GoingUnderground

You didn't name anyone. Your comment "If you don't want to go to an exhibition...fine... but stop being so negative." made it very clear to me at any rate that it did apply to me as I am one of those who have previously said that I won't be going to shows, which, incidentally, applies to all shows, not just model railway ones. Only this morning I turned down an invitation to go to a tribute band gig later this year. Oh, and I'm so pleased that attendance will remain voluntary.

Been there, done that, read the book, got the T-shirt! I my case it was the dining room table or hall floor.

As I, and others, have said, attending exhibitions is not something that I currently want to do because of the risk as I see it to me and my family. That is simply a statement of my intentions, nothing more, nothing less. I've been through nearly 16 months of lockdown, near lockdown and social distancing, like everyone else. I've given up much, much more than just getting to model railway shows. Members of my family are hospital doctors one of whom had Covid in Spring 2020 and took almost 2 months to get over it despite being fit and healthy and in their early 30s. I've seen very little of them in person in the last 16 months because they are in daily contact with patients any one of whom could be asymptomatic, and they don't want to run the risk of giving me or my wife covid because of our ages and health. I'm not going to blow it all now just for the sake of getting to a show or a similar event in the near future when things are still so uncertain. I can't see how anything that I've said here or earlier can in anyway be taken as being "negative" or "spoiling it" for others. Go ahead and organise a show, or go to shows organised by others if you feel that the risks are acceptable to you, I won't stop you.

I agree. So often station platform lengths on layouts were curtailed because of the lack of curved platform units. The matching curved canopies was also a good idea, and these 3 new canopies' colour of pale cream looked good. There was also the subway unit, and later the 2nd storey building with the clocktower to go on two of the normal station buildings. I could never get to like the double track canopy unit R.74 as, to me, it looks unfinished as it only covers half the platform, and somewhat exposed at the ends. What it needed, and still needs as it is still in the current range as R.334 (a reused number first used on the DMU centre unit), was/is some sort of side canopy accessory that matches the straight canopies, currently R.514, and a curtain end screen, both of which could be bought separately and added to cover over the unsheltered part of the platform, or the exposed end. Sales may have been low and slow, but if they had introduced them when the double track canopy was first introduced back in the Triang Hornby days I' m sure that the tooling would have more than paid for itself by now, and might even have encouraged sales of the double track canopy itself by giving it a more "complete" look. Dublo did have the half width platform, useful if space was at a premium. There was never a Triang equivalent. But to look right it would have needed its own canopy and possibly handed subway units which would all have added to the cost. As has been said about the introduction of alternative or period liveries on locos, once there are alternate livery for the loco, you need the matching rolling stock, and what started out as a relatively cheap way to expand the range and appeal of the system suddenly becomes more expensive if new tooling has to be produced for the matching "accessories".

What is felt to be belligerent and downright unfriendly by some could be seen as clear and unambiguous to others. "No Mask No Entry" doesn't seem that different to me to "No Helmet No Boots NO JOB". - direct and to the point. Masks work by reducing the velocity of the air leaving your mouth and nose, and spreading your exhalation over a wider area, a bit like the wide spark arrester type chimneys seen on wood burning locos. This reduces the potential concentration of virus particles in your breath, and the lower velocity means that it travels less far. So if there is someone near you any virus particles are less likely to get as far as the other person, and of they do get that far, the number of particles that the other person could inhale will be reduced. You can get masks that trap water droplets, but the act of catching the droplets can clog the filters and they are more expensive. If you'd stood outside your mother-in-law's and breathed out into the cold air without a mask you'd have seen that your breath would have travelled much further and in a tighter stream. The comment "may" seems to refer to the fabric masks that you can buy and wash and reuse. Their effectiveness depends on the density of the weave and whether there is any filter layer as well, as both factors affect their effectiveness. If you go into a hospital for outpatient treatment or to visit an outpatients clinic in my personal experience over the last 15 months they always ask you to remove your fabric mask and replace it with the NHS style mask. Masks are not 100% effective anyway so the wording will have to reflect that uncertainty by using words like "may", "might", or "could" protect, as opposed to "will" protect which implies 100% effectiveness all the time. You are right when you say that the removal of social distancing will reduce the effectiveness of masks but there will still be some benefit by the dissipation of what we exhale over a wider area. Given that even our shiny new Health Secretary is saying that new case numbers could potentially go up to 100,000+ per day, and there remains the possibility of lockdowns being reimposed if hospitalisations start to get out of hand again, I can't see shops rushing to take down the screens or any of the other Covid-related signage. For a start they'd need somewhere to store everything safely in case it's all needed again. I shall continue to wear a mask and social distance when I'm out getting the groceries and try to go when the store is less busy, but I imagine that I'm going to get lots of "funny looks", and am thinking of going back to getting our stuff delivered again.

