John Isherwood

I joined local government engineering in 1971 and, until 1984 we - (myself, wife and two children) - never owned a motor vehicle. All local travel, professional and leisure, was undertaken by pedal-cycle in a busy city with probably the highest cycle-use in the UK. At the time of our arrival, that city had zero cycle facilities. Over the subsequent forty years our engineering team - the majority of whom were cycle-users - developed cycling and shared-use facilities which were way ahead of practice elsewhere. Indeed, the DoT authorised special experimental regulations to enable us to 'push the envelope'. Visiting parties of highway professionals regularly came to see what we were doing - from within the UK and the rest of the world. So, I think that I can reassure you that we professionals - at least within my team - had a more than adequate understanding of the needs of cyclists for a safe environment; along with a clear impression of the prejudices of some cyclists (and their pressure groups) against any facility that does not provide for maximum convenience for cyclists, regardless of inconvenience and compromise of safety amongst other road-users. This may be unpalatable - but it is fact. Regards, John Isherwood.

Kevin, I don't think that I have stated that I or my former colleagues ever exercised a policy of 'equality of right to use'; please correct me if you can point me to that error. Our policy was of equality of right to consideration; and in the case of the most vulnerable road-users, the right to safety often implies physical separation - if our confined roads so permit. Unfortunately, there is a sector of cyclists which equates physical separation with second-class road user status, and which refuses to use anything but the main carriageway, despite there existing a quality off-carriageway alternative. They demand that all other traffic on the main carriageway should conform to restrictions which maximise the ability of cyclists to travel, head down, at maximum speed with little or no regard for their own, or anyone else's safety. That sector is viewed in my former profession as arrogant, and as being as inconsiderate of other road users as motorists who drive with no regard for the safety of cyclists. There will always be those, in any sector of road-use, who demand optimum conditions for their chosen mode of travel, with zero compromises on their part. Regards, John Isherwood.

That may (or may not) be so - but it is incontestible that ANY form of concurrent activity whilst driving is detrimental to concentration. I, (and I suspect many more drivers than you give credit for), try and make absolute minimal communication with other occupants of a vehicle that I am driving. That desire to concentrate extends to not using in-car entertainment - all of my cars have been sold after extended use with brand-new entertainment systems. Each to their own. Regards, John Isherwood.

I respectfully decline to agree with a 'professional cyclist'. I am, still, a professional highway engineer, and I would submit that I have a better understanding of the safety needs of all road users than someone with vested interests. Regards, John Isherwood.

Please point me to where I stated that "4 bikes is the same as 4 Smart cars". What I did say was "... taking your logic as OK, it is presumably fine for two Smart cars to 'double-up' because they occupy no more width than an HGV? ... or for six - arranged 3 x 2 - to proceed along the highway as they occupy far less space than an HGV". The point - to spell it out - is that just because a vehicle is narrower than another, does not entitle the narrow vehicle to 'double-up' in order to occupy the same width of carriageway as a wider vehicle. Why this idiotic notion is espoused by so many cyclists - especially the more vehement obsessives - is beyond reason; in fact, "... total idiocy ..." as you put it !! You see, you did get my point - it just took a while. Regards, John Isherwood.

Is that the best that you can do? I was hoping for a reasoned, logical rebuttal; not a petulant insult. I have a career's worth of empirical knowledge of the development of shared-use highway facilities in cities and in rural areas. With my colleagues, we studied best practice; the behaviour of all categories road users; and applied them to the particular circumstances that applied at a particular location. We developed facilities, networks and signage which are now used as prescribed methods nationally. We did NOT start from the stand-point that any road-user had a right to priority of consideration over any other; (though it has to be said that a certain body of cyclists now seem to think that their 'green credentials' entitle them to priority wherever they go). Cyclists frequently pointed us at the example of Holland - spacious cycle tracks, physically separated from carriageways and footways, with priority over pretty much everything, we were told! Britain is NOT Holland - or any other European country whose road network was pretty much obliterated in WW2, or whose population density is a fraction of ours. We have inherited a Romano / Medieval road system thath has been built around and confined by centuries of settlement; only the latter part of which has known heavy motor traffic. Trying to combine pedestrian, equestrian, pedal-cycle and motor traffic in a confined space, giving equal consideration to the needs of each group, is a constant juggling exercise and, in the end, will please no-one. Add to that constant change in the political priorities of the powers-that-be, and you are on a hiding-to-nothing. Despite all of the challenges, I enjoyed my time in local government highway engineering, and was rightly proud when we - very occasionally - gained accolades from one or other of the parties involved. Nonetheless, forty years was enough for me, and I rarely comment publicly on that time. Now and again, though, certain posts that reek of self-interest and disregard for others will wake me from my slumber, and prompt me to inject personal professional knowledge where only prejudice is evident. Regards, John Isherwood.

