Pacific231G

I've just been watching Waterfront (1950) on TPTV and it includes a good number of shots of the Liverpool Overhead Railway. In one shot there is a timetable board listing the times (minutes after each hour) of trains for the various Liverpool main line stations. I assume that was for the LOR but it could have been the Mersey Railway. (I'll look again and see if I can make out whether the destinations included Birkenhead Central) Correction- I have looked again and they weren't train times but tram routes to Exchange, Lime Street & Central The film itself is set around Liverpool's dockland during the depression and its cast iincludes a young Richard Burton in only his third film role (he was already very good though) as a ship's engineer who discovers that his future father in law (who had abandoned his future mother in law years earlier) had, in a brawl outside a pub, just killed the 2nd Engineer whose job Buton had then immediately got after several years on the beach. Some of the ships do though look decidedly modern for the depression era. One of them, the SS Clan Alpine (built 1942) later became notorious when in 1960 a tidal wave from an exceptionally powerful typhoon carried it several miles inland from Chittagong in E. Pakistan (now Bangladesh). It was on its last voyage anyway being due to be scrapped in Japan and, after its cargo was unloaded, was broken up the following year where it stood. Clan Line then got the insurance for a total loss (which apparently was more than they'd have got for scrap)

I'm also glad to see that Ffarquhar is still going strong. Operationally it was always a very good design (and it occurs to me that the Maurice Deane type fiddle yard scheme could be used for a 4ft x 2ft H0m or 009 Microlayout or perhaps a 4ft x 2ft 6 in layout in TT)

Chemin de fer Économiques Forestiers des Landes That's true but it's between the two and the divergence from exact scale gauge is about a quarter mm narrower and half a mm wider respectively. Both are less than the difference betweeen EM's 18.2mm and the exact scale of 18.87mm so barely if at all noticeable. Convenience of modelling seems to trump gauge accuracy. I've noticed in France, where for public railways there were over 20,000km of metre gauge, about 440 km of 600mm gauge and just 12km of 750mm gauge , that amost all narrow gauge modellers build often exquisite models of rural villages served by railways using 0e and H0e which, though commonly used to represent 600mm gauge prototypes, even more inaccurately than in 4mm scale, is only really prototypical for the 12km Chemin de fer Économiques Forestiers des Landes which ran from 1907 to 1934 and of which there are only about three photos*. That used not to be the case when a number if artisanal manufacturers produced kits for 12mm gauge representations of the equipment used on the vast filigree of metre gauge lines (from roadside tramways to heavy railways like the Reseau Breton) that once covered the French countryside and are very attractive prototypes but. despite the greater avaiability of 12mm gauge and H0m equipment, metre gauge seems to be very much a minority taste. * It seems to have bought some cheap secondhand industrial equipment from a German contractor so was allowed to deviate from the metre or 600mm gauge mandated for NG public railways in France.

Indeed - I remember (and still have) articles by people like Rev. PH Heath who jumped at it for NG modellin. It never really went away, especially for modellers of Irish prototypes, but there were never that many 3ft gauge railways in the rest of the British Isles (Let's face it, there were never that many NG public railways of any gauge in Great Britain- there are quite possibly more now than there have ever been) When I started modelling H0m rather than accepting "H0mish" (using H0e equipment and 9mm gauge) it was quite difficult, Swiss electric prototypes at high prices, apart to get decent track or mechs. especially for steam locos, with the main source being East German (Zeuke/BerlinerTTBahn) or very expensive artisanal products. That always rather surprised me because metre gauge was so common in so much of Europe that there must have been a good poential market. Things changed when the wall came down and the likes of Tillig appeared and when Peco started offering 12mm gauge track. Before then I did try using some of my old Tri-ang TT-3 stuff but found it simply too crude. The arrival of N gauge made NG modelling vastly more popular and accessible to the "average" modellers with both H0e and 009, partly because there were more and better materials available for 9mm gauge than there ever had been for TT or TT-3 but also because, as with the prototype, a narrower gauge for a particular scale allows for tighter curves and therefore more compact layouts. You also had manufacturers like Lilliput, an Austrian firm, getting on board because H0e is fairly close to the 760mm gauge adopted as its secondary standard by the Austro-Hungarian empire and still quite common in Austria (though metre gauge was vastly more common elsewhere). NG modellers never seem to have minded that they were representing the commonest submetric and particularly industrial narrow gauge (2ft/600mm) with track that was correct for 2ft 3in gauge in 4mm scale(, which , in Britan, meant the Talyllyn, Corris, Campbeltown and Machrihanish, Glyn Valley (2ft 4in gauge so close enough) but very little else or, worse still, 780mm in H0 which is even further from 600mm. There is H0i/Hof using Z gauge 6.5mm track which is far closer to 600mm gauge but only a tiny minority seem to use.

