Willie Whizz

Quite possibly, in order to get him/herself taken seriously in negotiations with all those other departments and (potentially) self-important individuals, so as to be able to perform their job effectively. My wife’s own recent NHS experiences suggest that if some of these issues could be dealt with more promptly once a patient is on the point of being dischargeable, it would free-up a lot of much-needed ward space instead of keeping people hanging around unnecessarily for hours because one department won’t move themselves to communicate proactively with another.

I may have misunderstood but I understood your thinking had moved from c.1907 to the LNER period. The Mansfield Railway link wasn’t opened for passenger trains until 1917 so such trains wouldn’t be able to use that route southwards from Leeds.

I don’t know whether it helps, but in the late 20s and early 30s the LNER ran an express service of sorts from Leeds to Bournemouth via the ex-LDEC and Mansfield Railway routes and then on down the GC London Extension. The trains were quite short, and tended to mix LNER and SR stock. I believe it died, like much else in those times, from lack of patronage in the difficult period of the Great Depression - but if “Rule One” is already having to be invoked in other matters then here is a fig-leaf that may be useful.

Something that appealed to me many years ago when I heard it: “As thick as two short planks bolted together and glued”!

Bullied Tavern Car. Just sayin’ …

Hi Tony. Yes, some (at least) of the former Ian Kirk 4mm LNER coach kits are indeed available again, from H&A Models under the ‘ExKirk’ brand name (!!) and can be found on the H&A website.

That last paragraph is interesting. One of the "lightbulb moments" for me in the Brexit debate [which please let's not reopen!] was reading a newspaper column that pointed out the difference between the British (and descendents) and Continental European (heavily influenced by the Code Napoleon) legal systems. It suggested that in "their" approach, typically the fundamental official view is that whatever a citizen might want to do is not permitted unless the Legal Code says it is. In "our" approach whatever a citizen might want to do is permitted unless the Law says it isn't. Before anyone tells me, I don't doubt that is a considerable over-simplification; but it does seem to carry a ring of truth from what I know and have observed, and as such may go some way to explain that uncomfortable feeling some had of having being a cuckoo in another birds' nest.

Where’s your sense of adventure? Besides, what a way to go!

For those of us who have come to value comfort over speed, one could do a lot worse …

Political correctness always trumps historical accuracy. That’s why they’ve recently had to shelve a proposed monument to the Royal Navy’s work in suppressing the slave trade.

How sad. Brings to mind the old saying: if you think having lawyers to represent you in a court case is expensive, try not having them, and see what that will cost. In too many instances in this country, getting ‘your version’ of justice is the prerogative of those with deep pockets.

I haven’t been to the NRM for many years, but this discussion is familiar from other contexts. I think what the organisations AND their potential customers need to get their heads around is that these days it’s almost impossible to reconcile the two extremes. Which do you want? - A “railway-themed Visitor Experience” which will attract a wide (but shallow) audience, and at best hopefully stimulate some interest in learning more; OR - A “traditional-style Museum” which will be of interest and educational value to those who already have that desire and want to further it in greater depth, but who are likely to be uninterested and perhaps even put off by “interactive displays” aimed at the young and by attempts to show relevance to … shall we say, visitors with little or no knowledge or appreciation of British history and culture, whether railway-related or otherwise. I don’t think it’s easy, and sometimes may not even be possible, to cater for both. But from the organisational perspective, which is more likely to bring the greater number of ‘paying customers’ (including paying for the catering and its cross-subsidy of the exhibits), and which is more likely to be an acceptable to grant-giving organisations which themselves may have little direct interest in the subject, but do have - or a required to have - a ‘politically correct’ agenda? Sadly, it may become a choice between an NRM you don’t particularly like but can survive and thrive, or no NRM at all.

As diseasels go, that does have a certain air of distinction, granted. Just don’t let it become a habit please …

I do understand and sympathise with the sentiment, but (though still comparatively a newcomer) I had thought the main object of TNM was to be a forum where railway modellers could have a bit of a chunter about other stuff than railway modelling.

“In a Utopia, they would be under a legal obligation to broadcast no word (by either interviewer or interviewee) that was not demonstrably true.” Then the people of Utopia would move to other sources of news, because the verification process would take so long the “word” wouldn’t be “news” any more.