Bon Accord

Both 20s and prototype HST are bound for the Bo'ness and Kinneil Railway for this weekend's Summer Diesel Gala.

The loco on that tour (The Waverley Railtour) was 60528, not 60529 as on the photo. Having had a look at the Six Bells Junction site and cross referenced the timings therein with my June 65-April 66 ScR passenger timetable, there's nothing there which would fit the diesel hauled train, that is unless either the excursion or one of the timetabled trains was running 3-4 hours late. The inclusion of the Mark 1 suburban behind the type 4 is curious indeed.

I'm well aware of how modern ships are put together, having been the "owners rep" for a few in my time. The last two large merchant vessels built in the UK were for the MOD. Initially it was planned they be built in Germany with their sisters, however after much howling and screaming from the press, local MPs and the unions the order was switched to a certain famous UK shipyard. Being built for military work, it was seen to be important that they had a "Made in Britain" sticker on the side - for no real practical reason other than PR. The simple metal bashing part was done (badly) in the UK using imported steel, from Poland if memory serves. The internals, e.g. all the machinery, electronics, hydraulics and even the furniture all came from abroad - mostly from Germany. The build cost in the UK was some 25% more than the equivalent in Europe, with a scheduled delivery time which was twice as long and was even then late. The guarantee/snag list was so long that eventually patience was lost and the vessel removed to a repair yard abroad, where it then spent 6 weeks alongside with work ongoing 24/7 to enable the vessel to be fit to go to sea. Still, this needlessly expensive charade - with taxpayers money, remember - ticked a political box and allowed the MOD to boast they were "British built", thereby allowing them to dodge some awkward questions from the press. In contrast, a few years ago I was in Taranto Naval Base and was taken on a tour of CAVOUR (their new aircraft carrier) where one of the things that really stood out for me was just how much of that ship and her equipment is genuinely Italian - her officers were very proud of that. If CAF are serious about doing something of substance in the UK then all power to them, but the hard bitten cynic in me can't help but wonder otherwise.

Are you concerned that ISIS ne'er do wells may be monitoring RMweb and could then take a cue from a post and so work out what they could otherwise overhear in any pub in Plymouth/Portsmouth/Helensburgh/Fort Lauderdale/San Diego/Norfolk, read about in any defence blog or forum or indeed find out from Google?

My glass has a special coating which makes it fully resistant to all forms of jingoistic nonsense, whether it be generated at source or by individuals getting excited over what amounts to a sticker. The Trident II moneypits boats will be assembled at Barrow, as there is nowhere else that is politically acceptable. Considering the cheaper costs of manufacturing in Spain, I'd be very surprised if CAF aren't themselves making a token gesture which will in time be politically acceptable.

The Trident replacement project is exactly the same. They'll have a "Made in Britain" sticker on them, but most of the technology and materials will come from abroad.

It was exhibited at Model Rail Scotland this year. As to it's long term future on the exhibition circuit I can't say, however I'm sure a couple of the ScRSG boys are members of this site.

Something at low level - that being where the consequences of falling are minimal - can be dealt with as Mike says, but something as high as the signal gantry pictured earlier warrants the precautions mentioned previously. In most industries that is. The most recent WAH rescue course I attended was earlier this year (the previous was some years back) and every year the regulations get stricter. Quite simply it's because people are still being seriously injured, disabled and killed on a regular basis. Most of these incidents oddly do not occur in situations of extreme height/difficulty as they are invariably strictly controlled and well planned tasks, but at lower/moderate heights when undertaking mundane and routine tasks. Climbing 15 feet or so to a signal bracket to attend to a lamp, wire etc is a textbook example of the kind of low level/routine/mundane task which is statistically far more likely to cause injury or worse. With my present employer it is mandatory that all individuals who may have cause to work at height must attend a WAH awareness and rescue course which is then refreshed every 5 years. Working at height is not permitted to take place unless a minimum of three WAH rescue trained individuals are available (not necessarily on scene, but available at a few minutes notice) to act as a rescue team. For that, all locations have dedicated WAH rescue equipment which would be used in such an instance. We never have any problems making the numbers up as it is a mandatory course for everyone in the respective departments. This is far from being a unique situation within our company, but is particularly widespread. On my most recent course were quite a range of backgrounds, e.g. blokes from oil rigs, specialist window cleaners, council electricians (street lamps etc).

