DY444

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

Don't forget that despite electrification, the Woodhead freight was only electric traction over part of the journey - it served Sheffield & Wath to Manchester, everything going beyond or starting beyond those fringes needed at least one change in traction - electrifying to Tinsley in the 1960s took out one change in traction at the sheffield end and was a good idea.  But the MGR services for example had to swap to diesel to enter collieries and to get to the western destinations - so full trains changed at Mottram, empties at Godley Junction and all trains from Dewsnap had to change traction for onward trip workings (except for Ashburys).

 

So those 47s could have done longer circuits all the way from colliery to Fiddlers Ferry, it would still of course needed more, but not a whole class more.  What it would not have been is pretty, the reason d'tre for electrification was two fold - test 1500v DC and save money on crews with a bit extra for alleviating stress and health issues on working heavily working steam engines.  Replacing that with diesels would have been as polluting as steam, not pleasant for anyone.

I don't see any way the permitted load over Woodhead for a 47 (or a 56) would have been the same as it was to/from Rotherwood/Wath or to/from Fiddlers Ferry so you'd either have to shorten the whole formation and run more trains or pilot them over the top.

I doubt the pollution from diesel(s) through a new Woodhead tunnel would be in anyway comparable to steam through the old tunnels

1 hour ago, russ p said:

It may have actually closed earlier as the state of the original tunnels was pretty bad . When electrification was originally proposed the old tunnels were to have a contractor bar to get clearance but the condition of one of them was deemed unsuitable so the new tunnel was built something that probably wouldn't have happened without modernisation 

Indeed. 

I suppose it's possible they could have built a new tunnel suitable for steam and continued as before but then the issue would have been what to do when steam finished.  Shifting the same tonnage as the 76s did over those gradients, especially when MGRs came in, would have tied up a lot of diesel locomotives.  47s, for example, were in high demand in the early and mid-70s so you'd probably be looking at lots of 20s/31s/37s from the ER and/or 25s/40s from the LMR.  The costs of that might have doomed it early anyway if going via Diggle or the Hope Valley could be done with fewer locomotives.

I think an interesting related question is what would have happened if it had been electrified say 5-7 years later?  It would most likely have been done at 25kV (maybe even as a test bed in lieu of the Styal line given the Manchester connection) and would thus almost certainly have survived beyond 1981 and maybe still be open today (especially if a spur had been built to allow direct running into Sheffield Midland). 

10 hours ago, Markwj said:

I think it can be true of any profession stories are embellished and exaggerated as they are retold over time. I was told a story many years ago about an engine which wouldn't come out of a tunnel so its paint wouldn't get ruined so it was bricked in- now that was definitely true!  

Agreed.  All major industries/professions have their share of true, true but embellished, and completely fabricated stories. 

It is sometimes hard to tell the difference though.  For instance there are things I witnessed during my BT days which I simply wouldn't have believed if I hadn't seen them with my own eyes.  Some others which have gone down in BT folklore are, I'm fairly certain, made up.  I have no doubt at all the same is true of the railway.

3 hours ago, Ray H said:

And hidden behind this is no doubt a shortage of LNW crews with the branch crews being used to fill gaps in the Euston service. One of these days new franchisees will learn that there has to be a level of extra staff (apparently over and above the rostered number) to cover leave, short term absence and promotion/retirement.

 

I'm sure some of the longer serving LNW staff must have worked the Class 150s & 153s - the latter incidentally must be shorter than the platforms - so if there was a will I doubt it would take too long for their stock refresher training and, with a little persuasion of the relevant unions, could involve the setting up of a short term small dedicated link primarily to work the "branch" whilst the remaining crews went through the full stock training.

 

One thing that needs doing sooner rather than later is to start routinely running something - a light loco might suffice - to keep the crews road trained otherwise the autumn re-start will get pushed back even further because although the crews will be stock trained, their route knowledge will have expired (and by the time everyone's road training is complete) they will, no doubt, require stock refresher training.

No such thing as franchises or franchisees any more.  The TOCs that are not being run by the so-called Operator of Last Resort are all on management contracts with literally just about every penny of expenditure requiring DfT authorisation and minimising costs the only objective. 

