Search results

I always liked the feature on Craven Rollers, of the driveshaft going through a tunnel in the fuel tank. Driveshaft fails, utter mayhem. Brilliant !!

This has been coming for quite a few years, largely down to very poor management. the contract engineering side was wound up recently, due to an appalling product. Unfortunately a lot of this railway is tarred with the same brush. Clean sweep needed here, if is not too late.

Most will have scrap wheelsets. A very costly fix.

As I remember. The 2 locos designs offered for class 60. Brush product, with Mirlees MB275T (this was part of the Brush group).The GEC offer was effectivily a GM loco, built under license in the UK. GEC was convinced this is what BR wanted. Therefore the Ruston engine (part of the GEC group)...

I don't think there are any spares left on it. Just a shell I think. 86632 now dumped out of the way.

90050, 86251, and the line of withdrawn 86's

They already have one. Class 88

That sounds very likely. Heard about the poor quality materials, but I am sure the latter will be correct also.

Class 20 were pretty good. But there were a lot of changes made, during the long build run. The early locos had KV5 load reg, and carbon pile AVR. Late locos had KV10 load reg (same as class 50), and HSD electronic AVR. These were much more troublesome. The 8SVT engine also suffered balancer...

Nothing was perfect, and most classes had there achillies heel. NBL stuff was very bad post steam. The MAN engines and Voith transmissions they made under license were dreadful. Paxman engines pretty poor (even in HST's). EE stuff was maybe the best, but Class 40 bogies, and Class 50 load...

They can be started from either cab, but as the BIS is just behind No 2 cab, then that is the easiest place to start them. same with a lot of locos. class 68 are the same.

Normal EE very cold start. Paxman Valentas were just as bad. Sulzers just the opposite.

I would expect that these units do not have transformers or rectifiers etc. fitted. So the conversion would not be that straight forward.

Bodyshell for Coradia/Juniper were also made in Barcelona. Pendolinos Sivigliano (Italy).

The centre line was a reversing neck, for trains terminating at Hall Rd, very rarely, if ever, used lately, after all trains continued to Southport. Trains coming on/off the depot used a headshunt on the seaward side of the down line. Trains coming off the depot heading to Sandhills, would run...

Scarborough is an Arriva Traincare Depot. A sub depot of Crewe.

This would have been an air braked train. The dual braked vehicles would have been working in air brake mode. No vac only vehicles could have been in the consist.

158 have alluminium shells, so don't suffer the tinworm. They do have there own issues, but likely they could last longer than some more modern units.

The 156 shells where built by procor in Wakefield, if I remember rightly. These trains are 35 years old, with steel shells. Corrosion will always be an issue. There are some much more modern trains around with serious corrosion issues.

The 502 & 503 were very different trains, though they looked similar. There were even significant differences between the 1938 built, and 1956 built 503. Then there was the 2 hybrid units. 28678 & 28687, which had 1938 built power cars, and 1956 built trailers. this was due to war damage.