That is all true though stereopsis (binocular vision) is only one of a number of cues we use for depth perception and motion parallax is more important for distances over 10m (Perhaps one reason why 3D film and televison have never been very succesful- there is a mismatch between the depth cues perceived by stereopsis and those which should come from small movements of the head. There IS a lot of science in this (and some fairly recent research claims that stereopsis is relevant at greather distances than usually assumed) but I don't think this is something that can simply be reduced to mathematical formulae. There is a lot of psychology and perceptual interpretation in how we see or rather perceive things and this even varies from person to person. For example, many modellers are very happy working in N scale even with shunting layouts but I find such a small scale very difficult to not feel very distanced from. Equally, modellers used to think that 0 scale was small and 00 or H0 positively flea circus territory so perceptions also change with time.

One good definition of art (or possibly it was drama) is life with the boring bits left out. I've seen a few models that were scale accurate representations of a station or section of line and there was an awful lot of not much happening between the interesting bits. I actually think that appropriate compression is a necessary feature of building a layout that looks to the viewer like what they think they would see if they were looking at the full size scene-real or imaginary. I think this is to do to do with angles of view, fields of view, perceptions of space, and how the brain interprets what it sees. In terms of time, if we remember watching a busy railway scene, we don't remember the long gaps when nothing happened, or for example just how long it really takes to couple a loco with screw couplers to a brake fitted train and then carry out a brake test. It's not a terrible long time but it would appear interminable when watching a layout. On the other hand, the familar sight on a layout of a loco coupling up to a train and immediately departing also looks wrong. Those of us who've made film or TV for a living are very familiar with editing time-even in factual programmes- so that what the viewer sees looks like real time but is in reality well compressed. For that though we can use cutaways and shot changes so how long should we allow for such a scene? Judicious editing of both time and space is surely part of the artistic process or representing reality in miniature.

The aim is surely for the model to look the same from a normal viewing distance as the real thing seen from an equivalent difference and that can't be achieved by just using the same paint. This was always very evident in the models that shipyards supply to ship owners. They're beautifully detailed models and the owner's livery is faithfully reproduced (which is what they want) but they're unmistakedly models because the same colour seen from a few inches away looks different when it's seen from several feet away. Getting over that may just be a matter of letting the colour down with a bit of grey though I believe artists also do subtle things with complimentary colours. We're used to colour perspective for painting backscenes but it would surely also mean that the appropriate colour to paint an 0 gauge model is different from an N gauge model and both very different from full size. Using the same colour as the prototype in all three of hue, luminance and colour saturation will surely make it look too bright and too colourful but you'd have to ask a colourist whether you can simply keep the hue the same and alter the other two. There's also the question of how the surface scatters light.

The theory was that it was a conditional fouling bar specially set up to prevent the signalman from restoring the trap prematurely, after setting it to allow a loco to leave, until the loco had cleared the trap. It wouldn't prevent the lever being pullled to set the trap and it wouldn't prevent the lever being restored when there was no loco present. The trap wouldn't need to be set for the loco to trail it enter the spur. Such an arrangement would be perfectly logical but it turned out that the trap was operated by the same lever as the points to the loco spur so that theory wouldn't work: therefore the bar must be a detector. Another photo showed a similar looking bar at the buffer end of the adjoining platform at Moorgate St. so confirmed its purpose. Having established its purpose, does anyone know how such mechanical detectors appeared in the signalbox?

Possibly, but from their shape, size and position (neither are actually on the platforms) I think refuges are more likely, From the photos here http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/blackwall/index8.shtml the walls were very close to the track.

