Dear Members

Spring has arrived this morning with bright warm sunshine and perhaps a season of new beginnings. We all look forward to some lighter evenings,  warmer weather and life returning to some form of normality. People now appear to have hope and there is definitely 'something in the air' (apologies to Thunderclap Newman). I am sure many of you are planning what to do in the next few weeks and months as the lockdown begins to ease. One of these will hopefully see a return to club nights, which will of course be a cause for celebration. In the meantime, if the vaccine rollout remains on schedule what is the first thing you plan to do? Answers please on a postcard or e mail.
In the meantime sit back and enjoy this weeks newsletter.


Keep safe

Phil and Nigel



Please email all submissions to  or





Part 6


Sunday 7th August

Today was scheduled for a repeat visit to the Niedersachsisches Kleinbahnmuseum at Bruchausen-Vilsen and the railway festival again. The original programme showed a visit to another line at Delmenhorst. However, its only loco was operating shuttles at the Niedersachsisches Kleinbahnmuseum.

Fortunately, as everyone felt that they had seen just about everything at Bruchausen-Vilsen the day before the tour manager had found an alternative and most of us opted for this. As some of you probably know the Germans run Plandampf on some lines as a public service and of course this now happens here to a certain extent. Plandampf is the use of heritage steam locos on the main network usually but not always on seldom used branch lines and this was the case today. The line in question was from Stadhagen to Rintein and is normally freight only.

Having left the hotel at 9.45 we caught the 9.18 train to Wurston where we changed for a local service to Stadhagen arriving at 10.07. From here we joined a special train from the goods yard along with what seemed like several hundred locals. The position of the loco prevented any photo’s. We had a reserved area in the buffet car which unfortunately wasn’t serving anything. This was a most peculiar area shaped like a horseshoe around a table. Once we were all in only those at the ends could easily leave their seats to see what was going on. To make matters worse it was virtually impossible to see out of the windows. Needless to say we vowed to find somewhere else to sit or stand as soon as the opportunity arose.


52 CLASS- 2-10-0 52 8038 AT RINTEIN              
You can see the difficulty trying to photograph the loco. Aldi looks familiar.


The loco was a 52 class 2-10-0 no. 52 8038. The class was built in large numbers during the second world war and were known as Kriegsloks (war locomotives). The 52 class was a development of the pre-war class 50 using cheaper parts and less expensive materials to speed production. A total of 7794 were built between 1942 and 1950. Many locomotives passed into Russian ownership after the war and they were also used in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Norway, Turkey and Yugoslavia. A few were still in industrial service in Bosnia in late 2017. Many of the class have been preserved.

The special left Stadhagen at 10.30 for the fairly short trip to Rintein where arrival was at 11.10. We now had some three hours here and as you can see from the photos there was very little to see and the loco itself was very difficult to photograph.


52 8038 AT RINTEIN –A couple from the other side.  Still difficult to photograph.




After a lunch in the station buffet we left Rintein at 13.10 and arrived back at Stadhagen at 14.15. From here we retraced our steps back to Bremen arriving at 16.40. As this was a comparatively early finish we took the opportunity to ride on some of the trams. The hotel provided a ‘City Pass’ for the local trains, trams, buses etc. This seems to be usual practice in Germany as we had a similar pass at Rostock. For some reason I don’t seem to have photos of the trams, probably because we were riding on them!

For the last night we had a group dinner which most of the party attended.

Monday 8th August

So after a very enjoyable week it was time to head home. An early start was required with breakfast at 6.00 before leaving the hotel at 7.15. From Bremen we caught a train to Cologne at 7.45 before changing to an ICE from there to Brussels. A Eurostar from here at 14.55 got as back to St Pancras at 16.05. It was then back to the commuter trains from Kings X back to Hatfield and home at 5.00.

Having looked through the tours Railtrail run, this one has not appeared since. It was then and I think probably is now about the best tour available. It probably only happened because all of the lines visited were running at the right time. Railtrail seem to run tours with only about a dozen or so participants although we were told that some tours are as low as six whilst others can have as many as 50.

Thoughts now turned to what we could do next year. More to come.