Apology accepted. I probably wasn't clear enough in my original post, so the fault is partly mine.

Here is the complete reference verbatim to the event, as set out on Page 11 of "EM1 & EM2 An Illustrated Historical Review of the Manchester, Sheffield, Wath Electric Locomotives - 76s & 77s" by John Hooper, published by Book Law Publications , 382 Carlton Hill Nottingham NG4 1JA, ISBN 978-1-909625-19-8 "1967: January: Withdrawal of the MSW passenger services announced! 3rd August: EM1 No.26014 was towed from Reddish depot to Soho electric depot, Birmingham for conversion to AC/DC by G.E.C. Witton. It went to General Electric Co.'s Soho works. The converted EM1 was to have trials hauling freight on the WCML in place of the AL6 a.c. locomotives which were giving trouble at that time. The conversion/trial was obviously not a success and we hear no more of the aforementioned." I too was surprised as I would have thought that there was already a wealth of experience on the abilities of EM1 to haul freight. As pointed out above, a considerable amount of advance design work would have been needed before any physical conversion could have taken place. I am not a mechanical or electrical engineer, but I would have thought that in addition to the lack of space, the additional weight would have caused problems with axle loadings. This has been in the public domain since the book was published in 2014, so I am not trying to create an urban myth. I accept that I have inadvertently been taken in by a leg-pull, but if I have then so may other people. Nor is this an attempt to publicise the book as I have no connection with the author nor the publishers, and I think it might be out of print. If you want further details of where John Hooper came across this information in his research for the book then please take it up with him through his publishers, Book Law, who, I am sure many of you will be familiar with through their stand at shows.

I have no idea as Hooper adds "The conversion/trial was obviously not a success and we hear no more of the aforementioned.", but he does seem sure of his facts as he even gives a date for the move to Birmingham, 3rd August 1967. If it had taken place and the trials gone ahead then I would imagine that there would have been reports and photos of an EM1 under the WCML wires under its own "steam" as it were. But it would be a great excuse to run an EM1 with AC electrics.

As it is physically impossible for a single standard 1,500V DC loco work on track where the catenary is energised at 25kV AC without severe, if not terminal damage, your question didn't make any sense, at least not to me. Dual system locos and EMUs can do this trick but the EM1s, EM2s and Class 506s weren't dual system. Incidentally, John Hooper in "EM1 & EM2 An illustrated Historical Review..." states that in 1967 one EM1, 26014, was taken from Reddish to Soho Depot in Birmingham for conversion to AC/DC working by GEC Witton for trials hauling freight on the WCML in place of AL6/Class 86 locos which were giving trouble at the time. So I thought you were asking if any other parts of the London Road/Piccadily complex had catenary energised at 1,500V DC. Apologies if my reply has caused offence.

Yes, Multiple Units terminating on the through roads which were part of the LMS's 1,500V DC electrification of the Altringham line. These never connected with the GC/LNER catenary even though through running would have been possible as they were both built to the Weir Report standard 1,500V DC spec. This was cut back to Oxford Road so that the through roads could be converted to 25kV AC.

