Ron Ron Ron

£31.31 + £38.70 + £28.92 + £10.54 = £110 for 3 amps (£80 for 1 amp). A Roco MultiMaus system should cost no more than £80 to £90. Open the box, plug in and off you go. .

Putting on the pedant's hat for a moment. In DCC, the chip is the controller (i.e. a decoder). ..

PMSL at that c**p joke.

....and no high premium payments to be made. p.s. I rather think it will be "others" claiming, or celebrating that the so called "publicly owned" LNER can turn a profit. .

Worst still, it's written larger and more boldly .......if the livery on that driving car is anything to go by. .

Indeed, they originally hoped to introduce the 345's on 20th May when TfL Rail took over the Connect service. The issues around the signalling on the privately owned Heathrow branch, resulting in the 360's being kept on for the time being, have been aired on this forum before. As I said before, I believe the plan is for the 345's to take over in the later summer or in the Autumn. I guess that changeover may slip if the issues haven't been ironed out. .

Sudden death extra time then?

You're right. I was going from memory. I do see that there were ongoing related costs to that "divorce" in the following year though. Plus some write downs. .

Didn't Hornby have to buy out of it's residual arrangements with Sandra Kan (a.k.a. Kader following the takeover) They had to pay circa £0.5 m as part of a divorce settlement and the return of tools and other IP was much delayed and fraught with difficulty, IIRC. On top of that, the scramble by a large number of RTR companies to obtain production capacity, in the wake of the Sand Kan episode, left Hornby a bit high and dry in getting actual product to market, . .

The Crossrail tracks were physically connected to the National Rail network, at Westbourne Park, back in late Feb or early March. According to the Crossrail updates, various final work packages are nearing completion at Westbourne Park. If it's all on time, it looks like trains should be able to run between the tunnels and OOC later this summer, ready for live testing and final commissioning prior to handover to TfL. From what I can see, the possessions involve work on the OHLE, new drainage and snagging work. The OHLE is already energised from Westbourne Park, through the tunnels to the east. As for the units based at OOC, if I understand the current plan correctly, some of these will take over from the ex-Heathrow Connect, TfL Rail Class 360's, running to Heathrow, later this summer, or during the Autumn. Once the tunnel link is operational, units can run ECS through the central core to the eastern branches. http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com//assets/library/document/c/original/c610-xrl-z-xbu-cr076_sd005-50021-westbourne_park_site_possession_works_june_20181.pdf http://74f85f59f39b887b696f-ab656259048fb93837ecc0ecbcf0c557.r23.cf3.rackcdn.com//assets/library/document/w/original/westbourne_park_june_2018.pdf .

Don't forget that services are due to start running eastbound from Paddington, in the tunnels, in a little over 5 months time. Presumably final preparation of the trains for service is required and units will be needed for a heavy programme of driver training and a full shake down of the new route and it's ATO operation, before the services start. Ron

I don't know how accurate or comprehensive the data is, but today (2018) the UK Model Shop Directory lists only 4 model railway retailers in the whole of Greater London, increasing to a total of 10 within the M25. .

Deciding on how many DCC operable features are included in a RTR model is a commercial judgement. If the manufacturer only includes a few operating accessory unctions, then there's not much point fitting a decoder that has higher capability. In a market where lots of working features are the norm, a manufacturer who uses fewer in their new model, will be judged by the individual consumer accordingly. It doesn't matter what sort of socket they fit. Many of the European manufacturers have now switched over to fitting PluX connectors in their new H0 models and have stopped fitting the 21MTC connector in new product. Except where there is a question of very limited space (very small locos), they have universally fitted a PluX 22 socket, even if there are a limited number of operating features on the model. Most locos only need a 12 or 16 pin decoder anyway, so the 22 pin socket covers all angles. The US market wasn't used to 21MTC at all, even after PluX decoders became available. The NMRA made it clear that the intention of retrospectively adopting the 21MTC was for legacy purposes and recommended that they were not used in new RTR model designs, post 1st January 2010. I don't believe there was a single US RTR model, factory fitted with a 21MTC socket before that date, or for a number of years afterwards. By the time US RTR and decoder manufacturers started adopting 21MTC, PluX was already becoming established in Europe and a number of PluX fitted decoders had become available, even from ESU. As sparaxis says, ESU have had a large influence in events. In the UK, we are still struggling to get manufacturers to fit a half decent set of independently operating lights to our new models. .

Wasn't that just the launch promotional livery. Not the final fleet livery?

This open access service is approved for 7 years and 7 months, timed to coincide with the expected date of the opening of HS2 phase 1. Lots more detail than you'll read in any news release, here...... http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/27929/2018-06-07-gnwr-decision-letter.pdf .

