class26

5 hours ago, Ken.W said:

Part of the major upgrade / re-modelling at Kings X, which will also bring the east bore of Gasworks Tunnel back into use, increasing the tracks into the station from 4 to 6.

Last weekend was advertised as a partial closure.

This weekend there's a full closure of the station, with no services south of Peterborough, and do not travel notices. Wonder how many will ignore that

Not just 4 to 6 tracks  into the station but speeds into and out of the station will be raised significantly and given the 800`s acceleration on electric should clip a couple minutes off schedules 

53 minutes ago, Flittersnoop said:

 

Could it be possible that the only reason the cost of HS2 is an issue is because £107 billion pounds is a truly huge sum of money? Putting that sort of money into the hands of an industry that of late is associated in the public mind with poor value for money, unreliable service, missed deadlines and cost overruns was bound to be controversial.

Yet it isn`t one years NHS budget !

7 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

The railways aren't a museum, nor a tourist attraction.  They are a means of moving people and goods around in an efficient manner, and the best way to ensure that continues long into the future is electrification.

 

The only thing that can be reasonably certain is at some point oil based fuels will get expensive, at which point the bi-modes become a lot less attractive.

And also let`s remember we are supposed to be moving away from fossil fuels as fast as possible , even if there are vast new discoveries of oil or it becomes very cheap. The stone age didn`t end because they ran out of stone, it ended because something better was found. We already have something better in electricity, just need to persuade HM government to get the knitting up 

7 hours ago, mdvle said:

 

I don't think most on here would agree that cancelling it is OK.  In fact I suspect most would rather more projects get done as the network as a whole is suffering from lack of spare capacity.

 

But we aren't the government, and if HS2 2b is cancelled then it will be because there was a lack of sufficient outrage to the trail balloon the government has floated.

Given the present governments recent success in the Midlands and north (election December 2019) I cannot see them just cancelling the HS2 eastern leg. They will need to offer something and that something may well be full electrification of the Midland main line to compensate. I hope I am not being too optimistic !

1 hour ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Fair question. I think it would need more sections to be upgraded to 225kph to make it worthwhile.

The European signalling system is gradually being rolled out over the ECML, the first section being as far as Stoke Bank. The most likely lengthy section for 140 mph is York - Darlington but that is some years away. My feelings are it is important to break to 125 barrier at some point as once it`s broken other sections will follow . i do appreciate that tallington - Stoike bank is only approx 20 miles but this is hardly likely to happen in one phase.

49 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

That would not surprise me. The eastern arm looks to have a much less sound economic case (cost benefit analysis) and also more controversial including as it does, demolition of a recently-built housing estate.

 

If more London - Edinburgh traffic can be accommodated on HS2 via Preston, there should be scope to upgrade the ECML to the original spec of 140mph (225 km/h) and provide more trains to Leeds and even Sheffield.

I agree . Recently I was wondering when (if ever ) we would see 140 mph on the ECML. The necessary in cab signalling is there now and the system is being rolled out as far as Stoke Bank initially fairly soon I gather. As long as track conditions permit I think the only thing stopping 140 mph is level crossing but there is a worthwhile stretch between Tallington and Stoke Bank without crossings (I think) where 140 mph could be permitted perhaps and maybe some south of Peterborough ? 

42 minutes ago, ess1uk said:

Thought Northern Powerhouse relied

on HS2 

The today programme on Radio 4 this morning said that the southern part of HS2 and the western phase 2 would be built but de scoped, whatever that is but the eastern arm NOT built. 

27 minutes ago, billbedford said:

 

Well...

 

If Carbon Neutral ever comes to pass we will be riding horses, or walking.

 

With that do?

Are horses like cows and emit methane ? Just asking !

On 13/10/2019 at 15:06, Pacific231G said:

I work in H0 so can't help much but there was a thread on OO track centres last year.

https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/131752-oo-gauge-double-track-centres/

Though it got a bit argumentative the actual numbers there should be valid.

 

I think the answer to your question is that, with bogie coaches of this length,  the minimum radius for using Streamline's double track separation without further widening is about 3 feet so for double track with radii of 505 and 572mm (R3 and R4) you would need to increase the separation by a few mm. The big railway also does this of course but with prototypical radii it's not very obvious (they also widen the track gauge by a small amount)  

 

Peco Streamline's geometry gives a 50mm centre-centre separation and this was the BRMSB standard for OO. For EM though the separation was 45mm for plain track and 50mm for sidings. Clearly it's the width of rolling stock not the track gauge that determines this separation but unfortunately the BRMSB standards say nothing about widening for curves.   However the European MOROP's, NEM 103 for clearances does give figures for widening on curves and in H0 a bogie vehicle the same length as a 64ft (BR Mk1) coach in OO falls into their longest "C "category of length for widening. Assuming that the BRMSB 45mm centre to centre separation for straight track gives adequate clearance for British loading gauge stock in 4mm scale then Peco Streamline's 50mm separation should be enough for curves down to 900mm radius (3 ft).  For the much tighter curves  of Radius 4 (572mm) and Radius 3 (505mm) the widening from 45mm would be about 10  mm  so you'd need to increase Peco Streamline's already wider separation by about 5mm.

