Search results

I honestly nearly spat out my morning coffee when I read that. A SIL-4 (for some reason it's SIL-4, even though TPWS literally doesn't have a SIL rating and neither do the, well, brakes that the ETCS On Board Equipment operates!) which means the equipment is massive. There are also some design...

It's yet another livery which can only be applied by means of wrapping because of the complex printing. What is wrong with just plain colour liveries that can be applied by paint systems that have a decent level of durability and repairability. Oh wait yes, everyone needs their marketing to...

I don't wish for this to descend into a B-wording contest but I've never been too happy with the work done by Arlington either.

LSL being attention seekers, no... who'd have thunk it... Wonder if they'll apply the same enthusiasm for liveries to making the locomotives work properly?

Well, even though it's not possible for them to work in multiple with Class 47s, I'm sure someone would be hopeful that they could make 57s work in multiple with 47s. I do suspect that LSL haven't considered the nuances of making 57s work in multiple though. It's not as simple as join them...

One does have to wonder what they're going with the 27 way on the front of it... Given that 57/3s don't have multi working and the removal of the Dellner means it's not going to couple to anything other than with a screw coupler. And no, there has never been any requirement for any head end...

Not content with being the laughing stock of Europe, now they want to build a line to London that doesn't go to London...

While this is true, the work to clear at least one line in one direction to transfer between HS1 and HS2 does bring far too many benifits to not even be entertained. How does one bring a high speed infrastructure test train onto HS2 for example?

What advantages do ETCS have on a mixed traffic railway where 'we' can't even work out how hard a freight train should be able to brake?

No. Aside from them not working out who should pay for it, there's no chance of repairing it.

Traction power over a jumper is just... yeah. no. Only LUL and SR stock does this with any form of reasonableness, and by the time you have a powerful enough generator, you have a locomotive anyway.

That's right, and there could be a Mk4b DVT, but I don't know of any. No point in removing the TDM and FDM from the coaches so they remain compatible with both.

C is only applicable to the DVT as it has the old multiple working removed. B is compatible with both.

The AAR conversions are the subsequent suffixes.

Mk.IIIs were also appproved for "Any formation" where Mk.IVs are not. Also, Mk.IVb and IVc only apply the brakes from one end.

It's just straight SDO. Nothing A or C or CA about it.

Or there's no seats fitted yet.

The CP11 axles were modified for the Class 57 project (Class 47 Re-Engine) and they now use gearcase speed sensors, and a few other minor mods. There are NO SPARE wheelsets, and NO SPARE gearcases available. Hence, wheelsets park up a lot of 57s, and Brush isn't exactly in a state to deliver...