TheSignalEngineer

3 hours ago, The Lurker said:

ION new next door neighbours (on the other side) are having an extension. we got the planning permission notice on Wednesday and two letters from different firms of solicitors offering us their Party Wall Agreement services. One says that the costs are "usually" paid by the person having the extension. But I do need to be pro-active or should I expect the next door neighbours and their architect/builder to be already doing this? Neighbours are so new that "good morning" is all I have said to them, on the one occasion I have actually seen them!

Tread carefully. Two doors down from our daughter the new occupants decided to build a basement. The next door conservatory decided it was too heavy and started to move. Has turned into a very acrimonious situation. I wonder why the bothered buying the house as knowing the ground conditions there I think they could end up with an underground swimming pool.

1 hour ago, Olive_Green1923 said:

There was actually a Bill in 1894 to extend the Padstow line to Newquay and Truro via a junction just south of Padstow. I’ve always thought the logical place would likely have been here, with the line going near St Issey and then via St Columb. The Bill was killed though thanks to a rival GWR Bill. Food for thought, though, for those who like to ponder the “what if’s” and whether the NCR could have been extended all the way to Truro to rival the GWR.

Somewhere in the dim and distant I did produce a scenario for a similar joint line to be built by the West Cornwall Railway and Bodmin & Wadebridge from Padstow through Wadebridge onto the Ruthernbridge Branch, Indian Queens for China Clay traffic and Newquay branch, then on to Truro (Newham) and a new deep water port at Falmouth. 

6 hours ago, stewartingram said:

Looks like a normal road in the Fens round here. We seem to manage quite well with them.

5 hours ago, uax6 said:

Aye, thats a good road for the Cambridgeshire fens.... Us in the Norfolk Fens have lovely smooth well maintained roads....😵

 

Andy G

Mam Tor Road is pretty good on a mountain bike, almost as good as some Red sections at trail centres. Navigating round that step by the dog walkers is a bit technical and one section near the top is getting a bit narrow to ride. If you misjudge that one the best bet is to try to fall towards the high ground and let the bike go over the side if you have to. Must take the GoPro next time I'm over that way.

1 minute ago, phil-b259 said:

Fortunately in the case of Mam Torr the road could simply be closed thus solving the issue

Didn't really solve the issue, just cut off that end of Castleton to all but light vehicles. Only way in and out is Wynatt's Pass. It pleased some high-ups in the National Park and National Trust as they no longer had lorries past their mansions 😉

51 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

In one sense that’s not a problem - adding more ballast to restore the profile is something that goes way back to the pre-grouping era and not simply a modern phenomenon 
 

However repeated topping up of the ballast does suggest the embankment had been slumping / sinking for quite a while and has long been in need of repair work.

 

 

A bit like the Mam Tor Road then. The council just kept levelling that up with more stone for about 50 years.

On 18/03/2024 at 19:25, Halvarras said:

Sadly too many of them were "noisy runners".

I had one that didn't need a chip to sound like a Mirlees diesel.

19 minutes ago, stewartingram said:

I am NOT speculating here, but it does make one wonder about what other standards they don't keep to, such as maintenance?

Weren't they operating Tangmere when it dropped a connecting onto the 3rd rail in 2014?

From personal experience I think they may have been running 46115 when it failed (middle con rod bearing?) at Eccles in 2010. I had gone out to film it departing from Manchester Victoria. While I was waiting I did get my reward of filming a 66 thrashing up through Miles Platting with a loaded  stone train. I later saw the railtour being pushed by the 47 on the back at Ordsall Lane.

Tyseley's exemption expires this year. 

This was their position I posted based on their press release at the time of the WCRC judgement.

Vintage Trains have agreed a CDL fitment programme with ORR and their stock now has retention tanks fitted. They are also fitting / reactivating air brakes on their stock.

3 hours ago, phil_sutters said:

This seems to be a current ad.

https://www.hamodels.net/red-panda-4mm-wagon-kits.html

I believe that Red Panda are now owned by Phoenix Precision Paints.

I bought a Red Panda wagon from the H&A stand at a show about 12 months ago so hopefully they are still be available as I need another chassis for a conversion job. 

8 hours ago, Butler Henderson said:

Even when proof read such errors may not get spotted as the author may read what they think they wrote not what is actaully on the screen.

And the spell checker is no use if you use the wrong word but spell it correctly

From a press report last week it looks as if WCRC has no intention of fitting CDL this year.

https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2024/03/west-coast-railways-submits-new-heritage-train-exemption-application.html

On 12/03/2024 at 09:44, LBRJ said:

There is also the point that everyone pretty much sees colours differently anyway, at least to some degree.

The colour rendition of my two eyes is not an exact match.

5 hours ago, Vistisen said:

Asset stripping? do you actually know what that means? I cannot think of anything Hornby has bought, only for it to be sold on to a new owner. That is the definition of asset stripping. If the owners of Hornby Airfix, Corgi, Scalextrics and so on, started selling chunks off to other companies then. The Hornby could be a victim of asset-stripping. But not guilty of it.

I was referring to the danger to Hornby.

I know exactly what asset stripping is, having been taken over by a large comglomorate which was in turn 'merged' with another one. They didn't know the product, didn't know the market and were only interested in getting their cut. They bought and sold companies or reorganised every few week it seemed. All turned nasty in the end as the share price crashed due to problems with deliveries on hi-tech projects. I understand they managed to find enough buyers for the various product divisions amongst competitors to pay off the debts and not go into liquidation.