The City of London’s First Terminus


Part 1


Often forgotten today is that the City of London’s terminus Fenchurch Street was the first railway station actually built in the ‘square mile’. Moreover, the terminus was reached by a 415 yard extension of an existing five foot cable railway. This article attempts to explain why such a strange arrangement was built, how it operated and not only how it came to be absorbed into Britain’s conventional railway network but how its’ legacy influenced the east London railway network of today.


London’s Expanding Docks

The Pool of London in the late 18th Century was perhaps the busiest and most crowded dock in the world. In many ways London was the centre of the empire, if not the world, with its’ growing banking, insurance and shipping activities and thus there was a great need for new docks which would necessarily have to be built further east. Even if there had been available undeveloped sites westward, beyond the Pool of London, the depth of water would have been insufficient for the larger, ocean going ships.

In 1802 The West India Docks Company was formed to build new docks across the neck of the Isle of Dogs. The company claimed that it would offer a faster and safer service than the Pool of London with well-built warehouses and a high level of security to prevent pilfering.

In 1804 The East India Docks Company was established, with similar aims, but to build docks east of those of the competing company. In 1838 the two companies merged into ‘The East & West India Docks Company’. The 1882 Docks Map shows these docks as completed but note that the Millwall Docks were started much later, not being completed and opened until 1871.

The Commercial Road Turnpike

The development of these new docks obviously required a good transport link with City of London and a broad, straight road was built to provide this link early in the 19th Century. Commercial Road was operated by a turnpike trust who levied tolls for its use by horse drawn vehicles. It runs from a junction with Whitechapel High Street, not far from where the latter become Aldgate High Street, to Limehouse, and today is part of the A13. It can best be seen below in the two map extracts, Route Map (West) and Route Map (East), from Bacon’s 1905 atlas.

To speed up the transport of goods to and from the docks a proposal was put forward to Parliament in 1825 for the building of a horse or cable drawn iron tramway along the Commercial Road. Eventually the proposed Bill failed to attract sufficient support and was lost in 1828.

Threatened with the loss of revenue from other such proposals the turnpike trustees built a tramway of its’ own employing narrow granite blocks laid into the surface of the road instead of rails. The continuous line of blocks may well have been laid slightly below the surface of the road giving some guidance to horse drawn vehicles provided their wheel sets were of the correct gauge. It was referred to as a double tramway suggesting that there was a separate track way for each direction.

Despite the hopes of the trustees this did not prevent further proposals for railways to serve the area and a Parliamentary Committee report, published in 1836, provided evidence of the success of the turnpike. Horse omnibuses were running roughly at five minute intervals and for a fare of six pence were taking about 45 minutes to the West India docks. By contrast the journey by river from London Bridge to Blackwall took about an hour longer primarily because the winding Thames route was three miles longer. It was also bedevilled by the severe congestion encountered. In all, each week licenced omnibuses and carriages were making about 2,000 journeys along Commercial Road. About 53% of goods were also carried along the road to the docks compared with 47% via the Thames.


1882 Docks Map


‘River Thames with the Docks from Woolwich to the Tower’ an engraving by Edward Weller in ‘A Dictionary Practical, Theoretical, and Historical of Commerce and Commercial Navigation by J.R. McCulloch’, quoted by Wikepedia. In this 1882 map the old Blackwell Yard, which predated the 19th Century docks, lay roughly where the map shows “Ship Yards”, whilst the Export Dock was on the site of the earlier Brunswick Wharf (both at top right). From 1947-1984 this was the site of Blackwall Power Station which significantly was also known as the Brunswick Wharf Power Station.


The Year Commercial Steam Transport Begins

In 1812 two important events took place in the story of the development and employment of steam transport, the first successful steamboat in Europe commenced operations on the Clyde whilst the Middleton Colliery introduced the first successful commercial employment of railway locomotives.

Trevethick’s experiments with steam vehicles go back to the start of the century but when it came to railway locomotives it was found that the cast iron rails of the day could not support the weight of the locomotive. The Middleton Colliery had built a horse tramway for its coal wagons in 1758 but later the war with France culminated in Napoleon blocking European exports to Britain, resulting in a large surge in the price of both bread and animal fodder.

The colliery viewer, manager John Blenkinsop, looked to steam transport to reduce costs and recognising the weakness of current cast rail with heavy locomotives, designed a replacement rail with a rack cast on the outside. This would enable a very light locomotive to engage with the rack and pull a decent load rather than letting the driving wheels hopelessly spin. He persuaded Matthew Murray to design and arrange for the manufacture of four two cylinder very light locomotives (each named after one of Wellington’s battles) which used a pinion to engage with the rack on only one side of the railway track. The four wheels on each locomotive were not connected to the steam power which rotated the pinion instead.