The DCC Concept levers can be used with DCC as well as DC. As for interfaces, there are a number of these available from different manufacturers. Some of these have been available for years. DCC Concepts own interface is a modular system (Cobalt Alpha) that will allow the use of levers, switches or buttons to be used to trigger the operation of points (and signals). It can even be used to adapt an old stud and probe panel to be used to operate points via DCC. You can use this sort of kit to modify or build from scratch, traditional control or mimic panels, or lever frames, to operate points by DCC. As Nigel says, there is obviously a cost to this solution, but it's all available to buy and install "off-the-shelf". .

The article and description of switching, or shunting, is very US biased. I don't know about most of mainland Europe, but in the UK we no longer have the same amount of "switching" in marshalling yards that we once had. The concept loco might be too big for most applications here, where road/rail type shunters and more compact, economical and specialised shunting machines are the coming thing. We already have battery powered shunting machines working very effectively. .

It might help if you could say what sound decoder is fitted to the loco. The Piko SmartControl is essentially the same DCC system as the ESU CabControl (i.e. it's made by ESU). Both use the same core operating system from the ESU ECoS. .

It appears to not be the case. Our son and no.1 daughter both started out using a car (the same one handed down), owned by and registered to my wife. Each had their own insurance policy, with both my wife and I as named drivers. Our son had to make a claim on his policy when someone accidentally took their foot off the brake while waiting at traffic lights, damaging his rear bumper. The insurance company processed the claim quickly and provided a free loss recovery service to obtain costs from the other drivers insurers. The repair bill was dealt with by the insurance company, therefore there was no financial outlay to claim back. His premium went down the following year. A few years later, No 1 daughter had her driver's door damaged, in a car park. The culprit admitted it and provided details. Different insurer (her insurance this time). Again no problem in settling the claim. .

The last filed annual results for Hull Trains (March 2017) show a turnover of over £31 million (up from £30.1 million in 2016) with an operating profit of over £6.6 million (up from £5.6 million in 2016). Overall profit was £5.345 million. They are investing £68 million in their new Class 802 train fleet. The last filing I could find for Grand Central, was December 2016, so a year out of date. Turnover was up on 2015 at £45.4 million. Profit up on 2015 at £6.9 million. .

Where on earth would you find one of those? Surviving roadworthy examples must be quite rare now, nearly 30 years on from when they stopped making them. .

Finding a waste bin is becoming a very common problem now, not only on new trains, but in stations and many other public areas. I guess it's down to a combination of the cost of emptying and maintaining the facility and the security issues (the possibility of bins being used as a convenient place to plant an explosive device). On a recent trip, I couldn't find a waste bin on leaving a SWR Class 444. It was a right under my nose in the vestibule, but I didn't see it at first. .

It appears to be a popular opinion, but whether you agree with it or not, that opinion is 99.9% based on ignorance. How many members of the general public know that the railways are publicly owned, i.e. "nationalised"? How many know that the train operating company don't own the rails or infrastructure that the trains run on, or that most of the problems and delays that occur are a result of infrastructure issues ( e.,g. signal or points faults) and not the fault of the TOCs? How many people know that many of the TOC's are required to return very high levels of premium payments to the tax payer and that the so called "vast private profits" amount to a very low (in fact tiny) percentage of turnover? How many people citing that when the ICEC franchise was run by East Coast (so called "nationalised") it made a profit and returned a a £billion to the tax payer, realise that the "failed" VTEC franchise was making a bigger profit on its rail operation than East Coast had done and had returned a reported circa £700 million to the tax payer in just 3 years? Apparently, all the franchises are supposed to be run by foreign state owned railway companies !!!! WCML - Virgin & Stagecoach - British. ECML - Stagecoach & Virgin - British. GWML and the SW of England - First Group - British MML - Stagecoach - British. SW (One of the biggest franchises) - For 21 years was SWT (Stagecoach - British) and is now SWR (Majority owned by First - British). TransPennine Express - First Group - British. Govia - Southeastern, the troubled Southerm, Thameslink, Great Northern franchise and until only a few months ago, London Midland - is 65% British (Go-ahead group). The remaining 35% is owned by French company Keolis, making Govia just 24.5% owned by SNCF. The "foreign owned" franchises. C2C (TrenItalia) is a comparatively tiny franchise. DB owned Arriva group franchises, Chiltern, ATW, Northern, Cross-Country (Grand Central and London Overground are not franchises) and those run by Dutch NS subsidiary Abelio (Scotrail, Greater Anglia and 70% of new operator West Midland Trains) amount to less that 20% of the whole passenger operation. Some food for thought....some 67% of all rail passenger journeys in the UK take place and are wholly contained within London and the SE of England. In other words, the overwhelming number of rail journeys that take place in the UK, are on trains run by British owned, or British majority owned rail franchises. . .