Oh well, it was a nice theory! I could see that it was the same lever in the 1958 plan (what an excellent find Harsig is) though not enough detail to make out lever numbers for 1933. What was present in 1958 was probably the same though and I can't imagine it having been altered between the photograph and 1958. I wonder if the "thing" was linked into the interlocking or just came up as a detection, we'd probably need the interlocking table to know that. BTW does anyone know what a grey track means on Harsig's diagrams. Not track circuited or just another colour? What is interesting is how much the UndergrounD was interlinked with the national network in a way that is very unusual today except where they share a route. No through trains from Ealing Broadway to Southend any more! Update: I've just found this photo from c1905 on disused stations and something looking perhaps similar can be seen on the platform road. http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/m/moorgate/moorgate(c1905alsop)old1.jpg I also discovered from that site that Gresley Quad-Arts (associated in my mind with GNR suburban tanks) survived long enough to be diesel hauled on the widened lines. I'm sure though that everyone else here knew that already!

I was hoping someone would know but I suspect it's a conditional fouling bar. When a loco enters the spur, the trap point is in its normal configuration so would derail the loco if for some reason it ran back. However, when the trap point is cleared to release the loco the depressed bar locks it and it can't then be restored until the loco has cleared it. Note how close the end of the bar is to the tongue of the trap switch. The last wheel leaving the bar would already have its flange over the switch which couldn't then move until the loco was clear. if it was simply a detector it wouldn't need to be right up against the trap switch. That's my theory and someone may know better.

What a brilliant photo. For anyone building Minories that is the best image I've ever seen of a loco turnover spur with pit and water crane and small tower (enough for one loco to fill up very quickly ?) but no coal. I also note the locking bar (if that's what it is) alongside the pit. Would this be to stop the trap point being closed while a loco is moving away after being opened for it or is it simply a detector?

I couldn't agree more Martin. Railway building does leave a scar but it quickly heals and the railway, particularly if it's one or two tracks wide, soon becomes part of the landscape. Major roads leave an ugly scar that never heals.

Don't worry Barry, a glance at UGC- user (i.e. public) generated content- on the TV news after any disaster shows how that seems to be the natural way to hold a smartphone (designed for selfies I assume) and apparently TikTok demands its video content to be shot in portrait. You can actually get broadcast quality video with a smartphone and the basic tricks are 1. shoot in landscape mode, 2. keep the camera/phone steady and still for at least ten seconds at a time: don't wave the camera/phone around trying to see everything (in a riot say) as you'll wind up with no usable shots at all 3 Don't zoom within a shot but treat any use of the zoom as a new shot. 4 If you want to interview someone or talk to camera, hold or place the microphone in the earbuds close to the speaker's mouth rather thanrelying on the internal microphone. 5 Selfie sticks can be used as monopods or to steady the camera and you can get phone mounts quite cheaply that screw onto tripods.

I'm not sure if the Herald was just a cock-up. I think rather that the ducks just hadn't lined up before but were likely to sooner or later. I'd not that long before had a conversations with a Townsend second on a different route who had some concerns - though not about bow doors. The Herald disaster affected me because I'd travelled from Dover to Calais and back the previous weekend on another Townsend ferry and, though I'd used their ships quite often always felt slightly uneasy about them compared with Sealink. Ironically, they were showing a video claiming how dangerous from fire (I think the interviewee was Kent's Chief Fire Officer) the Channel Tunnel, which had been agreed but not yet started construction, was going to be.

As you say. Nobody anticipated the Olympic class vessels losing five compartments and the Titanic was more than unusually unfortunate. I understand that no other ship has ever been sunk in that particular way (though many others have been lost after collisions with icebergs). Ironically, the disaster probably saved more lives in the long run than it cost. Townsend Thoresen on the other hand seems to have become a ferry company looking for a disaster. At least one sister ship had previously sailed across the channel with its bow doors open- though without flooding- and I know there were other concerns before the Herald Disaster. Whether P&O simply hadn't had time to overhaul the ferry operation's management in the time between taking TT over and the Herald disaster I have no idea.

As you say- If properly..... Fortunately, the Concordia (and the Herald) both ended up on the ground albeit on their sides. In deeper water I think it would have been different as sadly it was with the Estonia.

