Pandora

A Warning "Kittens should not pick fights with Cats"

Wimbledon to Point Pleasant Junction is shared 3rd outside and 4th rail centre conductor rail and the line was formerly BR worked/owned but transferred to The Underground, S.R slam door stock, used theline to gain access to Wimbledon depot, I believe SR slam door stock had to be switched to series only mode for the traction motors to avoid overloading the 750 Vdc supply.

Also at the bottom of the bank , the NR MOM office ( Mobile Operations Managers)

I recall eagerly buying a pair as soon as they arrived in the shops, £35 each, the first shipment released, later they went up to £39, I set one running on a circle of track at shunting speed and marvelled over the noiseless progress, I had to leave the house in a hurry and forgot to switch off the controller, returned several hours later to find the locomotive still happily crawling around the test track

A keystone of SLW is to provide museum quality traction for the P4 layout Mostyn representing the North Wales coast in BR blue era, the conclusion may be the 25 as the next development, Bachmann have possibly arrived at the same conclusion ,the recent announcement of a newly tooled class 25

We have a Victorian era railway, eg the cess is a dumping ground for materials and troughing routes and not the proper level paved footway with lighting for hours of darkness that H&S would require P-Way and S&T staff perform safety-critical maintenance, testing and calibration work on point machines and location cabinets by night using torchlight, there is electricity everywhere to power the equipment yet no provision for an S&T worker to plug in a decent lighting system Regarding train evacuation, if 100 passengers are evacuated to walk 800 yards on ballast,II estimate 10 or more would fall and have an injury on the way

There is a device known as the Dogbone or Stockbridge Damper used on overhead power lines to suppress unwanted oscillation of the line, ( the National Grid). Do they install such dampers on railway 25kV contact wires? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockbridge_damper

Is the loco one of the small number painted in two-tone green for the bodysides? http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/uploads/monthly_01_2018/post-18572-0-11641700-1516387840.jpg

Iinspiration for one of those Boxfile layouts?

Thee platform line will be divided up into several consecutive track circuits which "belong to" the entry signal, the working method you describe is known as permissive, the train has to pull up to the buffer stops to vacate suffficent track circuits to allow the entry signal to show a proceed aspect, the signal interlocking logic will therefore restrict the proceed aspect to show DANGER plus the subsidiary aspect of two dots or white lights, meaning to the Driver, proceed at caution at far as you can see is clear. if the train did not pull up to the stops and occupy too many track circuits, the signal would remain at DANGER and no more

I am trying to recall my lineside days as a youngster. I believe some long-term testing of push-pull used a 37 and some SR rolling stock, possibly an EMU, and the tests took place on the ECML, the train would sometimes be seen stabled at Garden Sidings Doncaster. The years would be late 1960's and there may be a connection of the trials to the Bournemouth electrification project. An apology in advance if my recollection is inaccurate.

From Old-maps.co.uk, the 1962 and 1970 1:1250 plans of York, the Wagons Works at North Junction show what must be the subject of the image and the plans use the typical symbol used by OS for a traverser. therefore I suggest it is not a wagon turntable into the building

The production fleet of Hymeks D7000 - D7100 total fleet of 101, why the eccentric fleet size of 101 and not 100? Did BR Western region intend to order another batch and if so how many? Post 326 states the D7101 series were to be re-geared, did Beyer trial a re-geared Hymek? D7100, was it the same gearing as the earlier members of the fleet?

Very nice model. Some extra details to add to the sense of dereliction could be railway apparatus such as abandoned /stripped out lineside location cabinets with the doors left open , a vandalised whistle board, a couple of smoke deflector troughs above the track into the bridge, limited clearance signs on the bridge parapet and a few muddy puddles on the cess. ps I thought the model was 4mm, then I noticed the coupling hook on the 04!

The modern day Hornby Dublo bareboards set up is Kato Unitrak in N gauge. Unitrak is a very good system, designed to be set up and taken down without damage. the track range is very comprehensive , the range goes far beyond plain ground level track, the system includes high level track including super elevation curves and transitions.

Here is an extract from "History of Paxman" Paxman did not stand up to BR and installed alloy block engines in the Claytons over the preferred cast steel block engines , the alloy blocks failed in service and were exchanged at considerable cost for the durable cast steel ones favoured by Paxman. Introduced in 1954, this was a horizontal or 'flat' 6 in-line cylinder engine. Evolved from the YH, it was essentially half (i.e. one bank) of a Vee 12 YH. The ZH was designed for British Railways primarily as an under-floor mounted power unit for railcars. Paxman was unsuccessful in persuading BR to adopt the engine for this application but large numbers of the pressure-charged version were supplied for the Class 17 'Clayton' Type 1 diesel-electric locomotive used mainly in the Scottish Region. The engines initially supplied to British Railways were of aluminium alloy construction. Cracking of the castings became a major problem and the engines were rebuilt by Paxman with cast-iron crankcases at great cost to the Company. John Cove, who worked for Paxman at the time, has told me that British Railways had previously tested the first pair of engines with aluminium crankcases before placing an order for a quantity. By that time Paxman had had some experiences with aluminium castings on the YHA and possibly also the YGA aircooled engine. Both types had experienced troubles with threads and failures in cast aluminium. John went on to say: "Consequently we suggested to BR that we supply the engines with cast iron crankcases from the start but BR were quite adamant that they wanted the engines to be exactly the same as the ones they had tested and which had given no trouble. We were so keen to get the order that we failed to stand up for what we believed was necessary and so supplied them in aluminium. But before long these engines in service had run longer hours than the test engines and troubles began to become apparent and we had to change all the crankcases to iron. The troubles then ceased but this would have been unnecessary if we had taken a stronger line before the order was placed."

