Bomag

Sorry, not the foggiest what you mean - the GW set number are 800 0xx and the LNER are 800 2xx. The Kato look to be doing 800 209 - is the GM set using the same 800 209 or another set?

Will these be the same set numbers as the standard KATO packs?

I see they think that ECML modellers are a bit more flush by charging and extra £10 per set .

Not if you are modelling blue grey cross country HSTs For ECML sets power cars, except for the first couple of years, were frequently changed and then stopped being allocated to sets at all. There was a good chance that a EC allocated powercar would have been on the end of sets from Heaton, Neville Hill or Bounds Green. Looking at the period '77 to '79 several ECML sets were stored which freed up powercars to try and keep the allocated powercars in their correct set (and even correct end) - with 'temporary' replacements where there was a failure and any 'fixed' powercars kept back until they could be slotted back in to the correct set. This is well before my time but I had a chat with a couple of people at Hudson House who were instrumental (as they said) in getting a general use policy for ECML powercars, with them added and removed as necessary (they needed more frequent maintainance than the coaches). This, along with the last batch of power allowed extended utilisation of the sets. It did help that depots had access to turntables or triangles to get the powercars the right way round. So unless you have some photographic evidence stick to Eastern prefixed sets

I think it was the review that made it more complicated, I would have thought that the article would have been reviewed beforehand for clarity. I will stick to the nice pictures until I get the model.

I have just found my photos of the last day of operation of theses branches on 30th September 1994 after 'loosing' them . Does anybody know, for my notes, which units were used on the last day on both branches?

Harmonised European Standards have Characteristics (e.g. end loading) and Classes (a specific end load value). So in terms of collision speed if the class was indicated at 22mph then it would have to be safe at up to 22mph. In terms of lateral deflection it would be up to the specifier to indicate a performance class relevant to their network. the question should be was the correct classes and characteristic specified in the IET procurement process. Given how bad the seat specification was I would not have high hopes.

A small number of sets were allocated to Craigentinny (e.g. 8/9 21-23 in 1986) but generally sets were regularly moved around ECML depots and less so between ECML/MML so by the early 80's, when power cars were not allocated to sets then everything seemed to have eastern prefixes. They may have had SC prefixed in the late 70's / early 80's but by the time the extra EC based cross county sets were formed in the early 1990's there were no regional prefixes.

Thanks, there is an implication that 'CV133' needs to be reset for each controller, which I think you clarified as being optional. Possibly the problem is that the article was written by somebody who seem to be very DCC orientated and may have pitched some points it above the knowledge of us lesser mortals.

Looking south across Laxey Bay to Fairy Cottage from Laxey Head. Minorca is just round the bend and the A2 is the other side of the field on the right hand edge of the photo. Approx grid ref SC 4480 8397

I see from J6/20 that we are getting them in batches and the process for delivery is convoluted. Quite frankly I have no idea how many and which ones I pre-ordered; presumably we will be e-mailed with instructions. specific to our orders. The review example looks like they have gone for the gun mettle grey wheels that Dapol liked to use. Still a cracking looking model. Also there is a guide on how to set the DCC settings for use on DC, unfortunately I have no idea what it means - I do hope it means that we won't have to wait until post-Covid to get somebody to fix it so we can run them.

There is a difference between psychometric and physiological testing; when looking at fatigue and distraction the former is not relevant. It is impossible to properly fake the latter as it involves involuntary aspects e.g. pupil dilatation and skin conductivity.

I see that Flood got the joke. Four years is not a brief period, it was twice as long as the period where there was a change of loco at Ipswich. Also your original post quoted Class 37s, which had been almost complete replaced by 47s in the early 1970's . There is a difference between an otherwise generally well informed error and wild speculation. In the case of WCML you obviously remember clearly back to the 1960's, perhaps that is when you had last use the GEML?

Cobblers. When the electrification reached Ipswich (Spring '85) trains were hauled by 86/2 to Ipswich and then 47/4 to Norwich. The wires reached Norwich in '87 when they went 86/2 only. Until late '90 trains were BFK/2FO/RBR/TSOs/BSO - mostly Mk2D except for some Mk2E FOs. Locos were released at both ends when the train departed and waited for the next train. 86/2 were maintained at Ilford originally so needed to be detached at Liverpool Street. The 1st DBSO arrived in late 1990 with the rest of them in 1991 along with several Mk2Fs from the LMR displaced by the Mk3 from the push pull sets. The sets lost the BFKs and BSO and the DBSO went on the county end (unlike on WCML); maintenance of the 86/2 had moved to crown point this arrangement allowed a loco swap in Norwich station without any additional shunting. The DVTs (and DBSO) allowed much greater stock utilisation (by about 10%) and loco utilisation (by about 20%), the first by speeding up turn around times and the latter by not having to have one loco stuck at the blocks until the train had left. I believe the Birmingham and Wolverhampton sets were done first (21 of the first 31 in service on 1/1/90 were allocated to Oxley) was that as the trips were shorter they had more turn-arrounds per diagram and would have the greatest benefit in terms of time saved. Also I believe that with the loco swaps for NWSW cross county trains loco storage at BNS was at premium and that Wolverhampton was not much better. All Mk3 DVT look to have been in service by the end of 1990. There may be footage of the DVTs being tested in late 89/90. There was a daily test run with two pairs of DVT (each pair back to back) with a loco in the middle of them; I think it was Willesden to Bletchley and back. The DVTs (and rebuilt DBSOs) used the same sockets as the E+G push pull sets but the control 'box' was different - while potentially more reliable it took a bit of time to get it to work. For instance the first rebuilt DBSO should have been at Crown Point in the summer of 1990 but arrive something like 3 months late and still had reliability issues.

