phil-b259

One thing I must comment on is how good the OHLE equipment looks, especially as its hard to achieve the correct 'thinness' (if thats the right word) of all the wiring

But alternative rail projects will not solve the problem of WCML capacity, for example electrification of the GWML or MML will not solve the basic problem which is that even the most conservative estimates suggest that by 2025 the demand for train paths (passenger and freight)on the WCML will exceed what the line can provided which will result in all the extra traffic (people and freight) being pushed onto the road network (M1 & M40) which itself cannot cope. Thus extra capacity will be required and after much delibration, research and estimations of the costs of ALL the potental solutions avalable (including further widening, fancy signalling (which includes retro fitting fancy signalling systems to all train cabs, etc) the best value option comes out as building a brand new route. Thus transfering the high speed long distance traffic onto it and freeing up further capacity for freight and stopping passenger services on the WCML itself. The routing and landscaping, etc of the new line is of course one open to queston, indeed it is important to minimise its impact as far as possable, however given the very sensable and logical desire to connect with the GWML and Heathrow in some way a route through the Chilterns cannot be avoided

Not so as the shrinking cross country network shows. Remember through services to Brighton and various other places being withdrawn a few years ago so as to release more stock for the core route or what about the withdrawl of Virgin services from Blackpool or most recently the removal of most East Coast services to Glasgow to free up more trains for ECML services. Why would any sane person take the train from Glasgow to France when they can jump on a low cost airline flight for a 10th of the cost of a train ticket and get there hours earlier. The same goes for Manchester and to a lesser extent Liverpool.Low cost airlines have ensured that for business travel (and outside of comuting, thats where the money is made in the rail industry) beyond the 3-4hour golden window rail cannot compete with air. Wrong! Think of a car, OK so two people might buy the same car but unless they are doing exactly the same millage each year, drive on the same roads, in the same weather, go to the same garage for servicing, etc the running costs will be very different. Its the same with trains, for example Javlins run at a lower top speed (less aerodynamic drag so less energy consumption - don't forget train companies still have to pay for the electricity based on how much they expect to use), are lighter than channel tunnel complient trains (less kit to lug around, lower fire prevention standards etc)so their overall runing costs are less. As even the Government's own report says, regular daily through services will not become comercially viable (remember Eurostar unlike domestic franchised opperators does not get any government subsidy) untill HS2 reaches Manchester / Leeds and even then that still depends on what happens to the avation industry.

What is stoping through services is the UKs very strict border controls, plain and simple and those will not change unless the UK and Ireland join the Schengen area (which means having compulsory national identity cards by the way) which has the same chance of being acepted by the voters as hell freezing over. In the UK Domestic and international passengers are not allowed to mix in the unlike France & Belgium. This was what allowed illegal imaagrents to board the trains in Paris with a TGV valid ticket and no passport to Calais only for them to destroy their a ticket en-route then claim asylum at Waterloo. Eventually the French changed their policy slightly and now require all Eurostar ticket holders to show their passport or their state issued identity card before bording, however the fact remains domestic and international passengers are not seperated. Regular direct international services from other parts of the UK will quite simply make a big financal loss if they cannot cary domestic passengers as far as London, there simply are not enough potental passengers to come close to filling a Eurostar sized train. OK you could reverse at St Pancrass and top up the train with London passengers but that still wouldn't make the excercise profitable in the long run when the acountants crunch the extra wear and tear, number of drivers, increase in rolling stock required, etc (although I do conceeed that runing a half length set then joining it to another at St Pancras would improve the viability slightly). (By the way for the purposes of the above I do not consider the Ski trains as regular direct services. They serve a niche market, only run two days a week for a limited part of the year and cannot be compared to a regular daily service of several trains)

The current Hornby Arthur (excpt the latest 'watercart' tender version') pre dates the introduction of the much meligned loco - tender plug and socket set up, hence the decoder socket is fitted in the loco itself.

The thing is that a guided busway between Luton & Dunstable traversing essentially an urban area is far more sensable than one going miles through the Cambridgeshire countryside. OK a tramway or even the refurbishment and re-opening of the railway would have been better, but based on the Crawley one, the Luton - DFunstable scheme this does at least stand half a chance of being usefull.

The difference is that a roof is just that, a roof and if constructed in the steam age will have sufficent open vents / be high enough to allow smoke and steam to escape. Birmingham New Street on the other hand has a low solid concrete raft above 90% of the station with the only ventalation provided by extractor fans, not to mention buildings on top of said raft. Smoke and steam escaping above the raft through expansion gaps or getting into the ventallation system will not only trigger the fire alarms, it also has the potential to mask a real fire. For all these reasons stations like Birmingham New Street, most of London Euston, London Charing Cross, half of London Liverpool Street, etc are classed as "underground stations" and must comply with the fire regulations bought in after the Kings Cross Underground disaster, which naturally preculde a smoke producing locomotive.

The outer ends certanly were although the inter unit ones may well be of the Pullman type given that by the time the COR units were built, all new SR steam stock used Pullman gangways and buckeye couplers.

The choice of where the backdrive is located depends on the physical considerations on site. The current standard is to have the cranks and roding mounted on the sleeper ends on the opposite side to the point machine. On the Southern region however the provision of 3rd rail electrification prevents this hence the use of the four foot in this area (Points on non electrifed SR lines like the Uckfield branch still use the four foot method as this is what maintence staff are used to). However in the Stechford photo shown above the placing of the backdrive in the four foot looks to be the result of its proximity to the platform ramp which may have prevented the placing of the first crank on the sleeper end. Incidentally for those wondering about them, the two small grey things beyond the point machine in the six foot are suplamentary detectors, usually used on long turnouts to prove that the switch rail is closed up to the stock rail throught its length, the point detection circuit pasing through both detectors as well as the machine itself.

First we need to know about which era you are interested in as the number, and composition of the trailer coaches between the power cars has altered considerably over the years as passenger demands have increased.

Just to clarify, BR, SR, LNER & most of the Paullman Car Company designed coaches used "pullman" style gangways and buckeye couplers with the buffers retracted within coach rakes. In this design the bottom of the gangway structure also acts as part of the buffering system and as a consiquence the whole gangway is far more "beefy" looking than the alternative "British standard" gangway which was used by the LMS & GWR. In this design the gangway was partly suspended from the end of the coach and was of far lighter construction with conventional screw couplings and buffers used in sets. As others have said there were adaptors designed to fit onto a "pullman" style gangway to make it compatable with the "British standard" type (with coupling via screw link and buffers extended) however its obvious that it makes life simpler if they are not required, hence the speedy demise of mixed designs on principal services once sufficiant MK1s were avaleable

Freight opperators don't have franchises, they were bought outright upon privitisation along with all the assets, which includes the class 60s. Hence DBS can do what they like with regard to the 60s including scrapping the lot tomorrow if they so chose.

I assume he means the NEM pocket clearly visable on the front bogie. Obviously the loco will look better with it removed, yet by providing a spare bogie, Bachmann have also given the moddeler a simple way of reinstating it should the need arise.

If I recal correctly the flashing green system has been disconected for many years, the HMRI not being very happy with the idea of flashing aspects (other than the flashing yellows used for high speed junctions). Disconnecting the flashing green however is simply a mater of removing some terminal connections in linside cases therby preventing the signal from changing up to the flashing green from a steady green and does not cost anything.