RMweb Premium newbryford Posted February 23, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) The conventional drawgear really spoils the lines of it, the rest of it looks like a modern train. Shame we didn't standardise on auto-couplers several decades ago... We did with the buckeye - worked well enough for the Southern Region.................. TBH, though, the outer end of the DT doesn't require an auto coupler with full electric/control/air as my understanding is that it wouldn't normally be coupled to anything else - except for emergency purposes. The weight of the set - coaches plus 68 will probably dictate the use of a loco to rescue it, so buffers are a good idea. But it does look awful. Cheers, Mick Edited February 23, 2018 by newbryford Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 I can understand why it's there. I'm just lamenting that we didn't do the modernisation plan properly and replace couplers that Stephenson would have recognised with knuckle couplers universally then, and do away with buffers entirely... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titan Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 They managed to hide the buffers on the APT well enough! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium JDW Posted February 23, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 23, 2018 Looking at that pic, it's not the drawgear itself that spoils it, more the huge oversized fairing around the edge which emphasises it rather than blends it in. Look at 91s and Mk4 DVTs, the drawgear on those doesn't look out of place (if not as sleek as an HST). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bumpkin Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 The whole magazine gives a nice summary of the stock TPE are getting and rough dates for their arrival. https://issuu.com/transpennineexpress/docs/together_issu 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
YesTor Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 But it does look awful. I'll second that! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frappington Jct Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 I quite like it... (I'll get my coat!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted February 24, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 24, 2018 (edited) The conventional drawgear really spoils the lines of it, the rest of it looks like a modern train. Shame we didn't standardise on auto-couplers several decades ago... Not been terribly keen on modern in just about any way, shape, or form I was going to grumble at that. Then I saw the picture. Yep, pretty ugly and out of place looking. The rest that is, the buffers are OK Seriously though I share the sentiment that they've not been included in a way that suits the rest of the design at all. Edited February 24, 2018 by Reorte Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Coryton Posted February 24, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 24, 2018 First image of a mk5 DVT https://mobile.twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/966922140871110657/photo/1 It's certainly....distinctive.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Reorte Posted February 24, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 24, 2018 Looking at that pic, it's not the drawgear itself that spoils it, more the huge oversized fairing around the edge which emphasises it rather than blends it in. Look at 91s and Mk4 DVTs, the drawgear on those doesn't look out of place (if not as sleek as an HST). The difference with those is that the cab doesn't narrow towards the front. Mind you the 68s look as if they do and the buffers fit better there (not that they're the most attractive things up front either). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westie7 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 I thinks its the override protection in addition to the buffers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Coryton Posted February 24, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 24, 2018 The difference with those is that the cab doesn't narrow towards the front. Mind you the 68s look as if they do and the buffers fit better there (not that they're the most attractive things up front either). I thinks its the override protection in addition to the buffers Perhaps as they are passenger carrying they have more stringent requirements on this than the 68's? Or maybe they need more protection because they are lighter than a locomotive? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D854_Tiger Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 We did with the buckeye - worked well enough for the Southern Region.................. TBH, though, the outer end of the DT doesn't require an auto coupler with full electric/control/air as my understanding is that it wouldn't normally be coupled to anything else - except for emergency purposes. The weight of the set - coaches plus 68 will probably dictate the use of a loco to rescue it, so buffers are a good idea. But it does look awful. Cheers, Mick Well at least it matches the other end and not much point having nice lines when it's going to be at the back of the train half the time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indomitable026 Posted March 12, 2018 Author Share Posted March 12, 2018 Third pic down https://www.drehscheibe-online.de/foren/read.php?004,8496358 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted March 12, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 12, 2018 Third pic down https://www.drehscheibe-online.de/foren/read.php?004,8496358 But that's only any good if the 68s get there.... 