Surely it's unreasonable to ask Lee to divulge what is effectively valuable trade knowledge? Asking a fellow modeller to tell all is one thing - asking a trader to tell all and sundry how he makes money is entirely another matter. Regards, John Isherwood.

Let's just be clear - this is a retired cyclways officer posting, of many years' experience, from one of the most heavily-cycled cities in the UK. Right - taking your logic as OK, it is presumably fine for two Smart cars to 'double-up' because they occupy no more width than an HGV? ... or for six - arranged 3 x 2 - to proceed along the highway as they occupy far less space than an HGV? Such assertions are clearly fatuous - no vehicle on a public haighway should travel alongside another unless it is overtaking - end of story, no buts. Frankly, whilst I have all the time in the world for individual cyclists going about their daily business, the current fad for lycra-clad mobs travelling en-masse on the public highway is an absolute menace to road safety. Why should cyclists think that it is fine to race and undertake time trials on the public highway, when any other class of road-user (except runners / walkers) would be taken to task and probably, rightly, be prosecuted? The public highway is no place for competitive events of ANY kind - unless the authorities in their wisdom(?) have closed the highways affected to all other traffic. If I go out on a Friday night and plaster street furmiture with "GIANT FURNITURE SALE!" signs, I can be prosecuted. If the organisers of a race or time trial go out and plaster street furniture with " BEWARE RUNNERS" or "BEWARE CYCLES" signs, that is apparently fine. The public highway network is for everyones' use in getting from A to B; it's not a running arena or a velodrome. Those who have the urge to outrun / out-cycle their fellow obsessives should do it on private land, and not endanger themselves and others by abusing the highway network. Regards, John Isherwood.

Why DO cyclists 'double-up'? No other road-users would dream of doing it - with the possible exception of horse-riders. I just don't understand why cyclists feel that they are somehow exceptions to the single file in one lane practice. The carriageway of a public highway is no place for idle chit-chat - 100% attention is needed. Regards, John Isherwood.

Regards, John Isherwood.

This one will run and run !! I spent 40 years at Cambridge City Council - much of that as their cycleways officer. We pioneered much of what is now accepted as best practice in cycleway provision in the UK - but the debate about which road users are the 'villains' was ongoing throughout the 40 years - and it shows no sign of reaching any conclusion. The basic problem - the lack of consideration shown by ANY road user when he / she is stressed. There's no cure for that !! Regards, John Isherwood.

That's a bit peculiar - but then so are a few of Sutton's trading practices. Effectively they're saying that only customers who have purchased previous models can influence future production. What about the potential customer who had no use for their previous model(s), but would definitely purchase one of their proposed subjects? Just saying ........ Regards, John Isherwood.

I think that you'd find that, if push came to shove, 'squishing' UK coins would be interpreted as 'broken up' - as would any action that rendered them illegible or incapable of use / unacceptable as legal tender. Regards, John Isherwood.

Larry, I know that it is asking a lot, given your current circumstances, but is there ANY possibility that you could at sometime have your paint patterns analysed on one of those optical shade identifying machines that car factors use to match paint? A published list of colour codes for railway paints would be invaluable - any car factor could then supply rattle cans filled with paint to match your paint patterns. In due course, do you think that this might be a possibility? Regards, John Isherwood.

Because Dapol maximise the potential of existing tooling, with no regard for accuracy whatsoever. They manage to sell them to those with little prototype knowledge - so who (at Dapol) cares? Regards, John Isherwood.

'Fraid not. DW = departmental ex-GWR wagon DS = departmental ex-SR wagon DM = departmental ex-LMS wagon DE = departmental ex-LNER wagon DP = departmental ex-PO wagon DB = departmental BR wagon Regards, John Isherwood.

