Jump to content
 

Freightliner's environmental credentials down the pan


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, brushman47544 said:

 

Undoubtedly for the major part, diesel operations will be the mainstay of freight by rail, not least because it will be uneconomic to electrify much of the rail network both here and abroad. For me it is the use of diesels for long distances under the wires that needs to be avoided as much as possible and in that respect infrastructure charges should be adjusted as necessary so as not to favour diesel haulage. If the Government was really serious it would allow Network Rail to price accordingly.

 

I cannot imagine other countries in Europe with most main lines being electrified allowing operators to switch from electrics to diesels. We need a continuous long-term electrification programme and pricing incentives to encourage operators to buy new electric locos and keep diesels for unelectrified lines. The trouble is I can't see it happening while the age profile of those in government is so high. If more younger MPs with longer term interests were elected and appointed to ministerial posts there might at least be a better acceptance of the need for action.

 

Just like in the UK, there is a bit of each, due to new entrants who need to provide the cheapest offer to compete with the established entities.

 

But what is much more in evidence in mainland Europe is the increasing advent of bi-mode diesel/electrics (or diesel/hydrogen in one case). The use of electric traction is for the bulk haul, then diesel (or some other source) for the "last mile", which is often a lot further. What will remain is the second hand market for Class 66's and many others, which will allow the newer players some flexibility, but as this diminishes, the bi-mode traction options will become dominant.

 

The French have largely stopped this second-hand market by refusing to sell many of their redundant locos, although some are creeping through and there are many types of "foreign" diesels already approved for use on the French network.

 

The problem in the UK is the combination of an overall reduction in freight demand and the lack of any incentives to invest in bi-mode for freight (unlike in passenger transport), to replace a re-use of existing, perfectly serviceable diesel locos.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Arpster said:

As someone who has worked in climate change research for almost 15 years, I'd love to know what aspects of climate change you think are "stupid hysteria". If you look at the reports by the IPCC, which synthesise the world's scientific knowledge on climate change, you'll see that they are pretty alarming. And us scientists tend to be quite conservative in our language, trying to avoid over-stating things. The scientific community has been trying to raise public awareness about the seriousness of the situation for many years now. The IPCC's 1.5 Degrees special report made it pretty clear that about that level of global warming things start to get pretty scary. What has happened recently is that others in 'civic society' have started to shout about the urgency of change too, not just the world's scientists. People like Extinction Rebellion, love them or loathe them, have done a service in making this something that is at least being talked about.

 

Many well-respected scientists and engineers have written and published on the need to radpidly decarbonise society. Some argue that developed nations like ours need to be cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 10-15% per year, every year, starting last year. The 'net zero' date of 2050 isn't as important as the rate of decarbonisation achieved over the next 10 years. If we're to follow a science- and evidence-led approach to tackling climate change, then these are the cuts we need to acheive, regardless of whether we think it's doable or not. It's the job of politicians, shareholders, business owners, engineers, economists, and planners to find ways to achieve that without destroying people's livelihoods. That's what I think is failing to happen.

 

Absolutely bang on. The accusation of hysteria and religious fervour is far better directed at the Trump-style attitude to climate change, which not only denies it almost completely but seriously advocates further fossil fuel expansion. Bar several, funded by oil companies or their investors, reports which claim some sort of natural phenomenon occurring, or at worst, nothing to see here, their opposition to "green" legislation has been driven entirely by the P&L account. 

 

Thus, in microcosm, we see this in the perverse incentives to run diesel locos when the electric meter is rotating overtime. Some suggest this is due to a lack of joined up thinking within government. But, if that were true, then the accusation that this PM wields an iron fist over the cabinet must either be hogwash, or the PM actually does not want to achieve his own climate targets for fear of something else. This could be cost, or keeping the lights on by 2024, or just keeping his Trumpian faction on side.

 

So, Class 66's rool, KO.

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Circulating doomsday predicting material to children and young people, like photoshopped images of Buckingham Palace under water is also irresponsible.

