can capture!

Yes and no. Today all such plant (ranging from the man rider pictured right up to Road / rail vehicles - including the land rovers used on the West Highland) MUST ONLY be operated from inside an engineers possession (which away from the likes of the RETB West Highland) REQUIRES Detonators, stop boards, etc to be put in place before track access is possible. However the Wickham trolleys, when introduced did not need to be inside a engineers possession for them to be used - signalmen could simply signal them as ordinary trains into and through block sections (timetables permitting) - there were even special bell codes for them. Thus the closet thing you are likely to see, in spirit terms (not physically) to a Wickam trolley are the soon to be introduced "Mobile Maintenance trains". These self contained units loaded with staff and materials, plus featuring 'working bays' (think of a wagon with no floor, extendable sides and internal gantry cranes so workers are completely isolated from the open tracks either side) can drive onto a bit of 'open' railway stop, do their work then head off again afterwards without the need for traditional possession arrangements as the train keeps the workers safe inside it.

It all depends on service train timings, line capacity and traffic density - factors that don't alter regardless of whether we are talking about 1965 or 2015. Signalmen are not allowed to let it out on the Bluebell if they believe it will hold up service trains and it would have been exactly the same under British Railways when they were first introduced. My point is that Wickham trolleys do not need a official 'engineering possession' to be out on the line - they may be signalled as normal trains under the 1950s rule book (a modified version of which the Bluebell still use) if the local engineering staff request their use and the signalmen / operating department are happy that such a movement will not disrupt the ordinary timetable. As such its easily to imagine say cross country a double track line with say an hourly stopping service, where its quite possible that a Wickham might be allowed to enter the block section between trains for engineering purposes. Thus it would be entirely legitimate in principle (era and geographical location permitting) for a modeller to have one and run it as they would do any other train / loco. Of course there is nothing to prevent Wickham trolleys being used under an engineering possession - but in model terms that is unlikely to be something most modellers wish to create as we have yet to master the nano technology necessary to actually have miniature people undertake, say the replacement of a section if track while we watch.

They are NOT only used in engineers possessions - on my local Heritage railway we regularly have them enter the single line section to drop off men and materials between trains (timetable allowing of course). They receive a single line token, just as a regular as a train would - have bell codes (1-2-1 or 1-3-1) allocated to them and use proper running / shunt signals to control movements. However as their speed is limited and their braking ability is not as good as a regular train / loco it is important to not overload them and to pay particular attention to the railhead conditions (are they wet for example). The other issue is that because of their lightweight nature they cannot be relied on to operate track circuits correctly which may in turn mean signals have to 'time off' before the lever can be fully replaced to danger and other levers operated. Having a heavily loaded trailer is actually beneficial in this respect as the increased pressure on the railhead helps both with braking and reliability of track circuit occupation. Thus while clearly they are unsuitable for modern railways (where RRVs versatility is a big advantage or speed / traffic issues abound) and were unlikely to be seen running up and down the WCML or BML during the day - even in the 50s / 60s / 70s, there was no reason why in principle* they could not be out and about mixed in with 'proper' trains working ordinary services. * I am not sure about the situation on lines with 3rd rail - logic says that given their low ride height it would be hazardous to have them running about with the juice (railwaymens slang for electricity) as the chances of steeping on the live rail when alighting must be grater than when climbing down off a loco say

Just a thought, the exit from the depot to the platforms is lacking any form of trap points protecting the running lines from unauthorised movements off depot. Not easily solvable with the space available and track layout you have chosen - and as the layout is built for your enjoyment it may not bother you. Nevertheless it might be worth having a think about it before the area concerned gets the full scenic treatment. Otherwise its looking good - thanks for sharing your progress with us.

While the Green may look smart (for now) the effect is spoiled by the pale purple / blue and bright pink vestibule interiors / end doors. While know that in time the interiors are due to be given refresh, it definitely looks odd at the moment.

Very nice layout there. If I ever have the space, my dream is to imagine those those enthusiasts based at Radstock in the early 70s had managed to overcome the obstacles and been successful in the establishment of a Heritage Railway from there (or thereabouts) to Shepton Mallet / Evercreech junction thus allowing me to create a Sheffield park type model somewhere in the Mendips...

I believe that a similar-ish arrangement (in respect of the principles, not the actual equipment) was / is employed on RETB lines where passing loops are installed. Basically it ensures the points are locked for trains entering a loop from the single line, yet said points can still be trailed through by a train heading in the opposite direction on to the single line.

Interesting railway signage to the right - not one I recall from the rule book ;-)

This is a DfT inspired move and as with the Great Northern routes out of Kings Cross and Thameslink 319 fleet refurbishment is down to the practicalities of having trains passing through overhaul while the future of the Franchise is undecided. In the case of the Grater Anglia Franchise currently run by Albino - it is up for renewal, the 3 shortlisted bidders were announced back in June of this year and the DfT press release state the new franchise will commence in October 2016. As such I fully expect that the current 'simplified' livery will give way to something more 'complicated / hideous / attractive / dynamic........' by 2017.

