Bomag

As implied above the presence of 2+9 ECML sets in the early 1980's was perhaps overstated. I believe that when first added the TGS was occasional added without removing the 'spare TS', this was short lived as they formed sets 033-042 with the removed TS (from early 1981 when the extra TFs were delivered from Lot 30947). By 1983 there were 11 sets left with TRSB/TRUK out of 49 ECML sets (18 of which were short formed); it was only with the conversion of the prototype Mk3s for TFs in 1982 and the delivery of the last TS (42341 from Lot 30983) in March 85 did all 48 sets get to 2+8. However, in the summer of 1983 (and presumably 1984) when ECML power car availability was low as they kept on cracking the exhausts etc they had spare sets so may have strengthened sets. If you the Harris DMU vol 4 book you can see the odd loans between ECML depots. The Yorkshire and TT Pullmans TRFK/TRFB sets were formed in late 1985 and were 2+8, the TRFK and Third TF (with Pullman logo for at least some of the time) moved between sets. Originally in IC Executive referb sets NL47 and HT05 and by 1988 Swallow livery NL22 and HT34. By then HT34 was officially 2+9 (3xTS) and I saw the YP as 2+9 with one of NL two spare TS. It was only after privatisation were enough TS released for GNER to go to 2+9 for all sets.

The problem with York - Scarborough is that for a lot of the year it could be worked as a two car shuttle but if the weather is nice on the coast the a large wodge of the West Riding want a through train with plenty of seats. Also before COVID not having come from Newcastle / Man Aiport its the best service for passengers in the core section (York/Leeds/Man) to use. I was told by somebody from TPE that for maintenance etc in the depot the 68 needed to be at the blocks in Scarborough and use Platform 1 or 2 (i.e. not in the train shed). While the could have got more 802s my understanding is that the 68+Mk5 has significantly cheaper lease cost, coupled with the lack of need for 125mph running and that 68s can out drag 802s on diesel up the hills then why get a more expensive solution. Presumably this is the same for the 397s, as a pure electric its more cost effective than a IET.

Given current traffic flows they have enough stock to run services without these. No point in wasting time in fixing them 'in service'. As for Scarborough it may help if they took more effort having the 68 at the right end (at the blocks). If all goes well there may be traffic to need the extra capacity over the Summer.

Fred If you are less interested in minutia of colours but in timescales then it is important to know that the move from C/C was partially due to the poor protection against rust it gave. Therefore there was some effort in repainting even recently outshopped C/C stock. Parkin's Mk1 book indicates that there was a significant reduction in the number of C/C Mk1 coaches by 1958 and that by 1960's it was rare to see one. This does not mean that there wasn't C/C coaches post 1960, but that most of them were pre-nationalisation designs with short expected life.

Nice photo with leaky steam heating and an XP64 second and third coach.

The RU's were 1926-1932 1934-1937 and 1939 (1927, 1930, 1931 and 1934 were later re-bogied with CW). They were all from Lot 30513 built Dec 1958 to early 1960 at BRCW. While 7 of the lot had the makeshift RU(B) modification only 1 got rebuilt as an RB(s) and all had gone by August 1981. By all accounts not the best built set of Mk1s. I don't have the dates for fitting bogies but it would have predated the availability of B4 bogies(1963/64). It probably predated the switch to CW bogies on new build (lots from early 1961) but given that there may have been limited CW available at the time it could have been a little later into 1961 and possibly 1962.

Not allowing 'exempt' people from having the same ability to browse as those wearing mask would likely be unlawful discrimination given the wording of the S.I. If you cannot maintain safety by providing space for people to keep 2m apart, irrespective of wearing masks, then your action to only do click and collect is perfectly correct. I cannot see why some would refuse to use some sort of hand sanitiser (they may want to use their own though) - as a Reduction measure rather than a Control measure its a much more reliable safety measure.

According to a few sources I have seen (including P5 combined) all engines on 800/801/802 are now rated at 940hp

The APT is returning to Glasgow and about to switch onto the down line. The driver would have to have changed ends - putting it on the curve would cause less problems than doing it on the up main, that's assuming up main (wrong line) to down main was signalled).

Which time period as it changed over time? This was due to changes in locos over time and changes/updates in the structural assessment.

It was withdrawn before the closure of the Leeds Northern Line in '67. I think it was renamed the White Rose Pullman in 1964 so it could be time it stopped running north of Leeds. If you want to run Pullmans with otherwise B/G services then its limited to Hull, Leeds and Newcastle services - with vac brakes and steam heated Mk1s and then with Mk2 a/c stock from 1971 one there enough dual braked, dual heated Pullmans.