The IPCC report warns of possible serious rises in sea levels by 2100 of between 60cm to 1.1 metres.

That would be devastating for some heavily populated coastal communities around the planet, but it isn't going to turn Buck House into Venice or come anywhere near.

 

What is the elevation of Buckingham Palace?  Isn't it built on the flood plain of the Thames? Certainly don't remember it being particularly uphill from the Thames, which is tidal as far as Teddington Lock, and therefore pretty much at sea level throughout London.  The Thames barrier has already been deployed much more frequently over the last few years to prevent flooding in London, what would be the result of adding 1.1m to the highest threat it has so far prevented from reaching London?

 

Whilst the image of Buckingham Palace is no doubt scaremongering, how  far would flooding reach if there was another 1.1m and the defences were to fail?

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Titan said:

 

What is the elevation of Buckingham Palace?  Isn't it built on the flood plain of the Thames? Certainly don't remember it being particularly uphill from the Thames, which is tidal as far as Teddington Lock, and therefore pretty much at sea level throughout London.  The Thames barrier has already been deployed much more frequently over the last few years to prevent flooding in London, what would be the result of adding 1.1m to the highest threat it has so far prevented from reaching London?

 

Whilst the image of Buckingham Palace is no doubt scaremongering, how  far would flooding reach if there was another 1.1m and the defences were to fail?

 

As previously stated, I do not believe it is scaremongering, and precisely for the reasons of topography and the looming redundancy of the Thames Barrier you state.

 

However, back to Class 66's running under wires.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

GM EMD has sold lots of Euro 66's and they regularly operate under wires.

 

They have - but thats because Rail Freight has increasingly been turned over to private enterprise!

 

I repeat - private companies loyalty is first and foremost the their shareholders and the stockmartket - particularly if they want to fight off the forces of venture capitalists and hedge funds lurking in the depths ready to launch a hostile takeover lest it be felt that shareholders remuneration is not being maximised.

 

As such it is important to keep operating costs low - and the 66s with their relatively simple design, high route availability plus having fuelling costs the TOC controls (as opposed to having to pay whatever the host nations infrastructure manager charges) makes them a very attractive proposition. for traction needs.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
14 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Mostly diesel operations around the globe...

 

Agreed - but this is due to the nature of the railway systems they operate on.

 

In the UK (and much of Europe) the vast majority of freight  trains run a long lines also used by passengers - where electrification is either provided (or should be provided)! As such using Electric locomotives is / would be perfectly feasible and should be encouraged.

 

The problem we have is the UK Governments insistence that we must matters like energy costs to (the power of the free market) rather than actually having the balls to step up to the mark and start manipulating said market to encourage the use of electricity for traction where possible.

Edited by phil-b259
  • Like 3
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

I repeat - private companies loyalty is first and foremost the their shareholders and the stockmartket - particularly if they want to fight off the forces of venture capitalists and hedge funds lurking in the depths ready to launch a hostile takeover lest it be felt that shareholders remuneration is not being maximised.

 

This isn't a hypothetical threat to use as an excuse either.

 

In 2011 the profitable Canadian Pacific Railway had it's management ousted (well, they resigned before they could be ousted, so same thing) after a US hedge fund decided they weren't making enough of a profit.

 

With the exception of the BNSF (which isn't on the stock market) all the other North American railroads have fallen into line and implemented the same reforms to keep Wall Street happy.

 

So G&W would be well aware of the dangers of not keeping Wall Street happy (well, their investment firm owners).

 

  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Absolutely bang on. The accusation of hysteria and religious fervour is far better directed at the Trump-style attitude to climate change, which not only denies it almost completely but seriously advocates further fossil fuel expansion.....

 

Mike, you are quite right at pointing the finger at that level of denial and stupidity, but that doesn't alter the fact that there is hysteria and misinformation being taken as gospel amongst many of the rather naive people who have been "whipped up" by certain movements.

