Recent content by Jonny

LNER is still running Mk4/Class 91 sets, albeit two coaches shorter than in the past. So push-pull is still there. It just needs more coaches to be economically viable.

To come back to the issue of setting up charging, in itself there may be the possibility of relocating premises to near(er) a substation, slowly-charged storage batteries that discharge rapidly when a vehicle needs to be recharged, using solar (and/or other micro-generation), or some combination...

How difficult is it to remove a trespasser? What has happened that a negotiator is needed?

What is worse is that while there was no service for a large part of the day stopping st Chester-le-Street, freight and OAO services seemed to be passing through. At minimum that makes the railway look bad. The contingency plans do need to be reviewed to maintain services to all future-GBR...

Surely, just in general terms of the information system, the signaller should know or be able to find out whether or not the train has gone beyond/outside a movement authority (especially if it is SPAD-equivalent) without the need for any information from the driver?

As to why the tunnels are so susceptible, is it their square shape? The Wikipedia article on Gateshead Interchange (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateshead_Interchange) claims that "the running tunnels are square". Is there some underlying design issue there? (section of article)

That's one of the two possible locations for the crossing, cross-checking with other maps including https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/54.960827/-1.598371 , this leads to https://maps.app.goo.gl/r1M7WXX5TN8NxKce9 might be the point where the Metro Line passes underneath. There is also what...

The 2022 bit seems to be a statutory instrument, and explicitly applies to England. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/1094/regulation/1/made ScotRail would have a lot of "paperwork" to do to catch up before they were able to issue penalty fares anyway.

And compatibility from a driver's standpoint so that existing traction knowledge covers the new train? It should not be too hard for the legal department to define traction knowledge and specify it as a compatibility requirement in the tender.

So what is likely to happen at shared stations in terms of the Elizabeth Line and the Thameslink/Northern City lines?

Perceived speed often does not match reality. It is an interesting subject, perhaps in this case it corresponds to an honest mismatch between perception and reality. The investigators will deal with that in due course.

I'm sure they could find something else, like Byelaw 2(1): (Extract from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/railway-byelaws/railway-byelaws ) That could be applied to a 'vape' while it is being used. Then there is the notorious 8(6), "comfort and convenience" IIRC

It's getting ridiculous. They are even suppressing platform numbers for the Overground (to be Lioness) services, even though they can only realistically run from two adjacent platforms (9 and 10, due to having third rail) in practice and it is quite possible simply to head straight for those...

It seems to be heading that way. LNER would do well to make sure that they have useable access to the whole Hertford Loop, with crew training etc. (also it would be useful as an extra access route to Bounds Green depot).

I just looked at the NRES map of Brighton station on the National Rail Enquiries website, and while that map is diagrammatic it does seem like there isn't a lot of room. Link...