phil-b259

I was under the impression that LMS passenger locos given black livery were (prior to WW2) given red lining and given the compound was a passenger engine, Bachmann would have applied like the crab they offered a few years ago. Plain black just look wrong somehow

I too found that by changing the front and rear wheels on the Dapol tanks to Hornby or Bachmann ones (leaving the middle set alone) solved the de-railing problem. I also agree with Jenny that the lack of solebar lettering on the Dapol version does stand out, especially when sen alongside the Hornby offering.

Nope, the "Widened lines" still have restricted clearences and cannot acept trains with a length grater than 20m per car. Thus while most MK3 20m derived units are OK the only locos permitted are the class 73s and 31s. Anything else is too long. Back in the 70s however the bigest restriction was the "Hotel curve" at Kings Cross which was even tighter, such that todays EMUS would have fitted through it and peak hour services from the GN lines had to be short length Mk1 suburbans to fit.

It is well proven that electric trains are cheaper to maintain, lighter (that means they are kinder to the track as well as using less energy to move along) and have a better acceleration rate than diesels an import factor on routes with fairly frequent station calls. Also electric traction is far better at coping with gradients due to the ability of the electrical supply system to provide far more power than any diesel can. OK you can add more engines but that also increases fuel costs, maintainence costs and causes more wear and tear on the p-way. The class 185s for example weigh considerably more than their electric cousins operating on SWT. Also as inefficient as it is compared with overheads, the 3rd rail system still trumps diesel traction - there is simply no way lines like the Brighton main line could handle the number of trains it does without the advantages electric traction provides.

Basingstoke - Southampton conversion only really makes sense because of the ammount of non 'southern' traffic (frequent intermodals, XC services, etc). Pretty every other 3rd rail route in the south east is dominated by EMUs to and from London (OK, Kent may have Channel tunnel flows which it can factor in) - hence the only advantage for conversion on these routes would be a more efficent electricity distribution system (and better reliability for the 20 or so days of bad weather over the winter. I remain to be convinced that the potental conversion of the Bsingstoke - Southampton section can be replicated elsewhere, the benifits don't justify the costs and we would be better off spending the money on wiring up other bits of the UK network than simply replacing one type of electric system with another.

Thats the key point, none of the trains at Amsterdam Airport terminate there. Now assuming we have a 2tph Reading - London service, each train will sit in the platform at Reading for 30minutes at a time thus effectivley removing one of the platforms for the duration (just the same as if Amsterdam Airport had terminating trains running at 2tph). If any Heathrow service is also 2tph you lose yet another platform meaning Reading ends up with only two platforms avaleable for all through passenger and freight trains on the relief lines. Like I said earlier one solution is to send the train into a siding (or the new Redaing depot) between journeys but that does require the provision of easily accessable said sidings (i.e. they don't need shunters aceptance switches etc to use them) to be factored into the track layout. If this could be done the both crossrail and a new Heathrow service could use the same platform, alternating between them and leaving three of the four relief platforms free for through traffic.

On the other hand going through to Reading would reduce the number stabling and turnback facilaties required at Maidenhead and also solves problem of how to serve Maidenhead to Reading without losing the conectivity provided by the current through services. Granted Reading might need some carefull platform diagraming, but given that everything published so far suggests no more than 2tph beyond Maidenhead and even with the possably of a further 2tph to Heathrow, (something which might not be needed if Reading crossrail services went via the proposed western spur and through the airport itself rather than West Drayton), I find it hard to believe that Reading won't be able to cope. Besides is there really any need to have the unit sit in the platform at Reading for 30 minutes between trips, depending on the eventuall layout chosen could it not head off into the new depot for a 10 minute layover betwwen services?

