Recent content by JohnElliott

Is there a nearby pub it could be named after, like Bat & Ball or Jolly Sailor?

Yellow chevrons pointing in the direction of travel, with solid lines on the edge of the roadway, to give the message that there's only one way out?

I keep misreading the subject of this thread as "Class 33/1 reconfiguration" and thinking it's about 27-way cables...

Since the railway seems to be moving towards standard track balises for everything, perhaps put them each side of the crossing broadcasting a custom packet that's ignored by trains but picked up by cars and interpreted as "no entry"?

I've certainly seen the suggestion made that side-contact third rail would cope better in icy conditions than the top-contact we have now. Even suggestions that it would be worthwhile switching the entire third rail area over to use it.

I've read that in the 1960s LT had powers to extend the Aldwych spur to Waterloo (presumably running it as a shuttle like the W&C). Don't think I saw any details on what the station at the Waterloo end would have been like.

It would make it possible to bring another train alongside on its donkey battery to evacuate the passengers, though.

Looking back a few years in this forum, there was discussion of a system called TrackLink being fitted to SWR's fleet that was supposed to use balises to inform the train how long the platform was and which side to open the doors on. Did this prove unsuccessful?

There is a page on gov.uk giving the full list of projects: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/find-out-about-every-new-transport-project-in-your-region They include:

In the case of the Bluebell, the rationale for Sheffield Park was that it had a reliable supply of water.

Or an MLV, I'd have thought (at least the early ones).

Pre-war SR multiple units had a 660v bus line between units (the socket was also used for depot power, and was carried by post-war units for the same purpose) so I don't think physics would rule out an autocoupler with a connector of similar size. That would only be appropriate for a loco with a...

The report linked from #93 explains why the LSWR went for slam doors, and presumably why they stuck with them after that (p40): Bulleid was obviously happy to build tube stock with powered doors for the Waterloo and City, and the EPB control system had spare wires for door controls right from...

In this timeline there were points in the 4-SUB production run when the SR could only build trailer coaches, because motors weren't obtainable. More widespread electrification would run up against the same supply bottlenecks. That said, I've sometimes wondered what would have happened if, at...

I've sometimes wondered about that; it seems a shame that the bits at the end, that used to be full-size railways, are constrained by the tube-sized segments in the middle. But given the premise of unleashing full-sized TBMs on subterranean London, there's no reason for the replacement tunnels...