Edwin_m

Indeed, this is one of quite a few reports that say, with a slight air of disbelief, that the guard was just reaching for the brake valve when flung to the floor by the sudden movement of the train.

Pretty much the same with a Deltic-hauled express at Darlington in the 70s. The train ran over an object on the track dislodging a traction motor casing, which then bounced back down the train closing the brake cock behind the locomotive. It ran right through the station and overturned a DMU before being stopped by the buffet steward pulling the communication cord.

I wonder if our preference for running brake tests relates to having had unfitted and part-fitted freight trains for longer than most other countries. Some historic accidents were due to confusion about how much of the train had a working brake. Obviously not an issue for the last 35+ years though, and I think the requirements were tightened up relatively recently.

January's Modern Railways has an article on Porterbrook re-configuring some of the 769s (319s fitted with diesel engines, still able to operate on either 25kV or 750V electrification, intended for GWR but never introduced) to carry parcels. It appears they are looking to do more than just leasing them to someone else, but want to find an operator and sell space to the logistics companies.

I agree it is a barriered crossing, as others have already pointed out. I was querying the part about train speed.

I think all scheduled passenger trains now stop (they didn't a few years back) but there are some freight and it is often used for diversions of GWR London-Bristol trains.

The official site doesn't quote the Oxford-Cambridge journey time (reflecting the expectation that few people will travel the whole route). It quotes 45min from Oxford to MK and 35min from Bedford to Cambridge, so the end to end time is likely to be somewhat under 2hr. https://eastwestrail.co.uk/benefits-of-ewr

Has somebody's cat got their paws on the forum settings?

Not quite as stupid as it first sounds. With no bogies the wind force acting sideways on the body is trying to pivot it about the bottom corner of the downwind side, and the weight acting downwards at the centre of gravity is opposing this. The effect of both of these depends on the distance from the pivot as well as the size of the force (the moment in engineering speak). With bogies fitted the weight is greater so it can oppose a greater wind force before the body starts to tip over. However, this ignores two other things. Firstly, with the bogies fitted there is more area exposed to the wind, so the wind force is higher and it acts (on average) higher up, so increases the tendency to rotate about the pivot. Secondly, the potential pivot is now the wheels on the downwind side, which are closer to the centreline of the van, which reduces the effect of the weight. The balance between these effects depends on the dimensions and weight distribution of the van, but as a guess I'd say there is little risk of it overturning. Dismounted van bodies in fields, which are wooden and therefore lighter than a metal brake van, don't tend to overturn either. But there have been occasions when containers have been blown off wagons on windy days due to defects in the fixings.

Are/were there any Bo-Bo-Bo diesels? If so, where do they put the fuel tank?

Got that mouse well under control.

Gerroffda-table.

It is arguable that one cause of the Dolphin Junction accident in 1941 was the use of a borrowed LMS engine with the driving position on the left and no ATC equipment. I don't know if there was a formal restriction on this sort of operation but it probably wouldn't have happened in peacetime.

Someone posted a photo from ground level on another forum, from which it was clear that the slip didn't coincide with an OLE structure.

Was it intended to be a conscious break from the Big Four companies, none of which used blue or grey except in a very limited way?

An example of the hazards of this sort of operation: Report on the Collision that occurred on 18th May 1969 near Beattock in the Scottish Region British Railways

I think they're actually replicating an UQ signal positioned to the right of the track and laterally inverted compared with the UK version, as mentioned in previous posts.

Those developments are probably one reason EWR isn't serving the existing St Neots station. Another rail route there would need extensive demolition of residential areas. Tempsford is early enough in the planning process that the rail alignment can be protected for future built, even if it isn't built straight away. It certainly makes sense for it to be a stop on the ECML too, as this should open up a range of connections.

These featured in an article in Modern Railways magazine sometime in the 1980s, in connection with traffic to Aberdeen. I assume they had smaller wheels than other flats, enabling a lower deck but limiting the axle load.

Worth remembering that the former route from Bedford to Sandy was mostly on low-lying land close to major rivers, so not somewhere housing might be considered. I don't know the reasons behind development further east taking place around Cambourne instead of along the former route.

Something to do with the proposal to fit T4 bogies to the Mk4s, before SIG was chosen instead?

There's a political problem here. Saying that we want to close this line but we'll keep it just in case it's needed in the future allows opponents to level a charge that the proposer doesn't really believe in what they are saying. Not much evidence of that happening between Bedford and Cambridge while the line was opening, although some has happened since closure, thereby blocking it. And more to the point, it has been decided that current and future housing development, where the residents will benefit from rail connections, is not going to be along the former alignment.

According to November's Modern Railways, they are looking at adding a loop somewhere on the Marston Vale but haven't decided between keeping all the stops or closing some with better service at the others. They propose to double the single track at Fenny Stratford. There's no direct mention of the one at the Bedford end but discussion of St Johns having only one platform and being unsuitable suggests the section will be doubled, which is what I've understood from previous articles or documents.

For the purposes of this discussion, surely the other way round? Once the wheels start spinning, there is relative motion between the wheels and rails, and the coefficient of friction reduces. For completeness, modern locomotives make use of the fact that friction increases when there is a small amount of relative motion, but it needs an automatic "creep control" system to keep the wheel within this speed range and avoid an increase in relative speed that would cause adhesion to reduce.