 

We had the spectacle of one of the organisers for "insulate Britain" being questioned on TV yesterday.

A young educated women in her mid 20's, who immediately became very distressed and appeared to be on the point of breaking down in tears from the moment the interview began. She was almost hysterical.  As with the chap (another leader of that group) who was shown to have not insulated his own house, this young lady said she had no idea if the home she lived in was adequately, or even insulated at all.  She couldn't answer or explain when asked searching questions and just wanted to throw out some simple slogans.

The poor young women was in a complete mess.

Then there was Roger Hallam, of XR, saying that if he was lying in the road with the IB protesters, he wouldn't move out of the way for an ambulance, even if a life was in critical danger.

He was pressed on the matter and was absolute in his conviction.

He and Gail Bradbrook are both schooled in the politics of Civil Disobedience and revolutionary change, having latched onto climate change, as a useful vehicle for their wider aims.

 

People who are very concerned about the climate should be following the scientists and what they actually say, not these revolutionary nut jobs.

 

 

 

15 hours ago, Titan said:

 

What is the elevation of Buckingham Palace?  Isn't it built on the flood plain of the Thames? Certainly don't remember it being particularly uphill from the Thames, which is tidal as far as Teddington Lock, and therefore pretty much at sea level throughout London.  The Thames barrier has already been deployed much more frequently over the last few years to prevent flooding in London, what would be the result of adding 1.1m to the highest threat it has so far prevented from reaching London?

 

Whilst the image of Buckingham Palace is no doubt scaremongering, how  far would flooding reach if there was another 1.1m and the defences were to fail?

 

I believe Buckingham Palace is 6 metres (20 feet) amsl.

 

Let's be clear about the IPCC projections

It's very scary stuff and we should certainly be very concerned.

However, their extensive work presents a range of possible outcomes, based on a range of data confidences from low to very high.

 

The scenarios the IPCC present, range from very likely to very unlikely.

At the top end they categorise possible outcomes that are "highly unlikely", but still theoretically possible.

The bottom end doesn't look very good, but it's the top end, theoretically possible but very unlikely or highly unlikely, that certain people latch on too.

 

With regard to sea level, the projected rise of 1.1 metres by 2100, I mentioned previously, is the top of the worst case range, 67cmm - 1.1 metres  (highly unlikely).

I think the mid level probability was something like 32cm - 63cm  by 2100....

Note that this based on nothing whatsoever being done to mitigate and contain the rise in global temperatures.

It's not as simple as that though and far too complicated to discuss on here.....just for example they project that sea levels will also fall from present day levels in some parts of the planet (30% of coastal areas), at the same time as rising elsewhere (70% of coastal areas).

 

This an example of the sort of things the IPCC are saying...

 

"Sea level rise of several meters could result from long-term mass loss by ice sheets (consistent with paleo data observations of higher sea levels during periods of warmer temperatures), but there is low confidence in these projections.

Sea level rise of 1 to 3 m per degree of warming is projected if the warming is sustained for several millennia (low confidence). "

 

It's a very complex, technical subject (way beyond my ken) and full of nuance.

 

 

.

 

 

 

Edited by Ron Ron Ron
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

....The problem we have is the UK Governments insistence that we must matters like energy costs to (the power of the free market) rather than actually having the balls to step up to the mark and start manipulating said market to encourage the use of electricity for traction where possible.

 

With such dependance on imported gas for our electricity generation, government (of any political hue) are in no position to manipulate or control the market.

It's largely outside of their hands.

It would be different if we were fully self sufficient in energy production, or were able to secure discreet fixed contracts outside of the normal market mechanisms.

 

.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
2 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

With such dependance on imported gas for our electricity generation, government (of any political hue) are in no position to manipulate or control the market.

.

 

Short term yes - Long term no!

 

Remind me who it was that flogged off the UK energy industry to the private sector for a quick buck*?

