Class 70

[43067]

i thought GBRf and Colas were interested in looking at 099. what is going on with it? like 61653 HTAFC say's it's just being dragged about as a dead weight pointless surely.

The fact its a "Demonstrator" from Turkey, got me thinking,

1: it's dragged every where
2: the exhaust ports look very clean in the photo's that are posted

so, does it actually have an engine fitted ?

 

[swt_passenger]

Is taking it to Southampton just a staging point so that it can be moved to Eastleigh for repainting?

 

[cj_1985]

Is taking it to Southampton just a staging point so that it can be moved to Eastleigh for repainting?

that was my understanding... that's obviously assuming that it has already had GSMR, TPWS, OTMR etc fitted while at Brush and doesn't also require them fitted at Eastleigh.. or elsewhere via the merry go round trip of the UK

 

[Cruithne3753]

Class 70's are only occasional visitors now to Bristol (Stoke Gifford) and South Wales as they were not a great success in the area when new. Try Southampton and Crewe where they can be seen more often.

Pity... pug-ugly as they may be, they make an interesting change from 66s.

 

[Photohunter71]

So when will we finally see it renumbered 70 012?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

It's apparently being dragged to Eastleigh today by another class 70.








( They must be planning a barbeque down there - it's the right weather for one! )

 

[61653 HTAFC]

So when will we finally see it renumbered 70 012?

Wouldn't that be considered bad luck? Considering 91023 became 91132 I don't think they'd re-use 70012!

 

[Matt Taylor]

99 is now at Eastleigh after a couple of days at Millbrook:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40172673@N03/8960054297/in/photostream

 

[Photohunter71]

I think 70 012 is on the cards. As for not numbering it 70 012, that is just a load of superstitious nonsense! That was entirely down to not ensuring block and tackle on the crane were maintained besides wear and tear.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think 70 012 is on the cards. As for not numbering it 70 012, that is just a load of superstitious nonsense! That was entirely down to not ensuring block and tackle on the crane were maintained besides wear and tear.

I know it's a load of superstitious nonsense... But it was obviously taken seriously enough by 'the powers that be' that the 91 involved in Hatfield and Heck was renumbered!

 

[cj_1985]

its worth remembering (for those who either don't know, or those that forgot) that 70099 isn't the same as any of the production Freightliner batch...

it may have been built using the same parts... but it wasn't built in the same place (it was built in Turkey), by the same manufacturer (built by Tülomsas). so there are bound to be little differences between it and production examples... which would (in my mind) justify not renumbering it... but not significant enough of a difference to justify a different sub class

 

[Photohunter71]

It didn't matter with the class 56. Some of them were built in Romania, so that blows that point of view out the water. Sorry to be a spoilsport.

 

[cj_1985]

It didn't matter with the class 56. Some of them were built in Romania, so that blows that point of view out the water. Sorry to be a spoilsport.

we all know that there is a difference between how BR DID it, and how Post Privitisation TOC & FOCs DO it now.

 

[Photohunter71]

Surely TOPS isn't an application matter for TOC's? That surely has to be dealt with by a body such as Network rail or something similar that deals with allocating TOPS/Access charges etc etc? However I digress.

 

[Oswyntail]

70012 was a separate locomotive in its own right, with its own, albeit curtailed, history; 70099 also has its own identity and history. No asset register should ever conflate them

 

[cj_1985]

70012 was a separate locomotive in its own right, with its own, albeit curtailed, history; 70099 also has its own identity and history. No asset register should ever conflate them

its also worth remembering that (assuming my memory is working pre coffee) on Tops, you can't re-use a loco, carriage, unit etc number within so many years of it last having been used.. iirc it was 3 years since last use on TOPS.

hence why GBRf have been able to utilise the 73/9 number range for its re-engine class 73s when Merseyrail/Travel had used the 73/9 numbers for its 73s that were originally 73/0s
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely TOPS isn't an application matter for TOC's? That surely has to be dealt with by a body such as Network rail or something similar that deals with allocating TOPS/Access charges etc etc? However I digress.

well GBRf have, in the past, applied to the Rolling Stock Library (I think its them), who administer such things, to have their 66s that were previously with DRS, Freightliner or Colas renumbered from 66/4s, 66/5s or 66/8s into 66/7s...

Freightliner and DRS have not done the same with their more recent class 66 aquasitions ie DRS and the 66/3s , and Freightliner and the ex DRS 66/4s.

so it must be down to the operators regarding number changes... unless a loco, carriage or unit number were to conflict with the number of an existing vehicle... in which case I suspect it would be upto the RSL

 

[Photohunter71]

I stand corrected! Looks like you can number them anything as long as it doesn't previously exist.

 

[madmack37]

Last one i saw was at carlisle in april on a pathfinder tour it was 70004 'the coal industry society' in a very grubby condtion with a EWS 66 behind & a generator coach

 

[cj_1985]

I stand corrected! Looks like you can number them anything as long as it doesn't previously exist.

that's one way of looking at it...

in the case of 099... I think it was numbered as such because it was not part of the freightliner batch... and obviously had to receive A number for use in the UK

AIUI when freightliner first ordered its class 70s, they (FL) had the numbers 70001-70030 reserved on Tops....

so the lowest number that 099 COULD sensibly have received would have been 031.. which would be fine, unless/until FL ordered more 70s over and above the original 30... but I suppose it really depends who it was that registered 099 with the RSL in the first place... if it was GE, then they were obviously feeling optimistic, if it was Tülomsas or Freightliner it was (I would guess) obviously because it not (as I mentioned before) a strictly standard (as per GE Production Built standard) example