Atomic Systems

There are lots of guage profiles on BR.

I suspect they are built to the clearance required for 9ft containers.
That should keep them from spoiling scenic branch lines.

The bogies look dodgy for running on 3rd rail electrified routes.

If the designer thinks it looks pretty I'll introduce him to my sister.

theres only narrow and standard guage

You seemed to be talking about the height and as such there are several guages ranging from W6 to W12 with UIC GB+ on HS1.

ianmacmillan wrote:If the designer thinks it looks pretty I'll introduce him to my sister.

lmfao

Rik.

I wouldn't get excites about the bogies, or therefore the height.

Having a good look at those and they look like they might be temporary bogies to get the chassis out of the erecting shop. A comparison with a 66 makes it appear the bogies are higher than they should, which would be explained by the temporary wheels.

danielw2599 wrote:

theres only narrow and standard guage

You seemed to be talking about the height and as such there are several guages ranging from W6 to W12 with UIC GB+ on HS1.

Thats HS1 daniel, built to European Standard Guage. British Standard guage is different. the "Predators" are for FHH and are meant for work on the WCML and ECML bottlenecks to increase asseleration without the need for Electrics

UIC GB+ is HS1, but W6 to W12 is not.

oh yes W6 and 12 are for a handful of routes that allow for 9'6" containers arent they? the ECML and WCML were modified with large containers in mind only a handful of back routes were modified, where as alot of wagons were built in the initial lower rider or Well wagon style, to compensate.

Should the Class 70's have unlimited access albeit on RA 7 or RA 8 lines they should need to be able to run on all UK standard guage routes as per Class 67 which had to be dropped a notch or 2 on its bogies. GM already had UK specified guaged loco's so it wasnt impossible to build a powerful loco with the smallest of the uk standard guage lines. I know the 67 is a GM product but the guaging issue was purely that fault of the Contractors in Spain.

So as you look again at how big the 70 is do you think it would fit in the smallest of UK standard guage mainlines ie; Portbury-Fiddlers Ferry/Rugeley via Shrewsbury as this is the route that could see potential as one freightliner 66 seems to struggle to get upto 60mph fully loaded loaded.

I still can't understand the logic that says it's more cost effective to build loco's in the U.S. & ship them
all the way across the Atlantic, when we are more than capable of building loco's at Crewe, Doncaster & Derby.

What about "British jobs for British workers" ?
In these harrowing financial times, why do we throw money to a foreign country, when we need to keep our
own economy afloat ?

It's no wonder the youth of today is dossing about on street corners getting drunk or doped up, there's nothing
for them to do.
We could be employing them to help build things we need, like railway loco's, and they would be learning a
useful trade in engineering.

Crimpsal wrote:I still can't understand the logic that says it's more cost effective to build loco's in the U.S. & ship them
all the way across the Atlantic, when we are more than capable of building loco's at Crewe, Doncaster & Derby.

What about "British jobs for British workers" ?
In these harrowing financial times, why do we throw money to a foreign country, when we need to keep our
own economy afloat ?

It's no wonder the youth of today is dossing about on street corners getting drunk or doped up, there's nothing
for them to do.
We could be employing them to help build things we need, like railway loco's, and they would be learning a
useful trade in engineering.

Damn right

Ant

because in all fairness nothing has gone wrong with US stuff here, well not as bad as the Class 60.

salopiangrowler wrote:because in all fairness nothing has gone wrong with US stuff here, well not as bad as the Class 60.

So U.S. stuff doesn't go wrong yeh right.

British stuff could be just as reliable, you just have to train the workers properly & invest in modern equipment
and machine tooling, something successive governments of this country failed to do. Now is the time they
should be rectifying this, Britain needs some pride putting back into it and the railways are one of the major
ways they could do this.
Show me a young boy & I'll show you a railfan.

its actually based on cheap labour charges, in theory it is alot cheaper to buy american

salopiangrowler wrote:its actually based on cheap labour charges, in theory it is alot cheaper to buy american

And with "cheap" labour charges, you get shoddy workmanship & second rate materials.

yeah.

Well the frames just a simple flat peice of metal about 1 foot thick 45-50 foot long and nearly 5 foot wide. its like an extra large table top, stick an engine on top of that and a couple of bogies and a fuel tank and thats the GE project done. Remember the Frame was cut in Feburary its now July and its finished. GE prefer Quantity over Quality. Ugly yes, Crash Protection ummm at sole bar level 100% anything above you got no chance, and a power unit yet to be tried in a Locomotive.

GE AC44 evolutions and C45-CTE evos are a prime exapmle of what GE can do i dont know the full figures but the Evolution series is still in production and has passed the 5000 loco mark with the biggest buyers being Norfolk Southern and Union Pacific with BNSF a close third. So there is Success in GE's products.

arabiandisco wrote:
As a means of getting freight around, they look a damn site better than this:

Nothing wrong with the LD 85 & 75.
Its not very exciting, but it's not ugly by any means.