Godders

Hi Ian, Can you tell me what percentage of holiday makers come to your holiday destinations by train. I would wager it's not a lot. As for being economically depressed, so is most of the rest of the country/world.What gives you the sole rights on poverty. I can't afford to travel by train in my area because the fares are so high. My son commutes from here (Three Bridges) to London which costs him over £4000 annually (more than £5000 before tax) consequently he can't afford to buy a house. I didn't know that the TOCs were allowed to subsidise fares based on locally perceived incomes. As for youngsters migrating, tell me about it I was born in Yorkshire 70 years ago and have had to migrate and travel all over the world to make a living. I was basing my observations purely on the viability of maintaining a route through Dawlish. It doesn't make any sense economically to keep rebuilding and maintaining this section of track. The reference to the limosines was purely saying that it may well be cheaper to find an alternative way of transport. Everybody thinks their position should be supported but sometimes it isn't practicable. The population of Cornwall is 536,000, the number of journeys annually from Penzance is 579,000. This gives just over 1 trip per person per annum. Hardly a heavily used section of railway. Devon is little better with a population of 1,135,700, the number of journeys from Plymouth is 2,597,000 or just over 2 trips per person. I know these are not particularly accurate figures but I think they suggest that the railway is hardly overutilized. I notice no one replied to my solution of paying for the rebuilding out of 4% of suggested annual losses. Perhaps because you want the repairs if someone else pays for them but you don't need them if you have to foot the bill. Cheers Godders

How is this work to be funded? I have just checked a few fares from Exeter and I couldn't believe my eyes. Single off peak fares are quoted as £6.40 for a 42 minute ride to Paignton. £4.10/£8.80 for a 1 hour ride to Plymouth and £19.80 for 3 hour ride to Penzance. These must be the cheapest fares on the whole network and there is no way that they could ever repay the costs of repairing Dawlish. I suggest we buy them a fleet of luxury limousines, it would be cheaper. Godders

Hi Mickey, These figures are usually pulled out of the air and bear no resemblance to reality but as a sop I would suggest that if the statement is true then the burgers of Plymouth could pay the £300M , after all its less than two weeks profit, which is an incredible return on investment. Cheers Godders

Hi Bomag, Are you really saying there is no dual carriageway or motorway in WEST Sussex, if so, I think you need to recheck. The M23 runs from the M25 J7 to J11 (Pease Pottage). Then continues as dual carriageway all the way to the outskirts of Brighton where it meets the East-West M27 that runs the whole width of West Sussex. There are many other sections of DC within West Sussex. However, returning to the topic, I question the value of rebuilding the railway beyond Exeter. For many years the Cornish have made it clear that they want to be independent, well let's give them their wish. Rebuilding the washed away track at Dawlish is just pouring good money after bad for the amount of traffic that is carried it's not worth the cost. This also rules out the option of a different route. Cheers Godders

It seems to be contrary to most railway signalling premises. It would seem that normally precautions would be in place in case anything goes wrong. For example "Flank protection" is used to provide secondary safety cover. I would have thought that a FPL would have locked in both positions to provide locking just in case the route had been set wrongly by the signalman. Cheers Godders

Hi Chris, Let battle resume, The statement, "Facing point locks (FPLs) are required on all points over which passenger trains pass in the course of normal working - irrespective of line speed or classification.", is all t matters. My understanding of this statement is, "if a passenger train passes over facing points then a FPL is mandatory". Nowhere do I read into this statement, "exception if only one route is used by passenger trains then only that route needs a lock". I accept that this seems to be the premise that many of you are working to but where is it documented. Cheers Godders

Hi Mike, I understand what is meant but it is not what you said and it is still not what you are saying. if it is used by passenger trains (in the normal course of working etc) it requires an FPL is not equal to; the point stretcher bar must be physically held in place by an FPL bolt when a passenger train passes over it. I am used to a world where you mean what you say or write not what you think you have said or written. However, I am obviously being pedantic and don't wish to cause any ill feeling. Cheers Godders

