><...> they were a novelty. I didn't notice any ride peculiarities. I didn't feel unsafe.<

Nort did the test engineers in 1986 when the units were unleashed. I still like them. But the Italian equivalent (looking far more crammed and old-fashioned in 1998) had these "rocking stabilizer cranks" near the secondary suspension. It is at once evident that the rubber blocks fixing the linkages to the carbody may require some degree of elasticity, as otherwise the primary suspension might not suffice to avoid unbalanced wheel loadings before and after superelevation ramps.

Did you watch any such devices near the trucks of these cars ? Aerial views and my copies form NETWORK just indicate a "could be", so I would like to have an indication from the real thing.

> I gather the latest accident was in a fairly narrow stone sided cutting. Perhaps this was too narrow for these trains.<

Ah - no, come on, that's a fully-equipped main line near Waterfalls- and cant deficiency parameters will not differ at S.R.NSW from anywhere else. After all, the first car "flew" over the opposing track, then hit the rocks. Trackside scraping traces were evident near the rear (overturned) coach in the aerial views provided in the "Moreover.com" columns here.

However, if digging into Australian sites some more incidents with the cars show up. However, this won't mean anything. There had been numerous incidents with the German cl.420 emu, and that Stuttgart "GT-4" tram had a record of overturning until 1976. It is still a good vehicle - though dated by now.

Regards, CTW