Bomag

The have been talking about reopening to Tavistock for commuters and the link between there and Meldon as a long term replacement/supplement for the GW line at Dawlish but I cannot think that reopening the branches will be a goer - the branch to Newquay only just survives.

Try http://www.sixbellsjunction.co.uk/ It has probably the most comprehensive (but not perfect) list of all railtours and includes locos, stock and timinigs where available.

And anybody else covered by the TM Act e.g. Traffic Officers; however, FR/WHR staff won't be covered - I hope they have sufficient insurance.

The W&S DVT only runs with Cl 67s. The I/C DVT will run with any TDM fitted electric vis 86/1, 86/2, 86/4, 87, 90/0 I think the Cl89 may have run with one. Also Cl 91 and Cl 92 could be controlled by it. Also you could have most ETH desiels of the late 80's to mid 90's dragging on diversions.

This issue of secondary income was mentioned in a previous post in the thread; also mentioned before (with a degree of agreement) was if there had not been the previous mutual distrust etc the railway could have been run into the WHHR station on a profits sharing system, i.e. WHR would have had a share of the catering and shop profits in recognition of bringing punters in the door - as it is Pont Coesor is hardly a marketing and catering mecca. For the avoidance of doubt I did not return to repeating the original point of the thread as you suggest; my suggestion was the WHR to run on the WHHR until Harbour station is fit for purpose. The argument about abstraction and sales loss is currently rather circular - if you cannot run a full service until the bypass is finished and Harbour station areas is clear for development (and the level crossing can be used without the town coming to even more of a halt) then the throughput of WHR passengers to the shop and cafe at Harbour station is going to be low over the next few years, particularly if the service pattern favours journeys starting from the North.

Peter this not aimed at you - Here's a thought, instead of pitherering around with limited tack layouts, insufficient capacity and the inability to have a robust timetable (to cope with lateness), something which is not just 'happened' but must have been foreseeable for years, would is not have been a better option to run most of the service trains into the WHHR station until Harbour station is sorted out? Given that the work on Pont Croesor station could equally been spent on signalling WHHR we could have had a full service for 2010. If the widening of the Cob needs some of the current highway, work can't really start until the bypass is open! Irrespective of the WHHR proposal to run to PC, any train service which gives a convenient service from Portmadog to Beddgelert is likely to be attractive to more tourists than the current four hour long round trip on WHR (or a short trip to PC). The £1m question is - are enough extra passengers going to be attracted to take into account the reduction in £30 full line tickets?

The £100m question when the rebuilding was a serious proposition was will tourists go from Beddgelert or to the village. AFAIR the majority view was that if the trains were to go from Harbour station (i.e. limited parking) then it was likely to generate traffic from Beddgelert to Porthmadoc. Personally I would have seen the railway as a opportunity to remove most parking in the village and have a park and ride. The upshot of all this is that no signs were to be installed in Beddgelert which could increase the number of people wanting to park. Presumably the assumption is that if you have walk from the station to the village you can find your way back. Given the original point of the thread, stopping the 64co running on the basis of abstraction, having too many trains for Beddgelert from the south is likely to have the same effect. Running the service from Dinas could be an issue; given the current off peak service there would not be the opportunity to do a round trip from Porthmadog. Even in peak season there would only be a single a.m. departure (diesel). I had assumed that when the numbers were crunched the figures would still be OK when the route was completed and the flows would even out from whole journeys North to South to a variety of flows from both directions.

I used to commute at the weekends Leeds to Peterborough or KX at the time and the acceleration of cl91+HST was better than anything before, or since. The SB departure from Grantham was particularly good compared. The only problem was that the ride SB in the TGS was a bit rough up to about 20mph. Regularly KX to Peterborough was 40 min start pass and 42 start stop. The record for KX to Grantham was just over 56 min start stop, however this was before TPWS and the over speed protector was allegedly desensitised on the Cl 91 + HST to stop them tripping out.

Captain K You assume that immature is the same as not competent. It does not necessarily follow - there are plenty of organisation who have what one could call 'behaviour traits' but can still effectively put one brick on top of another. Given that a significant amount of the cash was in grants and it was run by professionals (whether paid or not) , who would likely have worked on the scheme whoever was 'running it', then the WHHR would have got in a similar position to the FR i.e. not quite finished. If fact with the WHHR you would have probably been able to get from Porthmadog to Beddgelert by train by now

I model the complete railway I don't model individual vehicles (which is why I model in N gauge). If I buy a kit I expect to have to do the work. If I buy RTR I expect it to be complete.

It's the ETH jumper socket. The coach will have a cable similar to the one on the RHS of the loco which plugs into it. I haven't put any parts on yet but I too made the same assumption. Given the limited swing of the bogie I cannot see why it could not have been moulded. But then I think that a RTR loco should have the nameplates fitted, something Dapol disagrees with!

