You know I'm quite warming to these at least they have some style about them unlike other recent locomotives.
Side on is the best perspective and those wheels do rather remind you of a Western.
OK, what should we call them, well there is only one choice they’re 70 thousands after all, Britannia class is the obvious choice surely.
I wonder is it possible that Freightliner would be up for that perhaps with the original names and numbers.
Looking forward to seeing them in the flesh anyone know we’re they will be going can we expect to see them anywhere on the Freightliner network or just specific trains?
> Looking forward to seeing them in the flesh anyone know we’re they > will be going can we expect to see them anywhere on the Freightliner > network or just specific trains?
Apparently the Portbury - Rugeley coal train is to be used along with Southampton to Birmingham containers as these are the best routes for testing their capabilities.
On Nov 9, 5:52 pm, 1501 <brian.oldf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 9 Nov, 15:43, allanbonnetracy <allanbonnetr...@ireland.com> wrote:
> > OK, what should we call them, well there is only one choice they’re 70 > > thousands after all, Britannia class is the obvious choice surely.
> No way! These things are goddamit ugly. > OK, what should we call them, well there is only one choice they’re 70 > thousands after all, Britannia class is the obvious choice surely.
No way! These things are goddamit ugly.
I suspect he was being ironic in the way i was when i suggested the nickname Brittania last week in the other Class 70 thread. Back then they would have scoffed at the idea of importing engines from the USA!
> You know I'm quite warming to these at least they have some style > about them unlike other recent locomotives.
> Side on is the best perspective and those wheels do rather remind you > of a Western.
Agree re the wheels. From the (very good) photos we've seen so far, I quite like the very low wide-angle 3/4 view.
> OK, what should we call them, well there is only one choice they’re 70 > thousands after all, Britannia class is the obvious choice surely.
I know someone keeps suggesting that name, but I really don't see the connection. Brand new diesels aren't usually named after steam loco classes from decades before, even if they do share the same number series, and calling something built in North America a Britannia would seem bizarre. Save that for some future UK - built machine - just because we don't build locos here now doesn't mean we never will again.
Re the 70s, their own makers name (Predator) suits them, go with that or Dalek, unless someone has a better idea?
> I wonder is it possible that Freightliner would be up for that perhaps > with the original names and numbers.
> Looking forward to seeing them in the flesh anyone know we’re they > will be going can we expect to see them anywhere on the Freightliner > network or just specific trains?
I've asked that a couple of times, seems no-one has the gen on their intended deployment yet.
Pyromancer wrote: > I know someone keeps suggesting that name, but I really don't see the > connection. Brand new diesels aren't usually named after steam loco > classes from decades before, even if they do share the same number > series, and calling something built in North America a Britannia would > seem bizarre. Save that for some future UK - built machine - just > because we don't build locos here now doesn't mean we never will > again.
> Re the 70s, their own makers name (Predator) suits them, go with that > or Dalek, unless someone has a better idea?
I've listened to that youtube video a couple of times, and I don't think the speaker actually is calling them 'Predators'. In context I think he is pointing out that others have already nicknamed them Predator, or Bulldog.
Surely the maker's name for them is still Powerhaul?
> On Nov 9, 5:52=A0pm, 1501 <brian.oldf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > On 9 Nov, 15:43, allanbonnetracy <allanbonnetr...@ireland.com> wrote:
> > > OK, what should we call them, well there is only one choice they=92re 7= > 0 > > > thousands after all, Britannia class is the obvious choice surely.
> > No way! These things are goddamit ugly.
> > OK, what should we call them, well there is only one choice they=92re 70 > > thousands after all, Britannia class is the obvious choice surely.
> No way! These things are goddamit ugly.
> I suspect he was being ironic in the way i was when i suggested the > nickname Brittania last week in the other Class 70 thread. Back then > they would have scoffed at the idea of importing engines from the USA!
Back then the reason we didn't import American locos was because we didn't have the dollars to pay for them.
On 9 Nov, 17:03, Pyromancer <dj.pyroman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've asked that a couple of times, seems no-one has the gen on their > intended deployment yet.
I was about to ask who built them when I noticed the GE logo non the sign. Their aircraft engines seem ok, but their lamps are rubbish, at least the CFL SOX and SON ones are, the metal halide and MBF seem better. Locomotives are more like engines than lamps, so maybe they will be reliable. Strange looking things.