They will not get rid of the driver, it would breach a fundamental principle, the principle of someone to blame when it all goes wrong!

Back to the Pilot scheme. The original idea was to operate in service small fleets of diesels, "the pilot scheme" , by a variety of manufacturers for a few years and then pick the best of the crop for volume purchase. This rational approach was sullied by the balance sheets of the railway dropping deep into the red at a frightening rate. Rapid modernisation and replacement of the steam fleet was seen as the answer to cut costs and win traffic back to the railway. Not all of the orders placed were for fully developed proven diesel locomotives.

You could raise a "Close Call" http://help.closecallsystem.co.uk/default.aspx

Let us look at the car manufacturing plant as an international benchmark to judge the British worker against others. The two biggest groups are VW/Audi and Toyota, each company manufactures 10 million cars per annum, Toyota employ 300,000, VW/Audi 650,000 both numbers worldwide. Toyota/Nissan/Honda were all happy to set up world class high-productivity manufacturing plants in the UK employing the much maligned lazy feckless British worker. Nissan Sunderland was noted for its high productivity, 100 cars per employee and low defect rate of the product. Given the correct management, training to do the job and modern working conditions, the British worker is a world class entity.

referring to the LNER diesel scheme of 1947, is it possible the LNER board had in mind a fleet of a 2000hp version of the Egyptian State Railways diesel with the very peculiar wheel arrangement possibly as a 1- A -Do -A - 1 ? note the end bogies have a pony wheel and what may be a a traction motored axle, the adhesive weight of the loco is 97 tons of 123 total tons indicating 6 driven axles and 2 pony axles

Kevin, please read these extracts: in effect, if the Raiway Executive had not intervened, a 25 strong LNER diesel fleet could have been the pilot scheme for express passenger dieselisation of British Railways-, referring to electrification of the ECML in stages, orders to erect the EM1 BoBo locos as a fleet of 70 locos erected in batches of 10, the 7 orders to erect were cancelled in November 1939, the fleet of EM2 CoCo passenger locos was originally 30 in size by Arthur Peppercorn, reduced to 7 with the signature of Freddie Harrison on the paperwork. perhaps the LNER intended the large fleet of EM2 and EM1 for the ECML as electification followed up dieselisation #1): "The Railway Executive declared its intention of completing the works which had already been started, but taking a fresh look at those authorised but not yet started, as well as others at various stages of planning in the New Works departments. Some of those that were shelved were of great importance. The Southern railway plans(for elimination of steam traction from all lines east of the Reading Portsmouth axis, with diesel traction on minor lines and branches) were put into abeyance for the time being. And the scheme that had been approved in outline by the Board of the LNER, for full conversion of the ECML EXPRESS PASSENGER SERVICES to diesel traction through the purchase of 25 large diesel electric locomotives was not merely shelved but consigned to the waste paper basket." Extract from "British Rail, the First 25 Years" by Michael Bonavia, Assist. to Miles Beevor, Acting Chief General Manager. Bonavia was in a position to know where the bodies were buried. #2): Extract of letter from Sir Cyril Hurcombe, Chairman British Transport Commission 13 April 1948 t0 Sir Eustace Missenden,Chairman Railway Executive. You will remember that in the summer of 1947 the Board of the LNER announced that they had prepared a scheme for the dieselisation of the Anglo-Scottish East Coast services, involving the construction of 25 single units in replacement of 32 “Pacific” type express passenger engines. Maintenance facilities were to be provided at London and Edinburgh, entirely separate from the steam locomitive facilities. The Commission would, I think, like to know whether it is the fact that this scheme has now been shelved and whether the Executive have come to conclusions which differ radically from those which were formed by the LNER Board last year. I cannot help feeling, however, that until a major scheme of the kind has been put into operation, we shall not have sufficient actual experience of the capabilities and costs of Diesel-electric traction in relation to steam and other forms of traction. From Gourvish. Letter was drafted by Bonavia. There was no reply until December 1948, when the Executive reported that a committee on Types of Motive Power had been set up. This did not report until October 1951, when it recommended a trial Main Line diesel-electrc scheme involving the provision of 100 locomotives of the 2,000hp class. The Commission waited in vain for the Executive to take any action.

Not only BR made the trip to the USA, the LNER sent their electrification engineer to look at USA dieselisation during WW2, the visit was made when travel was strictly controlled so strings were being pulled at high level. The case was for a fleet of LNER diesels to replace LNER pacifics, the trail went cold after WW2, quietly dropped leaving BR to complete Woodhead and Liverpool St electrification, source: Michael Bonavia

A reasonable interior, but not very inspired,and too much uniformity, too many hints of a "Premier Inn" which runs at 125 mph.

I am aware that a pantograph is an aerofoil and "flies or glides" through the air. Is the speed restriction with the pantograph raised required because of a problem of air turbulence between the train and bridge structure? Turbulent air flow which may cause damage to the pantograph or contact wire? Edit