Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Traction & Rolling Stock' started by CosherB, 29 Aug 2018.
Thank you so much for pointing that out. I thought for a minute I was on a forum.
So it's twice the cost (at least) if you're double heading. Shorter freight is very much a niche market, which is why the market for electric locos has gone for increasing power. Bombardier's TRAXX is often described as "medium power" (at 4.2MW continuous rating and 5.6MW one hour rating) and that's the basic minimum for any new electric loco in Europe now.
So why not start another topic if you want to discuss another loco totally unrelated to the 93?
Is that your job application for being a moderator?
Since when were you a forum moderator?
Also, it is confirmed in which reputable news source or press release? Terribly sorry but I haven't seen one.
Can we trust anything that you say?
That's for you to decide!
The only Do-Do locomotives I can find were French Steam-Electrics built in the 1890s. There were only three (including the prototype), and as all were scrapped, we can safely call them dodos as well.
Short formed freight, R.O.G, double heading?!!! I haven't seen short freights/enterprise workings since the 1980's early 1990's, and what is the point of that new locomotive that a fleet of 68's and 88's can't handle? I've looked on Railway gazette and nothing has been mentioned about tenders for a new locomotive or even a whiff of an order for new UK locomotives, is the source reliable?
ROG want a fleet of "go anywhere" locos - they currently run diesels under wires for a lot of miles. The 93s are also due to have special couplers to haul any UK unit.
Couldn't an 88 or 68 be fitted with such equipment?
Any unit? That seems a lofty claim, given the plethora of incompatible MU systems we've had since privatisation. Even dead-hauling them all would require a versatile set of couplers.
Good point! And whose idea was it in the first place to have a plethora of coupling systems? One across the board would have been sufficient and common sense.
I've often wondered this, seems basic common sense but maybe as a manager of mine once told me "DON'T use common sense!!" :P
Well, we should have stuck to hook and chain with buffers or the buckeye system. We didn't need dellner or any other coupling systems, that should have been made clear in tendering for new rolling stock contracts, talk about making a rod for your own back!
I hope this is ironic...
In his defence the buckeye hasn't done the Yanks any harm.
The Yanks use automatic couplers on their MUs, as it’s the only intelligent way of quickly coupling trains in the 21st century.
Look further..... Search for the EMD DD40X diesels, purchased by Union Pacific. Unit No. 6936 is preserved in working order & often works with their steam fleet.
Hm. Its wikipedia page describes it as a D-D, rather than a Do-Do. Is there any material difference between the two?
There also were some SD45s built for Brazilian metre-gauge that had the same axle arrangement. Newer metre-gauge locos for Brazil (such as the "Dash 9" seem to have four two-axle bogies in groups of two instead.
Americans don't use the 'o' suffix (to indicate individually motored axles, versus mechanically coupled axles with a shared motor) since 'individually motored' has always been the normal arrangement there. So what us Europeans would describe as a Do-Do they call a D-D.
There were also the earlier EMD DD35 and DD35X Do-Do locos (built for UP/SP in the US), but none of those survive - so they're definitely in the 'Dodo' category...
I go by the "If a system works and it aint broke, why try to fix it?" mantra. And you do not need a multitude of incompatible systems for drawgear, as I stated a few posts earler, common sense would be to have one uniform drawgear type across the board thus eliminating the need for special coupler vehicles between locomotive and multiple unit/hst, hence why some class 43's were retrofitted with buffer and chain-hook coupling. But I state again, the requirements should have settled on one specific drawgear type and incorporated that into tendering for new rolling stock. Anyway, this is off topic, so I'll get back on topic. Was there any mention of what diesel engine package was to be used in this proposed class 93?
What I don’t understand is how can you think manual coupling is better than automatic coupling where mechanical, electrical and pneumatic connections are made automatically and quickly just by pushing one train against another, without requiring any manual and time-consuming intervention before and after the process ?
I don't think anyone thinks that. What they do think is that is a bad idea to have a multiplicity of different incompatible couplers.
Well that’s not what I read but okay, on that I agree.
Time consuming? You have seen how long it takes for sets to couple using auto couplers, haven’t you? I bet the coupling/un-coupling of REPs/TCs/33s they used to do at Bournemouth was far quicker. Likewise, watching two Railjets couple at Wien Hbf earlier this year was an object lesson in how to do it: no fannying around with stop short etc etc, straight on, shunter underneath, screw coupler, air pipes and jumper cables done in two minutes and train ready to go.
My bold - the 'shunter underneath' bit is exactly the reason why auto-couplers were invented more than a century ago - they avoid people having to work in the hazardous, filthy environment between/underneath railway vehicles...(auto-couplers were made mandatory in the USA in 1893 due to the accidents/injuries caused by manually coupling/uncoupling vehicles).
Why on earth we have persisted so long in Europe with archaic side buffers and hook couplings I'll never understand...just shows how backward and conservative railway administrations can be sometimes.