phil-b259

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

But that is exactly what they are doing by doubling the cost of 'supporting' what they regard as an 'obsolete' operating system. Any same accountant faced with a year on year doubling of large bits of the IT budget will be demanding action - and of coarse every big cooperate that upgrades leaves a smaller and smaller number of companies still using XP. Just because they happen to be an NHS trust will not spare them big bills for if they do nothing - and of course the danger of finding themselves unsupported. After all when the number of XP users hits a low figure Microsoft WILL end support and that will be it. NR have recently embarked on a programme to rid themselves of XP desktops (though there are no plans to remove the XP based software used on some non internet connected signal logging / tech terminals).

Indeed - but in a world dominated by getting the best BCRs and maximising private sector (i.e. developer involvement) in all public sector projects you can see why some have been looking at a connection further south. I do suspect though that ultimately the deepest recession in living memory has probably reduced the initial appetite for radical options and think that eventually the Bedford - Sandy option will be the option chosen, if the political will is there to actually do anything.

Sort of. You have to remember that the business case for reinstatement is not focused on Oxford - Cambridge as the numbers wishing to do that are far too small to justify the cost. The business case is rather focused on east west connectivity - and as such it naturally focuses on where there are already big flows of people travelling by road. Talk of going via Luton has come about because of its airport, sited to the east of the town which is a significant traffic draw. Routing a new east west connection this way would improve connectivity to the airport as well as hopefully attract some people who use the A505 to drive between Luton and Stevenage. Also please remember that as with the 'Borders Railway' simply slapping down some new rails is a big no-no. If you examine pictures of the new railway you will see that not only have all level crossing been eliminated, but to meet modern standards with regards embankment and cutting slopes there has been an awful lot of gibbon baskets installed, backfilled with rock so as to make the slopes more stable and less likely to slip. Consequently it follows that while the Bedford - Sandy route is the shortest, it may not be as cheep as some people think and it is conceivable that a new build on the Luton - Stevenage axis has potential. Whether that potential can be turned into a sufficiently robust business proposal remains to be seen.

WRONG assumption! The issue is not the production of parts - its the assembly and fitting of all those extra details like smokebox darts etc that make model ralways labour intensive. Comparisions with the car industry for exampla are nonsense as much of the assembly is done by robots.

I hope it doesn't, and I am willing to get everyone I can think of involved (Unions, HSE, ORR) to keep them. I have lost count of the ammount of times on this site I have had to defend the essential benifit yellow pannels bring to UK track workers like me when judging SPEED AND DISTANCE. A high intenisty headlight merely tells me a train is there and it is of no use when tryiing to determine distance on a straight bit of railway and thus when I and my collegues should move to a position of safety*. Yellow Panels ARE NOT simply a bit of paint - they are a vital safety feature, I couldn't care less if they make liveries less 'pretty' to look at. I also couldn't care less what they do in the rest of Europe - or indeed the Underground, what matters to me is my workplace (i.e. NR) and as such I do not want to see safety features reducded. * Red zone with lookouts for those in the industry.

So what about all the work going on in the Bath - Chippenham section then? somehow I doubt everyone has turned up not knowing what they are supposed to be doing. While you do have a point to an extent, with the GWML and NW triangle schemes running late then, having extra OHLE installation expertise is surely helpful - if nothing else it might help limit wage costs (i.e. you don't have to pay a premium becasue there are more people with the necessary skills on the market.

I appologise if i offended you, but that is how the tone of your posting came across to me.

You are still missing my point. If Hatton's are applying a 20% discount on RRP, then remove that discount the headline price has NOT technically risen - all that has happened is the discount has been removed. Yes it means the amount you pay has gone up but as with ALL discounts, be they on food, clothes, cars or energy bills the removal of discounts should be something purchasers should expect from time to time. Purchasers who assume that discounts will continue for eternity are thus flaking a rather foolish assumption however you construe it. Another way to look at the principle is this - if you go for a mortgage, most lenders only consider the base salary even if you have consistently been doing 30hrs paid overtime every month for the past 5 years. This is because they cannot garuntee these extra non contracted hours will continue. In a similar vein just because for the past decade Hattons have given generous discounts on the published RRP does not mean they will continue to be able to do so. However I do apreciate that for some this rise will indeed have an impact on their ability to purchase items going forward and it is true to say that such a large increase happening all at once does create cash flow issues. However that does not change the basic fact that drawing up a budget / purchasing list based on severe discounts - be it model railways, home furnishings, cars, food, etc is not sustainable in the long term.