 

Remind me who could offer subsidy to transport operators to 'go electric'

 

Remind me who has the power to alter business rates so that investment in green energy doesn't lead to grater tax bills than those sticking with polluting energy sources?

 

The point is that HM Government DOES HAVE the ability to manipulate the market on a medium to long term basis (particularly now we are outside of the EU) by encouraging a move away from Gas if it wanted to. However for two decades its been more interested in flogging assets off to their private sector mates and relying on 'market forces' to run things rather than actually taking a strategic view.

 

As is always the case,  this abandoning of responsibility is fine all the time things are going well - but when the tough times come (e.g. a pandemic slashing train ridership or global gas prices rising exponentially)  all this 'harnessing the freedom of the free market counts for sod all!

 

*Note that in France the French Government still holds an 85% stake in EDF France (the former nationalised energy generation & distribution company). https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/investors-shareholders/the-edf-share/capital-structure. That allows the Government to alter the direction of the business and engage in measures which might lower profitability in the short term that no British power company can do for fear of upsetting City shareholders

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Round of applause 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Another example of perfectly profitable companies being at the mercy of predators is Morrisons, now bought by an American company.

Let's hope it fares better than Cadbury where the products have been ruined for the sake of reduced costs - and those products are now being targeted firmly at young children (HM government please note).

Almost back on topic, or what was being discussed anyway, it has been known for a good many years that the Thames Barrier has only a limited life as a useful weapon against flooding of central London. The Barrier being overwhelmed may not lead to flooding of Buck House but it would certainly leave the Houses of Parliament awash, along with much of the City. Mind you, would we miss either?

And on topic, what proportion of yards/terminals used by our rail freight system are wired or have entry/exit lines wired? Rather a small proportion, I suspect.

Jonathan

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always thought that using gas to generate electricity was a terrible waste of a comparatively scarce resource.  I'd have preferred that we kept using coal a bit longer while actively trying to switch to 100% nuclear and renewable energy.

 

If we are struggling to generate enough electricity in the short term it actually makes sense to use 66s rather than 90s, remember that time a 47 was used as a small power station?

 

Longer term it really should be cheaper to run an electric hauled freight train than a diesel, particularly as Network Rail is state run.

 

Even longer term we should be looking at electrifying 95% of the network.  It will be hard but it's surely easier than putting up overhead wires above the motorways as some people are suggesting for electric trucks.  

  • Like 2
  • Agree 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
4 minutes ago, Hesperus said:

 

 

If we are struggling to generate enough electricity in the short term it actually makes sense to use 66s rather than 90s, remember that time a 47 was used as a small power station?

 


Photo in the link below in case anyone needs a reminder. 
 

47155 at West Thurrock Power Station

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a tendency to overreact on both sides of this argument.  I don't dispute something is changing but do note the three most extreme UK weather events in my lifetime occurred in 1963, 1976 and 1987.  I also believe that the greater incidence of flooding is in part caused by the far higher proportion of built upon land than there once was.

 

What gets my goat though is the hypocrisy.  It's already been mentioned that the "insulate" protesters either haven't done their own homes or don't know.  That totally undermines their argument in my opinion. 

 

The other thing is the obsession with the UK doing all of this at breakneck speed irrespective of cost and despite our emissions being a pimple on an elephant's backside compared with the rest of the world.  Ah they say.  We will be setting an example for the world to follow.  Which is fine except for one thing.  Many of the most vociferous climate evangelists are the self same people who have spent five years dismissing the UK as a tin-pot irrelevance perched on the edge of Europe, which has no respect from, or influence in, the wider world.  Well you can't have it both ways.  This Groucho Marx style swivelling of beliefs to suit the issue at hand is rather too convenient to be convincing.  In any event I don't think any of the other countries will take any notice of what we do and so any decisions we take should solely be on the basis of what suits us and not some fanciful idea that the world will dutifully follow.  This just in.  It won't.  Other countries will do what suits them as they always have.  

