dp21
Member
- Joined
- 10 May 2017
- Messages
- 358
Paint keeps rust from getting at the steel. Other than that, what is behind the loco earning money is far more important.
I couldn't agree more.
Paint keeps rust from getting at the steel. Other than that, what is behind the loco earning money is far more important.
Paint also promotes the brand of the operator drawing in more business, especially in the competitive UK freight market.Paint keeps rust from getting at the steel. Other than that, what is behind the loco earning money is far more important.
Yes corporate branding helps with that, but I fail to see how painting one to look like the last steam loco built, or the last days of BR which did its best to get rid of freight achieves that.Paint also promotes the brand of the operator drawing in more business, especially in the competitive UK freight market.
It demonstrates respect, care and understanding of the industry they are in. It also generates social media activity, and will be featured in rail news publications, again generating publicity and promoting their brand and services to potential customers.Yes corporate branding helps with that, but I fail to see how painting one to look like the last steam loco built, or the last days of BR which did its best to get rid of freight achieves that.
On the other hand, painting one in honour of a customer that puts £millions your way is a different matter.
It demonstrates respect, care and understanding of the industry they are in. It also generates social media activity, and will be featured in rail news publications, again generating publicity and promoting their brand and services to potential customers.
I can think of 15 more.... 73966-971, 86101/401, 87002 and 92010/014/018/023/033/038.Indeed. Furthermore, regarding Furnessvale's point about customers, GBRF have got about 3 locos I can think of in customer liveries (MSC, Maritime and Aggregate industries)
I can think of 15 more.... 73966-971, 86101/401, 87002 and 92010/014/018/023/033/038.
Many of the Class 66s aren't owned by GBRf, either. Do they not count?Does 86101/401 and 87002 really count? I thought they were owned by the AC Locomotive group?
I can think of 15 more.... 73966-971, 86101/401, 87002 and 92010/014/018/023/033/038.
Surprised it wasn't applied to a class 92, BR's final loco.
If privatisation hadn't happened, I doubt it would have been in any way politically acceptable for BR to order 250+ North American built diesel locos over an a UK built design from Brush or Alstom.
The Class 60 is actually a more capable loco than the 59. And it's easier to keep the 59s reliable as they go back to the same depot and get plenty of TLC.And we all know that the Class 60 should have been a facsimile of Class 59s anyway .....![]()
The Class 60 is actually a more capable loco than the 59. And it's easier to keep the 59s reliable as they go back to the same depot and get plenty of TLC.
Exactly! In summary, the 59's creep control comes in at around 3mph, whereas the 60 has the equivalent capability from 0mph. The problem is if you can't get to 3mph! I've always thought it would be interesting to see a Class 70 tried out of Liverpool BHT as a comparison.Have to agree with that, CosherB always conveniently forgets the results of the Port of Liverpool coal train trails!![]()
I'm talking with the benefit of hindsight and rose tinted glasses, and pretending it's 1990.Have to agree with that, CosherB always conveniently forgets the results of the Port of Liverpool coal train trails!![]()
I've always thought it would be interesting to see a Class 70 tried out of Liverpool BHT as a comparison.
They have the advantage of AC traction motors, which are inherently better at low-speed running. US railroads replaced their DC motor locos with AC locos (SD70ACe and AC4400CW) on heavy coal trains using fewer locos and lower horsepower - slower speed but will keep slogging away at low speed with minimal risk of motor damage.Indeed! I'm not well up on the class 70 but in theory one would imagine they should offer a superior performance over both 59 & 60 but until they put one to the test we can of course only speculate. I assume they have a more refined creep control setup versus the 66, and at least the equal to the 60s Sepex technology?
They have the advantage of AC traction motors, which are inherently better at low-speed running. US railroads replaced their DC motor locos with AC locos (SD70ACe and AC4400CW) on heavy coal trains using fewer locos and lower horsepower - slower speed but will keep slogging away at low speed with minimal risk of motor damage.
These 66's have relieved capacity issues but not the versatility issue it seems.
I find it hard to imagine that the cl70 is the answer. There are relatively few of them and unless more are built will only produce constraints elsewhere. Most 70's are being used lazily as freightliner intermodal spear heads, so to make better use of them a straight swap for more 66's would seem the most simple solution. We can speculate a lot, but one thing is for sure the interest in the cl60 was not for freightliner activities.
I would be interested to see what the Colas cl60 availability has been like since those 10 were overhauled. I'd imagine its been quite impressive.
66789 out and about in south london today!
I really hate that game with a passion. The graphics and interface haven't been updated since the first release, everything looks so grim and lifeless on it. As for the sounds, just compare it to the real video of 66789, very poor.And a reskin has already been main for Train Sim!
Have you tried Train Sim World? That's a much better experience.I really hate that game with a passion. The graphics and interface haven't been updated since the first release, everything looks so grim and lifeless on it. As for the sounds, just compare it to the real video of 66789, very poor.