PrestburyJack Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 DRS have named Class 37558 "Avro Vulcan XH558" after the aircraft. https://mxm.mxmfb.com/rsps/m/TMDB5Zhd2abfOidB7a05HkRNL3wjIOOHQLIWxf3FBfQ Looks excellent! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick G Posted July 26, 2016 Share Posted July 26, 2016 DRS have named Class 37558 "Avro Vulcan XH558" after the aircraft. Yes, I was at the naming on Saturday. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted July 26, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 26, 2016 That does look good, makes me all nostalgic for the 80's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
class"66" Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Was made up to see another freshly painted large logo 37 on Saturday.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eddie reffin Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Disappointed it didn't get its old "Glendarroch" name back. As for the silly renumbering, I hope that is just temporary! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Horse Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 I thought it looked lovely at the weekend, the paint finish was something to behold However, I have been wondering why in the modern corporate era DRS have taken to the Large Logo livery, has any official comment ever been made? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 I thought it looked lovely at the weekend, the paint finish was something to behold However, I have been wondering why in the modern corporate era DRS have taken to the Large Logo livery, has any official comment ever been made? From the photos I saw on WNXX, the quality of finish of this machine is absolutely fantastic. The lads next door at RVEL (I'm assuming she was done here) do an incredible job, it must be said. As for the livery, I don't think there was ever an official policy statement, but the decision to go with a 'neutral' or agnostic 'heritage' livery makes sense when the locos are hired out to various different TOCs and the advertising potential of DRS livery is maybe less of a money-spinner than the potential enthusiast/ basher market may generate through the well-liked large logo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Flying Pig Posted July 27, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 27, 2016 If they wanted an appropriate heritage livery, surely all-over camo or even anti-flash white would have been a better choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Fisher Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 If they wanted an appropriate heritage livery, surely all-over camo or even anti-flash white would have been a better choice. That's for another company and another loco! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Disappointed it didn't get its old "Glendarroch" name back. As for the silly renumbering, I hope that is just temporary! Take a look at the nose... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold CovDriver Posted July 27, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 27, 2016 According to the Vulcan to the sky trust DRS have requested that 37424 to registered on the mainline as 37558 I'm glad as the 3D nameplate/transfers have arrived from railtec transfers and they're looking good. Cheers Colin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted July 27, 2016 Share Posted July 27, 2016 Hmmmmm. Interesting that, because on RSL etc, Class 37/5 could well be defined differently - the two types being distinct sub-classes. Not that it necessarily matters - think of the various preserved locos that were registered as the identity painted inside the cab and not on the outside, plus those others masquerading as long scrapped classmates. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottishlocos Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Guys This is fantastic an awesome loco named after a wonderful aeroplane there is something special about both machines good looks and wonderful music they make! Well done all involved. Also a 37/4 and 37/5 are the same apart from the ETH many of the 4's were used on 37'5 freight duties when passenger work dried up in early 90's Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted July 28, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 28, 2016 Hmmmmm. Interesting that, because on RSL etc, Class 37/5 could well be defined differently - the two types being distinct sub-classes. Not that it necessarily matters - think of the various preserved locos that were registered as the identity painted inside the cab and not on the outside, plus those others masquerading as long scrapped classmates. Some 37/5's are numbered in the 376xx range - 37688 is a 37/5, whilst the "true" 37/6s are 37601-612. As you say, many of the preserved locos carry completely different registry numbers - e.g. 89500 is/was 55022/D9000 Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest B Exam Posted July 28, 2016 Share Posted July 28, 2016 Technically if was a 37/5 it should carry the next number available in the centre headcode batch - 37666.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium jjb1970 Posted July 28, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 28, 2016 This may be a stupid question and it is one I've never asked myself in all the years I've been interested in trains, are train numbers just an identifier assigned by a railway company for operational reasons or do they have statutory significance as a unique identifier? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted July 28, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted July 28, 2016 This may be a stupid question and it is one I've never asked myself in all the years I've been interested in trains, are train numbers just an identifier assigned by a railway company for operational reasons or do they have statutory significance as a unique identifier? They have to be unique so that the various computer systems can recognise them. There used to be duplicated numbers amongst locos and stock, but these were sorted out a number of years ago. Hence why 56xxx DMUs were renumbered into 54xxx to avoid conflicting with the Class 56 for example. Some numbers are used for operational reasons, but still unique. It became the norm for /4 to be used as ETH fitted locos - 31/4, 37/4, 47/4. But no means a definite system as 27/1 and 27/2 are (were) ETH fitted sub classes. edit: 27/1 aren't ETH fitted Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted July 28, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 28, 2016 37558s number is still 37424 it just happens to have a 37558 sticker on either side. Similar to that 91 that was 007 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.