Hi Railwest, Godders - The Bigbee Line was indeed correct in what he said. The point IS fitted with an FPL - it is simply the case that it is not required to bolt the point when used for a non-passenger route. My argument is not that these situations don't exist, it is that they do not follow the rule as stated by The Stationmaster. You can't have it both ways. If The Bigbee Line is correct then logically Mike's statement, "Facing point locks (FPLs) are required on all points over which passenger trains pass in the course of normal working - irrespective of line speed or classification", must be wrong. Unless there are other exceptions in the rules, which no one so far has quoted. You say " it is simply the case that it is not required to bolt the point when used for a non-passenger route". Is this true or your opinion? What evidence do you have to support this statement? I find it difficult to believe that not providing a second slot in the bar gave any cost savings as the rest of the mechanism would have to be non standard. I feel uneasy that such a lax application of rules is allowed in an industry I believed had safety as a priority. I look forward to some answers. Cheers Godders

Hi Bigbee Line, If the Stationmaster's statement is true and you have confirmed, Then that turnout is breaking the rules and your explanation cannot be right. This is because; Facing point locks (FPLs) are required on all points over which passenger trains pass in the course of normal working - irrespective of line speed or classification. It doesn't say over the route the train passes. Cheers Godders

Hi Bill, the Peco 60in rad turnout does not have a 12 degree frog. The crossing is a nominal 1 in 5.93 (RAM) which is 9.58 degrees but as it is curviform it's value changes. It is 12 degrees (1 in 4.7 RAM) at the end of the branch track, where it connects to other trackwork. This end of the branch track value is the same for the Small, Medium and Diamond/Slip. That is why with Peco Code 75 you can connect any turnout to another and still have parallel tracks. Cheers Godders

Hi Ron er! Ron er! Ron I'm glad we both agree, "Even though both are H0 and neither of them look like British track," The Tillig track has a few peculiarities; the timbers are aligned with neither the main nor the branch, the branch track is very curved, the point operating mechanism is just as unsightly as the Peco. "because of its other advantages over Peco Streamline"; but you don't mention any! "Possibly attempting some modification of the sleepers, if it's achievable."; so no different than Peco! The photograph certainly makes the Tillig look good but see photos of Peco modified by Andy Y and they also make Peco look very good. I am not championing Peco but it is certainly as good as Tillig. They are both compromises but the Peco point is around £10.50 the Tillig around £20.00 Cheers Godders

Hi Bill, Yes, you are correct, I missed the VAT element but was actually being very generous and trying not to over emphasise my argument with the markup. Cheers Godders.

Hi Mickey, they're not going to be better but different. There is nothing wrong with the quality of Peco track. It's the appearance that is the problem. But exactly the same materials would be used in improved looking track. Making turnouts with smaller flangeways doesn't cost any more. Making turnouts with wider spacing on the timbers doesn't cost more. As for the "more money" = better argument then buy your Peco turnouts from Gaugemaster not Hattons Sooner or later the current manufacturing equipment will need to be replaced through wear and tear so this would have to be done whether or not the design changes. The only things that could cause the costs to rise are new design costs for the manufacturing equipment. You can't compare the Bentley v VW argument and besides the Bentley isn't necessarily better than VW. For example a VW "Up" can park in a much smaller space than a Bentley. Is the VW better? Cheers Godders

Hi Colin, I'm not singling you out merely using your list as a basis of reply. Why are we mentioning paying a premium or an acceptable price. Nobody is expected to pay a premium for N gauge track or any other minority scale. The price the manufacturer will charge is down to the cost of manufacture, including development costs and profit margin. At this price, the retailer is still able to discount the goods. This shows the profit margins are fairly high. A quick look at Peco track prices from Hattons shows that the prices for 00/H0 and N gauge are roughly the same, whether it is Code 100/75 or 80/55. There is no premium involved. For a Peco Code 75 SL-188 Turnout Gaugemaster show an RP of £14.35 Gaugemaster price of £12.95 Hattons show a price of £10.50. If Hattons only make £1.00 profit Gaugemaster would make £3.45 profit and Peco £4.85. However Peco already have profit built into their wholesale price, let's be generous and say £1.00 again. This makes the cost of making each turnout £8.50. Nobody can tell me that the price needs to rise if there is so much meat in the profit and don't forget I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt on costs. I believe the manufacturing cost is more likely to be in the region of £5.00 than £10.00. About 3 years ago whilst at a major show I was talking to a director of a model railway importers who stated that it cost them more to ship a particular diesel loco than it did to manufacturer it. It is not our job to make profits for the manufacturers. Don't help manufacturers to raise prices by saying what you are prepared to pay because it becomes a self fulfilling act. And finally, you have to ask yourself also why anyone would use and pay so much extra for Tillig track as it looks even less like British track, than Peco and certainly is no better quality. Cheers Godders