According to Butlin 101 CCT lasted into 1986, 28 into 1987 and 18 into 1988. All 18 of these were withdrawn in July 1988 in Redstar livery. On 1st Jan 1990 there were still about 140 CCTs in departmental, internal user service or waiting cutting on the network.

Caradoc, your point reminds me of a comment from a fellow engineer in a European standards meeting about cultural imperialism relating to removing a safety based option from a Standard - 'we do it better so much better that other countries so they must be forced to adopt your way of doing it'. In addition there was a discussion about wanting to add requirements relating to safety which had no relevance to most of the rest of Europe - in that case a French requirement related to the mandatory use of product Classes to indicate speed limits where nearly everybody else explicitly signs the limit. As long as any Standard allows the UK to do what we think safe I have no problem if others, as a burning article of faith, think that we do is intrinsicly unsafe or unacceptable. I do have the benefit of being able identify at least one of the user safety metrics where we are safer than all other EEA countries. The lesson is if others don't agree with with your priorities , don't throw your toys out of your pram. Its not just drivers who have to deal with things that get hit, when I was in P/W design we regularly found bits of animals spread all over the place. Although if it was a sheep, cow etc the P/W maintenance crew had normally got there first.

Well in that case the only other LMR electrified station with that layout and footbridge is Guide Bridge (looking west).

The overheads and architecture, with the junction layout would suggest Nuneaton. Its been mucked about with quite a bit which hampers direct comparison.

Based on a discussion with one of the electrification team in 1990 (I was going through long section surveys) I think the NE to south curve was inclined in the wiring plans as up to then there was no possibility of doing a loco change on that curve whereas an electric loco had to be able to use the NE- NW curve post 1974 due to the location of the holding sidings. The majority of that discussion however was related to the most god forsaken locations to get to to do surveys. While Carstairs is in the middle of nowhere when travelling there by car we came to the conclusion that South Lynn Jct was the worst - although under the A47 the nearest foot access was nearly a mile away and during the walk you had to endure (for some of the year) the WMD which was the sugar beat factory.

Ashley Butlin's three books on EMU disposals (3xx, 4xx mainline and 4xx suburban) has permanent reformations included.

A none exhaustive list of B/G Motorail GUVs from P5 books. 93337, 93349, 93495, 93656 (NJV?), 93685? Once they got renumbered the livery data is a bit suspect. 96100, 96101 96103, 96104, 96110, 96111, 96130, 96131, 96133, 96134, 96136-152, 96154, 96155, 96157-96161, 96170-96172, 96175, 96176, 96185-96188, 96190-96194

For gravity structures, like arches, the weight of ballast is not an issue; in fact it is a potential benefit as live loading is going to be a lower percentage of total load. This reduces strain (movement) as trains travel over the bridges; for the same reason the impact on fatigue on structural members is less. Arches are however less efficient in terms of mass of the structure as a percentage of the capacity. Something more structurally refined e.g. Forth Bridge. is much closer to the limit state. For instance the dead weight of the cantilevers at each end of the bridge are not heavy enough to stay on the bearings when the design train was on the relevant suspended span, so there there is 900tons of kentlage in each end tower. If you had ballasted track instead of waybeams, the support caissons would be only just poking out the water.

The quarry is in the wrong position for Horton, not forgetting the waiting room is the wrong length there is no wall aligned with the face of the waiting room and Horton is in a cutting on the west side and there isn't one in the photo.

Horton has a hill behind it - Ribblehead is more likely.

I have to say the driving on the GW HST was being a bit limp on the video. Compare that to a ECML HST from Newark, Grantham or Stevenage leaving on full bung. However as others have said a turn of speed is nice to have - comfy seats essential. Missing out on a couple of trips to London every month being subjected to an Azuma is one of the things I am not missing with COVID.

HST 4500hp on 8 axles; 18.75t axle load 91 6300hp on 4 axles: 21t axle load. 800 (9 car) approx 6000hp on electric 4700hp diesel on 20 axles: 12.5t axle load. On electric a 800 out accelerates both HST and 91 up to about 100mph (as expected for distributed motive power) after which (from GPS) the 800 acceleration flattens out and dips below 91s. On diesel I don't have too many comparable tracks but it is nothing special. I had a pair of 800/2 diverted via Lincoln due to a jumper and comparable to a Sprinter it was slower to line speed (may be driving style)

Possibly the reverse working of the set at Teignmouth in the post on Feb 13th - by 1975 there were 4 RFO left.

The water tower looks more MR than NER. Also is it double track rather than a passing/round round loop.