That fall down whenever there is more than a stiff breeze? (OK that is a bit of an exaggeration I know but you get the drift.....) NR are well aware that not repeating the BR (Treasury demanded) mistakes is essential if you wish to have robust electrified railway going forward - particularly as climate experts predict that in future decades stormy weather is likely to increase.

(1) you mean copper - which is what said pipes were made of. (2) In many cases said pipework was not specifically painted in the same colour as the bodywork - it was simply the case that there wasn't the manpower available to keep them clean. A look at the contemporary heritage railways scene shows 8Fs, the WD, 9Fs, S15s, plus many others all with lovely polished pipework for example precisely because the manpower is available to keep such bits clean.

Oh if there was a reasonable alternative to building some sort of Bedford - ECML link it would have been chosen. IIRC inital studies even looked at a new south - east curve at Manton and sending services from Bedford via Corby, Stamford & Peterborough to Cambridge. This was rejected at any early stage as producing very poor value for money and not doing much to improve east west connectivity in the target area with the result that attention returned to Bedford / Luton - Sandy / Hitchin options and getting to Cambridge via Royston. Of course one option that could have been considered had it not been converted into a busway was to go north From Sandy to Huntingdon and back down to Cambridge via St Ives. Like I said though the routing chosen needs to have a sufficiently positive BCR to get over the anti-railway reopening attitude that prevails in the DfT / Treasury. As such reversals at Hitchin may well be the price to pay for getting the thing built at all.

They are "dithering" as you put it is because a straight line on the map as you advocate generates such a negative BCR that it would kill the project stone dead. By making as much use of existing infrastructure as possible, costs are kept down - which is important given the need to build some form of new* connection between the MML & the ECML. Providing all the necessary connections are completely grade separated - and suitable facilities are provided if reversal at Hitchin is chosen, then the ECML will be fine coping with what will amount to an extra 2 tph at most on the slow lines. Finally, as I said earlier the project is NOT called "Oxford / Bedford - Cambridge railway", it is the "improving east west connectivity by rail" project. As such the primary focus is to improve connectivity between towns that currently rely on roads for east west movement like Stevenage and Luton as well as Bedford and Cambridge. As such it is necessary to ensure that the final options chosen are those that best meet these aims. Yes it means the overall end to end journey will be slow, but that is not why the project was started in the first place. *note that as with the borders railway even if the old track formation is used all earthworks, bridges etc will have to be built / modified to current standards - not simply reinstated as they were when the line closed.

By ignoring the Sandy Cambridge alignment completely. Not only has it been built over / destroyed by agriculture but it passes through very little in terms of intermediate traffic generators. Therefore all plans are focused on getting from the ECML to Cambridge via Letchworth and Royston. The only question still to be finalised is the issue of the MML - ECML link - and whether a new north - east curve is built at Hitchin or whether trains reverse direction at Hitcin / Stevenage.

At present (with only Paddington - Airport junction energised) , I think it is somewhere like York is the responsible ECR (which also handles not only the ECML, but also the Farringdon - Bedford bit of the MML. This was because in the late 80s / early 90s where BR didn't want to set up dedicated ECRs for smaller schemes - extensions to existing installations were controlled by the ECR set up for the parent scheme). A year or two ago there was a (unfunded and un-agreed with the unions) plan to rationalise all DC stuff to Three Bridges ROC with the AC administered, IIRC, from three others (Glasgow, Manchester and York). Whether this is still the goal I'm not sure but from what I hear on the ground the person who came up with the plan had underestimated just how much 'spare' space there was in the ROCs (there are serious doubts about the ability of the already built centres to actually accommodate all the necessary signalling workstations needed under the signalling migration plans) so it may not happen. Looking to the future though I would imagine a new electrical control in the Didcot ROC (aka Thames Valley signalling centre) although given 99% of it is a new installation and the desire to centralise, options 'up north' may still be on the table.

Generally they are not burried by design - its a lot more hassle to splice in a damaged section of cable if it all has to be excavated first. What usually happens is that while the concrete troughing may have originally been laid in a nice orderly run on the surface, over time the actions of bank slippage, p-way activity (digging out wet beds for example or raising the track height by extra ballasting), growth of vegetation, abandonment of track (which means said cable route diverts into the undergrowth to get round an now non existent structure) causes the whole route to progressively become obscured from view in places. It should also be noted that while cable troughing is notionally a S&T / ETE (that shorthand for the electrification people) responsibility neither department has the funding, manpower or time to go round repairing troughing routes that have deteriorated over time. However in areas where cable theft has been a problem (line in certain areas of the NE) cable routes are sometimes buried a good way down so as to make it hard to get to. Finally when you say cable - this can encompass lots of different types. Data links may be of the fibre optic type (cut through one of those and you can easily losse several miles of railway) while copper signalling cables have no metal armouring (in case damage causes internal cores to short to it and cause a Clapham junction type smash), Power cables can be aluminium rather than copper all of which means that a CAT scan of the area to be excavated can give erroneous results