This has all been discussed before. Basically due to the way Hornby (and Bachmann, etc produce their models these days) Hornby cannot suddenly produce a new chasis. They have to get in contact with the factory in China (which is not owned, managed or even dedicated to Hornby products) and try and arange a production slot for new chasis blocks which given they way the system works, you are looking at anywhere between 6 and 18 months for one to become avalable. Hence the wait. This is where your car anology falls down because car production lines continually turn out the same products, i.e. Ford don't say 'this month we will make a batch of Focus cars, next month we will do some transit vans, the month after that some KAs, they have dedicated production lines turning out the same thing 365 days a year. If Hornby did the same they would have a production line turning out only class 31s 365 days a year. Also when they stop production of a particular car, thats it - if all the spares get used up then tough - its down to making your own or getting them from the breakers. Again this is more to do with the batch production line system than anything else. The current crop of class 31s will have been ordered with the factory in China at least 6 months ago and as with any contract (remember Hornby don't own the factory) it will have been for a specific number of locos in a specific number of liveries. Hornby cannot now simply say they have changed their mind and want something different, instead they will have to book a new production slot in the future. Hence why have Regional railways & Network rail class 31s in stock, but not any Dutch liveried examples.

From what I can gather all you need is a simple sprung loaded push to make button. One press makes the signal go one way, a second press reverses it (hence all the complaints about the signals not being DCC friendly). From this I would imagine that if you continually supplied the signal with voltage or you waited to the arm had finished moving before letting go of the button, the signal would assume you wanted to change its state and start going the other way again.

Just to point out that in the real world where a single AWS installation is provided for two signals on a bi-directional line (e.g. a platform line with starting signals each end and a common AWS installation) the exact arangement is as follows :- Ramp, electromagnet, Permenant magnet, Electromagnet, Ramp.( i.e. remove one of the two central magnets shown in the pics). Also where AWS is installed on bidirectional lines, to avoid drivers of trains traveling 'the wrong way' getting an AWS indication which doesn't apply them, It is common to provide suppressor magnets rather than bog standard permenant ones (the elctromagnet remain unchanged). A suppressor magnet is basically a permenat magnet with two smaller electromagnets bolted to each side (in the manor of pannier tanks). When a 'wrong way' train is signalled, the mini electromagnets are energised and 'suppress' the magnetic field being generated by the permenant magnet, thus making the installation non exsistaant as far as the train is concered.

FIrst thing to say it depends on the specific signalling requirements rather than any mandated distances. Location case placement is determined by need alone, so it is entirely possable for a set of signals to not be immediatley adjacent to a case if the designer has decided that another place may be more benifical. For example on lines worked by track circuit block, in plain line areas, the track circuits do not start and finish adjacent to the signal because the standard 200 yard overlap is simply a continuation of the track approching the signal (giving rise to the sittuation where a signal stays green even after a short train has gone past it). Thus the designer may decide it benifical to put the relays controling the signal with the track circuit equipment and feed the signal by a long tail cable for example. In other situations it might be reversed and it is the track circuit equipment that gets moved to locations close to the signal. Another thing to consider is that in some places the distance between consecutive signals may be too long to be covered by a single track circuit. Thus what appears to the signalman as "AB" track actually consists two seperate tracks (i.e. "AB-1" & "AB-2") which will naturally result in a location case appearing at the join between the two and not asociated with signals. Regional practices and date of the installation can also produce variation the placement of location cases as can the technology used in the signalling scheme itself. For example axle counters can be employed to get rid of long multi section tracks and SSI based signalling has reducded the number of lineside multicore cables, but may end up requireing more location cases as the SSI modules themselves are not small. All rather complicated however I'm sure that others on the forum will be able to provide more details

To a great extent direct HS2 - HS1 trains will still depend on the UK government being willing to change its stance on UK border controls. At pressent all trains to / from Europe cannot be used by UK domestic passengers and can only stop at stations with extensive Passport and imigration facilaties. (Note that the reverse is not true in France - hence the seasonal services starting at Avignion & the in Alps can get away with tempory facilaties)