This commercially successful system remained in operation until 1835 and one locomotive is recorded as pulling thirty coal wagons, a gross load of about 140 tons, this at a time when an ordinary locomotive on smooth rails could be expected to pull about 50 tons. This system might have pointed the way to adoption by other railways but speeds were slow, the movement of the locomotives rather eccentric and the rack rail expensive to manufacture and repair. None the less this paved the way for later developments to enable trains to cope with excessively steep gradients, such as that on the Snowdon Mountain Railway which employs a similar rack and pinion system.

Steam railways did not really get started until the early cast iron rails were replaced by wrought iron rails first rolled in a mill in 1820. Up until then wrought iron was beaten by hand and of such variable quality that it was likely, like the cast iron of the day, to fracture under load. This critical improvement was achieved by John Birkinshaw at the Bedlington iron foundry.

The earliest British patent for the steamboat goes back to 1788 but the first practical commercial employment in the UK was Henry Bell’s ‘Comet’ in 1812. Following Bell’s success by 1822 there were almost 50 steamships offering commercial services of which most had been built on the Clyde. In those days steamboats were essentially paddle steamers. The propeller did not become accepted until John Ericsson produced an improved version which he fitted to the Robert F. Stockton and sailed her to America in 1839.

However, the first paddle steamboat to appear on the Thames was, in 1815, and caused quite a stir. She was named ‘The Margery’ and had been built the previous year in Dumbarton. She operated a regular passenger service between London and Gravesend for two years and thence was sold to a French firm and in consequence sailed to Paris, becoming the first steam powered vessel to cross the English Channel.

The Steamboat Revolution

In the 1820’s Gravesend (rather than Southend) was the Londoners’ choice of a day out and steamboat trips to this destination became increasingly popular through to the 1850’s. In 1835 the Terrace Gardens in Gravesend became a tourist hot spot, only to be eclipsed in 1837 by the Rosherville Gardens which soon had added attractions such as sideshows, illuminations, a theatre and banqueting hall. It was situated in the western outskirts of Gravesend and in 1840 added its own private pier for tourist convenience.

Steamboats had many advantages over the railways in the early days. The steam engine worked better, smoothly and more efficiently at constant rates of output. Apart from manoeuvring in docks a ship could continue smoothly on its way with little variation in steam settings, at least until weather conditions changed or other craft got in the way. Railway locomotives, however, had to cope with changing gradients and stopping or slowing at signals and stations. Moreover locomotive size was restricted by Britain’s limiting loading gauge whilst ships were much bigger and could accept larger, more efficient marine steam engines. When compounding was later developed it was found far more efficient and applicable to ships than to railway locomotives.

Moreover the time lead between conceiving a plan and realisation was much longer for railways than ships. For instance, The London & Birmingham Railway was first proposed by John Rennie in 1823 and was soon followed by a similar plan from a rival. In neither case were they able to raise sufficient finance or Parliamentary support and in desperation decided to merge their efforts in 1830 and appointed Robert Stephenson as chief engineer. The company’s first attempt to obtain an act failed in 1832. It was successful in a second application to Parliament a year later, but then difficulties with land owners and engineering challenges such as Kilsby Tunnel further slowed development. The line was not fully opened until September 1838, fifteen years after the original proposals were made, yet the actual building of this 112 mile railway line had taken just over four years.

Shipping companies had fewer such problems with already established routes and the Thames being virtually a free public highway for ships. The gap between invention and the introduction of practical steam services heavily favoured the steamboat over the railway and remained largely so for about 30 years.

Much has been made of the development of seaside resorts in the Victorian era by railways, but in many cases the steam packet (i.e. boat) companies were there long before. From London Bridge to Ramsgate paddle steamer companies were regularly plying their trade from London to such seaside resorts and eventually were involved in establishing subsidiary and associate companies to build piers and purchase land for periodic auction to prospective house builders as far away as Yarmouth.

