Titan

I do wonder, had there been internet in the '50s, whether there would be the same froth and moaning over the Class 40 performance compared to the Duchesses they were replacing, as there is about the HST/800. History repeating itself?

Ah yes, I am more of a classic person myself. As for the most pedantic? Have a look on this forum, take your pick!

Only works if the Latin word for both types of smell is the same. Unfortunately the word for other type of smell in Latin is Fragrantia... Actually I think you will find I am the second most pedantic person you know...

Not so, they were also fitted to the intermediate couplings of non-corridor EMU stock, couplings that would never ever be coupled to corridor stock, so the need was totally unrelated to anything to do with corridors. There are very few photos of them, this is the best I can find: http://80srail.zenfolio.com/p1000871027/h33EEABDA#h33eeabda http://80srail.zenfolio.com/p889769850/h2ddeeaf4#h2ddeeaf4 The best reasoning I can come up with is either that they were there to prevent vertical separation of the couplings should the train become derailed, (and thus stop the coaches overriding each other and telescoping in an accident), to help take the slack out of the coupling, or to take some or all of the buffing loads. Or possibly even a combination of all of the above.

Yet another person unaware of speed limits...

Plenty of 50 year old plus locos like the class 37 still have an engine inside them that was new when they were, and are not going to be replaced with anything else any time soon. Unlike a car engine, most heavy duty diesels are designed to be repaired ad-infinitum, as all components subject to wear and tear can be replaced as required.

If I ever get to own a 31 or 47 I am going to call it Basil!

The first air conditioned train in the UK I am aware of was the LNER's Silver Jubilee, which started running in 1935. Don't think the A4's had ETH, so I am not sure how it was powered!

At the time of the modernisation plan aircon - and motor generator sets - weren't even thought of. All the ETH comprised of at the time was a set of resistive heating elements and some switches which not only weighed hardly anything, weren't fussed about whether the voltage was AC or DC as long as the RMS value was somewhere between 700-1000V. The coach lighting batteries of course still being charged by an axle driven dynamo.

Anyone running an unfitted or partly fitted freight. 70 tonnes of brake force compared to 59 from a Class 50. Don't recall any Class 20 double headed freights requiring a brake tender. More driven axles mean less likely to slip. Not only that, but the maintenance costs of a Class 20 must have been the lowest of any mainline diesel. Compared to a class 50, a pair of 20's has same number of cylinders, same number of cabs, one extra generator and two extra traction motors. Compared to a class 40 they have the same number of axles and are not much heavier! The 20's are also RA5. There were a number of jobs where a larger loco was too heavy. Even in their later lives there were some MGR trains where only class 20's could be used as the colliery/power station tracks could not take a heavier/bigger loco. This coupled with their reliability and low running costs is most likely why they have lasted so long.

It wasn't at the time the decision was taken to build more of them. They had actually provided relatively good service, and experiments were in hand showing the potential to uprate them to 1,600bhp and even 2,000bhp. What caused their demise was not so much reliability, but when the engines became due overhaul it was discovered that they would be much more expensive to overhaul than anticipated, mostly due to bad cracks being discovered in the blocks. The engineers did some sums and calculated that what we nowadays refer to as the 'whole life cost' would be less for re-engining them with a new EE unit. So when the hours were used up on the Mirlees units they were sent to works for the re-engining. Strangely though a number of the Mirlees units were refurbished and put in to trawlers - I presume the duty cycle in Marine use was not likely to cause the blocks to crack.

Freight stock couplers are different, I think they are either American (AAR) standard couplers or Tightlocks, not the buckeyes that coaching stock is fitted with, and they are designed to take all the buffing loads.

Indeed, Steam is Steam. You don't have to have been around when it was in service to appreciate it. All you need to do is experience it and there will always be someone captivated by it and wanting to do their bit. The magic never gets old!

My wife just stopped, and said “You weren’t even listening, were you?” I thought to myself, “That’s a very strange way to start a conversation......”.

I think he means the whole way of their journey, not his.

Oh F FS!

I agree. I was going to say that I did not think that the UK legislation required only one, only a minimum of one. However reading it as it currently stands: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1989/1796/schedule/11/made It is very badly written. If you just go as far as reading points 1 and 2 it would appear that only one is allowed. However if you go on and read points 3, 12, and point 2 of part II, it would appear that one is a minimum, and two is optional! I suspect that most new cars have just one as it is cheaper, but not only do I not like it from a visibility point of view, if you drive on the continent it will be on the wrong side, unless it is in the middle!

And the charging posts will be on the kerb side of the pavement so no wires to trip over either.

Don't know about the Tesla, but there are cars out there that can take an 80% charge in 30mins or so. And unlike an ic car you don't need to stand beside it whilst refuelling, so you can get yourself a quick cup of coffee whilst you take a break from driving, something you should be doing anyway, but the range of an ic car allows you to exceed or skip altogether. At least when an electric car starts getting low on 'fuel' you get reduced performance, so unlike the Lada it won't suddenly cut out in the fast lane, which actually makes it better, unless for some reason you think a Lada can't run out of fuel? Or perhaps unlike the electric car the Lada can't make it to the fast lane...

Most likely it was supposed to be double headed Co-Bos, and the steam loco substituted for a non-available loco...

Look again, that post is never the less some sort of record...

This was quite useful. Although there was not quite the same abundance of 'hybrid' sets that you got with first generation sets, it was quite easy to make 2x3 car 150/0's from 2x2 car 150/0's + 1 x 150/2. Some adapter I think was required on the driving end of the 150/2, or possibly the electrics added to the coupler of the 150/0, but no mechanical adaptation was required. I think there were some 156/158 combos as well as 153/156.

Already suggested in post 13...

Because a Tesla is useless if it is free of charge?

And on some of the motorway under bridges they made provision for future OLE. 40 years on the protective coating from the studs was removed, and the new structures bolted to them! Although some inconvenience was experienced due to them being installed to imperial dimensions and the new stuff being metric, but never the less...