Simply thus: you're walking along, trip, then fall and strike your unprotected head on a solid object (e.g. cable trunk, rail etc) and you're out cold, or worse. Of course for that to be an effective safeguard you should be wearing your multi-point chinstrap with your hard hat/helmet at all times. This is standard practice with many employers in many different industries where there is a possibility of a trip hazard.

No, the decision not to wear a safety harness is not acceptable on any occasion. If in doubt, send that photo and your query to the HSE and ask for their advice. I think you'll find that WAH regulations and best practice state that if a suitable securing point for a harness is not available then one should be fitted, it should then be certified and tested annually by a competent authority with a stamp/serial number adjacent to the strong point in question to reference the certificate. There should also be a clearly defined and documented rescue plan with nominated (and suitably trained) rescuers should a person at height get into difficulty. The WAH training courses tend to state that if an individual cannot be safely rescued by suitably trained and equipped individuals within 10 minutes then the task should be left to the emergency services. Today, working at height means any point at which you leave the ground, there is no defined minimum height, or at least there shouldn't be in any SMS that reflects modern regulations and best practice. In short, unless you have a suitable strongpoint+harness+standby man+other appropriate PPE+rescue plan then no working at height is permitted. Doing it any other way these days leaves both companies and individuals wide open to criminal prosecution under H&S laws as well as litigation in the event of an accident, that's before we even touch on what individual safety management systems state as being company approved practice and the internal consequences of failing to follow them. This is the way of the world in 2016 like it or not. I say all of the above with the qualification of having (in the past) quite happily climbed ships masts of heights that are many multiples of that signal in all kinds of terrible weather, often lugging tools and with no PPE whatsoever and on the odd occasion with a drink in me. That may be how we did things then, but it isn't how it's done now - for good reason.

How about Bervie (Inverbervie post 1920s)?

Solari boards weren't they?

Off the top of my head: One ex GNR single dial non pegging block instrument. One double dial LNER block instrument. 3 x BR(E) - LNER design - loco headlamps. Two restored and one in original filthy ex loco condition. 2 x BR(M) - LMS design - loco headlamps. 1 x BR(E) gauge glass lamp. 1 x BR standard tail lamp (procured unused and still wrapped in it's BR Enparts brown paper). 2 x BR guards van side lamps. (1 of as above, brand new) 1 x BR(Sc) guards handlamp (issued to my paternal Grandfather) 1 x LNER guards handlamp (issued to my maternal Grandfather) 1 x BR electric tail lamp (original design). 1 x BR/NR electric tail lamp (modern design). 1 x BR issue Bardic, issued to my maternal Grandfather just prior to retiral in the late 60s. Various LNER/BR rulebooks, notebooks and other such material which came from both Grandfather There's also a couple of cardboard boxes of various railway stuff at my mothers house which I've yet to delve through. Most of the men in my family either joined the railway or went to sea, a few - including my paternal Grandfather - did both, hence most of the "collection". I've got even more nautical bits and pieces, including furniture from various long time broken up ships.

It's worth noting that 37025 has an operational steam heat boiler. Have any other loco's ran on the mainline with one since steam heat finished in the mid 80's?

At the time of the first diesel charter, I seem to recall a group of steam enthusiasts offered to cover the costs/revenue from it so that it wouldn't run, but which was run anyway which to many seemed like a point was being made. I'm sorry, but since the railway's stance has changed the Bluebell is no longer the unique line it once was.

The no diesel policy was one of it's most endearing features. Alas it seemed like the Diesel fraternity seemed to go all out to want to break that policy just because they could rather than because it was specifically needed in the permanent sense.