Engravings made of the Pool of London in the late 1830’s show that the majority of vessels in these very crowded scenes were steam powered (a forest of funnels). The few that were not were mainly barges including the renowned Thames barges. Admittedly the steamboats were hybrids. That is they had masts and sails as well as steam engines. The sails were only used in favourable winds but sail power was free and reduced the need for coal and thus steamboats could have smaller coal bunkers and carry more fare paying passengers or cargo. For ocean going vessels such considerations were of even greater import. In the early days sometimes a streamship only reached its destination during prolonged unfavourable winds by lifting and burning timber from its deck.

One has only to study the paintings, sketches and travels of J. M. W. Turner (1775-1851), the famous artist renowned for such paintings as the ‘Fighting Temeraire’ and ‘Rain, Steam and Speed’, to realise how important steamboats were to him. He regularly travelled to Margate by paddle steamer and his European tours invariably involved steamboat travel across the Channel. His works contain a large number of steamboats but only a tiny handful of railway subjects. In his time the railway network was still in its infancy.
Much of the demand for trips to Gravesend was from the middle class city workers and their families who at times added to the congestion along Commercial Road to reach Brunswick Wharf (see 1882 Docks Map) where many Gravesend bound paddle steamers departed and others from London Bridge stopped en route. This wharf also offered services involving the larger ships of the day which provided services to the continent and the colonies. Brunswick Wharf was also to become involved with the transport of emigrants to the new world.

Plans were made to make railway connection between Brunswick Yard and the City of London in the vicinity of Leadenhall Street by two rival groups. Both planned to follow the general course of Commercial Road, one to the north and the other just to the south of the road, [See Route Map (West) and Route Map (East)]. The northern proposal included branches to Lea Rise (in the east) and West India Docks. It was to cross under Whitechapel Road near where Commercial Road started and then curve to the southwest to establish a terminus just north of Leadenhall Street.

The southerly proposal would similarly commence close to Brunswick Yard but its’ westerly course would take it south of Popular High Street, move closer to Commercial Road but just passing north of Regents canal basin, and then skirt away from Commercial Road and reach a terminus south of Leadenhall Street near East India House (which contained the offices of that company).

The more northerly route was entitled the ‘London & Blackwall Railway and Steam Navigation Depot’ whilst the more southerly carried the more predictable title of the ‘Commercial Railway’. The Commercial Railway was surveyed by George and Robert Stephenson but they then changed their allegiance and Robert became engineer for the northern proposal. He had largely taken over the business from his father and moved his house and office to London in 1833 to supervise the works on the London & Birmingham Railway.

John Rennie (1794-1874) then became engineer to the Commercial Railway although the proprietors stuck to the Stephensons’ proposed route. This was the same John Rennie who had first proposed the London & Birmingham Railway, but it was his father, also holding the same name of John Rennie (1761-1821), who had been the engineer responsible for the building of the East and West India Docks.

The southerly route was to be built largely on an arched viaduct as employed by the London & Greenwich Railway in the hope of renting out some of the arches. However, beyond Poplar the line had to drop, first by embankment and then cutting to reach ground level at Blackwall.

On the northerly route Stephenson favoured placing his line in a thirty foot deep brick cutting passing under roads rather than bridging over them as intended by the southerly route. It was thought that the southerly route would be more popular with passengers because of the better views from it and an act for the southerly route was passed by Parliament in 1838.

Although the Commercial Railway had an act authorising its route and powers to compulsorily purchase and demolish property and build it there was still the question of raising sufficient capital. It therefore approached the company who had promoted the northerly route and suggested a possible merger. Doubtless the support of Robert Stephenson would promote confidence amongst potential investors. A merger of the two companies was agreed subject to the appointment of an entirely new engineer so that neither Stephenson nor Rennie should feel slighted. This was agreed and the engineer chosen was William Cubitt. At the time he was also chief engineer of the South Eastern Railway and had extensive experience in the building of docks, canals, and latterly railways, as well as being called to give evidence to parliamentary committees as an expert on railways. He was also a friend of Robert Stephenson and had at one time worked with him on the London & Birmingham Railway.




Product Review
Morley Vector Zero Three Controller


Having transplanted my layout I decided it was about time I got a proper analogue twin controller to replace the mixture of old H&M Duette, Scalespeed, Compspeed and Gaugemaster handheld. To my surprise I found initially that the only real option appears to be the Gaugemaster GMC D but at £130 with no handheld facility it seemed quite expensive. Then I spotted an ad for Morley Controllers, who I’d never heard of! Online reviews were mixed, some were very anti due to poor customer service/communication but, they were years old reviews. However, my skinflint nature still attracted me to the Morley as at under £90 it is a double controller, that also comes with 2 remote wired hand controllers and a built in CDU for point operation so potentially is a lot cheaper.

