RW3 vs Top Gear

[daniel533]

I must admit, Jeremy's choice of car couldn't have been better, although that may be down to the fact i am restoring one .

I wonder how long it will take before light engine steam movements on the mainline will be called sports trains

[Fincra5]

I must admit, Jeremy's choice of car couldn't have been better, although that may be down to the fact i am restoring one .

I wonder how long it will take before light engine steam movements on the mainline will be called sports trains

I'm just gonna call all the ECS movements on my Diagrams that

[TheTazman]

POWERRRRRRRRRRRRR

[Kromaatikse]

Sanding probably wouldn't have helped much - it works best when railhead conditions are degraded (ie. wet, icy, oily) and just restores it closer to dry adhesion. What the Jag was missing was sufficient weight on the axle - a front-wheel drive car might have been better for that reason, as that gets the engine block weight in the right place. The 4WD Audi was definitely better for the job, but as such a car weighs "only" 2 tons, the total adhesion would still be reminiscent of a mid-19th-century Crampton.

Also not working in their favour was the undoubtedly poor condition of the hand trolleys they cut up to provide wheels for the vans. Tiny wheels, probably with flats and contamination galore, and minimal-standard bearings - probably more static friction per axle than a loaded private-owner wagon (and those were utterly notorious). This (along with utter lack of suspension) also contributed to the poor ride and excessive noise, which were not noticed inside the car because that was fitted with bigger wheels and proper suspension.

I also got the impression that only the car itself had brakes...!

[TheTazman]

What other cars would have been good to use? LEts see.... Hummer ? Lambo Countach ? Maybe even an F40 ? The potential was there.

Sanding probably wouldn't have helped much - it works best when railhead conditions are degraded (ie. wet, icy, oily) and just restores it closer to dry adhesion. What the Jag was missing was sufficient weight on the axle - a front-wheel drive car might have been better for that reason, as that gets the engine block weight in the right place. The 4WD Audi was definitely better for the job, but as such a car weighs "only" 2 tons, the total adhesion would still be reminiscent of a mid-19th-century Crampton.

Also not working in their favour was the undoubtedly poor condition of the hand trolleys they cut up to provide wheels for the vans. Tiny wheels, probably with flats and contamination galore, and minimal-standard bearings - probably more static friction per axle than a loaded private-owner wagon (and those were utterly notorious). This (along with utter lack of suspension) also contributed to the poor ride and excessive noise, which were not noticed inside the car because that was fitted with bigger wheels and proper suspension.

I also got the impression that only the car itself had brakes...!

[Kromaatikse]

The heavier the better, and with all wheel drive - the power available or top speed don't matter. So the Hummer would have been fine, as would a Range Rover. Something like the F40 would be totally overpowered and not enough traction, just like the Jag. Remember, at their low speeds and the minimal curvature of railway tracks, the aerodynamics don't matter and the type of rubber normally used is irrelevant.

But really, they needed to design the "carriages" better.

[Wikkus]

I had a few niggles with it but otherwise a very good episode,

1.Richard said "if its only got 1 carriage its not a train" Whats a 153 then???
2.When Jeremy said at the end of the episode last week there was gonna be a small fire and then i saw the oven in the buffet car i also predicted where the fire was gonna be.
3.The Continuity on that episode was appalling as Jeremy was on the left and then the right and then back on the left.

I watch TG for some brain-out, wind-down, visceral fun with my feet up on the sofa and a beer in my hand.

Frankly, I couldn't give a rat's a$$ about that level of detail in a show that I watch for pure entertainment value, nor am I going to analyse such things to the nth degree for the same reasons

YMMV.

[rocky291]

It isn't a train, it's a locomotive. And it's a chimney, not a funnel

There's no way that Jag was doing 70mph. And I was surprised the owners of the Peak allowed it to be used to trash the caravan.

Kevin

at Jeremy with the GWR train and calling a funnel an exhaust and calling the tender a carriage. "with its 96inch rim"

[Slammer423]

Lighten up guys, it was a great bit of entertainment form 3 guys who know nothing about railways, if you take it that serriously then I would suggest you need to switch off to enjoy it!

[iceman2117]

hi, ...

Who is TOPGEAR? Nippon Arcade?
I know TOPGUN with Tom Cruse.
Sounds like the end game.

g'ice

[davejc64]

I think some people take Top Gear way too seriously! I thought it was hilarious!

[briyeo1950]

Lighten up guys, it was a great bit of entertainment form 3 guys who know nothing about railways, if you take it that serriously then I would suggest you need to switch off to enjoy it!

The most entertaining part of the show was Rowan saying "Bob" How we all laughed

[paulz6]

I had a few niggles with it but otherwise a very good episode,

1.Richard said "if its only got 1 carriage its not a train" Whats a 153 then???

A single class 153 is not a train. A car towing a caravan is!

[SHEEP]

Top Gear is a comedy show with cars, I laughed

[1975Supra]

From what I understand the Peak took a bit more of a bashing than they thought it would against the caravan. I can't find any pics to back that up yet though.

Dave