phil-b259

The first thing to remember is that the main reason for continuation of the 'security checks' has nothing much to do with security and everything to do with making it hard for illegal immigrants to get into the UK. Because the UK doesn't have any national ID checking system (once you are in it is very easy to slip below the radar compared to other European countries) the UK places a great deal of emphasis on checks at the point of entry. There is also the little mater of the schengen agreement that allows somebody who slips across the EUs external border to travel throughout Europe without checks. Technically if you wish to claim asylum then EU rules say then that should be done the first EU country you get to, but if there are no checks and you have destroyed any paperwork whos to say where that was. If the UK didn't have border checks then if they make it through its the UKs problem where as if they get picked up at St Pancras then - as with airlines they can be sent straight back to France / Belgium and told to claim asylum there. While I know this all sounds terably like the Daily Mail, unfortunatley the UK does remain at the top of the list when it comes to illegal imigrants top list of countries they want to get to - mainly because they know it is very easy to disapear and settle down without atracting much attention (Sandgate may have closed but there are still plenty living rough in the Calais region trying to get across). Indeed when a new neighbour from France moved in a few years ago they were astounded how easy it was to set up uility accounts, council tax accounts, get registered with a doctor, etc over here compared to France. Thus unless the UK population is willing to allow far more state involvement in their daily life to enable the state to weed out those who are not entitle to be here then 'security checks' will have to stay.

Thats not an unusual occurrence. For decades now the practice has been that when new ships are ordered for northern European waters (e.g. Dover - Calais) the older ships get bought buy Mediterranean operators who use them between the Greek islands and North Africa to Europe. Because the Med is a lot calmer weather wise than the north sea, regulations are not as strict and this combined with the practice of loading from the quayside without any fixed berthing equipment usually results in things like the bow doors being sealed and large non watertight drop ramps being fitted to the stern. The other interesting thing about these ferries is the operators frequently do nothing more than they have to in terms of refurbishment other than a new coat of paint on the outside and a few carefully positioned stickers to cover up the the previous owners logos. Thus you used to get the rather odd situation of say an ex P&O Dover based boat with a house style duty free shop not selling any alcohol if on the north African run for example. Sadly what with the recession and the money troubles in Greece and elsewhere quite a lot of operators have gone to the wall a situation which, combined with the general over capacity in the Med has seen quite a lot of 'iconic' ex channel and BR built ferries go to the scrapyards. For those interested in such things the following website may be of interest: http://www.hhvferry.com/HHVFerry.html http://www.doverferryphotosforums.co.uk/wordpress/category/pastandpresent/

Photos and videos suggest it was worked on a 'line of sight' basis - complete with a man waving a red flag as in the early days of motoring, though some sort of control must have been in place to prevent Mexican stand-offs - one engine in steam possibly? As for the points, again photos suggest they were worked in a similar manor to tramway points, i.e. a large crowbar is put through a hole in the metal cover over a spring based mechanism which is then used to 'throw' the points (if you have ever seen those funny fish tail keys used to switch on lighting in public places you will understand what I mean). Obviously in later years there was a tendency to remove the mechanism when the points were redundant and fill the hole left with tarmac but leave the points themselves intact.

Thats one of the big problems - nobody has any idea what the condition of the sleepers are like (I believe that they are indeed wooden burried under tarmac) and therefore nobody is willing to allow anything down there in case it comes off the rails. There also is the point that while pedestrians and trams do mix in city centre,s part the reason it works is that the trams are frequent so people, and indeed other road traffic gets used to their presence. Unless the Weymouth quay branch gets interoperated into some sort of light rail system, the risks of mixing people and 'occasional' mainline trains on Weymouth's busy quaysides will not be tolerated by the ORR / HSE While it would be nice to retain the tracks themselves as some sort of memorial to the past this does not come without risks. Steel rails present as hazard to cyclists (even if the flange ways are filled in) and the presence of the railway compromises the strength of the road surface (and drainage) leading to dips and trip hazards. It also makes utility works a bit of a pain so in the long run I can see why Dieppe opted for complete removal

Tunnelling to Euston is not 'nonsense' as you put it - it is being proposed for sound reasons. Dumping the large number of passengers on what are expected to be reasonably well filled Crossrail trains and using them as the sole link to central London is a recipie for disaster. Going to a rebuilt Euston adds the Northern, Victoria and Circle (Euston Square) tube lines to help take the strain while the bus routes are also far more suitable in terms of getting people where they want to go. In addition crossrail 2 is proposed to go via Euston providing further connectivity to places south of the river and no doubt some people will find the walk from Euston manageable not to mention St Pancras just being a short walk away. Besides terminating at Old Oak wouldn't actually save much because for any long distance terminal to function effectively it needs lots of platforms - St Pancras being a case in point. HS1 and the MML have the capacity for many more trains than St Pancras can handle and with the nearest stabling at Cricklewood / Temple Mills it is platform occupancy that proves the limiting factor. Unlike suburban ENUs you need more than the 6 minutes allowed at Charing Cross to prep the train for its return working - especially if a premium fare is going to be charged. In the case of Old Oak common increasing the footprint of the HS2 site so it is able to cope with the 9 or so terminating platforms necessary would entail the demolition of the current HEX and planned Crossrail depot which would then need replacing somewhere else at significant cost (Not to mention lots of political oposition - there is a reqason why Old Oak was chosen over a greenfield site near Romford). Then there is the issue of connecting to HS1, if you are going to build such a connection - it has to be tunnelled to Camden anyway. Tunnelling itself is also not particularly expensive as things go, what makes them expensive is adding underground stations with the extra excavation required to provide platforms emergency exits , escalators, cross passages surface buildings & entrances, etc.. Hence the tendency on later tube lines to go for the maximum station spacings possible.