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the intermediate stations were just closed.  Ditto Stourbridge Town branch due to the ailing PPMs. 

On 11/02/2023 at 16:05, melmerby said:

In find this image interesting.

It seems to be during resignalling with a few colour lights in a sea of semaphores both UQ & LQ. The nearest Gantry is not lit.

What I can't fathom is the LQ gantry on the left which seems to be still in use but there is a colour light gantry in front of itand the RH head appears to be illuminated.

What's going on?

 

The caption says Bricklayer's Arms.

On 11/02/2023 at 22:12, Fishoutofwater said:

That gantry is on another line. 

On 12/02/2023 at 00:06, melmerby said:

How so?

I see three tracks on the left with a signal gantry to the left of them controlling 2 tracks in one direction with a concrete gantry also to the left in front of it also controlling the same two tracks.

 

I'm guessing the photo is south-east of London Bridge station at the point where the tracks start to spread out.

On 12/02/2023 at 01:12, Fishoutofwater said:

Ah, thought you meant the gantry in the foreground. Looking in the magnifier I see what you mean.

On 12/02/2023 at 10:52, Wickham Green too said:

There could still be tracks between the two 'adjacent' gantries - but at a marginally lower level so the rails aren't visible from our viewpoint. ( Must admit I'm struggling to suss out WHERE in the Bricklayers Arms area this is - there's no sign of higher-level main lines, so are we closer to North Kent East Junction ? )

I recognise the picture.  It is from the 1950s resignalling from Pouparts/Bricklayers Arms to Coulsdon and I think was taken at or around the time of the commissioning (which in those days was done in hours) hence the confusing mix of lit/unlit colour lights and semaphores.

The picture is looking south towards Bricklayers Arms Jn with the box in the distance and New Cross Gate (out of sight) beyond.  The Brighton lines to/from London Bridge split into two at Bricklayers Arms Jn, one leg of this is on the left and the photographer is standing on the other.  The line the photographer is on is now the Sussex reversible, the three on the left are now (r - l) the Up Sussex Fast and Dn Sussex Fast (which give access via the new flyover/dive-unders to LB P4/5 and are used by Thameslink) and the Dn Sussex Slow.  The two lines to the right of the photographer are now (l-r) the Bermondsey Reversible and the Up Bermondsey Spur.  These two join the Dn and Up lines respectively from Peckham Rye at South Bermondsey.  The lines to the extreme right went into Bricklayers Arms and are long gone. 

If you took a picture from the exact same spot today then Millwall football ground would be on your right.

Edit:  Roughly the middle of this:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4867501,-0.0494717,268m/data=!3m1!1e3

On 17/01/2023 at 14:26, brushman47544 said:

 

As an HST set with only one power car leading, you have to wonder what was going on. HSTs with only one power car working were banned over the Devon banks, they had to have a pilot loco - normally between Exeter and Plymouth, so had it came up from Paignton? And there's only one FO so not an internal WR set? Perhaps ecs?

That's actually not true.  The only Devon bank where there was a blanket ban was Exeter St.Davids to Central.  Single power cars could work over the others providing certain conditions were met including  the number of trailers, railhead conditions, absence of signalling faults, restrictions on stopping at Torquay or Totnes and various others.

20 hours ago, melmerby said:

I understand that there were political reasons at the time it was approved.

 

The idea that nothing should be paid for outside the GLA is just short sighted parochialism.

Using that logic the Met and LO services should stop short at the GLA  boundary, not in the depths of Hertfordshire where they currently go to. Same with numerous other cross border services that TfL run.

The services are there to benefit London where most of the users are going. (Work, Play, Shop  etc.)

BTW GLA gets a grant out of general taxation and they also benefit from fares from people who live outside it travelling into London, so we are all contributing.

Except there are a handful of London boroughs where the public transport is dreadful by the standards in London as a whole yet residents of those boroughs are still obliged to pay the TfL levy. 

TfL's remit is London not Kent, Essex, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire or Berkshire.  I accept the historical incursions into those areas by the Underground should logically come under TfL's purview or where there are sound operational reasons for an incursion (eg the Watford DC line) but Reading, for example, is just plain ridiculous.  TfL's empire building days seem to be over, at least for the moment, but imo until the significant issues in the transport deficient boroughs are dealt with then TfL should stick to its remit. 