Hi Dr Fritters, I have a scan of the Model Rail plan (in MS paint, .png format) but am reluctant to post it on here because I suppose it is copy right. However, I believe I can mail you a copy. Can someone clarify, I don't want the scourging flames of Andy Y on my back. Cheers Godders

Hi Martin, My mind couldn't conceive going down to such tight radii and short lengths. I shall try again but believe me it is purely academic. Hi Dr Fritters, Borchester Market is 13ft x 8ft, according to the Model Rail drawing, with a virtually empty 2ft section on the width for fiddle yard access. That is therefore 13ft x 10ft, remarkable, ain't it? Cheers Godders

Tony, I hope I haven't mislead you into thinking I was criticising the layout. Nothing could be further from the truth, I love it. There was a hidden agenda in my question, I have viewed it for hours, photographed it, read articles and seen track plans. However, I can't get my head around the track geometry. Using Templot, I have found it next to impossible to fit the layout into the space and it puzzles me greatly. I wish I could have bought it but I couldn't have given it the care that the present owners have. Note to Martin Long, keep away the railway is in Sussex and we don't want you "Northeners" coming down here and stealing our women, jobs, model railways... The Joint East & West Sussex Parliament is meeting (COBRA) to prevent acts of terrorism, so don't be surprised to find our border defences strengthened. Cheers Godders

I know that Borchester Market still exists, I've seen it several times but how inspirational was/is it? Has anyone copied it? Cheers Godders

This is not off topic. Is there a way in the forum to upload excel files and maintain the table formatting? TIA Godders

Oh dear, I really don't find ignorance funny. Particularly from one whose chosen country of residence is known for this particular culinary speciality. 1. Juicers don't just make fruit drinks. 2. The frog is not a reptile it is not a fruit, it is an amphibian. 3. We have no way of knowing if the frog was lonely, only that it was alone. Therefore: "A mono frog juicer" is a device to make juice from one amphibian. Shame on you Cheers Godders

There are also clips of it in a tv film called "a lineside look at model railways" presented by Bob Symes(-Schutzmann). It shows frank and his crew operating and shows why it was so good, the interlocking was discipline between operators, with orders from Frank. Cheers Godders

Bernard et al, now is not the time to give up, now is the time to rally round the flag. We need to find a champion or group of champions to follow up themes with existing and new manufacturers. While we all have an opinion on requirements and standards for new "British Looking" track there are contributors on here who are better placed in determining what is or is not practical. for example I think it is common knowledge that Martin Wynne is very "au fait" with track designs and standards. I am not suggesting that he should be the champion, heaven knows he has enough on his plate already. However, he may not be averse to an advisory position. I'm sure there must be other people on here who are very competent in various aspects, say injection moulding and able to look more objectively than the rest of us emotional lot. One thing comes immediately to mind, are Peco completely entrepreneurial with their new 0 gauge products or are they in contact with say the G0G, are Peco, Hornby, Bachmann insular or is it that nobody actually communicates with them. Godders

At the moment Joseph nothing has a bearing on costs because we don't know what we want. We first of all have to establish what we want then we can worry about how to make it. The most likely scenario is that an existing track maker will make it and they probably won't need our assistance in production techniques. There are a limited number of ways that rails and mouldings can be combined and unless some one can come up with a revolutionary way of doing it at zero cost it won't change. I would be interested in hearing why, "FB is probably easier and cheaper to achieve". One major advantage of BH over FB is the amount of metal, therefore the cost, is less and the profit more viable. Cheers Godders

How about a referendum and a petition to the various manufacturers. Godders

Hi John, I'm wondering why we are even discussing the minutiae of assembly. We haven't got consensus on any of the following yet; track type: Bullhead or Flatbottom, Rail profile: 75, 82 ...., Rail material; Steel, Hi Nickel, ;Pre-finished in rust coloured track or not, Track Standards: 00-Peco, DOGA commercial, DOGA FS, 00-SF..... preferred formats; A5, B6, C8...... Timbering, etc, etc, etc. I am sure there are many enterprising or even run of the mill production engineers who can advise on the best way to assemble components. On a political note perhaps our prayers have been answered on assembly costs. According to the government, from today, there are going to be millions of migrants clamouring for menial jobs......like assembling model railway turnouts?? or Perhaps we could force unemployed people to do community service.....like assembling model railway turnouts?? If they were young unemployed people we could encourage them to become railway modellers thus swelling our ranks. BTW does anyone know how to stop Bold and larger font highlighting my preferences. Cheers Godders