The Stationmaster

Well said Natalie - the last of the 'modern' nicknames that meant anything at all to me on the inside of the fence (as I then was) was 'hoover' for the Class 50s. As far as anything newer is concerned the Class number means something to me but most of the (no doubt carefully) dreamt-up nicknames do not, although some people seem to like them. The only sheds I know anything about are the two in my garden amd the only skips I understand are the ones I hire to fill with rubbish (garden & various) although I believe 'gronk' might have something to do with the '350 shunter' (like we called them before they were Class 08) but then many railwaymen refer to them as jockos in any case.

Not exactly but more or less. WR practice was to allocate to main depots for maintenance and thus they usually wore main depot shedplates (or stencilled equivalent thereof). But the loco diagrams could be outbased - thus at Radyr we had several 350hp (i.e. Class 08 diagrams) with the locos living in the yard and only returning to Canton every now and then for fuel and exams. We also had, in my time there 16/17 EE Type 3 diagrams which were Radyr based although they were fuelled and maintained at Canton and wore Canton depot allocation. While I was there in order to deal with some reliability issues a pool of locos were converted to twin-tanks (using the redundant boiler water tank to extend the fuel tankage) on the basis that they would be out with us all week except for going down to Canton for an A Exam (which in some cases could be delayed a little anyway although on a couple of turns they sometimes needed to go in for new brake blocks after 3 days!!!) - but they still belonged to Canton. Similarly Aberdare also had 3 or 4 EE Type 3s and at least one 350 shunter and they covered diagrams based on Aberdare but were Canton locos. Taking the idea a bit further Laira, for example, had locos working in cyclic diagrams which meant they might not see Plymouth for 4 or 5 days and could be working most of the intervening time on Paddington- Bristol/Swansea trains. Cyclic diagrams tended to fall out of favour because they could very easily fall apart due to failures and locos being stepped-up out of balance but even after the sectors were formed some freight businesses were happy to use 5 day cyclic turns for some classes.

Definitely a seasonal traffic in asparagus in the Vale of Evesham but apart from it being a long way from Selkirk I would place good money that rail had lost it by the time the D95XXs put in their belated appearance

They had left the area before I arrived but the Trethomas trip would have been work to which they would be suited although I suspect they would not have been favoured for Machen ballast trains.

I have seen photos of a D95XX (with an 86A shedcode) on shed at Ebbw and at least one at some stage worked a Radyr based diagram (the Treforest Estate trip).

Trouble with the 59 is that it can be a bit on the slow side. While I hardly expect to see the 70s romping about with 5,000 tonnes hanging on the back it will be interesting to see if they can get out the speed as well as the sheer grunt needed to shift tonnage.

2,900 tonnes!! What a funny little train , we were up to nigh on 5,000 tonnes with Mendip stone trains in the early '90s (if not earlier), not to mention our little piece of entertainment ('for one night only folks') with 12,000 tonnes.

Spot on Cap'n and as long as I can get a broadside view I'll be even happier as I still don't like the front end.

Speaking from experience with some of this country's longest everyday trains (and its longest ever freight train) the bigger problem of the two is not the matter of brake application but that of brake release, especially when the train is on an undulating route. And I do wonder about an EOTD application when the system relies on air pressure changes for brake applications as you create a situation where the back end of the train would be trying to stop before the middle (because the applications from front and back have not yet reached it). The main benefit of an EOTD is that it can tell you what is happening with brake pipe etc pressures and air flow rate at the back of the train and that information can be fed back into driving and braking technique (and is part of what is taught on at least one major US road's training simulators). My (very limited I will admit) experience with very long trains and that of the simulations run by Derby Tech folk before we tried it with the real thing tended to indicate that any parting will take place towards the middle of the formation because that is where contrary forces are most likely to concentrate - and in the event that is exactly where our experimental train did part. It was also why the heavier stone train formations usually had the wagons with the strongest couplings formed towards the middle of the formation.

The investment might well have paid off as I understand it can be used for road vehicles

Now that is definitely upping the ante on 'fives' - sounds like it could be fun

Anything which might have happened at Dover to alarm occupants of 'The Night Ferry' was as nothing compared with the crashing, banging and shaking which took place at Dunkerque on my only trip on that fascinating train. Diverting slightly it reminds me too of something which was said during the first week of Eurostar operation when as we approached the Gare Du Nord somebody sitting across the aisle said 'and to think that we got on this train at Waterloo' to which I replied 'yes, the last time I arrived in Paris it was in a train that I got on at Victoria' - that then took some explaining .

I posted these on the old RMWeb and they are definitely post 1980s (by a bit over a decade!) but they show what happened with shunting in parallel at the ship end of things. BTW I have somewhere seen a picture of an SE&CR Class C shunting the train ferry so I presume there are older pictures about if you can find them.

Ah, so it looks like I might actually be getting a 2010 release rtr loco to go on the 2010 Challenge layout (or that I'll need to get the layout done to go under the loco ).

Presumably no 'walkway' handrails because it is not a walkway (and why should it be?). The area is clearly arranged like that to simplify maintenance access - something BR got right on the Class 58 (although it was admittedly because it was originally intended to also be aimed at an international market) but which then got forgotten in British usage on subsequent designs - including those imported from the USofA.

