DY444

I've always assumed it turned out as it did because more than 3 standard 86/2s had been completed at the time so it was less work to renumber 86201-3 than the rest.

I would argue there's a substantial difference between ships, aircraft (and trains) on the one hand and road vehicles on the other. It seems to me that the number of variables relating to road vehicles is substantially greater and random in nature making it a totally different proposition. I still maintain that an acceptably competent automated vehicle for general use by Joe Public is a long way off not just because of the technical challenges but because of the regulatory and legal ones too. All software has to cater for unknown cases with one or more sets of default actions which may or may not be appropriate to the unknown case (because if you knew what to do for the unknown case it wouldn't be unknown!). How happy is a driver going to be to take unconditional personal responsibility for the actions of an automated vehicle controlled by software written by some unknown college kid? I say not happy at all and I think that will take a very long time to change.

I believe that public acceptance of autonomous cars is a very long way away. My car is fitted with an active cruise control system which is apparently state of the art. However even on its least paranoid setting it drives me nuts because it reacts far more cautiously to developing hazzards than even the most cautious of human drivers would.

It's a game in semantics. When you strip it back then there is no real material difference in the train driving role of a driver on the tube lines equipped with a modern ATO system (so excluding the Central Line) and the staff member on a DLR train. The latter is however described as driverless and the former isn't.

It is probably a confused journalistic way of saying the train will respond to state of the line data provided by the signalling system. ie ATO

Although the DEMUs had 27 way jumpers and EP brakes the jumpers were wired differently and were not compatible with any emus. One DEMU was rewired much later to be EMU capabible but it was the only one.

Because of this it would make far more sense to use 90s as these have better acceleration.

No they were limited to 110. The only things authorised for 125 on the WCML are Voyagers and Pendolinos

I'm guessing it's a co-acting signal for the searchlight provided to aid sighting. There were, and indeed still are, a few around the network.

I believe you are correct in that a break of journey is gernerally allowed in either direction providing you are on a permitted route and that there is no restriction code on the ticket you hold which says otherwise. Sadly, there are too many staff who do not understand the ticket rules although in my experience these are far more common at ticket barriers than on trains. Paddington is one particularly bad example for this.

Yes it is Peckham Rye

I don't think that one is 528 as there is no sign of any eth equipment. The number looks like it might be either 472xx or 473xx.

No. It was an up line which diverged from the Up North London line between Primrose Hill Tunnel and Primrose Hill station and went under the entire formation and came out on the down side about half way down Camden Bank

A few weeks ago several trains went through Wimbledon depot during a major signalling failure between Wimbledon and Earlsfield. Years ago I remember a journey from Carshalton to Sutton which due to a points failure at Sutton went unsignalled move bang road on the Down Pompey to Mitcham Junction, then via Waddon Marsh to West Croydon with an unsignalled move into P4, then to Sutton via Wallington. All organised in about 20 mins between the train crew, control, and Victoria and Three Bridges boxes. You could do that sort of stuff in those days.

Yes but mirrors or fixed monitors are placed at 4 and 8 car stopping positions and since 378s went to 5 cars and SN Metro started 5 car and 10 car workings both being available is not as common as it was.

I presume he's on Mt Pleasant Level Crossing

Only used if the train doesn't have bodyside cameras. In the case of Honor Oak Park that would be trains formed of 455s. 377s and 378s which also call there have the cameras

There are a few like that around Raynes Park and New Malden - they pre-date the late 1980s resignalling and were re-used. I'm not 100% sure but I think they were installed by the Southern Railway in the 1930s.

Those concrete gantries are one of the few things remaining in use from the 1955 resignalling. There are also the uprights from some of the 1955 scheme gantries erected between Clapham Junction and Balham still in use as signal posts. Probably most remarkable of all though is one of the signal gantries between Clapham Junction and Pouparts Junction which is an original ole gantry from the LBSCR ac electrification scheme.

Various spanners have been propelled into the works since the initial studies were done. One of the bigger ones is the Wimbledon loop service. The original idea for that was not to run it through the core and terminate the 4tph service in the bays at Blackfriars and there was even a plan to increase it to 8tph. Then a couple of South London MPs started moaning because their constituents couldn't face the prospect of changing at Blackfriars to go the 250 yards to City Thameslink and the 500 yards to Farringdon so the DfT insisted the Wimbledon service was restored to the core. This mucked up the junction pathing at Blackfriars because the Wimbledon trains now have to cross the formation to access the core whereas under the original plan they had a direct route straight into the Blackfriars bays.

One little interesting feature in the top centre of that shot is the physical connection of the 1500V DC and 25KV AC ole with the double insulators on both the catenary wire and the contact wire

It's not used as a thunderbird, it was retained so that GW drivers can move 387s to/from Reading depot. It also sees use on the sleeper empties as in your picture and can if necessary work the sleeper itself although it has a reputation for being unreliable so that is avoided if possible.

Yes I know the A244 through Oxshott and the bridge in question very well indeed. Whilst what you say about the parapet is true, it is also true that vehicles used to come flying over the brow of the hill and then get caught out by the little left hand bend where the bridge is. Just a little postscript about unit 5913. As a result of its rebuild following this incident it is a bit non-standard in terms of its wiring. Because of that it will be the very last one to be put through the SWT 455 retractioning programme.

Except when they get doused with sea water at Dawlish when total failure is almost guaranteed. That's why Voyagers don't run beyond Exeter when there is any risk of it happening. DRS still provide some 57/3s on the WCML

It seems that the lorry driver didn't agree with you because he pleaded guilty to driving without due care and attention