Pyromancer wrote: > On Nov 9, 3:43 pm, allanbonnetracy <allanbonnetr...@ireland.com> > wrote: >> Britannia class is the obvious choice surely.
> I know someone keeps suggesting that name, but I really don't see the > connection. Brand new diesels aren't usually named after steam loco > classes from decades before, even if they do share the same number > series, and calling something built in North America a Britannia would > seem bizarre.
> You know I'm quite warming to these at least they have some style > about them unlike other recent locomotives.
> Side on is the best perspective and those wheels do rather remind you > of a Western.
> OK, what should we call them, well there is only one choice they’re 70 > thousands after all, Britannia class is the obvious choice surely.
> I wonder is it possible that Freightliner would be up for that perhaps > with the original names and numbers.
> Looking forward to seeing them in the flesh anyone know we’re they > will be going can we expect to see them anywhere on the Freightliner > network or just specific trains?
I agree they have look better than the GM's aesthetically. The fact that these Power Hauls will lead to 30 66's being replaced (or more - considering the bigger loads they can haul??), can only be a good thing.
On 9 Nov, 17:16, "Paul Scott" <notvalidpmsc...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Re the 70s, their own makers name (Predator) suits them, go with that > > or Dalek, unless someone has a better idea?
> I've listened to that youtube video a couple of times, and I don't think the > speaker actually is calling them 'Predators'. In context I think he is > pointing out that others have already nicknamed them Predator, or Bulldog.
> Surely the maker's name for them is still Powerhaul?
> Paul
I thought in the video the speaker says something like "It's known as the predator, it's known as the Bulldog, etc" but never actually calls them anything other than "Power Hauls".
That shows that the designers really do read spotter's comments on forums
Graeme wrote: > In message <9b17af95-0c7f-4f0f-8626-faf1bfa52...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> > Paul <pierr...@iwon.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 5:52=A0pm, 1501 <brian.oldf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> On 9 Nov, 15:43, allanbonnetracy <allanbonnetr...@ireland.com> wrote:
>>>> OK, what should we call them, well there is only one choice they=92re 7= >> 0 >>>> thousands after all, Britannia class is the obvious choice surely. >>> No way! These things are goddamit ugly. >>> OK, what should we call them, well there is only one choice they=92re 70 >>> thousands after all, Britannia class is the obvious choice surely.
>> No way! These things are goddamit ugly.
>> I suspect he was being ironic in the way i was when i suggested the >> nickname Brittania last week in the other Class 70 thread. Back then >> they would have scoffed at the idea of importing engines from the USA!
> Back then the reason we didn't import American locos was because we didn't > have the dollars to pay for them.
Even leaving aside S160, USA tanks and the like as a bit of a special case, the Midland Railway bought US locos in the C19th.
> > You know I'm quite warming to these at least they have some style > > about them unlike other recent locomotives.
> > Side on is the best perspective and those wheels do rather remind you > > of a Western.
> Agree re the wheels. From the (very good) photos we've seen so far, I > quite like the very low wide-angle 3/4 view.
> > OK, what should we call them, well there is only one choice they’re 70 > > thousands after all, Britannia class is the obvious choice surely.
> I know someone keeps suggesting that name, but I really don't see the > connection. Brand new diesels aren't usually named after steam loco > classes from decades before, even if they do share the same number > series, and calling something built in North America a Britannia would > seem bizarre. Save that for some future UK - built machine - just > because we don't build locos here now doesn't mean we never will > again.
> Re the 70s, their own makers name (Predator) suits them, go with that > or Dalek, unless someone has a better idea?
> > I wonder is it possible that Freightliner would be up for that perhaps > > with the original names and numbers.
> > Looking forward to seeing them in the flesh anyone know we’re they > > will be going can we expect to see them anywhere on the Freightliner > > network or just specific trains?
> I've asked that a couple of times, seems no-one has the gen on their > intended deployment yet.
Brand new diesels aren't usually named after steam loco classes from decades before, even if they do share the same number series, and calling something built in North America a Britannia would seem bizarre.