On 03/02/2023 at 11:42, Dan Bennett said:

It’s a shame that D6580 has got the wrong chassis again. It should have a 33/0 chassis without the gangway rubbing plate and buckeye coupling

.. and it's missing the extra brake piping on the cab front

45 minutes ago, Gwiwer said:

Very similar body design.  The rest is mostly different.  It depends what you want to preserve for posterity.  The 313s were the first fleet with the "pear-shaped" cross-section body but remained distinctly different from the later 507/508 and 314/315 fleets.  

 

They were built with customer-operated handles to initiate door opening unlike any other class.  These were unreliable in service and soon replaced with push-buttons but as those were a later modification the style and location differed to the other types.  

 

As built they were dual-voltage units from the start being intended solely for the "Great Northern Electrics" as BR branded the Moorgate suburban lines when electrified.  There was quite a significant "Spark effect" in that passengers swarmed onto the new - more frequent, faster, cleaner and less smelly (than the previous diesels) but this quickly faded away thanks in part to service unreliability.  It wasn't uncommon for a quarter of the evening peak service to be cancelled at times leading to severe overcrowding and the poor users of Harringay and Hornsey (of which I was then one) often bore the brunt with sometimes no trains calling there for an hour or more.  They should have had alternate trains stopping (anything to the Hertford Loop bar a couple of peak extras semi-fast to Gordon Hill) but the stoppers were the first to be caped.  

 

Trains which arrived at Alexandra Palace (Wood Green) in the up morning peak and which could then take no more passengers were sent fast to Finsbury Park.  

 

The fleet requirement dwindled and three-car trains instead of six became the norm for much of the day.  This eventually allowed a number of units to transfer to the Watford "DC" line and the North London Line with what became the Silverlink franchise.  These had their AC gear removed, because it wasn't needed at that time, and used as a source of spares.  Some went on to Southern when further service cuts and new stock took a toll on their workload.  The remaining dual voltage units came off the GN route when the 717s arrived.  

 

The 508s were delivered as four-car units to BR Southern Region (L&SE Metro) but were swiftly dispatched to Merseyside once the 455s started arriving. The trailers remained with SR (later NSE) and were inserted into the 455/9 units which were ordered as three-car and augmented in a tradition going back almost 100 years on the region.  They have remained hybrids ever since.  A handful of 508s returned south to the South Eastern franchise but saw little use.  As the 314s and 315s are all now withdrawn, the 313/2s are about to be but the 455/9s are soldiering on because of the protracted delivery and commissioning issues with the 701s these former class 508 trailers will be the last of this generation of vehicles in traffic.  

 

From an operational aspect the 508 trailers are a pain.  They cannot be locked out if a need arises, their age and build means they have distorted slightly and the doors stick, the windows (full-size hoppers not the smaller class 455 ones) fall open and won't stay shut - or refuse to open in the heat - and the door buttons take several seconds longer to respond to a demand than the standard 455 ones.  

 

I shall not miss the 313s.  Not the other remaining vehicles of their family.  One 315 has been kept for use albeit in deepest rural Wales (along with some other "SR" stock now at Cynheidre) and the NRM has claimed 313201 but we'll have to wait and see what happens to it.  That should be enough.  

Indeed.  One correction though, it's 455/7 that have the ex 508 trailer not 455/9

2 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

I don't think anyone is saying the manufacturers should stop making highly-detailed models, provided that they also have some models for those who are excluded by the high price of the detailed ones.

I imagine that's an extremely complex financial dynamic.  Are the margins higher on the higher spec model?  Will costs be higher if 1000 high spec and 1000 lower spec models are produced vs 2000 higher spec?  How much cheaper can we make the lower spec model for?  How much extra design work do we have to do?  Will the lower spec dilute sales of the higher spec and thus reduce our overall profit on the models?  Will the lower spec have an adverse effect on our reputation going forward?  And probably a zillion more important things I don't know about.

