Ride behind 62005

[neilmc]

Had a ride behind 62005 last week. Unfortunately it wasn't on a railway line as the loco was on the back of a low-loader blocking the A86 on its way (presumably) to Fort William, not only could it not be overtaken until the load reached a large layby but made it extremely difficult for traffic coming in the opposite direction.

No doubt several dozen other drivers will be wondering why a railway locomotive wasn't transported in a consignment on the railway, I expect the answer comes down to cost or pathing.

 

[andrewg70]

Had a ride behind 62005 last week. Unfortunately it wasn't on a railway line as the loco was on the back of a low-loader blocking the A86 on its way (presumably) to Fort William, not only could it not be overtaken until the load reached a large layby but made it extremely difficult for traffic coming in the opposite direction.

No doubt several dozen other drivers will be wondering why a railway locomotive wasn't transported in a consignment on the railway, I expect the answer comes down to cost or pathing.

Probably because it was missing a vital part
http://andrewstransport.smugmug.com...-2013/27387092_gssBtM#!i=2774503102&k=3GJ9sxZ

 

[Bedpan]

Ha ha, Yes, from the photo it does indeed seem that a vital part is missing - its tender!

Joking apart , if its got as problem with firebox stays then I would have thought it would be possible to have towed it by rail, but I assume that a speed limit would be imposed which would make it impractical for pathing reasons. I do hope its that, and not purely cost grounds.

 

[MK Tom]

It's almost always cheaper to move locos by road. That's been the case for a long time.