Now, this seriously has me beaten, suggestions as to what is happening here please?

[TheFlyingCamera]

Yes- the whole front of the locomotive is slightly blurred. I'd say the shutter speed was fast enough to keep the train en toto from blurring, but not fast enough to capture it as if it were standing still. Looks like the train gave a slight sideways lurch over an un-evenness in the tracks as it approached you.

[dpurdy]

It looks to me like the light box up above the numbers has a double image as well.

[batwister]

the trees behind the engine in that close-up of the numbers don't show motion blur while the numbers and other details of the engine do.

The tree isn't moving... I assume he's using a tripod, thus the background is still.

[Ed Bray]

I am so perplexed by this I am seriously considering visiting the main station area in the next couple of days to check it out.

[Ed Bray]

Yes the camera was on a heavy tripod, I am sure the camera itself did not move.

[FilmSprocket]

I agree there definitely is blur involved here but why are there two distinct sets of numbers? Blurry as they are.

Marc

[Hatchetman]

I think it is motion blur. It's more obvious with the numbers because they show so much contrast. 35mm train shooters hope for minimum 1/500 if possible.

[batwister]

I am so perplexed by this I am seriously considering visiting the main station area in the next couple of days to check it out.

It really is quite simple, but nobody seems to be able to explain it adequately! I understand it in practice, but my physics is failing me. Another way of thinking about it is clouds - which generally move very fast indeed. On a windy day your foreground interest (a tree say) may show some motion blur from the wind, whereas the incredibly fast moving clouds above will retain detail. So it has to do with distance/time. The extreme example would be a plane flying at hundreds of miles an hour, yet it's much easier to freeze the motion of a plane flying at full speed several miles away than it is a slow plane coming in to land.

An even more extreme example is the ISS, flying at 18,000 mph! With a telescope you may be able to photograph this much easier than a car passing in front of you at 30 mph.

[Hatchetman]

It is image speed across the film plane we are worried about.

[batwister]

It is image speed across the film plane we are worried about.

If he'd stepped back and altered his perspective there would be no motion blur because the distance between him, the front of the train and middle of the train where there is full detail would be adequate. This is causing the confusion. I'd like to see some kind of equation that explains this distance/subject speed problem. It's almost like hyperfocal but for moving subjects.