Titan

Not sure, but it looks like the second pan has a European profile rather than the standard BR profile that the other pan has, so I suspect it was/is for test purposes.

Signalling is not my speciality, but I do wonder if there is a cheap and simple solution to this problem of user operated crossings in long sections. Track circuits I believe mostly work on 6V. I expect that a high intensity LED could be put in parallel across the rails next to the crossing without drawing enough power to affect track circuit operation. The light would then go out when the track circuit is occupied. Fail safe too - "Only cross when light shows". If the IBJ is close to the crossing then a couple of small relays and diodes - hardly expensive or complicated - would ensure that if either track circuit is operated the light goes out, whilst allowing both circuits to function normally. All extra wiring would be minimal and only in the vicinity of the crossing, and certainly much cheaper than providing a phone to the signalman. Would result in the odd situation that the level crossing user would have a better idea of where the train is than the signaller...

I believe it was after a major overhaul/refurbish - I don't know how much was changed, but it was to differentiate those which had been done and those which had not.

When It is time for Trump to go, he will be buried 12 feet deep instead of the usual six, because he is a good person deep down.

It might simply be a case of extremely rare good driving practice. There was snow, the traffic was slow and heavy, and he may have decided to wait until the vehicle in front had cleared the crossing before proceeding on to it, to ensure he did not get trapped if the truck in front stopped. Probably saved his life.

And this is why it spoils it for me when freight trains are run unrealistically slowly at exhibitions. If you look at the second video at 5.51 there is a steam hauled example at similar speed to the first, why? cos that's the speed they were actually run at, not the 20mph crawl most layout operators seem to think is 'correct'! And for further reference, look at 6:57 on - that is the speed that fully fitted freights should be run at! Okay, blatantly copied from another thread, but the evidence is there!

Mechanical independence is preferred, but not for those reasons - any dynamic coupling between different lines is only slight. The main reason is for better resilience in the case of a dewirement. With a headspan if one wire is ripped down it will often damage the headspan sufficiently that all other lines are unusable. Modern practice goes even further than just having mechanically independent registrations for this reason. Previous practice may have been to wire a set of ladder crossovers with one crossover wire running throughout from one side to the other. This was cheap and easy to install. However if this wire was broken, then again all lines would become unusable. Nowadays each crossover gets a separate wire, which means more anchors and tensioning assemblies, but if one wire breaks it is only the one crossover affected, and other lines can still be used.

The 350's were only allowed to to do 110mph when working singly. I do not know if that is still the case.

I expect they are restricted to 100mph.

It is a bit of both. Headspans are a liability and there would be benefit in replacing them anyway. However higher speeds for multiple pantographs require higher tension in the wires. Higher tension in the wires increases the loading on the structures, particularly on curves. With everything built on the limit there is not much scope for just adding extra balance weights without stuff snapping or falling down...

That will be in the vicinity of Chat Moss. The whole railway is basically a floating jelly. It is impossible to keep the top level, and also why the OLE is on portals - single masts would fall over very quickly!

Was it an R965? Gets a good review here, along with an assessment of other types of controller: http://www.scottpages.net/ReviewOfControllers.html

And this is why it spoils it for me when freight trains are run unrealistically slowly at exhibitions. If you look at the second video at 5.51 there is a steam hauled example at similar speed to the first, why? cos that's the speed they were actually run at, not the 20mph crawl most layout operators seem to think is 'correct'! And for further reference, look at 6:57 on - that is the speed that fully fitted freights should be run at!

4x4 is an optional extra on a Range Rover Evoque. Browsing the classifieds it would appear an option not many people choose...

Whilst I in no way condone what the driver did, I have had personal experience of the arrogance of ambulance crew when it comes to situations such as this. In my particular case, the ambulance was parked across a T-junction blocking it. Now these days rather than just shoving a patient in and immediately making a dash for the hospital, it is often the case that they can be there for over half an hour whilst giving treatment. Did not bother me as I was on my bicycle and could easily get round (no verges or pavements required!). It was a quiet residential road so not much traffic either. However.... The T-junction it was parked across was at the bottom of a steep hill, with a bend in it, and traffic humps, which had sheet ice/compacted snow on it all the way down, i.e. if a car lost control on the hill it would likely hit the ambulance at some speed. I tried telling them that maybe they were taking an unnecessary risk and it really really was not a good idea to leave it there for any length of time at all, especially as there was space in front of the ambulance to which it could move, and that a written off ambulance might cause distress and delay to the patient. They could not give a toss. It clearly seemed that not only did they think they were exempt from the laws of the land (which they may well be, I don't know) but the laws of physics too. I expect if there had been a collision I would have heard about it. I think if it had happened now I would be taking photographs and reporting it as a safety issue.