Hey I've actually looked at a blog (well this is about the third) and came across this trail of amusement amd amazement. At the time on RMWeb 3 I thought the whole thing so incredibly childish that I just bit my tongue as I was bound to have said something fairly waspish if I had joined in once it was starting to go too far. This lot really is good for a laugh as there is far too little genuine lavatory humour around in today's PC type world. And I note the current ads below his 'appeal' are for body armour .

The extra braking distance required to stop from 140 mph was to have been achieved by adding a 5th signal aspect (flashing green) and I believe some signals can still actually show that aspect but for a variety of reasons the idea was never taken up (cost possibly being one?).

Like none at all, unless 'something' has happpened very recently

A bit off subject I know but the above comment rather puzzled me - apart from the number of gaps around Ashford. Firstly there aere (were) no 'extra shoes' on a TMST/Eurostar because thye can (or rather 'could') be no further apart or closer together than the distance between the bogies so any design impact would be to move the bogie centres, which would of course be controlled by the vehicle length (or add shoes other than on the bogies). It is easy enough to tell as a passenger on Eursostar when the part of the train you are in ceases to draw power as the aircon turns off and that happened quite a bit on the 3rd rail. Just like any 3rd rail vehicle picking up from just two places fairly close together a powered veicle in a Eurostar is bound to have one or other shoe out of contact with the 3rd rail many times when it comes to pointwork.But as far as the train was concerned in most instances when one end (or power vehicle) lost power the other end usually had power so there was not much effect on traction as that, plus the impetus of the train, just kept it going. And of course in any case the current draw on 3rd rail was limited although that was partially for interference reasons but mainly for power supply reasons. The situation with a Class 92 working an ENS train would however have been fairly horrendous between London and the Tunnel as there were a total of 72 locations were no shoes would have been in contact with the 3rd rail - and that would have meant big trouble with some of the on-train electronics.

But I bet the bit that really got him was how long it takes for the brakes to release - that is not so much in the way of fun without very careful handling. When we carried out the (not exactly successful) 'giant' train trial with Class 59s back in the early 1990s the brake application and release issue was one of the biggest concerns. I suggested that Yeoman should try to borrow an end-of-train monitoring unit from EMD but the US folk weren't keen on the idea although Derby did rig up some sort of flow meter on the mid-train helper to at least give the Driver and Inspector on that a better idea of what was going on in the Brake Pipe. But in the end it was the brake release rate which was at the root of the problem that brought things to an end because - puttng it simply - the brakes at the back end of the train hadn't released by the time power was being applied at the front end to get it up a short stretch of 1 in 78, so something broke, and that was the end of that

The lamp irons are definitely present in some US pics - certainly in one of 4 locos (only 70006 can be clearly distinguished) enroute to the port taken of them passing Altoona loaded on flat cars In the same pic the yellow spots on the buffers are a bit grubby so I wonder if the yellow was there a some sort of hazard marking for otherwise unknowing (of such detail) folk in a US factory? PS I think they definitely look the business next to a Class 66 (apart from the nose end) but then I have never had a high opinion of the (non)aesthetics of the 66s ever since I first saw one.

Not so much a matter of adding-up, more a question of division. I'm not sure where you got 135 tonnes from because the Freightliner spec sheet shows the weight as 129 tonnes and assuming even loading a Class 70 resting on 6 axles gives an axle loading (which is one part of the critical data for deciding RA) of 21.5 tonnes. So straight away that is less than the 22tonnes (I am assuming it is tonnes and not tons) axle loading of a Class 67. Add to that the longer length of the Class 70 plus again taking into account the 3 axle bogies and the Bridge Loading curve will be significantly different from that of the shorter 4 axle Class 67 - all significant factors in calculating the RA. Finally there is one other very significant factor - the Class 67 has a maximum permitted speed of 125 mph; the max permitted speed of the Class 70 is 75mph - and speed is again a factor in calculating RA. But forget all the complicated bits, the simple fact is that the Class 70 has 3 axle bogies and a lower axle loading and that it is enough lower to give a good Route Availability. If you want to compare the 125 mph Class 67 with anything then use an HST power car - which weighs just over 70 tonnes hence a much lower axle load notwithstanding a high speed capability.

Having liked the Class 58s from long before they appeared on the rails (or even in building as I saw one of the very first pictures of a model mock-up of the Class while on a course at Derby School just as the design was being finalised) I am quite happy with a lot of the appearance of the new Class 70 - a move away from the 'carbody' style is an excellent idea when it comes to maintenance and it should avoid GE 'doing a GM' and having to cut a hole in a bodyside panel in order to add lub oil to the engine. But the nose ends are absolutely dreadful - they will probably attract and hold dirt faster than the experimental finish (a sort of 'electronic grass', but very stiff) applied to the nose end of an EE Type 1/Class 20 in the lateish 1960s and will be equally difficult to clean. And the cabs are going to get pretty hot unless they have very efficient aircon units.

ahha, lofc traffic appears in the USofA B)

An awful lot of stuff is now done on paper before the kit comes anywhere near the railway and presumably some of the compliance was tested at the factory so we might not see anything like the old BR amount of testing etc before it starts to roll around the network.