Then I found a couple of Youtube reviews which gave a sensible comparison of Gaugemaster vs Morley. The best review suggested the Gaugemaster was better because it gave more reliable slower running, however the reviewer said that but for that he would have selected the Morley because it’s cheaper and includes two handheld units. Now, that review was for the previous Zero Two controller which has been superseded by the Zero Three version that I bought which is supposed to have improved slow speed running.

The pictures show the controller with a 00 brake van as a size comparison. There are two rotary controls, the centre yellow light shows the CDU is charged (and also the controller is turned on) while the red and green lights relate to each rotary control and show which way the power is turned. Then there are the sockets for the handheld remotes with a toggle switch to select panel or handheld control. The second picture shows one of the handheld units which come with a 2.5M cable.




Design wise and first impressions it seems to be well thought and to me “feels” right, also I think it looks nicer than the Gaugemaster. Both the panel and handheld controls seem to work well with a reasonably positive centre off. Perhaps due to years of working Havil I find the handheld seems slightly more responsive. Response to speed control again to me is good in that I can creep old Triang X04, Lima diesels and a brand new Bachmann 0-6-2, within the limits of the loco and track cleanliness.

Disadvantages, well the only two I can think of. (a) There’s no AC output (but I suppose with the CDU output for points there less need for one). (b) When used for a twin track layout the LED lights aren’t “right” as I have set the controller up so you turn the knob in the direction you want the train to go so an up train shows a green light but a down train shows a red one! Also they build these to order so you may have to wait a few weeks for delivery.

Not having a Gaugemaster to try I can’t do a comparison, but overall I’d say this is a nice unit at a good price, with five years guarantee, that I’m looking forward to using for a good few years.






A question to our members?

How do you ballast your home layouts? My track is all laid directly on the baseboards. I would like some sort of ballast but I don't want to use the traditional granite ballast glued in. As this is solid and difficult to remove without damaging track (when I have my inevitable change of plan in a few months time!). I did wonder about loose laying - but jogging the baseboards would surely mean ballast going everywhere and jamming points. Any suggestions?




I've been working on adding the village side subway to Oxenholme. It's still to be finished but there's no longer just a plain flat board and the villagers don’t have to risk crossing the line!





Ephraim Shay



Ephraim Shay (July 17, 1839 – April 19, 1916) was an American merchant, entrepreneur and self-taught railroad engineer who worked in the state of Michigan. He designed the first Shay locomotive and patented the type. He licensed it for manufacture through what became known as Lima Locomotive Works in Ohio; from 1882 to 1892 some 300 locomotives of this type were sold.

Early life and military service

Ephraim Shay was born on July 17, 1839, in Sherman Township, Huron County, Ohio. His parents were James and Phoebe (Probasco) Shay, whose families went back to colonial New York. His parents were of majority-English descent, with some Dutch and Polish ancestry. His mother's paternal line descended from immigrant George (Jurriaen) Probatski, who was from Breslau, Silesia (now Wroclaw, Poland). In 1654 Probatski went to the Netherlands and immigrated with some Dutch via Amsterdam and Brazil to New Netherland (New York). Over time, through Dutch and English marriages and variations, the name in the United States evolved to Probasco, probably within the first few generations.

In 1861, Shay moved as a young man of 22 with family to Muir, Michigan. Shortly after he enlisted in Company D, 8th Missouri Volunteer Infantry. In his American Civil War diary, Shay wrote, "Received marching orders. Quite a coincidence; on the day I am 22 years old I start on my first expedition to defend my country's honor and flag. Shay served in the Western Theatre of the war, under General William Tecumseh Sherman. He was honorably discharged in 1864, and returned to Ohio to marry.


Marriage and early career

Shay married his sweetheart Jane Henderson on July 26 of that year. The young couple moved to Ionia County, Michigan, to be near his family members in Portland, Lyons, Muir, and Sebewa. In 1870 they moved to Sunfield, Michigan, where Shay operated a steam sawmill. Their son, Lette, was born there on January 26, 1870.