You've completely missed the point. The Brittania name actually does have a connection in the number sequence but in reality it was suggested with a great deal of sarcasm. Yes i know it is supposed to be the lowest form of humour but i don't agree!
> In message <9b17af95-0c7f-4f0f-8626-faf1bfa52...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> > Paul <pierr...@iwon.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 5:52=A0pm, 1501 <brian.oldf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > On 9 Nov, 15:43, allanbonnetracy <allanbonnetr...@ireland.com> wrote:
> > > > OK, what should we call them, well there is only one choice they=92re 7= > > 0 > > > > thousands after all, Britannia class is the obvious choice surely.
> > > No way! These things are goddamit ugly.
> > > OK, what should we call them, well there is only one choice they=92re 70 > > > thousands after all, Britannia class is the obvious choice surely.
> > No way! These things are goddamit ugly.
> > I suspect he was being ironic in the way i was when i suggested the > > nickname Brittania last week in the other Class 70 thread. Back then > > they would have scoffed at the idea of importing engines from the USA!
> Back then the reason we didn't import American locos was because we didn't > have the dollars to pay for them.
> -- > Graeme Wall
> This address not read, substitute trains for rail > Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Back then the reason we didn't import American locos was because we didn't have the dollars to pay for them. ............and there was still locomotive manufacturing capacity and know how in the UK. plus they were building diesels while BR was still building steam!
Arthur Figgis wrote: > Graeme wrote: >> In message >> <9b17af95-0c7f-4f0f-8626-faf1bfa52...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> >> Paul <pierr...@iwon.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 5:52=A0pm, 1501 <brian.oldf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On 9 Nov, 15:43, allanbonnetracy <allanbonnetr...@ireland.com> wrote:
>>>>> OK, what should we call them, well there is only one choice >>>>> they=92re 7= >>> 0 >>>>> thousands after all, Britannia class is the obvious choice surely. >>>> No way! These things are goddamit ugly. >>>> OK, what should we call them, well there is only one choice >>>> they=92re 70 >>>> thousands after all, Britannia class is the obvious choice surely.
>>> No way! These things are goddamit ugly.
>>> I suspect he was being ironic in the way i was when i suggested the >>> nickname Brittania last week in the other Class 70 thread. Back then >>> they would have scoffed at the idea of importing engines from the USA!
>> Back then the reason we didn't import American locos was because we >> didn't >> have the dollars to pay for them.
> Even leaving aside S160, USA tanks and the like as a bit of a special > case, the Midland Railway bought US locos in the C19th.
The Great Northern also bought 20 US-built Baldwin 2-6-0s, which were delivered in 1899 and 1900. However, they didn't last much more than 10 years before they were worn out and thus withdrawn. -- Jeremy Double <jmd.nos...@btinternet.com> {real address, include nospam} Rail and transport photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdouble/collections/72157603834894248/
<grannyj...@hotmail.com> wrote: >On 9 Nov, 17:16, "Paul Scott" <notvalidpmsc...@btinternet.com> wrote: >> > Re the 70s, their own makers name (Predator) suits them, go with that >> > or Dalek, unless someone has a better idea?
>> I've listened to that youtube video a couple of times, and I don't think the >> speaker actually is calling them 'Predators'. In context I think he is >> pointing out that others have already nicknamed them Predator, or Bulldog.
>> Surely the maker's name for them is still Powerhaul?
>> Paul
>I thought in the video the speaker says something like "It's known as >the predator, it's known as the Bulldog, etc" but never actually calls >them anything other than "Power Hauls".
"Bulldog" is quite a good name; it adequately conveys "ugliness". ;-)
> Graeme wrote: > > In message <9b17af95-0c7f-4f0f-8626-faf1bfa52...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> > > Paul <pierr...@iwon.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 9, 5:52=A0pm, 1501 <brian.oldf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>> On 9 Nov, 15:43, allanbonnetracy <allanbonnetr...@ireland.com> wrote:
> >>>> OK, what should we call them, well there is only one choice they=92re 7= > >> 0 > >>>> thousands after all, Britannia class is the obvious choice surely. > > > > No way! These things are goddamit ugly. OK, what should we call them, > > > > well there is only one choice they=92re 70 thousands after all, > > > > Britannia class is the obvious choice surely.