Obviously there is a benefit to manufacturers in attracting more people to the hobby and lower prices no doubt play a part in that but at the end of the day these are businesses not philanthropies.  Demand for these high end models seems to me to be pretty healthy and in recent years has spawned some new entrants to the market who appear to be thriving in marked contrast to some previous new entrants.  That suggests serving that high end market well is the right call.  The lack of models generally at lower price points suggests to me that either sufficient demand isn't there or it's uneconomic to attempt to serve it without hand me down tooling like Hornby using Lima.  If there was a vast untapped profitable market in that lower end segment then someone would surely have gone in there?

48 minutes ago, eastwestdivide said:

Part of the same family/concept, so maybe cheddar and camembert?!

Maybe.  I'm not entirely sure how to map two different generations of traction equipment to specific cheeses 🧀🥴

19 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

 

The difference between cars and model trains is that there are cheaper cars available from other manufacturers, whereas it seems that all model railway manufacturers are producing full fat items and/or charging full fat prices.

There is no difference unless you treat all cars as being equal and interchangeable.

A quick perusal of a major retailer's website shows a Hornby Class 59 at £82 and a soon to be available Heljan Class 47 at £331.  So there are cheaper diesel locomotives available from different manufacturers.  Might not be the one you want but then again if I want a 4 series I can't get it from Vauxhall or Ford.

I haven't read the whole thread so if I'm just saying the same as loads of other folk then I apologise  ...

It seems to me that the question is do models to the current standard(s) of detail/features blah, blah sell?  I'm not a retailer or a manufacturer but my perception is that by and large they do.  My memory might be wrong here (the hardware is ageing!) but my recollection was that the first batch of the most expensive new Bachmann 47s sold out first (possibly to Bachmann's surprise).  I see no obvious incentive for manufacturers to produce say £25 coaches if the £60 fully loaded one is a viable commercial proposition. 

To my mind it's like saying to BMW we know you can sell all the £50K+ cars you can make but would you stop making those and make something cheaper?   Why would they when they're doing fine thank you very much with what they are doing?  Ergo the only way I see a mass market change to less detail is if the higher spec stuff doesn't sell and I see no sign of that.       

20 hours ago, eastwestdivide said:

Someone's already bagged a similar 315 unit for preservation in S Wales (Llanelli) accoridng to various reports.

<pedant>

Visually similar - technically chalk and cheese

</pedant>

The Styal Line and Colchester to Clacton/Walton were the test beds for the equipment, principles and techniques to be used in the AC electrification schemes on the WCML, around Glasgow and out of Liverpool St and Fenchurch St.  Nothing to do with high speed.

A high proportion of "secret" high speed testing stories are nonsense.  And I can tell you what the results of the alleged REP at 120mph tests were - 8 trashed motors needing complete rebuilds (see also Class 60 at 100mph).   

4 hours ago, martin_wynne said:

 

The wind might stop blowing, the sun might stop shining -- but the tide still goes in and out. At known and predictable times. Why aren't we doing more tidal? How many Swanseas would it take to not need nuclear?

 

 https://www.tidallagoonpower.com/projects/swansea-bay/

 

Martin.

I don't know but I don't see how it is possible to get anywhere near net-zero without nuclear.

Plenty of people know what they want to achieve and what they don't want to do to achieve it.  Trouble is all the things they don't want mean it is impossible. 

I'll give you an (admittedly extreme) example of what I mean.  I was reading the transcript of the court case where HS2 protestors were being sentenced for contempt by ignoring injunctions banning them from HS2 sites.  The judge asked one of the protestors what they wanted.  The protestor said he wanted a transport system which would totally eliminate cars but it must not involve construction using machinery and concrete.  Beam me up Scotty.

2 hours ago, 4630 said:

Interesting piece on Sky News at the moment - other 'news' providers are available - by Sam Coates their Deputy Political Editor.

 

The photo at the head of the article is also useful as it gives an aerial view, I assume fairly recently taken, of the large construction site at Euston.

 

This, for me, is the key quote;

 

"The government has overcommitted to projects that can be funded from this money, but has not decided which will be axed and which will survive. In this context, no big projects - think Sizewell as well as HS2, for example - can be considered safe. There isn't enough money to go around."

