rodent279

Effectively a class 40, but a lot more modern looking, especially in the bogie area.

Wasn't large areas of forest removed to build Elizabeth's navy? And I guess later on a lot of forest was used for pit props.

Hadn't realised what a well travelled engine 563 is. Here it is in Toronto in 2011.

I'm OK with Belgian styling. Polish 3KV styling is ok as well. (Would be rather interesting seeing one of these exchange traffic with a WCML electric, at a multi- voltage Rugby, along the lines of Venlo.)

If we want Imaginary Locomotives for it, I'd have 3KV DC electrification with some Italian E428, E646 etc electric locos. Easy to make them dual voltage for compatibility with the MSW electrification. Imagine some of these thumping along on a freightliner, or on a Newcastle- Poole!

If a connection to the WCML at Rugby had been easier, then retention south to at least Banbury might have been useful, maybe even single track with passing loops. But was there ever enough traffic to justify it?

Originally, TF were orange seats.

But it was a North-South connection from the GC to the Midland, so southbound traffic coming off the Midland onto the GC would need to reverse, or a North -South connection built from the Midland to the GC.

But major upgrades of existing main lines carrying revenue earning traffic are not cheap, or easy, either. Edit: EWR is perhaps the nearest equivalent to our imaginary scenario of a freight only GC being upgraded to a passenger/high speed line, and that is effectively a new railway being built that just happens to be on an old formation. So the size of the task can be gauged from that.

No, and I'd be interested to know. Best I can suggest is a lengthy trawl through Flickr, noting the last dates white stripes appear, and the first dates they disappear. I'd guess a few lasted until the late 80's, possibly early 90's.

In other words, it's a hardware standard, not a software standard. So it's entirely possible to have two trains with identical coupler & MU jumpers that can physically couple, but can't talk to each other to operate in MU, or in some cases, even to brake each other. A bit like the RS232 computer peripheral standard-it is a hardware standard, not a software standard, so just because two devices had RS232 ports did not mean they could always talk to each other.

Class 68 & Nova sets next?

Can't help thinking that if that had been a viable proposal, it would have happened. The GC was a bit of a problem child though, because it didn't really connect to any other railways south of about Nottingham, all to way through to Woodford Halse. There were connections to the Midland at Loughborough (during/post ww2?), & at Leicester (sometime in the 1960's?), but these were not designed for the exchange of traffic in quantity. There was no connection to the LNW at Rugby, so overall, the opportunities for diverting significant quantities of freight traffic would have been limited. Remember also that the WCML electrification was intended to create a mixed-traffic electric railway, not a purely passenger one. The electric locos were designed to be equally at home on 100mph passenger as on 60-75mph freights, so there would have been a desire to do the opposite, and push freight traffic onto the WCML.

Didn't BR call it CEM - Component Exchange Maintenance? Which is how it should be really, diesels & electrics should not need complete strip down & rebuild every 5 years, like steam locos did.

And steam locos never work tender first.....

1E73 passes between Twerton & Saltford, on the last journey to Leeds, today. End of an era.

To be fair, compared to a mk3, or a MK2 on well maintained B4's, most things compare unfavourably. But I'd agree 800's do seem rough .

Sounds like a sensible move. Let's hope they also return the air brake pump, and restore to Greek livery as no. Λβ960, complete with headlight.

What was the problem?

That's what you call a near miss. Had the accident happened an hour or two later, & the train been a packed commuter service, there could easily have been multiple fatalities.

Could it also be for the SNCF/SNCB Krokodil AWS system?

I'm sure there was an "Alternative Outcomes to the Grouping" thread somewhere, but a search hasn't thrown anything up, so continuing here from the Imaginary Locomotives thread seemed the best bet. Could the Grouping have been arranged to create some more viable cross-London links? For example, combining the LNWR & LSWR via the already extant NLR routes via Richmond & Kenny O would seem a natural choice. Similarly the GW, Met & GE, maybe also taking in the District Railway, would create a prototype Crossrail 80 years earlier. Maybe the Midland & SECR could have been combined with the NER, to create a sort of CrossCountry with Thameslink bolted on?

What grouping could have done differently is create a couple of cross-London groups, say GW & GE, GC & SECR/LBSC, and then a kind of early CrossCountry by joining the Midland up with the NE, LSW & GSW.

Still that way in July '84. I have published this photo before on here.

Exactly the point i made above about lower speeds giving more time to react for both parties.