Fenman

It's true that 3rd rail and shunting don't work well together, but the NER solved that problem way back in 1903 with the dual 3rd rail/OHL ES1 locos, as seen in my avatar. Paul

In recompense for the Simon Jenkins opinion piece, some more balanced reporting from today's Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/11/hs2-rail-project-economic-boost And a pro opinion piece from a Westminster councillor and Yorkshireman(!): http://www.theguardian.com/local-government-network/2013/sep/11/london-and-north-benefit-hs2 Paul

You may have been joking but, if not, I'm not sure that's right, as the Spanish have found to their cost with some rather under-used high speed lines. Paul

Not sure if you meant each taxpayer pays £1,400, which is how I read it, but it is in fact each bike which costs £1,400 p.a. There are apparently 4,000 bikes, and the meejah report the scheme has an annual subsidy from taxation of £11 million (though I'm not sure how that works, since £1.4k x 4,000 = £5,600,000. Or less than £1 per Londoner). And I have no idea what proportion of Londoners are tax-payers, so I can't do the other calculation anyway. Statistics, eh? Paul

Thank you for pointing out that most shops are not served by rail. That is a most helpful contribution to the debate. However, since most large-scale retailers use distribution centres (some of which, of course, are also served by rail...), you can have part of your journey subsidised, or all of your journey subsidised. Or both bits subsidised in different ways. But, since there's very little transparency, we don't know how much money is subsidising what mode. To the purchaser (the big retailer) it probably won't matter (a few high-profile "green" PR stunts aside) - they'll mostly just grab whatever mode is cheapest. To us as the consumer (and tax-payer), we end up subsidising stuff whether we want to or not, and no-one is able to make whole-cost comparisons. So we end up with a distorted system, where subsidies swill through to whoever has the most clout. And, of course, we rarely bother costing externalities - for hauliers and those nice diesel freight operators among others, pollution is gloriously free while the rest of us have to pick up the tab for that. Paul Apologies, all: just realised how insanely far OT I have taken this topic. I'll shut up.

While that's true in itself, if the hauliers are not paying their full costs directly while other transport modes are, then the hauliers have an unfair cost advantage. Capitalism being a system that's designed to get as much selfish cash squeezed out of the system as possible then, naturally, in this scenario, trucks will grab market share from, eg, railways. For a market to work optimally it needs to be transparent and level (and a number of other things, too). Subsidising the cost base of one transport mode but not another is pretty much guaranteed to lead to a perverse result. Paul

Ouch. I have the same thing. An excellent osteopath got things unseized and reasonably realigned, but years of it being out of whack (with tendons flopping around like loose guy-ropes on a tent) had led to the back muscles becoming overdeveloped with a tendency to freeze catastrophically, although I did get a course of diazepam as a result of one attack and I have very, very happy memories of that. I must say I think acupuncture is complete nonsense, but it has totally transformed the flexibility of my back which is now largely pain-free. Diff'rent strokes, diff'rent folks, etc, etc. Good luck with it. Paul

Oops - that link was to the comments. Here's his article: http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/14/hs2-vital-for-british-prosperity

The Transport Secretary has a go at writing some positive justification: http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/14/hs2-vital-for-british-prosperity#comments

Ordered yesterday, delivered today. Great service and an extraordinary price (no connection, etc...). Thanks very much for the tip. I have now managed to get hold of what I had originally pre-ordered. Paul

The poster specified "hand make". Paul

PS: the "1" is the locomotive number. So my avatar is of ES1, the only one of the two in the class to survive, ES2 having been scrapped rather than given to me as a present. Edit: Actually, I think I might have made that up. I'll do some homework tonight.

ES was "Electric Shunter" (see avatar at left!); EF was "Electric Freight". The former were small machines designed to work over one very short route that was over a very steep gradient and mostly in a foul tunnel - they just plodded back and forth from the freight yard above to the quayside below. The EFs were designed to haul heavy mineral traffic over long distances, and it was one of those that ended up at Shildon (ironically, for use as a shunter). According to Wikipedia, ESs had a power output of 477kW, while the EFs had 820kW. Paul

I completely agree with you. Being utterly inept, I have a Judith Edge kit being built for me at the moment. If I like it as much as I suspect I will, I was wondering what justification I could have for a fleet of them. Paul

They were both based on an earlier design by US General Electric. The NER pair was actually built in 1903-4 (ordered in late 1902 after the BTH tender was accepted), but did not enter service until 1905. Paul

I meant there is no lighting (deliberately) where the motor fits into the carriage of the 2EPB; so, if you operate it in a dimly lit room, the whole thing looks very odd. Paul

I actually prefer them without lighting; the EPB (much as I love that model) has one carriage in which lighting only extends along half its length, which I think looks much worse than having no lighting at all. But I can see how if everything you own has lighting you may want everything to match. Paul

But how does that help those of us who like both? There are some threads where some of the participants clearly know each other really well, and they fill the thread with in-jokes or references to meetings they've had which are of no interest to me. But who am I to tell other people what to talk about: so I just scroll rapidly down the page until I see some images, which I know will relate to the layout, and I read that post. If you're only interested in the images, can't you do the same with this thread? Paul

It gives you a chance to support the NRM with your hobby spending? Paul

Not just BRM; there's a rave review from Hornby magazine as well (which is, of course, nothing to do with Hornby). Both praise the level and quality of the detail. Both refer to what they describe as correctly differentiated bogies. Then again, BRM describes the SR model as being in Malachite, so maybe I shouldn't put so much faith in them. I'm reserving judgement until I have mine in my own hands! Paul

The two Xpress Publishing books about the M&GN make much play of the fact that the last train from Yarmouth back to Peterborough left about an hour after the first train had arrived, so the opportunities for a reasonable day-trip from Peterborough to the seaside were a bit limited. Paul

Hornby have stated that it has been geared to run at "scale speed". The prototype had a max speed (theoretically) of 60mph. Paul

I think you do yourself a disservice; this image immediately caught my eye precisely because it was *not* so loco-centric. I love the focus on other parts of the scene - really refreshing and a beautiful shot of some great modelling. Paul PS: I actually admire all your photos, so don't take this post as a criticism of your usual style!

And, for perspective, it's substantially less than we'll be spending on building submarines over a rather shorter period of time. I write that not to make a political point, but to emphasise that, although £32bn seems like a huge number, in government spending terms it is not wildly big. Paul

I would have thought that, too, but the evidence doesn't seem to support us; for example, how many people travelling to Liverpool use London Midland services rather than Virgin? What proportion of passengers take the Southern service from Victoria to Southampton (via Gatwick Airport) rather than using (quicker, more expensive) SWT from Waterloo? The latter comparison is intriguing since it takes about an hour longer via Southern, but is usually at least £25 cheaper. The vast majority of people don't earn £25 an hour, yet the vast majority use the SWT service. There must be data available now for the relative proportions of people using HS1 for London-Kent Coast services rather than cheaper and slower "classic" services? That should give an idea as to whether or not you are correct. Paul