This is a useful point for anyone thinking of buying a car for a young driver, whether their first car or not. Insurance premiums are calculated from assessing a very broad set of risks factors, against historical insurance claims data. There are many factors involved, such as the obvious ones, like post code (how high are the number of claims in that area), is the car garaged overnight, parked on or off the public road (theft and damage risks), age of the driver, amount of driving experience, previous insurance history, previous claims, previous traffic offences, criminal record (fraud risk) etc, etc. When it comes to the car being insured, apart from factors like model, trim level, engine size, age of the vehicle, current value, estimated annual mileage, how expensive is the model to repair etc; they also look at how commonly there are claims on that make and model of car. Most importantly not only do they look at historical data on accidents and claims involving the same or similar cars with the same attributes....but also who was driving them. When it's all added up, apart from the usual long list of risks that are factored in, the added risks and accident data associated with young and inexperienced drivers results in the highest levels of premiums. Note: young drivers under 25 mostly but not only male the most common makes and models of car in which they drive (Fiesta, Corsa, etc,) In other words, most accidents and claims involve young, mostly but not exclusively male drivers, driving small engined popular young driver's cars. Many parents make the assumption that as most other youngsters drive these sort of cars, that must be OK for insurance. Not. Choosing a car less commonly used by new drivers may reduce premiums, but it's not always the case if that model of car is more expensive to replace for repair, or in itself attracts a higher premium in general. Simplistically, it's possible that a brand new car may be cheaper to insure in the youngsters name than a 5 year old one, based on the fact there are fewer youngsters driving brand new cars and therefore there are fewer claims. There's also the factor that a driver is statistically more likely to be more careful and diligent with a newer car of higher value, especially if it belongs to a parent. Therefore a newer, or new car, owned and registered in a parents name, but insured in the youngsters name, should attract a lower premium than if it is owned and registered by the youngster themselves. It can be a minefield, but as with other things in life, it's worth doing your homework if you want to save a few hundred pounds. On line insurance quote calculators are available to play with. Fronting - Don't even think about it. Not only is it illegal, it will invalidate the insurance policy and the insurance company may also sue and are likely to blacklist you. That can be an expensive mistake that could increase your insurance premiums for years. It may also affect your house insurance premiums. A couple of anecdotes... A friend's son's first car was an old Land Rover. It cost about £450 fully comp. in his first year, aged 18. (this was in 2010). A relatively slow and un-sporty car. Low value to replace if written off. Very cheap repair costs and parts. Very few 18 year old, first time drivers and historically a very low number of claims for such drivers, on that sort of vehicle. At the same time, quotes to insure our 17 year old on a 6 year old Fiesta 1.0L ranged from £1900 to £2500 p.a On a brand new Corsa 1.2L owned by and registered to Mum, but insured by our son (first car, first year of car insurance) we were quoted £1600 Good luck ! Ron .

(I don't think I need to tell you PMP ) The minimum separation applied between the location of parallel runways depends on the safe operation of aircraft from adjacent runways and on what mode of operation is required. There are absolute safe minimums, but these increase for different requirements and weather conditions. For operation solely under visual flight rules, they can be closer together, but the operation of the two runways needs to be interlinked. What is sometimes called close coupled, where movements of aircraft are , for want of a better phrase, interwoven and dependant on each other in order to provide the appropriate mandatory minimum separation between aircraft operating on each runway (both landing and taking off). The interdependence of aircraft movements will limit the amount the number of possible movements. We also get pretty cr@ppy weather a lot of the time so there is a need to keep the large number of aircraft movements going as much as possible. The minimum required distance between the runways increases as you move towards operation under instrument flight conditions and/or gradually reduce the level of interdependence between the allowed movement on each runway to maximise the possible capacity. To get the full benefit of building this very expensive runway, Heathrow need to maximise the number of aircraft movements that would be safely possible. That's the whole point of building it after all. There will be a need for parallel approaches under instrument flight rules (IFR) - often using the two outer runways of the 3 - and the ability to depart aircraft from 2 runways without conflicting with each other once in the air. Add to that, the use of runway alternation to provide some respite during the day, for people living under the approach and departure paths. This aspect might be a condition of the detailed planning approval. All this adds up to having the runways spaced apart as far is practically possible, given the space available. There is a decent distance between the two existing runways, but not enough for fully autonomous operations. The new runway is planned to be as far away as possible to allow the maximum movement rate that can be achieved under instrument conditions. If there had been plenty of space available on the south side of Heathrow, they could have built 2 new runways instead, making 4 in total. One built north of the northern runway and one south of the southern runway, but with much closer spacing to the respective adjacent runways and staggered. The operation would have been close coupled, but in pairs. Each pair would have consisted of one landing and one departure runway; much like those at somewhere like Atlanta Hartsfield (the busiest commercial airport in the world). Sadly, that isn't possible at Heathrow given the physical constraints of the site and the possibly worst political ramifications. .