Ah, eon to have a little cry and the other to cheer him up?

Not really. We only have loco's that small because we have to. It can make them extremely cramped and difficult to work on. Anyone who has worked on a Class 56 would tell you it would be much more efficient if there was more room inside as maintenance with components in situ would either be actually possible, or easier and quicker. There are other considerations too - for example radiators have to be much smaller in order to fit resulting in cooling problems in hot weather. They would not stand a chance in Nevada! The only British diesel loco I know that had regenerative braking was the class 50. Look how well that turned out...

It was worse than that - it was a sprung to centre type. If you wanted more than three flashes you had to hold the stalk against the spring otherwise it would return to centre and stop. If you forgot it was like that and tried to cancel by moving the stalk one click like you would in a normal car, you got three flashes in the opposite direction, since the stalk had already sprung back to the centre position, which again you could not stop!!!

No it damn well is not, and how dare you presume that it is something I will come to like. i have driven thousands of miles in rental cars with this feature and every mile I drive with the things I detest them even more. As mentioned before it prevents me doing the left/right/left thank you, but worse than that it forces me to make erroneous signals - often is the case when I am about to overtake something on the motorway, but they then suddenly decide to pull out also just at the very moment I hit the indicators thus causing me to abort the overtake, Can I cancel it? no I can't. I have to do three flashes for a maneuver that I am no longer going to carry out whether I like it or not. My attempts to cancel it just resulted in three left flashes following the three right, possibly followed by another three right flashes as I tried to cancel the subsequent three left... I just had to live with it and telepathically apologise for the disco impression the car was doing... The only use is for the crap blink and you would miss it one flash drivers - and as I find it easy to give an appropriate signal like any half decent driver can - including three flashes if required, then not only is it of no use to me whatsoever, it is a hindrance!!

I am sure that all the other drivers of cars with abysmal lighting also think that they are okay, since they are not the ones that have the misfortune to get dazzled by their lights. But if you get in a collision where the other driver swears that you did not signal, and you are sure that you did, you might find it is not as okay as you thought, whoever's fault it turns out to be...

There are Americans in heaven?

I remember watching 08's hauling over 1000 tons at Rugby. I think it was even slightly uphill. They did it without slipping, but very very slowly - they were driven absolutely flat out, and the shunter was easily able to keep up walking alongside at a fairly leisurely pace... I had never heard an 08 at full throttle for minutes on end! Undoubtably the ultra low double reduction gearing was doing it's job... At the other extreme I saw an 08 having difficulty with a single BG. It has to be said that this was driver error, a class 31 had just dropped it off and the 08 hooked up. The driver gave it some throttle - nothing happened. Gave it a bit more - still nothing happened. So he gave it full throttle and there was a massive shudder and the whole loco shook as the wheels slipped about a quarter turn. He then decided to create some vacuum on the BG and then pulled away no bother at all... I was actually rather surprised that a single BG could hold an 08 back, would have expected the 08 to have been able to pull it along with all wheels locked up! The way the 08 juddered only after high power was applied tended to suggest a dry rail with good grip... I am rather surprised that 08 coupling rods are so thin - they look feeble and the number of issues they seem to have with them getting bent would tend to suggest they are not up to the job. I know bent rods were sometimes down to driver abuse - overspeeding causing a motor armature to burst and lock up an axle would also bend the rods nicely, and often shift the cranks too. Did any other loco suffer as much with bent rods?

Certainly looks like it is the very same, complete with miss-aligned 4 472 number on the cabside, which does lend weight to the idea that no stunt doubles were used, unless the BBC were unusually good with their continuity for a change - I suspect the former is more likely!

I thought that once you were married the knowledge was no longer of any use?

Don't look too deeply in to it...