Fortunately I had left long before that happened. 

3 minutes ago, Nova Scotian said:

Maybe not, but probably some worried looking faces at Hornby this morning.

If I were at Hornby I would be more worried at who was taking an interest in the company's shares.

Fortunately there's still life in the hobby, we haven't yet got to a category for Asset Stripper of the Year'.

A couple of examples from my past.

First at Langley Green Middle. It's low for sighting under the footbridge. The R/H doll used to carry the distant arm for Langley Green East. 

Off topic note:- Tin shed on left is Cox & Danks who cut up a few locos in the 1960s including some Kings.

Next a standard GWR bracket for the Up Through line at Leamington with Gallows Bracket extemside to the left foe the Up Platform. It hangs down for sighting under the canopy.

This was its replacement. IIRC the red aspects were 16'6" Above Rail Level

17 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Is that a greater clearance than the structure gauge?

The Requirements were a minefield of Must Do, Desirable, contradiction and getout clauses. The 'Desirable Standard'  structure gauge for steam and 3rd rail shown on the drawing  in the Requirements was 15 feet above the running rail.

Company loading gauges at the time of the 1928 Requirements varied between 13 feet and 13 feet 9 inches.

The standard clearance above loading gauge was shown in the text as 12 inches. In certain circunstances this could be reduced as low as 6 inches with special permission from the  Inspectorate.

I've just corrected the platform headroom to 8 feet as in the Requirements in 1928 and 1950. My memory let me down but it is about 30 years since I personally signed off the paperwork for one.

We did tend to design to have the bottom of the structure of a colour light at a bare minimum of 11 feet above rail rather than measuring from the platform. You would always get a clever b******** who would decide that rebuilding thesubstandard platform would after all be in the project the week after the signal had been installed.

One Inspecting Officer seemed very keen on what he called the Umberella Effect. That was a SPAD caused by a  driver not seeing a red aspect as a city gent was holding his open brolly in line of sight. 

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Would that headroom be measured to the bottom of the upper quadrant arm in the on position lower quadrant arm when off, and similar allowance for movement of the spectacle plate?

It is the clearance to any part if the structure, be it post, flitches, arms. If a lower quadrant arm is hung down from the roof or a gallows bracket it would be to the tip ofthe arm in the OFF position

29 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

Would that be above running rail or above third rail ?  🙄

Running rail. Third rail followed same rules as steam.

It also depends where they were located if they were outside the minimum required clearance from the side of the track they could be any height. We had one at Langley Green where you could virtually step onto the landing from ground level. 

Different rules applied if situated on the passenger areas of a platform. In this situation the required clearance was the whole structure to be at least 6 feet back from the platform edge and providing 8 feet 6 inches clear headroom above the platform surface.

Non-electrified lines loading gauge plus 12 inches was specified for steam traction at least as far back as the 1928 Requirements.  If possible electrification was to be considered it was 15 feet above rail level.

On 09/03/2024 at 22:42, St Enodoc said:

Bl00dy seagulls again.

Saltley men working up there?

Drainage outside the railway is an old problem.  The flooding at Walsall was usually caused by blockages of the culverts and bridges in the stream coming down from Ryecroft.

In the early days of Railtrack we were asked to lead an infrastructure condition survey with emphasis on the state of signalling. We took on board experienced ex BR Pway and bridge engineers to accompany us on site visits. 

When I presented the preliminary report to the client I was asked what I thought were the biggest risks to the reliability of the train service as far as the infrastructure was concerned. The Railtrack man was expecting me to point out deficiencies in the signalling but I chose two other risks. One was the number of bridge bashes particularly at two locations with a lot of HGV traffic where visibility was poor and signage needed to be better. The other was the amount of waterlogged cess areas due to lack of maintenance on cutting faces and draiinage.

One particular area was in Smethwick where there is a culverted stream above the railway which IIRC crosses under the cutting in a siphon. I found an historical incident during my research for possible causes. My draft note in the report was 

"It is possible that this comes from the lake in West Smethwick Park as this has been the cause of previous major flooding. In 1927 following heavy rain water overflowed from an undertrack culvert. It ran down the gradient (through Smethwick West) and round the curve to Galton Junction washing out the Stour Valley Line. It was estimated that 5000 tons of debris was washed into the canal.

LMS Birmingham to Wolverhampton rail services were suspended for four days but complete clearance of the canal took nine weeks."

I can't find my source document at the moment but I have a picture of the 1927 washout somewhere and how many hundred men it took to clear the line and replace the ballast during the four days of blockage.

Was Walsall No.3 the only signal box to be provided with a lifeboat service?

1 hour ago, figworthy said:

 

And cake, do not forget the cake.

 

Adrian

For many years we have always made a large (25cm diameter, 10cm deep including marzipan and icing) Christmas Cake in the family tradition of my grandmother and mother. They were designed to do at least 12 people on Christmas Day and Boxing Day, a few New Years Eve visitors, plus a bit for the milkman, baker, coalman etc. Unfortunately I'm the only one left who eats it, so I set myself a target of finishing it by Lady Day, 25th March. I'm doing well this year, only about 6 servings left.