68021/019 were taken to Wembley last week, en route to the tunnel and then turned back to Crewe because of paperwork issues March 5th .https://www.flickr.com/photos/gibbo53/40636567081/in/photolist-GTDFro-23WSqkJ-23WRLTQ-GTDspG-GUVedo-24XDSqQ-23EgbXD-24UV2CV-22i6wQU-23zwdqD-Fhzje8-251gDDn-23VnWHm-22bKzVY-23XQBaN-252f4y4-24WGQck-251gBwB-23XeKKd-GNUch7-22hGEFj-251MS8m-23G6BXg-FoRade-GVdsuj March 9th https://www.flickr.com/photos/60963146@N04/26838719998/in/photolist-GTDFro-23WSqkJ-23WRLTQ-GTDspG-GUVedo-24XDSqQ-23EgbXD-22i6wQU-251gDDn-23VnWHm-23XQBaN-252f4y4-23XeKKd-22hGEFj-251MS8m-23G6BXg-FoRade-GVdsuj Cheers, Mick 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal.n Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Not my images. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DYD-1RoW0AE_7k2?format=jpg&name=large Is thinking of trying to do the DVT for a Shapeways print. If anyone finds anymore images, especially of the DVT (or whatever it’s called), please post here. It is an ugly looking thing isn’t it, livery looks nice 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Where it's coupled to that wagon it doesn't show the buffers and surrounding bodywork so much, which makes it look a bit better. Otherwise a fairly generic modern train look IMO. Not exceptionally good looking or ugly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Coryton Posted March 12, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 12, 2018 But that's only any good if the 68s get there.... 68021/019 were taken to Wembley last week, en route to the tunnel and then turned back to Crewe because of paperwork issues March 5th .https://www.flickr.com/photos/gibbo53/40636567081/in/photolist-GTDFro-23WSqkJ-23WRLTQ-GTDspG-GUVedo-24XDSqQ-23EgbXD-24UV2CV-22i6wQU-23zwdqD-Fhzje8-251gDDn-23VnWHm-22bKzVY-23XQBaN-252f4y4-24WGQck-251gBwB-23XeKKd-GNUch7-22hGEFj-251MS8m-23G6BXg-FoRade-GVdsuj March 9th https://www.flickr.com/photos/60963146@N04/26838719998/in/photolist-GTDFro-23WSqkJ-23WRLTQ-GTDspG-GUVedo-24XDSqQ-23EgbXD-22i6wQU-251gDDn-23VnWHm-23XQBaN-252f4y4-23XeKKd-22hGEFj-251MS8m-23G6BXg-FoRade-GVdsuj Cheers, Mick Does anyone know why they couldn't have made it their under their own power? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal.n Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 (edited) Does anyone know why they couldn't have made it their under their own power?I assume they could, but it would have been the ROG class 37 that took them through the Channel tunnel because they are the only UK TOC that can. Therefore when they ‘forgot their passport’ the 37 just took them back. Edit: the DVTs are designated a ‘Mark 5A MC’ according to the CAF website (with MC presumably meaning motor car or coach) Edited March 12, 2018 by cal.n Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steadfast Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 I saw it explained on another forum. All the moves for CAF are done by Railadventure. They have subcontracted the UK moves to ROG. ROG would then get one of the 92 operators (GB in this case I believe) to take the 68s through the tunnel and deposit them at Frethun for further moves. The 68s can't move themselves as they have to be drained of fuel to go through the tunnel. Also it'd need ROG to have 68 trained drivers, or get DRS to move them, if they had drivers that sign to Dollands Moor. Anyway, that last bit is a moot point anyway Jo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 (edited) I assume they could, but it would have been the ROG class 37 that took them through the Channel tunnel because they are the only UK TOC that can. Therefore when they ‘forgot their passport’ the 37 just took them back. Diesels are not allowed (under power) through the tunnel Edit: the DVTs are designated a ‘Mark 5A MC’ according to the CAF website (with MC presumably meaning motor car or coach)Doubt it would be motor, they don’t have motors! Edited March 12, 2018 by Talltim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted March 12, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 12, 2018 (edited) Diesels are not allowed (under power) through the tunnel Certain diesels are allowed in under power. https://www.flickr.com/photos/36034969@N08/5912227638/in/album-72157644964592771/ They were coupled up to exhaust gas scrubber wagons, but are now fitted with particulate filters Cheers, Mick Edited March 12, 2018 by newbryford Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Coryton Posted March 12, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 12, 2018 I saw it explained on another forum. All the moves for CAF are done by Railadventure. They have subcontracted the UK moves to ROG. ROG would then get one of the 92 operators (GB in this case I believe) to take the 68s through the tunnel and deposit them at Frethun for further moves. The 68s can't move themselves as they have to be drained of fuel to go through the tunnel. Also it'd need ROG to have 68 trained drivers, or get DRS to move them, if they had drivers that sign to Dollands Moor. Anyway, that last bit is a moot point anyway Jo Unlike all the lorries that travel in open wagons through the tunnel? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steadfast Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Yup, daft ain't it! Jo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Coryton Posted March 12, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 12, 2018 Yup, daft ain't it! Perhaps its for the same reason that foot passengers need to go through airline security while cars drive straight on. (Maybe no longer the case now but it certainly was a few years ago). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now