I don't really see anything particularly ugly about it and at least it looks like a ship, unlike the cruise "ships" that would make a Vogon constructor fleet look good. If one of those mega cruise ships founders (which the workings of chance and ducks lining up is probably going to happen sometime) what are the chances of getting even a fraction of the souls on board away?

That makes sense Andy. Fleischmann did seem to be something of a world of its own. About twenty years ago I explored the idea of making some "how to" videos for Fleischmann's then UK distributor. It seemed to occupy a peculiar place in the UK market with a large part of its customer base committed to the Fleischmann brand but not from any particular interest in modelling German railways as such: they simply enjoyed running them and appreciated their build quality (Obviously there were also modellers who were specifically interested in German railways who bought Fleischmann but also products from other manufacturers such as Roco) . There was even a British "Fleischmann Model Railway Club" with its own magazine and there was also a model shop in Cookham that AFAIK sold only Fleischman products to that specialist customer base. Their products were relatively expensive- more so than Roco AFAIR and, though it's a generalisation, dedicated Fleischmann customers seemed to be quite well off. I was told that there was far less commonality between Fleischmann's UK customers and membership of the German Railways Society than one might have expected.

It's the contact for Fleischmann's former train detection system for operating signals etc. AFAIR this used a special track with a short contact rail on it. It's offset to one side so would only trigger detectors in the direction of travel. I had a Fleischmann SNCF 040D (actually a repaint of a DRG/KPEV G8) which had a sprung contact exactly like that and it took me a while to figure out what it was for. It shouldn't affect the loco's operation in normal service. I don't know when Fleischmann stopped fitting them.

I visited Bude in 1969 while at college in Plymouth. It was after our OND exams and we were camping near Mary Tavy on a field owned by one of the lecturers and were supposed to be yomping across Dartmoor for a couple of days studying its industrial archaeology. Instead, one of us had a car so we simply drove up to the north coast each day (though I did insist on us actually visiting a couple of road accessible sites each day) As well as the two foot gauge line on the canal bank I remember seeing about three sand railway tracks apparently connected to it and running down onto the beach. Gradients were fairly gentle as you'd expect from a human/animal operated system I think they were in far better nick than they are now since re-exposure. I'd like to know when the system was last used.

It's the balance all museum curators have to make between presentation and conservation. On lighting, the arrival of LEDs should make that far easier but relighting everything is likely to be an expensive business especially if you've always largely relied on natural (exhibit fading) light. Not just lighting but that balance Is likely to be a particular problem for the Science Museum (especially the NRM) as far more of their exhibits need to function to be meaningful, and so suffer wear and tear, than in a typical museum or gallery.

It wasn't just their VC10s. At one time (and very possibly still) it was the norm for RAF Transport Command passenger seating to be rear facing for exactly that reason. Civil operators never did simply because passengers don't like it and the chances of it making a difference in any flight are very small. The chances of a military flight ending abruptly are far greater and tactical landings in any case involve far greater decelerations after landing. I was once shown around one of RAF 32 (The Royal) squadron's BAe 146s at a fly-in and the seating in that was definitely facing forward. I assume though that in a tactical rather than a VIP/Royal role the seats could be reversed.

Thanks for this. I hadn't noticed Westonmouth Central before and it's exactly what I was suggesting. It would be good to have a trackplan.

Can you get UV resistant overlays for your skylights? The lighting levels on the Madder Valley have recently been increased (which makes it look far better) but the lights are (and have been for some time) LEDs that shouldn't emit significant UV. The room that the MVR is kept in (as with the Dartmoor and Valley scenes at Pendon) also has no natural light so no sunlight pouring in UV and all the scenes are proteced by glass windows so atmospheric pollution is also very low. John Ahern did use shellac for his card buildings but I need to find out whether the current Pendon modellers use it or anything equivalent- modern cardstock for art may be less prone to absorbing moisture than older types- especially the manilla envelopes, file card and other office supplies that were probably all that John Ahern (who was an insurance broker) could get hold of during the war and the austerity period that followed I believe that LED lighting is increasingly used by museums and galleries though many tradiitonal galleries and museums were designed to have plenty of natural light. I don't know if they now use UV filtering glass.