Titan

Indeed the whole system is not the same, partly because of the differing voltages, and also because the system in the photo may not have been electrified recently. The equipment used by GWML is modern, and from the current catalogue of the manufacturer that supplies SBB, and is not unique to GWML. The structure designs, particularly the booms, are not similar, they are identical. And since there have been problems with the structures on GWML, including the ones as used on SBB, it is as about as relevant as it gets.

I suspect that some of the discrepancy is down to how much power is available at the rail. As a rule, the bigger you go the more efficient you get, particularly with electric transmissions. Hence why you never got much in the way of petrol electric cars, The efficiency of a small generator/motor set being worse than a small 'hydraulic' aka automatic gearbox. A HST with two big engines is likely to get much more of that crankshaft bhp down on to the rail, compared to numerous underfloor engines. I expect that modern trains also have a much greater 'hotel' power demand, further reducing the bhp available for traction. So it might be the case that despite their higher crankshaft bhp, they may struggle to match the HST's rail bhp.

Hmm. gauge spread often happens under the heavier vehicle - I bet that power car is the heaviest thing to use that platform with any regularity...

It is equipment used by SBB. The company also supplies the equipment to SBB and for the vast majority of the design for Network Rail they took the SBB drawings and put new borders and drawing numbers on them. Even then they could not get it right and a large amount of delay was caused by their inability to provide a complete design that worked. Even when they did provide design there were errors. The end result was a lot of rework to correct their errors, which even affected structures that had already been built. Yes the laws of physics don't change, but the British are a lot better at getting to the optimum solution than people give them credit for, with the result that when people believe (as opposed to actually knowing) that everyone else does it better they end up finding out the hard way that perhaps they don't, and extra money needs to be spent trying to make it work, as has happened on GWML. The similarity was really brought home to me when I saw an SBB layout at an exhibition recently, and immediately recognised the structures he had modelled as identical to those on the GWML.

Hence why I said I agree with the gist of your post...

Whilst I agree with the gist of your post: a) Swiss mountains, African deserts, and Russia have nothing in common with the Forth bridge so there is no correlation. b) The people most likely to wire the bridge would have had nothing to do with those projects c) The big mistake designers keep making is if it works OK elsewhere it will work OK in the UK. The GWML uses Swiss equipment no doubt of the type used on the mountains and look how well that is turning out...

Unless the rise is almost as tall as the highest part of the siding, the 'wonderful energy source' will overcome it, either by momentum or the rear part of the train pushing the front over. Plus if the end of the siding has to be at a particular height, then you will have to make the siding even steeper in order to have a short rise before the exit...

One of the influential reasons I started my job with my current employer was that it was almost literally on my doorstep. 10 minute bicycle ride to work if that. About 8 months after joining they announced that the office was closing and everyone would be relocating to Birmingham. Now it is a 20 minute cycle to the station, a train journey of between 35-50 mins depending on train, and a ten minute walk after that. As commutes go it is quite reasonable, and cheaper than any other transport option. However almost half the team resigned despite the relocation package, and I really notice the extra hours it is taking out of my day.

I hope you mean translucency!

Remember doing an exciting 105mph down Brentwood bank on a very delayed Class 309. Was not until sometime later that I discovered line speed was 80mph. No wonder we gained back 15 mins between Shenfield and Liverpool Street...

Are you sure? I thought the emergency couplings specifically did not have this feature so that they could not be used to replace a normal coupling. This would be important since the emergency couplings would be shorter as they would go hook to hook, which is a shorter distance than a normal coupling that would go hook to hole.

From what I understand half of the turntable was somewhat sheltered - possibly built in to a cutting. When the loco was turned the wind caught the end of it sticking out and blew it round. The wind break was built around the exposed part of the turntable to prevent it happening again. Rev. Awdry based one of his stories on it. In fact many of the early stories were purposely based on events that had actually happened to real engines!

If you base your policy on an 'if' then it stands a very high chance of not going well. Don't forget the shopping, trips to the doctor etc. unless the family is not allowed out other than traveling to work...

Hence why I said the only bureaucracy stopping it...

But that is just policy, not law. It is not illegal for a railway independent of Network rail to lay third rail, and if they have a suitable SMS the HSE can't stop them either.

Do they have a pick up service?

Basil's Brush with death? Boooom Booooom!

Surely that would make it more economical to live in the city, and thus make it even more congested? Especially if not only it brings in the money earner but their family as well...

The only bureaucracy stopping you having live third rail, or indeed 25kv, is lack of an appropriate SMS.

What The Fox that?

The HST had working lights right from the start. If they are missing they may have been removed.

OK maybe a diagram would help explain: (N/S = neutral section, I/O/L= Insulated Overlap) Conventional feeder station (1) Invertor Feeder station (2) Invertor Feeder station (3) Invertor Feeder station (4) Conventional Feeder station (5) Input phase A I/O/L Input phase A,B,C. I/O/L Input phase A,B,C I/O/L Input phase A,B,C N/S Input phase B N/S Output phase A Output phase A Output phase A Output phase A Output phase B If (4) fails it can be fed from (3). If (5) fails it can be fed from (4), and as it has a neutral section the other side it matters not that the phase is changed, just as happens with the existing set up now. If (1) fails it can be fed from (2). Thus any feeder station can fail and be fed from one next to it, without feeding the whole line or having any phase change at any point other than a neutral section. In other words in the example above you will always have phase A either side of an insulated overlap, without feeding more than one extra section no matter what fails. You would never try and feed more than one extra section with either this system or a conventional one.

Is it worthwhile upgrading to the later 5 pole Hornby ringfield? It is what i did in mine, and the motor only got replaced since it was completely worn out rather than poor running. Must have spent hundreds of hours whizzing round at top speed on a kids trainset somewhere!

Completely different and incompatible MU system.

Nothing appears to be wrong with the crossing. The guy in the video pressing the buttons however...