I can't find the model via Google. A few observations :- i] BR painted its departmental wagons black with straw yellow lettering; ii] the ADR-prefix was not used in the 1950s (or 60s?); iii] a 7-plank wagon would most likely be ex-PO - in which case it would have a DP-prefix number. I would love to be proved wrong, but I strongly doubt that this model has any more authenticity than a four pound note. Regards, John Isherwood.

A photo would help with identification but, in the absence of such, I'd put money on it being yet another Dapol flight of fancy !! Regards, John Isherwood.

Not in the UK it wouldn't be !! https://www.royalmint.com/help/coinage-faqs/destroying-coinage/ Regards, John Isherwood.

Larry, I am dubious about the quoted Halfords Rover Brooklands Green - principally as it it is also quoted for other matches that I would not agree as being the same - or even similar - in the prototype. See my PM for my preferred option. Regards, John.

Larry, I can't fulfil the specifics of you enquiry, but I do keep and update a copy of a list that was posted several years ago; I cannot personally vouch for the accuracy of most of the matches - but it's a start. Regards, John Isherwood. CAR SPRAY PAINT MATCHES CR steam loco Peugeot Royal Blue CR dark blue Rover Midnight Blue LBSCR Stroudley ochre BMC Tan LBSCR umber Vauxhall Brazil Brown LNWR coach plum lower panels Daewoo Dark Red LNWR coach bluey-white upper panels Daewoo Casablanca White LYR coach upper panels Plastikote Nut Brown LYR coach plum lower panels Daewoo Dark Red MR red Rover Damask Red, Vauxhall Burgundy Red, Ford Burgundy Red, Triumph Damson NSR maroon Vauxhall Gambia Red NER coach red Vauxhall Gambia Red SDJR blue Rover Midnight Blue Pullman coach brown Rover Russet Brown, Triumph Maple GWR loco green Rover Brooklands Green, Ford Laurel Green GWR coach brown Rover Russet Brown, Triumph Maple GWR coach cream Rover Primula Yellow, Ford Sierra Beige LMS red Rover Damask Red, Vauxhall Burgundy Red, Ford Burgundy Red, Triumph Damson LMS Coronation Blue Rover Pageant Mid-Blue, Peugeot Royal Blue LNER garter blue / BR diesel blue, slightly more blue & less green Ford Fjord Blue LNER garter blue VW Pargas Blue SR dark olive green Land Rover Coniston Green SR EMU Green Jaguar British Racing Green BR loco green Rover Brooklands Green, Ford Laurel Green BR diesel light green band Ford Highland Green BR coach carmine Ford Rosso Red, Vauxhall Carmine Red, Alfa Romeo AR530 BR coach cream Vauxhall Gazelle Beige, Talbot Jonquil BR coach cream (well worn) Peugeot Antelope Beige BR coach green Rover Brooklands Green BR loco / coach maroon Rover Damask Red, Vauxhall Burgundy Red, Ford Burgundy Red, Triumph Damson BR diesel blue VW Pargas Blue BR steam loco blue Peugeot Royal Blue BR loco yellow warning panel Vauxhall Mustard Yellow BR EMU Green Jaguar British Racing Green, Rover Brooklands Green BR wagon grey VW EISGRAUEN KJ94 BR wagon bauxite ALFA ROMEO BRUNO DE37 GT3 Chocolate Rover Maple GT3 Chassis Green Land Rover Coniston Green Roof grey Halford's Plastic Bumper Early DMU green BS 381c 226 Middle Brunswick Green Later DMU green BS 381c 224 Deep Bronze Green

Old vacuum pipes - and they SHOULD be on the inside. They were there to cushion the brick pallets if they shifted under heavy shunting / braking. Regards, John Isherwood.

Surely D2334 should have the cut-out for the shunter to stand on the front step? Regards, John Isherwood.

I am assuming that you are referring to GWR and BR(WR) practice. The others of the Big 4 and their successors put the lamp iron behind the lamp. Regards, John Isherwood.

We tried this on the Camel Trail when we first moved to Cornwall - if you want to take all day to get from Wadebridge to Padstow, and enjoy extended periods looking at the surrounding scenery whilst the two opposing files of cycles pass you - it works fine !! Don't expect any acknowledgement or thanks from the cyclists - they haven't even registered your presence !! Regards, John Isherwood.