 

I guess it's all part of the softening up process to prepare 'us' for an announcement, presumably as part of the Budget statement, which is scheduled to be delivered, alongside a full forecast from the Office for Budgetary Responsibility, on 15th March.

 

https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-hunt-championing-brexit-freedoms-and-hs2-muddle-shows-gap-between-what-government-says-and-what-it-can-actually-deliver-12796940

I'm not buying that though.  We've done the HS2 politics to death but the bottom line is it will continue because there is no political advantage to the present Government in stopping it. 

As for Sizewell, well on Monday this week we got uncomfortably close to power cuts due to low temperatures and not much wind (which is not uncommon in winter).  What saved us basically was the (3?) remaining coal fired plants.  For some reason, which frankly I can only put down to abject stupidity, the media can't get their heads around the idea that reducing emissions means more demand for electricity, which in turn means more 24x365 dependable generating plant.  Putting too much reliance on wind will result in blackouts sooner or later as there are days when it only produces a fraction of its rated capacity.  If that happens there are going to an awful lot of recriminations. 

This "we can't afford nuclear" stuff really grinds my gears.  You want net-zero?  Well net-zero carries a big price tag so you can't have it both ways.

54 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

It's valuable London real estate. Plenty of takers for it at a knock-down price. The proximity to Euston, Kings Cross and St Pancras would make the space very appealing to put up high-vlaue appartments. Lots of money to be made there as another area of the capital is gentrified.

 

 

If all you want is HS2 to go away, a party that promises to do just that is your friend. The costs of undoing the work is imaterial to a lot of the antis. Politically, it would be very popular in some sections of the country.

 

 

There you go. Politically, scrapping HS2 is a vote winner. You just don't mention the costs. That will remain the case even if the scrapping comes as the last brick is about to be laid. Logic and reason doesn't enter into any of this.

Prime real estate in a Labour council area in a solidly Labour area full of middle class NIMBYs.  Good luck with planning permission.

The rest ignores the likely political reality.  Even if this Government does scrap it then the votes saved (not won because they were mainly tory already) in the shires are unlikely to make a material difference to the outcome of the next election if opinion polls are to be believed.  Despite Starmer's historic objections to it, and Labour abstaining in all the votes (another go figure), Labour's official policy is to build HS2 in its entirety so they'd just start it up again if they got in.  Plus in the wider population, not all those who oppose it are going to vote Tory even if it is stopped plus plenty of Tory MPs support it anyway (phase 2a was passed almost exclusively on Tory votes as Labour officially  abstained).  All shutting it down now would do is increase the cost because the odds are overwhelming that one way or another it would be started again at some point. 

Edit.  PS and scrapping it would put a load of people out of work too which traditionally is not considered a vote winning strategy.

1 hour ago, The Stationmaster said:

That's nothing new at Ealing Broadway there have long been people left on the platforms there during the peaks - and that was even with XR operating to Hayes and the previous Heathrow stopping train train service.  

 

The situation at various stations, including Ealing Broadway, inwards from West Drayton is that some passengers clearly prefer to get on the current GWR 'residual' stops in that area.   That will cease, regrettably as far as I'm concerned in respect of  the Ealing Broadway stop, when - according to whispers I have heard - the GWR service is recast in May.  There's not really much option then to increase any XR services without damaging performance as the line capacity isn't really up to it as the signalling has to suit mixed traffic braking curves for the considerable number of freight services running between Reading and Acton.  And in the event of any sort of serious perturbation closing a pair of running lines there is going to be a grand mess when it comes to trying to travel by train east of Maidenhead.

 

Alas when LUL/TfL ceased to follow the original XR plans, and are additionally trying to run an intensive metro style service over a railway which isn't signalled for it, then it serves them right for not biting the bullet and building a suitable railway, or six tracking, for such a service west of Paddington to West Draton.   The trains can't be lengthened without further, considerable, expenditure on infrastructure on the GWML, even if the central section could take longer trains, so that option is probably a non-starter.

