Glorious NSE

From the report I translated, one broken ankle, presumably as part of the evac. Good to hear it wasn't more serious. Bit of a mess!

It's all of 100m from the station entrance to the nearest entrance to the Bullring!

'Not British' wagons run all over the UK, 'not ferry/CT' ones don't though, which is Jon s point.

That the 3s and 4s have different route clearance would be a more logical scenario, and if that's it they may have been deliberately built lighter, as I don't think the difference in installed power is in line with the difference in overall weight? Thought the 4s have 4 engines installed?

Totally agree, my first thought was similar to the chap quoted in the program, that it was just a wierd idea, but the more I think about it the more I like it as a feature. Even today it's not rare for us to be repurposing odd items. I have to say I find myself looking forward to seeing what next weeks items are and what they come up with.

It sounds a little doubtful to me too, these are specifically designed to GAs spec, they aren't something off-the-peg. So it seems unlikely that GA would tell Stadtler the wrong max axle load, or that GA would accept a design that didn't comply with that number, or that the final build wouldn't match the design agreed, presumably at least one of which would have to have happened if true? OTOH I *can* believe NR being a bit more careful about accepting these with the dynamics involved being a bit different to the established norm?

There still appears to be ones running recently in what looks like the right configuration (there are other GP20s around that have obvious signs of losing their turbo's too...) http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3284240 http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3275291 http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2059853 http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4141078

Entirely possible that somebody could paint a GP20 like that in 2018 - it's not possible for a SD70ACE to exist in 1960.

Another 'wrong era' loco from SMS... http://www.mikeyuhas.org/albums/2015/20152252.php

Historically, a mix... Fremo in mainland Europe dates back to the 80s, the American's took the basic concepts, (nominally single track bi-directional modules,) modified it to suit their local usage and created Free-Mo back in the 90s. We looked at both Fremo and Free-Mo, picked what we thought were the best bits of both, modified to suit local usage and started building freemo in the 00s. Fascinatingly, the European Fremo movement in the 80s seems to be based on European modellers who were inspired by the way US modellers were developing operations, as seen through Model Railroader... https://www.fremo-net.eu/en/about-fremo/the-beginning/ When i'm setting up a meet*, I tend to try and keep the freightcar fleet *somewhere* post-1970s, there will be anachronisms, but they shouldn't jump out too much visually. *Personally*, I don't see any issue with using older motive power with the kind of railroading we do, there's no shortage of real smaller railroads out there that use older power and paint schemes derived from the past. Here's an excellent example!: http://www.smsrail.com/history.html#prettyPhoto[galh]/2/ Whilst ancient power on new stock looks okay, the same doesn't work the other way though - an SD70ACE will always look pretty stupid on a train of early 1900s built cars, hence the 'modern-ish' stock. I do find it interesting that the '60s/'70s modellers amongst us seem to have absorbed the way that works, and will tend not to run with a caboose even though nobody makes them do that. I have thought about doing a setup with a 'tighter' theme, there are certainly people from who we could source a large enough homogenous loco/caboose fleet to make various layout scenario's work, i'm just not sure how it would go down. (*And I'll caveat, I wasn't responsible for this one, and i'm certainly not suggesting everyone setting up a meet *has* to do it this way....) Absolutely - we're lucky enough to have the people within in our "niche-within-a-niche" to do this without getting too picky. Though it helps that a lot of us seem to like almost everything.

What's stopping you?

Sadly only of one side, but I put some detail shots of 88001 here including underframe: https://ukrailwaypics.smugmug.com/Allinthedetails/Locos/88001-Revolution-Direct-Rail-Services/

If anyone's interested in knowing when these events are on, i'd suggest signing up to the freemo connect monthly newsletter here: http://eepurl.com/cE9K19 If you're a facebook user, there's a complementary group there also: https://www.facebook.com/groups/modularamerican I've added my images here (and can send a link if other attendees want to add to it...) https://ukrailwaypics.smugmug.com/ModelRailroading-1/2018-09-21/

I'd have thought big changes to the transmission though, as I'd presume they will have to change from hydraulic to electric to allow an electrical boost?