4804 is a SO (AD201) not a TSO (AD204) - 2+1 seating vs 2+2 - so if the model is accurate the interior is wrong for 4288/4497. The outside otherwise looks OK for a BR1 fitted coach of the period.

Fatigue has both physiological and behaviour impact, you cannot reliably test many of the former e.g. eye tracking, heart rate, skin conductivity in 'live' test. It is also not ethical to test edge cases in live situations. Going from late (or nights) to earlies is a known issues for all shift work, not just on railways. However, some people are physiologically disadvantaged in being less able to adjust to shift work, or have a varying ability. This why a good organisation has an effective fatigue reporting system where line managers are trained (and supervised) to record fatigue as not a disciplinary issue but a management of risk issue. During lockdown some of our shift workers on safety critical roles have had nothing to do for half the shift and the reports of fatigue once they have been mobilised shot up; the critical thing is to record the circumstances properly. We know a lot more on fatigue than we did 20 years ago; most of the improvements were kicked off post 2001 Great Heck where the preliminary research showed how little evidence there was (whether for road or railway driving).

I will tell all my Human Factors colleagues that all that testing and simulator work is completely useless and to get out there and do it themselves until they crash! If I remember correctly there are five main physiological approaches to driving and individual may switch between them depending on various internal and external factors. You may be in a position where distraction is the main problem or fatigue. Outside the cities there is very little in Australia so fatigue is a major problem; music can help. What music will make worse is distraction (which is the major issue here).

I just got my pair and they have gone to the bother of producing a disk braked B4 bogie with the WSP cabling etc. . Pitty the IC Scotrail one has the set number on the end which limits its time period.

As one of my committees at BSI includes Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) system interaction with infrastructure both this and the one at NL with the 800/1 would have been mitigated with such a system. While it would have to be disabled for coupling, it would help minimise the impact of distraction. The TPWS setting at terminals increases the time taken to 'crawl' along some platforms - thus increase the time when a driver is waiting to make the late brake application. Whatever the rules, if there are concerns about children's health and well-being then staff are going to bend the rules - ignoring it is not going to end well; at least it was not as bad as the 1892 Thirsk crash.

Steel was in short supply so they had to delay construction of some of the larger locos, the second batch of 6MT/Clans never got built.

Modelling only half a coach as its symmetrical in one of the Hitachi crash models without an obvious assessment of the restraint conditions is a potentially basic error. When I took over the development of the assessment model of the Forth bridge in 95 I redid the support calculations in all six degrees of freedoms of the suspended spans for the same reason.

975325 was converted to a normal ETH generator at Heaton in 1968 (for the introduction of the Mk2a sets). It was not renumbered and converted to HST 3 phase until late 1973 If you look at allocation and usage of the prototype day coaches then 41000-41002 and 42000-42002 all have the same history until storage in December 1976. From photos of the stock in service they have standard ETH sockets not the 3 phase of the production run. Given that the train was seven coaches in the photos then it was not possible that both 42002 and 41002 were converted to 3 phase before 12/76

The last UK mainline steam loco design was 71000 Duke of Gloucester (Designed 1953), the 9F was designed in 1951.

The Prototype Mk3s would have been 3217 (11003) Lot 30833 and 3218-3220 Lot 30848 but never carried theses numbers and delivered 11003/11000/11001/11002. They were renumbered to 41xxx in September 74. For the TSO 12003 Lot 30832 was numbered M5805 in Derby LL works but renumbered to 12xxx before delivery. The rest 5806-5808 were only ever 12000-12002 (Lot 30847). Renumbering to 42xxx in September 74 10000 RUB Lot 30849 became 40000 TRUB and 10100 RUK Lot 30850 became TRUK 40500, both September 74. 10000 is listed as a RUB in some references and RSB in others. The prototype Mk3s were on test 2/73 and formally allocated new to NL May 73 for testing so the coaches are correct for May 73 (and perhaps Feb 73) to the middle of 74 (o/l to WR 1st June 74). I have no idea if 11001/12001 had run with an M regional prefix. They were seen in Wolverton works in July 75 for conversion. The only time I saw it was at Shildon 31/8/75 when it was 2*TF,TRUK, TS, TRB, 2*TS

47125 was to be 47666 in the final round of ETH conversions but they ended the program at 47665; either somebody with a supernatural phobia, or a physical issue?