I don't think it's that simple. Alan Whitehouse "An Illustrated History of the Woodhead Route" includes the electrification track plans, and on page 56, is the plan for London Road. This shows the track for platforms 1-3 as to be being electrified. But the track layout has a stabling road and a loco release road, neither of which were to be electrified, between the tracks serving platforms 1 and 2. Platform 3 was a bay road with platforms both sides. This would be in line with the A,B,C platform designation used by the GC and later the LNER. But it does not match the later layout seen in "Woodhead (Part 3) The Electric Railway" by E.M. Johnson where the photo on page 38 captioned "Manchester Piccadilly, 1970s: In Pre-Class 506 days ....M59602M.... waits at Platform 4 with a late morning departure for Hadfield.......". In this picture the loco release and stabling roads are gone and the track serving platform 3 no longer has a platform on both sides of the track. I don't know the relevant history of London Road/Piccadilly but it would seem on the basis of these two sources that at some point after the electrification plan was drawn up the GC/LNER track layout was changed. Would that have been part of the modernisation for the arrival of the WCML AC electrification? The loco release road appears to have been removed which allowed a new platform to be built to serve the the stabling road which was now the track for platform 2. The opposite face of the new platform became platform 3 with new track laid to serve it, and what was platform 3 became platform 4, with all 4 platforms being electrified at 1,500V DC.

Absolutely. It's one of the basic laws of the free market. When demand exceeds supply prices go up. When supply exceeds demand prices go down.

One area that no one has raised so far is the range of infrastructure, such as station buildings, bridges, level crossings, footbridges, signal boxes and signals etc offered by Trix, Dublo and Triang. Would that have affected how the three competing systems were viewed? Apart from the bright yellow canopies on the 1st generation of Triang's station buildings, I always felt that the dark red of the buildings and the grey of the platforms was more representative of the station buildings that I saw than the all-over yellowy cream of the Hornby equivalents. I know that the cream colour was supposed to represent concrete, and the buildings were all intended to be in the style of the 1930s and later, but most concrete that I've seen ranges from light to medium grey, darker if it is wet., and platforms were grey stone slabs or asphalt ranging from light grey to near black, depending on the age of the asphalt. Pebbledash is often yellowish cream in colour but has a textured surface. So I could never quite relate to the Hornby station buildings, signal box, loco shed and goods depot, they just looked "wrong" to me, as did their O gauge predecessors for the same reason, whereas Triang's looked acceptable. The Hornby terminal station building with its canopy did catch my eye, but the colour always put me off. I thought it looked a lot better when Triang started making it in their "red brick" colour after their takeover of Meccano, and I should have bought it then, but the number that I would have needed for my layout made it just too expensive for me at the time, and I improvised with materials already to hand. Triang's original girder bridge always looked the part, as did the single brick arch bridge, the viaduct (still in the current Hornby range and still with its Triang catalogue number R.180), and the river bridge when they appeared on the scene in the early 1960s. The gravity unloading bridge for use with the hopper, grain and ore wagons was something I fancied, but never got round to buying. The Grand Victorian Suspension Bridge was a remarkable item to produce for what was still at the time a toy train system. The colour of the towers and end supports looked to me more like concrete with their more subdued colour, and the attention to details such as having the hoops and clips in the top of the arches to allow the Mk2 catenary wires to be used across the bridge was wonderful. I had one of the Series 3 "Yard of Track" pieces of track and with its fibre base you couldn't clip fit the catenary masts to it. But I was able to use that yard of track on the bridge on the loft layout that I shared with my brother. The illustration of the bridge on the Hornby website today still shows it with the catenary hoops, which makes it the only piece of the Triang Phase 2 catenary system still in production. The electrically operated double track level crossing always appealed to me, I think it was a pity that they didn't make a Super 4 version, and the planned Super 4 Minic Motorways version never went ahead. I have seldom seen the Trix Manyways station buildings, but from the Trix catalogues that I have they looked to be better than the Hornby equivalent. They also had the conveyor system. Both Dublo and Trix had electrically operated signals whereas Triang only had hand operated semaphores until they introduced the colour light signal RT.405. Trix and Triang both had catenary systems from 1959, to go with their "Electric" locos introduced at the same time. The Trix one had pieces to turn two single track masts into a double track portal, something that only came later to the Triang system. The only Dublo Electric loco came very late to the party, and Meccano never made a catenary system for it. Some of the Meccano publicity pictures for their AL1 show it on Dublo 2 rail track underneath Triang catenary, but those may have been taken post acquisition. Obviously it was possible to mix and match these lineside features with whatever make of locos and track you had, but the visual impact of the accessories and the breadth of the range as shown in the catalogues must have helped generate a better impression for the Triang system over its rivals. Do you feel the same, or were these neutral as far as the choice of system was concerned as many of them could be used with any of the 3 systems?

