Jump to content

For Stuart Galbraith And Anyone Into Bizarre Rail Safety Vids


Mr King

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

There is a longer version of this vid but I can not find it on youtube.

 

 

I know a railway electrician and after such an accident the really annoying work starts to replace a kilometer or two of overhead wire.

 

 

They lower themselves immediately in cases like this these days. Still a lot of 'fun' for anyone inside the train.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never been a big fan of electric only trains, but this is one of the few that I thought was pretty impressive

 

uUInsn4.jpg​

 

 

Why do I think of a skull paited on the front? .... This OTOH is just fugly(functional ugly).

 

https://www.google.de/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwieh6nDmoLjAhURPVAKHXNtD9cQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fotocommunity.de%2Fphoto%2Fdb-baureihe-245-werner2106%2F37953747&psig=AOvVaw1rxZpV6T8zuEGfILKApMCR&ust=1561468747699393

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You dont need stinking aerodynamics when you have horsepower! :)

 

Im guessing this was a freight loco, so you probably arent going to be going much above 75 anyway. I think steam era aerodynamicists claimed that airstreaming was only really useful when you got up to about 90mph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty good horsepower for an electric. What was the weight? The problem we have always had with electrics is that being lighter (Not carrying a big diesel lump around) adhesion is rather less than a diesel loco. One reason why Diesels are still the prefered traction for railfreight here, at least when its not going through the tunnel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty good horsepower for an electric. What was the weight? The problem we have always had with electrics is that being lighter (Not carrying a big diesel lump around) adhesion is rather less than a diesel loco. One reason why Diesels are still the prefered traction for railfreight here, at least when its not going through the tunnel.

 

You can always add ballast to make it heavier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per wikipedia the GM10B weighs 394,500 lb (178,900 kg). For comparison the SD-40 weighs in at 368,000 lb (167,000 kg).

 

The third set of traction motor's a-midships will add substantial weight.


Apparently the BC Rail GF6Cs were derivatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Pretty good horsepower for an electric. What was the weight? The problem we have always had with electrics is that being lighter (Not carrying a big diesel lump around) adhesion is rather less than a diesel loco. One reason why Diesels are still the prefered traction for railfreight here, at least when its not going through the tunnel.

You can always add ballast to make it heavier.

 

Exactly. At least since 30 years ago, axle load of electric locomotives has been adjusted to the maximum permissible per track specifications. Of course, a 6-axle loco will be better for freight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, this is precisely the kind of thing that pisses me off about the modern Rail network. Nobody understands that the train companies DO NOT own the infrastructure they run on. Profits before people? No, its austerity before service. Its the Government that owns the track bed and the tunnels. They are the ones strangling the investment in the aging infrastructure.

 

If people want to rant, justifiably, about the state of the infrastructure on the British rail network, they really want to start blaming the right people.

 

Course it wouldnt have flooded if it had been a GWR tunnel. Just saying..... :glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, this is precisely the kind of thing that pisses me off about the modern Rail network. Nobody understands that the train companies DO NOT own the infrastructure they run on. Profits before people? No, its austerity before service. Its the Government that owns the track bed and the tunnels. They are the ones strangling the investment in the aging infrastructure.

 

If people want to rant, justifiably, about the state of the infrastructure on the British rail network, they really want to start blaming the right people.

 

Course it wouldnt have flooded if it had been a GWR tunnel. Just saying..... :glare:

 

why should British politicians go about railway tracks differently from NHS or anyhting else. They all worship at the altar auf "austerity".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Corbyn is just as bad. He wants to renationalize the railway which 'would be cheap'. Of course what he really means is he wants to be in control of everything, and there will be no new money to invest in the railway to get it updated from what is in most places a victorian level of infrastructure. Well built infrastructure, but some of it is over 175 years old. When we still have mainlines in the UK that are unelectrified when Labour PM Harold Wilson promised to have it all electrified by the end of the 1960's, you can see the level of the problem.

 

In the end, British politicians dont understand railways. They think you can fix them with ideology and soundbites. And I think the publics level of understanding begins and ends at Thomas the Tank engine. Which is a good advertisement of how railways are SUPPOSED to work, not how they currently do.

 

 

What would I do? Id hand the track over to the train operating companies, give them a 99 year lease, and tell them to sink or swim. And not one of todays politicians have the guts to make a move like that. But it would work, I guarantee it.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...