> >> No way! These things are goddamit ugly.
> >> I suspect he was being ironic in the way i was when i suggested the > >> nickname Brittania last week in the other Class 70 thread. Back then > >> they would have scoffed at the idea of importing engines from the USA!
> > Back then the reason we didn't import American locos was because we > > didn't have the dollars to pay for them.
> Even leaving aside S160, USA tanks and the like as a bit of a special > case,
Not so much imported as fell of the back of an LST guv!
> the Midland Railway bought US locos in the C19th.
In message <f69ad88b-3d03-4332-8133-4a37702f1...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> Paul <pierr...@iwon.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 6:14 pm, Graeme <r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: [snip]
> Back then the reason we didn't import American locos was because we > didn't > have the dollars to pay for them. > ............and there was still locomotive manufacturing capacity and > know how in the UK. plus they were building diesels while BR was still > building steam!
You've missed the point, there were proposals to buy diesels from the States but we didn't have the dollars to pay for them so carried on building steam locos instead.
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 09:44:31 -0800 (PST), FLINTSTONES > <grannyj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On 9 Nov, 17:16, "Paul Scott" <notvalidpmsc...@btinternet.com> wrote: >>> > Re the 70s, their own makers name (Predator) suits them, go with that >>> > or Dalek, unless someone has a better idea?
>>> I've listened to that youtube video a couple of times, and I don't think >>> the >>> speaker actually is calling them 'Predators'. In context I think he is >>> pointing out that others have already nicknamed them Predator, or >>> Bulldog.
>>> Surely the maker's name for them is still Powerhaul?
>>> Paul
>>I thought in the video the speaker says something like "It's known as >>the predator, it's known as the Bulldog, etc" but never actually calls >>them anything other than "Power Hauls".
> "Bulldog" is quite a good name; it adequately conveys "ugliness". ;-)
> In message <f69ad88b-3d03-4332-8133-4a37702f1...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> > Paul <pierr...@iwon.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 6:14 pm, Graeme <r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: > [snip]
> > Back then the reason we didn't import American locos was because we > > didn't > > have the dollars to pay for them. > > ............and there was still locomotive manufacturing capacity and > > know how in the UK. plus they were building diesels while BR was still > > building steam!
> You've missed the point, there were proposals to buy diesels from the States > but we didn't have the dollars to pay for them so carried on building steam > locos instead.
You've missed the point, there were proposals to buy diesels from the States but we didn't have the dollars to pay for them so carried on building steam locos instead.
I wonder what BR and the unions would have had to say about that? I can't imagine that it would have been remotely politically acceptable in the austerity of the post-war years which extended to the early sixties to not buy British. Any proposals to buy American were probably hoisted on the UK government by the US government as part of a trade bargaining agreement. Still that i just a supposition and i stand to be corrected! Perhaps BR was for it but realised pretty sharpish that it just wouldn't wash? Paul
Graeme <r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <9b17af95-0c7f-4f0f-8626-faf1bfa52...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> > Paul <pierr...@iwon.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 5:52=A0pm, 1501 <brian.oldf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> > On 9 Nov, 15:43, allanbonnetracy <allanbonnetr...@ireland.com> wrote:
>> > > OK, what should we call them, well there is only one choice they=92re 7= >> 0 >> > > thousands after all, Britannia class is the obvious choice surely.
>> > No way! These things are goddamit ugly.
>> > OK, what should we call them, well there is only one choice they=92re 70 >> > thousands after all, Britannia class is the obvious choice surely.
>> No way! These things are goddamit ugly.
>> I suspect he was being ironic in the way i was when i suggested the >> nickname Brittania last week in the other Class 70 thread. Back then >> they would have scoffed at the idea of importing engines from the USA!
>Back then the reason we didn't import American locos was because we didn't >have the dollars to pay for them.
Exactly. It certainly wasn't through lack of desire - US diesel-electric technology was clearly recognsed as the best around. It was shortage of USD which killed plans like the LN&E proposals, post-war, to replace the Pacifics with (IIRC) 50 ALCO-designed DEs (plan was to license-build 'em n UK, but that was itself an attempt to cut down on dollar transfers. I've no doubt they'd rather have just bought 'em). And so 20+ years were wasted...
-- Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
|