Edited by DY444
  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that Felixstowe is a dominant container port, I assume putting up wires to there has been looked at.

presumably trains towards London could then use the wires so is the problem most stuff goes to ely and peterborough

and the midlands over dominantly non wired routes?

Similarly there was a plan (electric spine?) to add overhead wires to Southampton which was abandoned - not sure if for technical or cost reasons.

Given the strategic review due soon - any hope??

 

mike j

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Been in the gas industry all my life, from apprenticeship to retirement, engineer on the distribution side.

 

We were told at tech that using gas to generate electricity was a huge mistake, as noted above a waste of a valuable domestic / industrial HEATING fuel and chemical industry feedstock.

 

British Gas was privatised in 1986, we were still run by a brilliant engineer, Sir Dennis Rooke kept the whole shebang intact (Maggie wanted to split it up) and saw little change at the sharp end. Over time the accountants etc began to get their own way. The result was BG (Exploration & Supply) - which Shell wanted and eventually got. Centrica (uses the British Gas name) runs the domestic appliance & gas marketing side, and Lattice Group - Transco the gas transmission & distribution side, where I worked.

 

The National Grid merged with Transco back around 2000, but they wanted the jewel in the crown, the National Transmission network (high pressure) and started to sell off the networks, bit by bit & now all sold. Now with the demonisation of gas (actually North Sea resources are declining fast) they have announced the start of the sale of the gas transmission system. National Grid's future is all electric.

 

As to the future of gas in the UK - and I write this with a heavy heart - it is not good. Will hydrogen  / hydrogen Nat Gas mixture save the day ? - I don't know - but Hydrogen is expensive to make, either by electrolysis or methane (nat gas) cracking.

 

I had a good time, superb people at all levels, but what of the future ?

 

Brit15

Edited by APOLLO
  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hesperus said:

I've always thought that using gas to generate electricity was a terrible waste of a comparatively scarce resource.  I'd have preferred that we kept using coal a bit longer while actively trying to switch to 100% nuclear and renewable energy.…..


Even as a mere layman, I thought it a huge waste, back in the day.

Blame the mandarins at the Treasury who campaigned against and blocked the replacement of our early nuclear power stations, back in the 1980’s , 90’s and 00’s. Top that with the early phase out of coal (for perfectly sound reasons).

All they could see was cheap, readily available gas and bu**er the long term future.

 

2 hours ago, Hesperus said:

If we are struggling to generate enough electricity in the short term…..

 

We aren’t struggling to produce enough electricity.

The problem is the cost of buying gas on an international market, making electricity very expensive.

There's also the issue of the high cost of subsidies for renewables, being passed on to the user as a direct charge.

 

 

.

Edited by Ron Ron Ron
  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
9 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

He and Gail Bradbrook are both schooled in the politics of Civil Disobedience and revolutionary change, having latched onto climate change, as a useful vehicle for their wider aims.

 

People who are very concerned about the climate should be following the scientists and what they actually say, not these revolutionary nut jobs.

These people are practising in what I call Tantrum Politics; like Fathers for Justice, it is the most important issue in their lives (and climate change IS important to everyone) but they cannot accept that it isn't the most important thing in everyone else's, so want to annoy other people to get attention.  Regardless of how counter-productive that is.

 

I totally agree about the science, this issue is as serious as the scientists say it is.  But protesting about home insulation by closing parts of the M25?  Why not blockade a major building site, where they are building these under-insulated buildings?  Presumably because it wouldn't get attention and publicity (for them as individuals); I'm not sure anyone in the M25 queues was converted to the cause.

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

There is a tendency to overreact on both sides of this argument.  I don't dispute something is changing but do note the three most extreme UK weather events in my lifetime occurred in 1963, 1976 and 1987.

 

There have been several hottest months/years on record in the last ten years alone, and being the "hottest" is the absolute definition of an extreme!

  • Agree 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

There certainly was for a short while a shortage of capacity. It came up here because 800s were using diesel under the wires in the North East, even after the supplies had been upgraded.