Should the UK be planning to spend far more on replacing our "nuclear deterrent" / the trident submarine in the next decade or so. I would say not, in my opinion its just a w***y waving exercise designed more to justify our seat on the UN security council than anything else.

On the BBC news website their transport correspondent writes "But ministers have come out fighting following the report's publication. They feel they've made a great deal of progress recently, announcing the full route up to Leeds and Manchester, seeing off a number of legal challenges against the project, and putting two bills into the Queen's Speech. They keep reminding me of other schemes that had a weak business case - bits of the M25 and the Jubilee line extension, for example - schemes that the UK couldn't now live without". If what he says is true maybe the NIMBYs in Buckinghamshire, etc. should think more carefully. Most of the M25, (especially the bits closest to the Tory supporting Chilterns) were overloaded from day one and the Jubilee extension to get the bankers to the financial centre that is Canary Wharf wasn't exactly empty when it opened.

Very possibly. However frame is rarely a rational thing, for example I would say most off the x-factor / [insert other trashy talent show] contestants also don't deserve the fame and attention they get either. That doesn't seam to prevent them being successful in the short term at least. At the end of they day while there are legitimate grounds for debate by enthusiasts what we all need to recognise is that maintaining a working steam locomotive collection (be it the from NRM, those owned by private individuals or those or plodding up and down one of the many heritage lines in the UK requires an enormous contribution from the non enthusiast market (family groups, wine & dine services, 'land cruse' services, people who buy tacky FS clocks, people who drop in for a nice cup of tea and a cake, etc.) Given the name 'Flying Scotsman carries such weight with the non enthusiast market only a fool would fail to capitalise on the situation. Naturally this perpetuates the 'famous' status with future generations and leads to more debates from the enthusiasts as to why it should be the case.

Given the image shows the coach fitted with the orange central door locking lights, the description (a BR Mk3 Western region buffet) doesn't sound right

Steady on, its not a one deal yet. As I said above Chris already has plenty of special commissions in the pipeline all of which require substantial financial investment even at the initial CAD stage thus any decision to extend the number of variations offered carries a significant risk (e.g. will any Maunsell liveried orders be at the expense of the already announced versions or is the finance available to commission a further batch) - especially as money is not taken until the goods are ready to be dispatched. That said, on the plus side Chris does have photographic evidence (as seen at Taunton) of at least one engine in Maunsell lined green that matches the particular configuration of O2 he is planning to commission (by that I mean chimney, boiler and a host of other bits and bobs which varied on a loco by loco basis are the same as the already announced models). Its this determination for things to be correct that gave us all the different varieties well tank when many modellers would have been happy with just the one. Lets just wait and see what happens over the next 12 months or so - we may be lucky

Thats an interesting development but in reality both both types have their merits. When clean, the retro reflective the modern 'road sign types' do seam more legible (especially with modern traction having high intensity headlights), however when placed at a low level (thus more suseptable to track dirt) or urban environments (where graffiti is prevalent) they quickly become illlegable. In such cases the frequent cleaning and replacement of such signs might well be seen as a drain on resources and with pressures on costs and the wage bill still out there following the Mcnaulty report stencil signs may well represent an attractive option. At the end of the day I guess the real people we need to hear from are those forum members who are or were drivers as ultimately speed boards are only placed lineside to assist them.

I expressed similar thoughts while chatting about the O2s at Taunton - especially as one of the versions of the LSWR gate stock is planned to be on lined Maunsell Green. I have to say though that discussing both forthcoming models the most striking thing was the desire to get it 'right' as well as the financial risks the retailer has to take when commissioning such models

Shame loco cabs don't come with 'auxilary power sockets' (what used to be called the cigarette lighter)

That doesn't stop people complaining though. The worst ones are those that get the legal profession involved and claim their human rights (right to a good nights sleep apparently being a popular choice) are being infringed somehow. At least one case has made it as far as the court of human rights I believe and while none have succeeded there is preasure for the railways to mitigate the issue as far as possable - if for no other reason than it makes it easier to throw such cases out because whistling is already cut to a minimum. Preservation is not immune either - the Bluebell suffers from it in that whistling of locomotives is forbidden at Kingscote and East Grinstead the only exception being if workers are trackside or in emergency situations