The gantries/portals certainly remained unchanged despite the higher voltage, with that distinctive "Y" bracket, also seen on the Liverpool St-Shenfield line, and the 1500V lines in Belgium and The Netherlands.

I think that we need to agree to disagree on the risks and whether it is a good idea to restart shows, and whether it is a good idea or not to go to them if they do restart. The risk of severe illness and death from Covid rises with age, and this must have an effect on each person's assessment of the risk to them. You only have to look at the schoolkids on their way home or younger adults around the town and city centres in the evenings to see that social distancing and mask wearing is somewhat alien to them. The vaccines will have significantly reduced the risk of catching Covid across the age groups for those who have been fully vaccinated, and reduced the likelihood of severe illness and death if you do catch it, at least with the variants currently in circulation. But the fact remains that the older you are, the more the odds are still stacked against you if you do get it. Also the older ones of us are more likely to have family members who are clinically vulnerable giving us good reason to be extra cautious that we don't catch it, despite the vaccines, and pass it on to them. This can't be helped, it's called "ageing", the one "illness" that's totally incurable. There is clearly an age divide, or gradient if you prefer, and no amount of arguing across that divide over statistics and the rights and wrongs of opening up completely will get us anywhere. Going to a show is not a risk that I currently want to run, especially if all precautions are thrown to the wind as today's press reports suggest is likely to happen in 14 days time. Consequently, getting folks to comply with the current precautions just got a lot harder as many will see no point in complying now when they're going to be scrapped anyway. It's a bit like coming to the end of a 30 speed limit, how many of us stay below the limit right up until we pass the derestricted sign? I don't want to stand in the way of others who feel that the risk as far as they are personally concerned is acceptable. Likewise I wish everyone who is going to be staging a show in the near future good luck. But don't be surprised if invitations to exhibit are declined by some potential exhibitors, or that attendance is down on your expectations, as many of the oldies like me may choose to stay away in the interests of preservation of ourselves and our family members/significant others at least until it becomes a lot clearer that the risk to us as we perceive it has reduced to an acceptable level.

There seem to be relatively few photos around of EM2s in Manchester London Road alongside AC locos. These are the only ones that I could find on the web, but then perhaps my search criteria aren't specific/exact enough. But I'm sure that you'll all find lots more photos of EM2s and AC electrics and prove me wrong. This last one shows 27005 Minerva who was cannibalised in the Netherlands to keep the other 6 running after they were sold to NS. Also, judging by the position of the lamp in the left foreground, 27005 would appear to be in platform 4 which would put E3051 in platform 5.

Thank you for the correction on the voltage. I was working from memory. That's one of the problems of linear access, one responds to posts as one reads through the topic before seeing if anyone else has replied to that point on subsequent posts that you've still to read.

I believe that happens in France where the LGV system, and many parts of the main lines are energised at 25kV, but parts of the local lines used by the TGV services to reach their final destinations are still energised at, IIRC, 2,500V.