 

As Edwin has just mentioned terminating HS2 at OOC will drastically reduce its capacity in more than one way.  Firstly OOC will be unable ti turn round trains as quickly or efficiently as the purpose designed terminus at Ruston so the number of paths available per hour will be reduced.  Secondly the onward distribution of passengers arriving at OOC will be atrocious compared with the multiplicity of UndergrounD, main line, and 'bus connections available via Euston; and can OOC really hold 50 or more black cabs waiting to pick up passengers (or indeed set them down)?  As ever this idea reeks of typical dimwit politico and Treasury thinking where the easiest cuts to make are those in investment rather than properly tackling overblown current spending.  One thing isn't going to cjange - the WCML will still need to be relieved of a number of paths per hour to secure its longer term future and the only way of doing that is HS2 - that debate is long over.

 

All the central section can take longer trains - the stations are designed for 11 cars.  Agree it would be (hideous project manager buzzword alert) "challenging" to cater for 11 cars on the GWML unless something could be done with SDO.  Having said that I have no idea what would fit at Heathrow.

Many people delight in describing HS2 as a white elephant.  They'll be right if it never gets beyond OOC. 

6 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

Not going to Euston would leave the government with swathes of very high value land in London. Land that could be sold off to "friends" very cheaply. Call me cynical if you like, but you can see how it would work. 

It could also presage the complete cancellation of the line as a final, desperate sop to voters in the shires ahead of a electon. 

That part of London is not exactly over populated with friends of the current party in Government so I doubt that motive.  As to the second point, that ship has sailed, many of the shires in question have been dug up already so not finishing it now would add insult to injury and require huge restoration costs.  Just walking away and leaving it as it is would make things worse politically.

The uncomfortable truth is that a not insignificant proportion of the public see it as a waste of money (whilst seemingly also supporting net-zero - go figure) which hardly bodes well for the future of rail.  A poll the other week asked what people thought the Government should do to save money; first was cutting international aid, second was scrapping HS2.  The almighty stigma left by the abysmal PR job that HS2 did in the early days has stuck and just won't go away. 

On 25/01/2023 at 07:39, Northmoor said:

Last night I watched part of an episode of "Return of the Saint" with Ian Ogilvy.  It involved a woman on a train witnessing a murder, so plenty of shots of the derelict industrial location alongside the 4-track GWML, with a HST and a few BR blue 3-car DMUs.

.. and the opening dining car interior sequence filmed in a 4BEP Buffet car

24 minutes ago, 2ManySpams said:

 

A bit more here but hard to believe?: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64421566

The BBC has been fiercely anti-HS2 since the start and has not wasted any opportunity to denigrate it when given the chance.  You see that here because it is not even their own reporting, it is essentially parroting (with glee) something in the Sun.  My policy is to ignore any BBC piece that uses the term "commuters" to mean "passengers" as this one does as it seems the BBC believes only commuters use trains.  That in turn suggests the writers of these pieces don't have a clue.  I suspect this story is a mixture of Chinese whispers, 2 + 2 = 5, off the record mischief making in Westminster and Whitehall by the anti-HS2 factions and a bit of wishful thinking.

Not continuing to Euston would be extremely stupid both strategically and given the amount of work already done, however there is clearly negativity towards the railways at present from Government and this may be an inference derived from that.  On the flip side however it is said that the present Chancellor is a strong supporter so that needs to be factored in.  Interestingly though, despite his party's policy on HS2 and having been quiet on the subject in recent months, the leader of the opposition opposed it from the start and has voted against it in the Commons.  His constituency includes Euston.      

2 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

By and large, CEPs and BEPs were South Eastern Units, built in conjunction with Kent Coast Electrification, but a number of the early units were allocated to the Central, mainly as replacements for the Cors and Bufs on the Mid-Sussex fasts to/from Portsmouth and Bognor. When the CEPs and BEPs were rebuilt with the brake in the middle a number were re-geared, I think, for use on the Portsmouth Direct. No doubt these were later redeployed to other parts of SWD. 

Indeed but even beyond the divisional allocation it always seemed to me as an outsider looking in that the SR made a determined effort (even by railway standards) to diagram things in a particular way in that late 60s/70s period and bent over backwards to ensure it was adhered to. 