And long term if we do manage to switch to electric vehicles and electric space heating there will need to be a lot of investment in the National Grid. But as that has been privatised such investment seems to me to be unlikely. Already it has been reported that there are problems siting wind farms in places because of the lack of grid capacity to get the power to where it is needed. Mind you if we don't replace those ageing nuclear power stations there will be some power lines which become redundant.

What I notice as the most common theme in all the above discussion is the short termism of our government whatever party is in power. I wonder how much this is the politicians and how much it is a built in bias within the Civil Service over which the politicians have little influence.

  • Agree 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, DY444 said:

 

 

What gets my goat though is the hypocrisy.  It's already been mentioned that the "insulate" protesters either haven't done their own homes or don't know.  That totally undermines their argument in my opinion. 

 

 

Maybe the property they live in, isn't owned by them? A decision might need to be made by whoever owns it. 

Plenty of properties around too, that really are only fit for the wreckers ball (better practice these days is to dismantle it and deal with the resulting materials in different ways) and not worth expensive improvements.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

These people are practising in what I call Tantrum Politics; like Fathers for Justice, it is the most important issue in their lives (and climate change IS important to everyone) but they cannot accept that it isn't the most important thing in everyone else's, so want to annoy other people to get attention.  Regardless of how counter-productive that is.

 

I totally agree about the science, this issue is as serious as the scientists say it is.  But protesting about home insulation by closing parts of the M25?  Why not blockade a major building site, where they are building these under-insulated buildings?  Presumably because it wouldn't get attention and publicity (for them as individuals); I'm not sure anyone in the M25 queues was converted to the cause.

New build is fitted with a lot of insulation to comply with Building Regs (300mm I believe).

 

Cheap conversions of redundant office blocks aren’t necessarily.

 

Old housing stock isn’t and some will be very hard to do. My first house was a Victorian terrace built in 1875. It has no cavity so it’s impossible to add cavity insulation.

 

Its retrofitting insulation which they are campaigning for AIUI.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

.....What I notice as the most common theme in all the above discussion is the short termism of our government whatever party is in power. I wonder how much this is the politicians and how much it is a built in bias within the Civil Service over which the politicians have little influence.

 

It's right to blame successive governments, but at the end of the day, they've all been faced with the problem of finding the funds to spend on things they either want to do, need to do, or have thrust upon them whether they like it or not (e.g. Covid).

The people in charge of the purse strings has always been the treasury and the Whitehall establishment.

They are the ones who in many cases influence real policy, steer the political masters and create group think across other government departments.

 

The various decisions to steer away from the high cost of replacing our nuclear power stations, were criticised at the time and the likely ramifications pointed out then are being found out to be correct today.

 

Globally, about 100 power reactors with a total gross capacity of about 110,000 MWe are on order or planned, and over 300 more are proposed. 

Most reactors currently planned are in Asia, with fast-growing economies and rapidly-rising electricity demand.

Many countries with existing nuclear power programmes either have plans to, or are building, new power reactors.

About 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear power programmes.

 

Sweden reversed its decision, made in 1980, to phase out nuclear power.

They repealed the policy in 2010.

They've closed older reactors and enhanced the production output others, resulting in 40% of their electricity needs coming from nuclear.

They are looking at a strategic plan of how to address meeting their energy needs, out to 2050 and beyond.

How far ahead are we looking?

 

 

.

  • Like 2
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
29 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Globally, about 100 power reactors with a total gross capacity of about 110,000 MWe are on order or planned, and over 300 more are proposed. 

Most reactors currently planned are in Asia, with fast-growing economies and rapidly-rising electricity demand.

Many countries with existing nuclear power programmes either have plans to, or are building, new power reactors.

About 30 countries are considering, planning or starting nuclear power programmes.

 

That is a lot of nuclear waste to find somewhere to put...keep DRS in business for many decades I guess. Long lives Class 37's!!

  • Like 2
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...