Jump to content

Damage to Northern Belle Liveried 57312


Recommended Posts

Send it to Hither Green.  They famously repaired the same sort of damage to a Class 33 way back when using the only sheet of metal they could find presumably lying around the yard as a result of which the aforementioned loco had an armour plated cab side for many years!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Send it to Hither Green.  They famously repaired the same sort of damage to a Class 33 way back when using the only sheet of metal they could find presumably lying around the yard as a result of which the aforementioned loco had an armour plated cab side for many years!

Which would be useful if you are travelling to certain parts of the country!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's all the gubbins under the yellow cloth, middle front, with what looks like shock absorber / pneumatic ram ?

 

Regards

It is a DCC controlled height adjustable tension lock coupler in raised position. It is needed to overcome the problem of different manufacturers putting the NEM pocket at different heights.

 

ColinK

 

PS it's actually a retractable coupling (Dellner I think) used to rescue certain types of trains.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, Dellner - specifically fitted for coupling to Pendolinos when the 57/3s worked for Virgin. IIRC they can couple up to Electrostars too.

And can haul Desiro's as well. Although the DRS 57s have all received modifications to the coupler heights - originally the Dellners on the 57s were compatible with the Pendolinos, but not that of a Desiro & Electrostar (Same coupling, all set up at Differing heights). At least 2 57/3s have also received Tightlock couplers in place of the Dellners, a feature installed during some of the classes rather limited Network Rail days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When they are repairing that I wounder if they might patch up that awful hole that some vandal ripped into the front.

 

Also there's no excuse for putting large LED's on a vintage locomotive.

 

If they ask Brian at Shawplan nicely he might even design a new roof etch so they can return it back to a Sulzer powered machine.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The engineers who designed trains are rarely going to be "numpties", Duncan.

The evolution of couplings is simply down to changing technology and requirements.

Once 3 link and screw couplings were standard, then the buckeye came along. The buckeye served its purpose well, but then technology moved onto BSI couplers- they were fully automatic and could be operated by the driver rather than a shunter having to drop down onto the tracks (wages saved plus not a very nice task).

 

Yes there are several types of couplers now- primarily BSI, Dellner, standard buckeyes and screw couplings. Each serves a purpose and short of retro fitting older trains with modern couplings (EVERY item of rolling stock too) how are you going to standardise?

This is the same type of thinking that recently questioned why anyone bothered with the first generation of diesels when the second generation was so much more successful. I am not really sure how you can argue that point. Why did Ford build the model T when everyone knows the Mondeo was far faster, smoother and had more comfort? He'd have been better going straight to the modern designs.

 

 

 

many thanks, so it is like models, couplings are not standard, what numpties wrote specifications for allowing trains on the tracks which couldn't couple up !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the person was using the word numpties in reference to the fact that the virgin poo tubes have the same coupler as the electrostars and desiro's but the actual height of the coupler varies between the EMUs and the virgin units. That means a rescue loco can be fitted to work with either the EMU or the pendo.

 

As to coupling comparability, it isn't impossible. Porterbrook managed it when they specified the first DMU orders after BR. They made sure they were compatable with the old sprinters and had the same couplers fitted. I was working on a TPE 158 once when the hope valley line had been closed for a while, and we ran a Liverpool Norwich 170 and a Manchester cleethorpes 158 together to Sheffield, to minimise delays and make the most of the line capacity. You couldn't do that now with the 185. And you have the situation now where the 170s going to southern from scotrail (IIRC) cannot be used as is, and require modification to fit delliners to make them work with the 171s they already have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought those couplers that they inflicted on the otherwise attractive Brush 4 could be raised and lowered slightly for that very reason. It seems bizarre that they can be built to retract and yet cannot make minor adaptions with height.

 

I suppose if the internet had been around in 1960's people would be arguing about the different coupling codes for locomotives and DMUs

 

"What numpty (or equivalent 1960's parlance) designed the class 50 (orange square) to be incompatible with a class 40 (blue star)?" etc

 

 

BTW I like that picture you've put up of the unspeakable one but I think it is far too polite.

Link to post
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...