The thing is these days most people don't have much choice about comuting. Over the past 30 years or so traditional UK employment which tended to be localised has been decimated as globalisation has led to the closure of lots of the UKs manufacturing capability. Consiquently people are having to travel further and further afield for jobs. Also the rise in house prices has resulted in people being pushed further and further out from our majour cities, helped of course by the growth of the motorway network and fast trains. In some ways its a vicious circle of course as once comuting becomes feasable - house prices rise, jobs can become more centralised thus promiting yet more long distance comuting. Thus while saying we should not be comuting / traveling so far and so fast while is a very laudable concept, both from a enviromental and human wellbeing perspective, it does ignore the current economic model used by the Western world, where, if we are brutally honest with ourselves, usastaniable growth (be it the encouragement to spend yet more on consumer goods or a presumption in favour of development) is seen as all important for generating jobs, profits and life as we know it. Again reducing energy use and caring for the enviroment are very laudable goals but they simply at odds with the goals of capitalism and globalisation which govern how we live our lives today

Nope, as Oldudders says the offical term these days is signaller and that is the term all signalmen must use in offical communication, including to drivers, etc. (not that I have known anyone to be disaplined as such for using the term Signalman) The frightening thing is though is that as the older guys (and girls ;-) ) retire, the ammount of people who regard themselves as signalmen is getting smaller and I can see that eventually it will disapear from the national network entirely

How long is the dutch line and how much of a time saving are we talking about? If the line is short and the time savings are small then naturally the ammount of passengers attracted to the new line will be less. At first sight this statement may well seem to count against HS2 but that is only the case if you look at it in isolation. Yes the London - Birmingham time savings might be relativley small, however when complete (the y shaped network) London - Manchester / Liverpool, London - Leeds, London - Newcastle & London - Scotland will all get signifficant time savings compared to current journey times. In any case the whole point of HS2 is not outright speed (though naturally it makes sense to build new infrastruicture to take into account the latest developments) it is about providing more capacity on the WCML for freight and commuter trains - the equlavalent of an additional pair of tracks along the entire route from central London to central Birmingham. Adding passing loops here and there will not be enough - in fact the bits most in need of relief are actually those urban in charichter i.e. frequent stations (e.g. Coventry - Birmingham and Wembley - Milton Keynes). I'm afraid that this is something most of those against HS2 do not seem to apreciate - the alternatives to a new line have been well investigated and rejected for sound reasons. Unless we in the UK suddenly decide to stop traveling and importing ever increasing ammount of stuff via containers (unlikley given the way employment has evolved) we will need more capacity, full stop As many detailed reports have demonstrated widening the exsisting WCML or Chiltern lines would cause signifficant ammounts of property demolition in all the towns along the route as well as signifficant disruption while being built. Additionally in the privitised railway TOCs have to be paid compensation for such disruption and the recent reports show that because of the increase in trains over the past 10 years Virgin would be entitled to DOUBLE the compensation (which was a signifficant element of the overall project costs) for having to put up with the last upgrade. Similarly Chiltern have experenced a large increase in ridership so they won't be cheep to compensate either. What really ###### things up though is the need to have a spur to Heathrow in the later stages of the project. If it wasn't for that the natural route for HS2 would be to head directly north from Euston (tunnel from Camden northwards), running roughly alongside the M1 (although Luton might be a problem) and avoiding the most senic bit of the Chilterns

But disconnected from the network a couple of years ago when Earlswood north end ladder was renewed. Trains stoped running back in the late 80s acording to a collegue

The remaining platform at Crewekerne was widened by NSE in preperation for the introduction of the 159s and this invoved slewing the track towards the centre line of the formation so the aparrent 'space' for the second track is actually a good bit smaller than you might think. I believe this was done because the platform was extended back under the overbridge at the Exeter end of the station to allow longer trains (although why they could'nt have demolished the redundent signal box and extended the platform at the London end is a bit of a mystery).