I'm comparing the version we have with the version we have! This is the direct comparison that passengers will have. It's a totally relevant comparison.

These really do look superb - I hope they live up to the look, and give a bit of inspiration for Government/other operators as to what should be possible. Yes it's the FS one, it just looks appalling doesn't it* - a nice talking point next time somebody mentions how European train seating is always perfect and British ones are never so... (* Although it looks like you could get a relaxing albeit unconventional position by stretching your legs out under the seat in front maybe....? )

A 9 or 10 car formation of these has substantially more seats than a 2+8 HST, it doesn't waste two car lengths on engines for a start - and whilst they are a long way from perfect, none of the seating in these is "Crammed in" - leg room is substantially better than GWR's HST sets in standard. This happens every time trains change. If it didn't, all trains would look kinda like a stagecoach bolted to a 4 wheel frame, as that is all that would fit the size of the previous train! Yes, some trains are longer than platforms, or may need them modifying. I'd be amazed if they didn't have to alter any platforms when HST sets were introduced on the WR - and believe it or not, HSTs are longer than some platforms they call at even today!

Padd to PZ failed last night at Totnes - was that one an HST?

From memory, it's something along the lines of a 4 having coaches A, B, C and F, and a 5 having A, B, C, D and F, and it always used to be that D wasn't reserved - so if a 4 subs for a 5 there is no problem reservations/announcements-wise.

Google overheads (which say 2018) shows a trailing connection in place there.

The lead two derailed wagons (with the bright red CAI box and the rolled over one with two MSCs) are one of the Marcroft-built FEA-A twin sets, the movable spigots on the FEA-A pivot outwards so those don't suffer the same problem. The next two are Greenbriar built FEA-S, which are the single platform incarnations of the FEA-B twins that had the spigot issues - they were built with inward pivoting spigots and it does look rather like in this case the spigots on the right hand side have unloaded and rolled back into their housings letting the right hand side of the boxes go - the boxes are only still with the wagon because the trees are stopping them going any further I suspect! I know Freightliner have been working through their FEA-Bs to fix them, but wasn't sure about their singles, or what GBRF are doing with their twins and singles? If GBRF's singles are being modified, it's not being done the same way as the Freightliner ones are looking at the first image in the header.

Let's follow that scenario... I'd have then expected wagons 2, 3, 4 to have initially started to follow the alignment of the lead in that scenario, initially on the track. The front bogie of wagon 2 could well have been pushed off the track alignment to the left towards the drop by the angle of wagon 1, so far so good... But you'd think rotating the front of wagon 2 leftwards should then have had effect of swinging the rear of wagon 2 to the right relative to the track, which would have derailed wagon 3 to the right, not the left? Anyhoo, I look forward to reading the final conclusion in a year or so...

Yep, the photo shows one wagon (bright red CAI box) which looks to have been pulled sideways by the wagons behind. The next three wagons (2xMSC, 2xBrown leasers, CARU/MSC) have consistently derailed in the *wrong* direction for splitting the points (they have derailed to the left of the left hand rail of the lead, not into the gap between the crossover and lead which is where you'd expect them to go if you split the points). Behind those three is a further one which has derailed to the left, the same direction as the previous three, before it's even got to the supposed point of detailment you've marked. My left and right comments in this and the comment above refer to left and right in the direction of travel, not from the image, if that's confusing you?

I'd disagree with your conclusion... I *would* agree the leading derailed wagon has likely been pulled sideways as the wagons behind headed in a different direction. But if the train had split the facing point the next two behind logically ought to have largely derailed towards the right side of the lead and to the left of the main route - instead all wheels appear to have derailed to the *left* of the lead, that's not logical. The wagons already being derailed to the left is a position which is also consistent with where the lead bogie of the wagon under the CARU box is, which before the frog of the facing point already has all wheels outside the *left* edge of the left hand rail, that's also consistent with where the bogie 3 back from that on the aerial shot seems to be headed too....