At least Reigate box - which supervises the crossing via traditional methods (the mk1 eyeball looking through the wndow) is at the crossing itself

Correct. If the crossing has 4 individual booms (barriers to non railway people) then the facing booms must be proved electrically to be in the down position before the trailers descend. Obviously where only two booms are used (one each side) two close the road this does not apply. (Also if the main and backup power supplies should fail then all 4 booms will descend together as the hydraulic valves in each pedestal release)

Technically yes - and the NR staff were guilty of breaking their rules too. Its always difficult when staff on the ground are put in this situation as on the one hand you probably (assuming you are a MOM / S&T person / signalman) have a very good idea as to whether it is safe for members of the public to cross yet are forbidden from providing such advice. This frequently results in anger and abuse being directed at the staff from the road user who - perhaps not unreasonably - assumes railway staff should be able to provide said information and are being deliberately unhelpful by not providing it. Mind you I can also see why we have to behave like this though because given the stupidity of the general public, if a motorist gets waved across at one crossing they may well decide that the next crossing they are delayed at has failed in some way and it is perfectly safe to jump the lights / go round the barriers, etc. at that one too with potentially horrendous results for themselves and any train that they may collide with. Often (Oh and remember if the crossing is fitted with red light cameras you would still be prosecuted EVEN if you were waved across. As was mentioned earlier 'Wig Wag' lights - including those found at airfields, lift bridges, etc. - are treated differently to standard road traffic lights and absolutely NOBODY can authorise you to pass them when lit.

IIRC some bits were filmed using the out of ticket std 5 from Butterley which has Capoiti valve gear instead although you couldn't see it because of the snow drift.

The Bluebell actually have 3 birdcage brakes with a 4th on site (i) http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/pics/1170.html (Presumably the Bachmann model) 60' (ii) http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/pics/short_birdb.html (same length as 3363) 50' (iii) http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/birdcage/index.html (The recently restored no. 3363) 50' (iv) http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/pics/950.html (Privatley owned, at the Bluebell for storage only) Edit: Of course one problem is the centre coach for a birdcage trio. The only non brake SECR bogie coaches on the bluebell are the two '100 sweaters' (built 1922 / 1923) and one coach consisting of 2/3 SECR bodies refitted to a new SR underframe in the late20s. That said maybe the IOW railway have something suitable.

While there are photos of a birdcage brake being the leading vehicle of a SECR pullman train I would imagine the usually format was exactly as Bachmann are producing - a three car set. Certainly in SR days the birdcage brakes were formed into sets for branch line and stopping services.

Erm, you missed out the MML up to Bedford as well! Apparently somebody somewhere has the intention of moving West Hampstead into there too.

But the theory remains sound. In practice there probably won't be the need to remove everything, some spoil removal, some improved drainage and various other ground strengthening techniques will sort things out in a reasonable timeframe. Thats not to say it will be easy or cheap of course, but it is still very much a 'doable proposition, certainly far more realistic than talks of new chords or new alignments.

Acording to the manufacturers (Hornby, Bachmann, etc) all DCC fitted items can be used with DC control and nor should usage in this way cause any damage to the decoder unless - and this is the main exception - a high frequency track cleaner is employed on the layout. That is not to say that performance of a DCC fitted item on a DC layout is perfect, certainly the response suffers because of the extra electronics between the rails and the motor and the need for the decoder to recognise that the incoming voltage is a DC one. Thus removing the decoder may benifical. Also it is not impossable for decoders to be defective - in Bill's case it may be that the decoder will not work on DCC but does (after a fashion) on DC. In this case removing the chip would soon show this up.

That's nothing. I know the chap playing the guard in this (a fellow Bluebell volunteer, not an actor) and apparently the costume department have some very strange ideas as to what railway staff wore in the olden days. He was made to ditch his accurate LBSCR guards uniform in favour of something more 'suitable', and according to the film people, accurate for the role. The loco crew also got similar treatment and one suggestion is the production companies do this so as to make non actors blend into the background and too much 'bling' (however authentic) will make the 'stars' stand out less. Mind you it's not just clothes film people have funny ideas about as in one of the films made at the Bluebell, the production crew got the guard to flag the train away but rather step inside the guards compartment they wanted him to stand on the footboard and hold onto the side as the train departed - again real railway practice was seamed not 'right' or 'dramatic' enough for the film even though it does beg the question of how exactly does the guard get into his van later on or do they really think he hangs on to the next station. Still providing it is not actually dangerous and given the amount of money filming brings in, it's not worth arguing about.

I have a vague recliction of one episode of the detective show 'Frost' (featuring David Jason) where he comes to arrest a suspect in a train depot and ends up presuming him through the shed with rakes of MK3s (i.e. Longsight depot, Manchester). Not sure if they were InterCity or Virgin livery though.