And on the North London Line at Acton where 3rd rail takes over for the remainder of the journey to Richmond. Also on the West London Line for the Southern services from the WCML through to the south of the Thames via Clapham Junction.

The RhB has switchable sections in the stations where the Bernina and Albula/Inn Valley lines meet, at Pontesrina and at St Moritz. The Bernina line is 1,000V DC whilst the rest of the RhB network is 11kV AC at 16 2/3Hz.

Thank you for that post. An interesting read, including the WOR article. The only bit that I'd quibble with was the wording on Trix entering the market after WW2 when Trix, via Bassett Lowke, was first into the sub-O gauge market in 1935 with their Twin system. Your point about Lines saving Meccano as a business is well made. I do wonder if some of today's dislike of "Hornby" goes back to the belief/resentment that Lines Bros/Triang "killed off" Dublo which became embedded in the collective memory despite Dublo being on its last legs commercially. But it is true that Triang outcompeted Dublo and in that sense did "kill" it. The MRC editorial on the takeover of the Meccano Group by Lines summed matters up rather neatly, I thought. The advert for the Simplex points seems to me to illustrate how Dublo kept shooting itself in the foot as there would appear to be no way to convert a manually operated point to electric operation. Triang cracked that problem years earlier by having separate solenoid motors that could be added to hand operated points, and nailed it with Super 4 as just one solenoid motor X.404 would fit Left, Right and Y points. Also the size of the Hornby solenoid and the lever base on the manual points would make creating a fan of points difficult without quarter straights or the like.

Having a unique system isn't always a disadvantage. It can be an advantage if customers prefer it over the offerings from the competition, in which case it becomes a highly desirable Unique Selling Point, provided the areas where your system loses out to competition are regarded as trivial. Being 3 rail stud contact low voltage AC didn't disadvantage Maerklin significantly, as far as I know. If it had then surely they wouldn't be so significant a player today in continental Europe.

On the subject of toy building bricks there was a system that used hard rubber bricks, with 2 studs on top and 2 holes in the bottom which was called "Minibrix" https://minibrix.com/index.php Minibrix predates Lego as it was introduced in 1935 whereas Lego started in 1949. They were not part of the Lines Bros group.

Whilst you are right in many aspects, there is one point that I don't agree with and that is about 2 rail being the most financially viable route in mainland Europe. Maerklin was the market leader and they were 3 rail AC. So if the other makers didn't offer 3 rail AC versions of their locos etc, then they were artificially restricting their sales which would have raised their selling prices as they'd have to recover their development costs over a lower sales base.. Maerklin are still, today, the market leader in several countries and the other manufacturers make 3 rail versions of their locos because they cannot afford to ignore the large Maerklin user base. Maerklin did have one advantage over Hornby in that they kept with low voltage AC which differentiated their system from the 2 rail "upstarts". Hornby didn't have that luxury as Rovex Plastics and through them Triang also used the 12V DC system. But their positions were similar in that both were the market leader in their respective home markets with very good reputations. Stud contact worked and still works for Maerklin and I think it could have worked just as well in terms of competing against Triang for Dublo. But it would have needed to be accompanied by the Dublo management taking Triang seriously instead of resting on their laurels in the belief, correct or otherwise, that theirs was the superior product.

We all tend to think of the 2 rail system as a heavy draw financially on the Meccano group, and it probably was. But the actual development expenditure was restricted to the new track as the rolling stock only needed insulated wheelsets, and coaches and wagons with insulated wheelsets ran just as well on 2 rail as 3 rail. The true drain probably came in the form of additional working capital in stocking up with 2 rail locos and the new 2 rail track. I've found this topic very interesting, so again thank you all for your views. But I still believe that Meccano handled the change to 2 rail very badly, and if they'd gone down the 3 rail stud contact route in the mid/late 1950s like Maerklin and not bothered with 2 rail, and took the competition from Lines Bros' Triang Railways more seriously, then Hornby Dublo would have lasted a lot longer than it did.