 

I'd treat these numbers with some caution and allow a bit of wriggle room as the larger European loading gauge that the NEM's are based on is still smaller in H0 scale 1:87 than the smaller British loading gauge is in the larger 1:76.2 scale of  OO.  I don't think that would make a difference to the increase in separation required for the smaller curves but I could have missed something.  In any case it's probably worth making a simple gauge to check the separation and sacrificing a quarter circle of Setrack and a length of Streamline to build a test track before committing to major tracklaying*   

 

*Nobody will forget the fiasco in 2014 when SNCF based their specification for 1860 new trains for local services on the current standard dimensions for station platforms. It wasn't until the first trains were delivered that it was discovered that  1300 of the 8700 station platforms in France were built to a much older standard that the trains were too wide to fit. RFF (the then French equivalent of NR so responsible for the platforms) said that  "It's as if you have bought a Ferrari that you want to park in your garage, and you realise that your garage isn't exactly the right size to fit a Ferrari because you didn't have a Ferrari before. We discovered the problem a little late. " This choice of analogy does suggest that Britain isn't the only country where the pay of senior executives bears very little relationship to their competence. 

Out of interest what was the eventual outcome in France with the oversized trains ?  sounds as though DaFT has a branch in Paris !

1 minute ago, Richard E said:

Who mentioned Kings Lynn?

Apologies, misread ! I`ll try to delete my comment

54 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

I used to travel from Cambridge to Yorkshire or Derbyshire about once a month in the early 70s, and we used to go through Huntingdon, over the stone bridge, continue up the A604 (as it then was) and join the A1 at Norman Cross or Kate’s Cabin. The bridge certainly pre-dates the electrification of the Peterborough - Kings X Line in the 80s. 

deleted

On 07/12/2019 at 09:53, SweenyTod1 said:

Aberfeldy had one very similar, but the main difference is that the steps were on the other end. Those that have started/made the kit, is it possible to modify it to be "left handed"? It was also not as tall, but that would be easy to change. I have a project in mind based on Highland theme. so this cabin is on my shopping list, even if it can't be changed sensibly without major butchery!

 

Tod

I wanted to do exactly as you write about, turn it around so the door and ladder is on the opposite side as I am about to start a layout based on Forsinard . I even bought an additional kit to allow for my errors but have concluded that it isn`t realistically possible. That is unless anyone on here thinks differently? I have decided to just go with it as it is and accept the fact that the ladder is on the wrong side. its my layout anyway ! 

3 hours ago, lmsforever said:

Any new trains would have to tilt would they not  ?

No, they would not. Trans Pennine will operate their new Nova trains up to 125 mph without tilt on the northern half of the WCML any time now and Network Rail are actively investigating raising speeds to 125 mph without tilt in readiness for HS2 to avoid trains coming off HS2 being restricted to 110 mph. 

Does anyone know if these sets ever went up the Far North line from Dingwall ?

And sold. How much was it?

 

Roy

It was on at £290 which is, if memory serves me correctly exactly the same price as when bought new from SLW

Anybody up for a headcode version Derby built 24/1 (no Tablet catcher cut outs) D5114 to D5150?

 

Simply a case of pulling off the water tank, blanking the boiler roof air vent, highlighting the side intakes/vents silver to cover the Darlington built Class 25/1a's & b's, D5151 to D5175.

 

Removing the original Tampo printing for a renumber is easy on the nerves.

 

SLW-Class-24-140-Sm.jpg

 

If supplied in green with no yellow panel you could add your own yellow/fluorescant yellow/ orange and various combinations of both: small warning panel that was applied to a good few of the prototypes and could be seen up until the early 1970's.

 

Any takers?

 

P

Dissappointed it's neither a headcode box variant, or one with the discs centered on the centre doors, or in Blue with full under frame tanks......................next lot maybe................. ?

Yes but Phil did say there would be "something with a Scottish flavour" .........

SLW facebook page just updated.

We hope to have some news, including something with a Scottish flavour, in the next couple of weeks, hopefully just before the event... but for now, that is too many 'BIG' hints.

Hello everyone,

 

Has anyone got an older Heljan Class 27 in Br Blue for sale. It dos not  matter if its TOPS or pre-Tops.

Thanks,

Will.

 

(or the one in the image attached)

Hello Will,

I have a 27 for sale if you still want one. 

I asked....

 

And others have emailed Peco directly

 

Cheers,

Mick

I phoned Peco directly a few weeks ago about points and firstly the lady who answered said what I presume was the standard answer that they are gauging response to the track first and

I pointed out that the track wasn`t likely to sell until points were available to go with it and she said "we know that". You can draw your own conclusions from that.

HI,

As a fellow builder of Scottish layouts can I ask you a question about how you have fitted the snow ploughs ? I am about to fit the ploughs to a Heljan 26 but also want to fit kadees. Is it possible to fit both as if I am understand it correctly the Kadee uses the NEM box but so does the central part of the plough. Have you used Kadees ? If so how did you fit both ?

Many thanks in advance,

Nigel

Don`t you mean Nottingham 2011 ?