I am fully aware of the contribution a significant number of preserved railways have on their own areas. The number of grants to the movement, including the WHR, to improve tourist potential are indicators of this. While the operation of a number of the bigger railways is on commercial lines, apart from a couple, the aim of the organisation is railway preservation not profit. I had not realised the new WHR was now in the latter category. I think you miss my point that if the FR had historically better relations with the WH64 etc then there would be no differentiation between revenue to WHHR and revenue to FR. The money would have gone to a single railway supported by, and for the benefit of, both societies. The last I heard the Cambrian trust/society have made up why can not WHR/FR?

If you think this issue is purely related to the interpretation of a single bit of paper from 1998 then you really don't know what you are talking about. This problem was caused by the historical animosity, or just dislike, of the the WH64 group (and successors) by some in the FR set-up - not helped by a reciprocal feeling in some. In most other inter-society disputes this has petered our as the 'awkward squad' has moved on. Unless somebody can show me the figures I cannot see how the rebuilding the WHR into Harbour station is value for money. Given the constraints on Harbour station, the WHHR station next to the NR station is the more cost effective solution as well as being potentially more accessible. I have seen nothing which would alter my suspicions that the choice was not made on economics alone - and I don't mean the historic justification for choosing harbour station. It may be different if there was going to be significant through running. As per the starting to run trains to harbour station before the bypass is complete, I can just go on a number of previous comments in print and other postings. While these could have been wild speculation or a convenient issue to justify the delay there did seem to be quite a few of them. Having spent many a happy hour in the last 35 years trying to get into, or out of Portmadoc on the A470, I don't think running through trains its going to be make it easier!

Most of this cost could be saved by running into the WHHR station at Porthmadog Quite frankly I would rather be travelling from Pothmadog along the WHR than discussing inter-society politics. It's not just the FR/WHR railway feeling the pinch it seems WAG roads budget is going to be squeezed. It could be that after the prelim work for the bypass is finished the actual construction could be re-phased to later in the contract period (which could be 2014-2016). Given that a lot of discussion has taken place about having to reduce traffic flows on the A470 outside harbour station before timetabled running is permitted it may be that there is plenty of time to find the funds for the final improvements.

Although there have been some changes, the railway to Traeth Mawr is as the WHP built it and is effectively fit for passenger use, or at least being brought into use with little effort and certainly less effort than the FR/WH have spent setting up both temporary termini the level crossing. The argument with the Welsh NWTR agency has depleted resources (and may have effected the timetable for the Pont Croesor LC work ) but given the history of the WH64/FR I would believe a suggestion that FR was seeing this as an opportunity to exclude them. Does anybody know the progress of the Porthmadoc bypass? There was a tree plating exercise in January but completion of the D&B contract is shown as being 2016. Given the economic pressures and the road schemes already cut or delayed it may be some time before the cross town route can be used for passengers.

I can't say I am surprised. I can remember a meeting in Portmadoc in the mid 70's where the FR was refusing some help from the WH64co on the deviation (the new tunnel was still being excavated) just because it was the WH64co. In a lot of peoples eyes the FR was very underhand with their WH proposals but I though that it was mostly resolved; although I was suspicious of routing the new WH on the very expensive route through town as opposed to the cheap option of going to the WH64co station. The fact that we are going to have to wait two+ years with trains running short of Harbour station when they had resources to upgrade the run-round at the existing WH Porthmadog station (they have built two temporary station with run-rounds since then) just finished it off. The above doesn't absolve the WH64co from all blame, but quite frankly the FR should grow up.

In 1937 it would have been the Albert medal (Gold/Bronze) or the CGM. A quick google does not produce anything obvious.

I just received my IC 86 - nice loco but looks bereft without name plates. Does anybody know who does 'Lancashire Witch' nameplates? It was bad enough with the Cl 67s having put the nameplates on yourself but at least they were provided!

You could use a powered 86 with a dummy 67 or 66. That's what I got my unpowered 67 for.

In February 1987 I used one of the student flat rate saver deals to do the whole Euston to Inverness trip one Saturday. I cannot read the date in my notebooks but it was just after a gale and the train was diverted via Northampton and Bescot as the wires were down. We were so late that the stock split was undertaken at Motherwell - the southbound stock had already arrived. The 47/4 (probably 593 Galloway Princess) was swapped at the station rather than at Mossend. The rear portion was going straight back to Euston - Glasgow passengers had to use the local service! After attaching the RMB at Perth and an extend wait at Kingcraig we were cutting it close for the SB sleeper (when we had Saturday night sleepers) - luckily we had the rostered guard and driver of sleeper! Does anybody know if the BFOs were delivered in Executive or Swallow livery?