Recycled a second time perhaps,(the current one came from Buxted in Sussex when the Uckfield line was singled) although given the requirements for disabled access, I suspect it would have to be on a heritage line someplace. (Templcombe's orgional footbridge was oblitorated along with the rest of the buildings when the station was shut)

Shill bidding is where the seller through a second account, or through a relative / trusted friend conspire to artifically increase the selling price by making the item apear more on demand and force genuine bidders to place evr higher bids. Should the seller / relative / friend end up 'wining' the item no money or goods actually change hands and the same item will often reapear on e-bay later. Shill bidding is prohibited by e-bay and those suspected of it should have their accounts closed. Sniping is where the wining bid comes in in the last couple of seconds. This is perfectly legal and is the electronic equalivalent of someone in a traditional acution room putting their hand up once the auctionear has said "going one, going twice" but before he has had a chance to say "sold to ......." and allowes any potential bidder to remain hidden untill the last minute. This can help keep the cost of the wining bid down by simulating a lack of interest in an item but in the e-bay format also allows the entry of a killer bid before anyone else has a chance to respond. As others have said there are computer programs & 3rd part websites avalable (some charge for their services) which allow the placing of a user defined bid seconds before the auction ends automatically.

When the Axminster loop was in the planning stages one of the options was to extend it to encoupass the Chard junction loop as well giving continious double track between Chard Junction and Axminster. Aparently this would have allowed a 30 minute frequancy as far as Axminster which was one of the things called for in the Devon Metro plan. It could could have also potentally speeded up certain SWT services as the plan was for the extra services to be provided by FGW as part of their Exeter operation and would not have required extra SWT stock. It could have also allowed a more optimised calling pattern with the likes of Pinhoe & Feniton served by FGW only and thus speeding up SWT services (admitadly at the expense of those passengers looking to travel between Feniton & Yeovil for example) I admit that in an ideal world and given its stautus as a diversionary route, the Yeovil - Exeter bit should be double track throughout. Passing loops are fine but it only takes one points failure to totally screw things up where as plain double track is far more resilant when failures occur (and dispite managements current obsession, all the condition monitoring in the world will not stop things failing.)

I don't think its that strange. With Bachmann, correcting the EPB error only required the manufacture of new bodyshells a relativley cheap process. Also all the mis-printed bodies can in theory be reycyled by sending them back to be stripped and re-painted for use in further batches. With Hornby and the VEP, the changes required require the tooling to be altered which is a far more expensive process. Also if Hornby said they were going to alter the tooling, judging from the responses so far, many people would defer / return their VEP purchase leaving Hornby with large quantaties of VEPs stuck on the shelves. Thus it may well be the case that Hornby internally acknowledge the problem but will not say or comit themselves to anything untill the current batch of VEP units have all been sold

No two at most, but then Bachmanns first venture into EMUs, the CEP (in its origional condition) only had 3 and this did not afect sales. As other posters have pointed out though, the 350s do have a wide opperating range geographically and are a 'nice fit' with things like Pendalinos, Voyagers, 66s, turbostars, 153s etc all of which are avalable in RTR

Erm I asume that is a typo and you mean the "six foot" as 3rd rail units would have a bit of trouble picking up the juice from between the running rails (which is what the "four foot" stands for). Now if we are talking about the London Underground.....

If you want to record one channel while recording another then yes you need two tuners be that two seperate boxes or one box with two tuners contained within the same device (be awere that some devices may have more than one output yet still only contain a single tuner).

Indeed, but this is what happens when sites like e-bay get 'discovered' by those in the comercial sector who then buy out the founders and then continually revamp the site to obtain every grater value for their shareholders. Not that this is necessarly bad of course, after all history has many examples of inovative ideas that were slow in developing due to lack of capital, but when big buisness does get involved, profits must be seen to rise year on year. With e-bay this manifested itself with signifficant increases in listing costs, changes to the feedback mechanism for sellers, the mandatory offering of Paypall and as you have correctly observed a big push for 'buy it now' deals. Also over the past few years there has been a concerted effort to get more stores to use the site, especially those related to high street brands. Again nothing unique about this trend (which is similar to the tactic used by Amazon marketplace when branched out from just being a book / DVD retailer) but it does give an indication of where the company believes its future lies. Given this I can see we will eventually get to a point where e-bay ditches private sellers as being not worth the hasle, At which point we will hopefully see something else come along to fill the void.