Search results

Teams already fuel their cars based on the chance of safety cars. If a team (and they all do it) short fuel their cars because there is a higher chance of safety cars then adding more laps isn‘t going to help.

I'd only support a red flag in such circumstances if the rules changed so that a red flag doesn't count as one of the mandatory pit stops. A red flag under current conditions can have race altering affects.

Just get the lapped cars far enough infront (2-4 corners) so as not to interfere with the restart. There is no reason why they should have to do a full lap and rejoin at the back.

I'd argue that GTA is one of those games where the majority of people initially buy/play it for the single player content.

To this day I do not understand why they had this rule or why they considered it "bad sport".

LGW has been a driver’s depot for a little while now. There are also plans to get shunters loco driving like other depots but not sure how far the process has got.

Can be any number of things that can affect fuel levels, but the inbound service looked to be quite heavily delayed so maybe it used more fuel on the run up than anticipated.

Sailsbury wasn't fatal.

I am not an engineer but in my mind the 810 acted like friction buffers at a terminus and dissipated a huge amount of energy.

Given the line speed I dont think 76mph is unreasonable at double yellows. Service braking is FROM the double yellow (or yellow in 3 aspect signalling) TO the red.

Get a cheap “portable” one. £200 off Amazon etc. They are not as efficient as proper AC but good enough to chill a room you can retreat too, especially in an upper floor flat.

The issue with the same warnings for yellow and red was brought up and known about decades ago. The consensus is there is no quick or cheap fix for it.

How can you say that when their article states. The first sentence is correct but the second isn't.

The driver would have been authorised to pass the signal at danger which would have been someway away from the points., they do not know for certain if the points are correctly set untill they visually see them.

Does it? The RAIB are the ones with the data. Why would they estimate 49mph if it wasn't?

The driver didn’t accept the wrong road. That is why they stopped. Even doing under 10 mph it takes time and distance to stop.

Points failure and the signaler (or points operator) has not manually set or checked the points were laying correct before authorising the train to pass the signal at danger. As I said, just a guess but if the RAIB are not attending it doesn't sound like a system failure.

At a guess I would presume it is already pinpointed as human error.

Exactly. Imagine the rule does change and you carry on to the next "suitable location". Meanwhile the train behind not only encounters the same fault but also has a fault that brings the train to a stand anyway then you end up in the same situation.

I can't remember the exact years but it happened at least twice in different years.