As I said it's my perception and recollection and the reality may have been different but on the SED for example, CEPs seemed to do the boat trains and Kent Coast fasts; VEPs would be Maidstone and main line stoppers plus a few peak extras.  On the SWD CIGs didn't go to Bournemouth.  On the CD CIGs did the fasts and VEPs did the stoppers etc etc. 

Similar types seemed to stick together, it was unusual to see CEPs with VEPs, or CIGs with VEPs.  So much so in fact that an old friend was convinced for years that CIGs and VEPs couldn't work together because you never seemed to see it. 

Then in the early 80s it all started to change and everything seemed to work with everything else and go everywhere!

14 hours ago, Geep7 said:

Ok, so for modelling a 4-Rep. The outer 2 driving coaches were all-but identical to the 4-TC driving coaches above the underframe (Window layout, seating plan, roof layout etc.). Below though, and both driving coaches were mounted on 2 Mk6 motor bogies (very similar to those under a Class 73) with all the associated underframe equipment of an SR Mk1 style EMU. In between were a TBFK (Trailer Brake First Corridor) and TB (Trailer Buffet).

 

You could modify a Kernow/Bachmann 4-TC into a 4-Rep. Motorising could be the issue, but not impossible. I would perhaps suggest putting the motor in the Buffet car. The driving coaches are sorted, not much you really need to do to that, except add the underframe equipment, and change the bogies (MJT cast sides?). The TFK you can probably do easily by swapping the sides from a standard Bachmann Mk1 BFK. The trailer buffet could be problematic, as Bachmann haven't done an RB in their MK1 range yet, however, you could do a Rep from the second batch built in the 1970's, which used standard Mk1 RU's, and i'm pretty sure Bachmann do one of these.

 

Either that, or you can go down the etched brass sides route, MJT do the sides for the 4-TC, but not the Rep, so you'd need to get a pack of these (if they are available) and then Comet brass sides for the TFK and TB.

 

If i'm honest, it sounds like a lot of work, even for someone who hasn't recently returned to the hobby.

 

As regards the rest of the EMU stock, it was rare, but the odd 2/4Epb did venture west of Basingstoke, generally going to Eastleigh works. 2-Hap's definitely did go west of Basingstoke, usually tacked to the front or back of a 4-Vep. I'm sure there were rare occasions, but I don't think the Bournemouth line saw very many 4-Cep's or 4-Bep's, especially in pre-rebuilt condition.

 

Thumpers were definitely used in this area though, although were the more usual 3H/3D variety. Actually into the 1970's there were only 4 2H sets, and by the 1980's these had been made up to 3-car sets by inserting a surplus 2-Epb Driving Trailer from disbanded Tadpole sets.

 

Once you get into the Network SouthEast era, things get a tad more complicated, and units were moved around between divisions, sets reduced in length (i.e most of the DEMU fleet were reduced to 2-car sets by removing the centre car), all in an effort to keep this running.

 

As already mentioned, this, and a lot more besides is on the Blood and Custard website. There is probably a bit too much information for the casual reader who just wants an overview, but it really is an undisputed resource of Southern Region unit information.

Just a pedant point.  The REP motor coaches had a lot more equipment under them than other "SR Mk1 style EMU" motor coaches as they had 2 power circuits and two sets of camshaft equipment.

Concur with the rest. 

HAPs had booked work to Bournemouth over the years, usually on peak hour "93s".   

In my experience CIG/BIGs were quite unusual on the Bournemouth line in the 70s.  They did appear occasionally but not very often.  They became very common later.  Likewise with CEP/BEPs which were even rarer in my experience as I don't recall ever seeing one on the Bournemouth line in the 60s or 70s - but again they became common later.

5 hours ago, roythebus1 said:

The 4EPBs were limited to 75mph by their gearing and shouldn't have run with VEP/BEP/CEP etc...

 

 

There was a period in the late 60s and early 70s when the Guildford via Cobham service was booked VEP + EPB.  Occasionally these turned up on the Bournemouth line and I recall travelling from Eastleigh to Southampton one summer afternoon in 1967 in a VEP/EPB formation - the EPB was 5115 in green.