1923 Shay locomotive, West Side Lumber Co. #9, in service on the Midwest Central Railroad.


Lumber and locomotive

After 1873, the Shay family moved to Haring, Michigan, where Shay established a general store and sawmill, basics in a frontier town. In 1876 or 1877, he had the idea to use a locomotive to haul logs. He experimented with using maple strips on pine rails, to build rapid paths for a locomotive to travel in the forests, and developed the Shay locomotive. Shay started working with Lima Machine Works (later Lima Locomotive Works) in Lima, Ohio, licensing them to manufacture this model.

In 1880, the first Shay Locomotive was shipped to a customer in Grand Rapids, Michigan, a center of logging on the Michigan peninsula. In 1881, Shay started filing patents for his works. William E. Woodard assisted Lima with improving the design of the engine. Lima built four Shay locomotives in 1881, and 37 Shays in 1883. In 1884, Lima had a 34-page catalog, featuring five models of Shay Locomotives. From 1882 to 1892, Lima sold some 300 of the Shay locomotives. By the late 1890s, Shay Locomotives were shipped around the world.

Experiments with steel

In 1888, Shay and his family moved to Harbor Springs, Michigan on Little Traverse Bay. There, he designed and built in about 1892 what is now known as the Shay Hexagon House, a hexagonal-shaped structure. It has four wings opening off the central core and a two-story tower on top. The house has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The interior and exterior walls were stamped steel, an unusual use of this relatively new product.

In 1891, Shay built an all-steel boat that was 40 feet long and a beam of 6 feet, named the Aha. Remains of the Aha have been returned to Harbor Springs and are preserved. Shay also designed and operated a private water works for the town of Harbor Springs. The use of steel for large lake freighters, developed in this period, was an important innovation to shipping on the Great Lakes.

Shay established a railroad, the Harbor Springs Railway (nicknamed the "Hemlock Central"), chartered in 1902. It was dissolved in 1912. Three locomotives of Shay's design were the only motive power. The railway primarily hauled lumber, but was also used for sightseeing. Shay also made sleds with maple runners as Christmas gifts for local children, more than 400 sleds in total.

Shay's wife Jane died on July 24, 1912. He died on April 19, 1916. He is buried in the Lakeview Cemetery in Harbor Springs.

The Harbor Springs Area Historical Society annually sponsors the "Shay Days" festival at Hexagon House, on a weekend close to Shay's birthday. In 2005, the festival was held July 15, July 16, and July 17.



Hexagon House



The Covid Jab - Your Letters


I had my first jab, Pfizer, at the University where the Minister for Transport was in attendance. I had a short talk with Grant as we waited for out compulsory 20 minutes post jab and we were snapped by the Downing Street photographer.
No jokes about a pain in any particular location after meeting a politician, please!




Hi Phil & Nigel,
Hope you are both keeping fit and well. Both Sue & I had our Pfizer jab in Jan and are due the second one next week. Thanks for all your  work on the news letter it’s been good hearing all the news. I have been looking out for Eric, sorting out his grocery delivery and the odd job, he has five loco’s awaiting painting so has been fairly busy. I have just been running in my new purchase A2/2 60505. A lovely model.
Best wishes to all,

Mick Worsley



Just to let you know that on the 24th February that both me and my mum had our first of the covid jabs we got the Oxford/AstraZeneca the only side i got from jab was swelling around the arm and it was painful every time i move it  but that only lasted a week we will get our second jab around mid May time.
Daniel Turner





T&DMRC Single Line Working newsletter

To view it

Click here.







If you have missed one of our Newsletters you can find them on our website



Answers in the next issue.


1) Which nuts are used in marzipan?
2) What is the most famous Mexican beer?
3) Which country is the origin of the cocktail Mojito?
4) What is Japanese sake made from?
5) Which vitamin is the only one that you will not find in an egg?
6) What is the chemical formula for Table Salt?
7) What does IPA stand for?
8) Which meat is used in Glamorgan sausages?
9) What ingredient is included in food in a Florentine style?
10) Which fish is the main ingredient of Scotch Woodcock?





1) Spencer Perceval - May 1812
2) 30 minutes
3) 650
4) Dorothea
5) Grand Old Party
6) Mike Pence
7) 1973
8) Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands
9) Whips
10) Joining the EEC