DY444

Interesting that there was felt to be a need to issue an instruction. I believe the rulebook is clear that drivers should be prepared to stop short of an obstruction when proceeding under dots and must therefore regulate their speed accordingly. This also featured in the Plymouth collision and so I wonder if there might be a driver training issue here because it sounds like some drivers were unaware of the precise meaning of the dots.

Similar issues at New St. If it is re-signalled to modern standards then you halve the capacity. Needless to say creative interpretations of the standards are being employed to get round this. It is fascinating to watch "moderns standards" being cited as a reason why traction changes can't be done in "Bournemouth REP/TC/33" style efficiency and yet when those self same standards would potentially cripple the train service as at Bristol TM and New St then they (or the rule book) get fudged. What a way to run a railway as someone once said.

It was at surface level but not elevated in the sense of being on a viaduct.

Probably no more ludicrous than Chris Gibb's recommendation

Yes there was a problem with AWS on third rail lines and the initial installation on the SR was mainly on steam worked lines. This was completed in the early 60s. The first widespread adoption on an electrified SR line came with the resignalling and associated work done for the Bournemouth electrification. It was (very) gradually installed on the other electrified lines either during resignalling or just as a stand alone programme where resignalling had already happened (eg Kent Coast routes) or was some way off (eg Coastway lines). However it was the late 70s until the SWD was fully equipped and well into the 80s before the Brighton and Kent Coast lines were. Very little if any of the pre-war SR stock was fitted and I'm pretty sure the post war 4SUBs weren't either. All EP stock got it eventually although for many years the only stock with it was REPs and TCs, and SW CIGs and VEPs. Most BI CIGs for example didn't get it until the late 70s as the only route they ran over which was equipped was Forest Hill to London Bridge.

I can assure you that's very far from the case. The private sector makes just as many foul ups as the public sector, the difference being you don't hear about it.

If you're 100% certain that you've checked that all your droppers are connected to the correct bus wire and that there isn't an electrofrog point in there somewhere which you haven't taken account of then I'm stumped. As it seems to be a widespread fault then the only further thing I can offer is that tends to shift the odds slightly towards it being a systemic issue, ie you've introduced the same wiring error in more than one place.

I notice from your track plan that you have a triangle. How are you handling the polarity change on that?

The 50 didn't push because it wasn't compatible with the test train driving trailer. In fact it is reported it used a different set of stock entirely. My understanding is that the 37s did push the test stock on the trials. 37s could not push DBSOs in E-G configuration as this required FDM equipment which only the Scottish 47/7s had. As has already been said the DBSOs being pushed by 37s in recent times have been modified to operate with blue star locomotives.

Assuming that you have the normal arrangement of droppers attached to two bus wires then what I would do is split the bus wires to isolate the problem before you start cutting droppers and removing railjoiners. Get some choc drop terminal blocks (rated at 10A or more) and starting a few feet from the point furthest from the command station split the bus wires. Check if the short is still there. If it isn't then the fault is in the section beyond the cut. If it is still there then use a two "chunk" choc drop connector to rejoin the cut and move a few feet closer to the command station and repeat. Eventually you will find the section where the short is and can do a detailed examination of the droppers and rail breaks in that section. Having the choc drop connectors means you can isolate sections in future if you need to.

37s were used in some of the push pull trials prior to the 27s being introduced on the E-G route. These trials used a converted Mk1 BSK as a driving trailer. 37s also appeared from time to time as substitutes for the 27s once the full service started.

There were certainly 08 workings into Paddington at night when parcels and newspaper traffic was still handled at London termini. I'm sure Rugd1022 can furnish details.

As noted above it was never dual braked but it did work air braked Mk2s. There are pictures around showing it hauling Mk2s on the WR after it was fitted with air brakes.

Coincidentally you may be aware that your namesake (9017) also derailed at Darlington in the late 60s due to brake failure. Caused by the locomotive brake pipe being connected to the stock main res pipe and vice versa - despite this being thought to be impossible. The connector design was subsequently changed to ensure it really was impossible.

Iirc it was being used as a static converter to provide a 1500V DC supply for testing Class 506s.

Jaffa Cake CEPs is Victoria and the last 442 is Derby

The 455s have Westcode brakes. The only BR built emus from the 313s onwards that had westinghouse/ep were the 312s and 442s.

I thought the Midland sets were based there as the daily diagram started and ended at Manchester Central

FWIW 1215 Padd-Cardiff on Wednesday (800008/800009) was the first IET service to depart Reading on AC carrying passengers.

At Crewe iirc

I agree. Both C676 and J035 are "generators"

Well they are either mistaken or telling porkies because IETs are not approved for in service electric use beyond Maidenhead until Jan 1st (assuming all the paperwork is done in time).

The report I've seen says that the rescue attempt with the locomotive (57306) was unsuccessful and that the 15 car train was finally moved under its own power after the Hitachi staff eventually managed to get power and brake release. It is also reported that GW have given Hitachi senior management a right rollocking over this incident in particular and the poor availability and performance of the units in general. Also the DfT are reportedly asking Hitachi to explain why, having spent hundreds of millions of pounds on engine uprating, the units are barely better than an HST on one power car above 40 mph.

I was looking for Sgt. Davy Freeth

The rumour mill favourites seem to be 379s or 360s when released from GA or 350s when released from the franchise formerly known as LM (can't remember what it is called now!). The only way I can see TL stock being used is if it turns out they've ordered way too many sets for whatever ends up being the final steady state TL timetable (or as a stop gap pending other stock being released).