Jon020 Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 So, do we call them Warships... or given that they have a passing resemblance to the 67s.... Warskips ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmsforever Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 A good name would be Warspite thus remembering the Warships of the BRW but I would not want painted green or BR blue! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenman Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Because "Gay" means something completely different to what it used to. Naming a locomotive after a sexual orientation would be silly, you wouldn't name a locomotive "Straight Bruiser" either! What strange logic. There was no ship called the Straight Bruiser, so the question of a locomotive being named that does not arise. Should the famous London restaurant the Gay Hussar change its name? Or do we accept that words change meaning (or lose it) over time - and that doesn't alter the historical veracity of a name. If the word is not now offensive (and I'm assuming it isn't, though you may think differently), why would we not use it? We happily name an engine Hereward the Wake despite the majority of the people seeing the nameplate neither knowing who he was nor knowing the meaning of the word "wake". But if we're not willing to name an engine anything with the word "Gay" in it, it feels like we're still in 1950s nudge-nudge, wink-wink, snigger-snigger territory, where something can be considered really, really gaaaay. Really? Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rods_of_Revolution Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 What strange logic. There was no ship called the Straight Bruiser, so the question of a locomotive being named that does not arise. Should the famous London restaurant the Gay Hussar change its name? Or do we accept that words change meaning (or lose it) over time - and that doesn't alter the historical veracity of a name. If the word is not now offensive (and I'm assuming it isn't, though you may think differently), why would we not use it? We happily name an engine Hereward the Wake despite the majority of the people seeing the nameplate neither knowing who he was nor knowing the meaning of the word "wake". But if we're not willing to name an engine anything with the word "Gay" in it, it feels like we're still in 1950s nudge-nudge, wink-wink, snigger-snigger territory, where something can be considered really, really gaaaay. Really? Paul I would be the last person to suggest that history be rewritten! I guess it's down to how most people interpret it, rather than the actual meaning. I once nearly got beaten up in a chip shop because I used the word "niggardly" and someone decided it meant something it didn't, in that case the actual meaning of the word was irrelevant, what was relevant was how it was interpreted. I would imagine most people these days will interpret "Gay Bruiser" as meaning a homosexual tough guy, therefor it would be silly, in my opinion, to name a locomotive that; not because a homosexual tough guy would be an offensive thing or a comical thing, it would just be a weird thing have on the side of a locomotive. Or maybe my logic is just flawed! Regards, Jack Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rods_of_Revolution Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 The "######" in my above post is a term used in the dictionary definition of gay, the fact the forum has changed it to "######" makes it seem like it's some sort of slur, but I assure all it isn't! Anyway, to keep it on topic, I think Warship names for UKlights is a good idea! Cheers, Jack Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frobisher Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Fenman, on 10 Jan 2014 - 14:27, said: But if we're not willing to name an engine anything with the word "Gay" in it, it feels like we're still in 1950s nudge-nudge, wink-wink, snigger-snigger territory, where something can be considered really, really gaaaay. The Gay class were all commissioned in the 1950's... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_class_fast_patrol_boat And Gay Bruiser stands out as something of a joke name within the class when you look at the rest of them, and now is just downright inappropriate. Any of the other class mates would be "fine". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Why not? Alan Turing was chemically castrated in the 1950s but is now revered as a war hero. Haven't times moved on? Paul Times have moved on. There's two issues; gay had a different dominant meaning then; and being h omosexual is now (hopefully) acceptable (as per your Turing example) .Calling a loco the equivalent of 'Queer Basher' is not good. I find it both stupid and offensive that the word h omo is censored. It must be all those ###### sapians Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Simon Posted January 10, 2014 Author Share Posted January 10, 2014 Hi Guys, Getting way off topic now, we've already had arguments about aesthetics over safety or visor versa, let's not get into discussions about the meaning of gay! Back to the a discussion about the Class 68's Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted January 18, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 18, 2014 Rumour control, nay froth, is that 68002 will be roaded northbound from Southampton to Carlisle tomorrow. Am I sad enough to sit by J31 of the M6? No. Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250BOB Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Rumour control, nay froth, is that 68002 will be roaded northbound from Southampton to Carlisle tomorrow. Am I sad enough to sit by J31 of the M6? No. Cheers, Mick So not spending long on the docks then........unlike our 70,s Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted January 19, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 19, 2014 Rumour control, nay froth, is that 68002 will be roaded northbound from Southampton to Carlisle tomorrow. Am I sad enough to sit by J31 of the M6? No. Cheers, Mick Some one will be for sure! Its also an unfortunate sign of the times that the owners must have found it to be cheaper and more convenient to road it than rail it. The trip by road will be a 2 day job. I take it these loco's must already be NR certified to atleast be dragged surely? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 19, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 19, 2014 Some one will be for sure! Its also an unfortunate sign of the times that the owners must have found it to be cheaper and more convenient to road it than rail it. The trip by road will be a 2 day job. I take it these loco's must already be NR certified to atleast be dragged surely? All depends on how complete the paperwork is (including that for the Chunnel) - if it hasn't been signed off by a NoBo and passed full safety verification then it might not even be allowed out as a dragging job let alone under its own power. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250BOB Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Post on the 70 thread suggesting the 68 is on the move to Kingmoor today....having left Southampton last night by road Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium newbryford Posted January 19, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 19, 2014 A couple of pics are on the wnxxforum, but you need to subscribe to view them. It's all sheeted over, so nothing spectacular to see. Latest update is that 68002 is already at Kingmoor. Cheers, Mick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Welly Posted January 19, 2014 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 19, 2014 All depends on how complete the paperwork is (including that for the Chunnel) - if it hasn't been signed off by a NoBo and passed full safety verification then it might not even be allowed out as a dragging job let alone under its own power. Whiteboards signing off locomotive design? What has the world come to? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 All depends on how complete the paperwork is (including that for the Chunnel) - if it hasn't been signed off by a NoBo and passed full safety verification then it might not even be allowed out as a dragging job let alone under its own power. Even before getting to us, it would have to be passed for travel by SNCF, which almostly certainly takes ages. Presumably, once the initial loco has been inspected, tested and accepted, the others will be allowed to travel by rail from Southampton? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 19, 2014 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 19, 2014 Even before getting to us, it would have to be passed for travel by SNCF, which almostly certainly takes ages. Presumably, once the initial loco has been inspected, tested and accepted, the others will be allowed to travel by rail from Southampton? I would think so Brian. Incidentally as it is built for British operation I wonder if any of it might be out-of-gauge in France (I doubt it but you never know)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
smg201 Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Sneeked through Southampton last night, this little gem of a site has photos (all be it wrapped): http://www.47soton.co.uk/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohmisterporter Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I would think so Brian. Incidentally as it is built for British operation I wonder if any of it might be out-of-gauge in France (I doubt it but you never know)? Where could it be out of gauge Mike, isn't the French loading gauge bigger all round than ours? IIRC there was some bother over the class 20s that went to France but that was over grades of steel in the wheels or something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traksy Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Our loading gauge is bigger near the wheels to accommodate non-retractable third rail shoes. But 68 does not have any shoes so it should be no problem to drag it in France. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rods_of_Revolution Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Do wheel profiles cause any issues when moving stock from around the world on British rails? If a locomotive has been tested in one country, will it not have a different wheel profile to the UK? Or are the differences acceptable for short trips without damaging the wheels/tyres or infrastructure? Regards, Jack Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traksy Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Do wheel profiles cause any issues when moving stock from around the world on British rails? If a locomotive has been tested in one country, will it not have a different wheel profile to the UK? Or are the differences acceptable for short trips without damaging the wheels/tyres or infrastructure? Regards, Jack As far as I am aware our rails and wheel profiles are standard like most of the countries on the continent (except for larger profile near wheels to accommodate third rail). When it comes to HS1 and HS2 they are built/to be built to the largest possible standardized profile in EU (UIC GC) meaning you can run any loco/EMU there no matter the country of origin as long as it uses 1435mm rail gauge. Currently our locomotives run in Hungary, France, Romania, Bulgaria with no problems (class 92 have their third rail shoes removed). I'm sorry if I misunderstand your question. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rods_of_Revolution Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 As far as I am aware our rails and wheel profiles are standard like most of the countries on the continent (except for larger profile near wheels to accommodate third rail). When it comes to HS1 and HS2 they are built/to be built to the largest possible standardized profile in EU (UIC GC) meaning you can run any loco/EMU there no matter the country of origin as long as it uses 1435mm rail gauge. Currently our locomotives run in Hungary, France, Romania, Bulgaria with no problems (class 92 have their third rail shoes removed). I'm sorry if I misunderstand your question. Thanks for the response. I am referring to profile of the railhead (top running surface of the rail), the profile of the wheel and the point at which they contact. As I understand it the profile of the wheel and rail varies between some countries, I assume that having a mismatch in profiles will cause additional wear to the rail and the wheel. If this is the case, I wonder if it would restrict the movement of a locomotive if it had been profiled for use on a test track and then required reprofiling before running in the country of operation? Cheers, Jack Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traksy Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Ah, I see. I'll have to take a look at this. On first glance it seems it either doesn't matter or the profile is mostly the same in Europe (due to the connections between HS1 to other lines) but I'll dig some more... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baby Deltic Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 dauntless intrepid resolution emerald courageous temeraire repulse audacious invincible leviathan superb enterprise renown vanguard illustrious conqueror excalibour swiftsure E's a bit weak and they need to order two more :-) The twelfth one will probably get dropped and banana'd at the quayside, so it will be D-I-R-E-C-T-R-A-I-L-S-R-V-C-E-S Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.