Brand new loco dropped from crane...
Discussion
43034 said:
APT is something we should've stuck with more I think. Could've had those vice Pendos on WCML then.
...only 20 years sooner. It does f
k me off, it was so close to being ready for regular service you could pretty much say that the biggest problem was railway-hating journalists blaming their nausea on the train rather than all the sodding booze they poured down their necks... Should have put 'em on the LMS's speed record run 
43034 said:
Although we got it dead right with HSTs 
43034 said:
Until they got refurbed 
againGargamel said:
My old man is always banging on about this, in fact I know he recently wrote to his MP saying if they do go ahead with the High Speed II route, it should be conditional on UK steel manufacture and the rolling stock and enines being manufactured in the UK.
Quite right, won't happen though
He's dead on the money though, buying stuff abroad when we have debt, unemployment but the know-how to make them is insane. Certifiable even.Quite right, won't happen though
barmonkey said:
This loco was the last of several brand new class 70s being unloaded from a ship in Newport Docks. It was reportedly about 13ft in the air above the ship's hold when something went badly wrong and it fell back in again.
It is now somewhat banana shaped and rumoured to be beyond economical repair.
Ooops.
and one of the railway mags has a picture of a trainload of those being transported to the docks for shipping. So near and yet so far.....
A Freigthliner colleague of mine says thats not the only one to suffer damage,a second new loco has suffered frost damage and another a seized traction motor whilst being moved north.Apparently the one at Newport suffered terminal damage after being dropped about 20ft back into the hold of the ship.
You wouldnt have said that if a relo of yours had been killed underneath it...serious H&S case there as they were unloading it after dark which the article states was not normal...
It was the crane/slingers not the driver/locomotive.
This Class 70 is butt ugly at the front but the side elevations are well engineered. Its a heck of a piece of kit and achieves good performance / emissions - if the UK Government didnt roll-over all the time when our companies are bought out we would still have the capability to build what we design in the first place.
My six cents
It was the crane/slingers not the driver/locomotive.
This Class 70 is butt ugly at the front but the side elevations are well engineered. Its a heck of a piece of kit and achieves good performance / emissions - if the UK Government didnt roll-over all the time when our companies are bought out we would still have the capability to build what we design in the first place.
My six cents
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's just a shame that the 59's follow up is cheap and nasty st.If we ordered 457 odd 59s instead of cheap 66s I'd doubt we would need the 70s at the moment.
Or if we looked after the 60s better, I'd like to see a 66 pull 3300t out of Liverpool Bulkhead Terminal (same with a 70 actually, because it would be interesting to see whether a 70 could do it, vice knowing a 66 can't!!).
R6dug said:
Yea to compete with the 70s.At least this appears to be a proper refurb, unlike the other loks they have apparently refurbed (37419). 419 but a leg out on Shap. Turns out that refurb was some paint
Not to forget the GM oil DB put in the EE lumps.
Globs said:
One thing I've never quite understood is why (passenger) trains need to be so big..
Are you on about the above loco? As that isn't a passenger loco.Or are you on about Units (underfloor engines, cab part of the train. Basically carraiges with engines underneath), or are you on about passenger locos?
If it's passenger locos, we don't have many of those about today that are used for passenger work. Class 57s and Class 67s mainly and I wouldn't class them as big? Perfectly to scale with the rest of the railway. Plus they do pull heavy loads to so warrant the larger engine for the greater tractive effort.
43034 said:
Globs said:
One thing I've never quite understood is why (passenger) trains need to be so big..
Are you on about the above loco? As that isn't a passenger loco.Or are you on about Units (underfloor engines, cab part of the train. Basically carraiges with engines underneath), or are you on about passenger locos?
If it's passenger locos, we don't have many of those about today that are used for passenger work. Class 57s and Class 67s mainly and I wouldn't class them as big? Perfectly to scale with the rest of the railway. Plus they do pull heavy loads to so warrant the larger engine for the greater tractive effort.
Globs said:
Well, just trains in general really. I can understand goods trains to an extent, but passenger trains are hugely bigger and more expensive than they need to be. Look at the size of a car compared to a train - yet you can still fit 4 people in a car. Maybe it's because everyone likes to stand up and walk about? Or maybe it's because most of the time at rush hour you can fit more people in standing!
That's pretty much it. People can walk about on a train where as you can't in a car. Plenty of standing room too (i'm sure you'll agree the railway needs that!!). Plus from the time when the railway was mainly Loco Hauled, you'd need a large loco to house the large engine so 'large' carriages followed suit. 
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff