Techniquest
Veteran Member
Seth said:AlexS said:He might have a point though - it is rather annoying at times to have others continually try to change your outlook on things, it's unlikely to happen.
I accept that. However, I think it would be easier to accept Julian's opinion if he rounded it off with a little less hostility.
So we've spent at least a quarter of a page on this thread discussing my 'hostility'? It's the sort of topic that's better off in MSN. However, during my absence from the forum yesterday, I'll take this chance to thank AlexS for pointing out what was meant by my final part of my post.
For the record, what I meant, without using a whole 12-sentence paragraph to do it, was that my view is NOT subject to suggestive discussion, ie a discussion which set out to change my opinion on things. Quite simply, to sum up in one sentence my view, stop moaning about 67s, they're rather enjoyable locomotives on heavy loads and at speed, not forgetting the excellent Highland gradients! To make it two sentences then, as one is insufficient, 37s are enjoyable, but let's not let progress stop us enjoying the future of locomotive haulage.
Now to move on to answer to yorkie's lengthy moan/reply/confused with the facts:
Regarding the weight of the 67s, this only comes from the requirement to have super power to hit high speeds quickly, surely?
Establishing this, we should consider the extreme likiness that more equally heavy and powerful frieght locomotives will be here in the future. A lot of the network is not passed for the 67s due to the axle loading on the track. Fair enough, it would take some time to clear the network for such a thing. Bearing in mind we could have more 67s (not too likely) or equally good locomotives (let's face it, there are a lot of loads that 60s and 66s can't pull, the former will be going in a few years completely) coming over to do freight work in the next 5 years or so.
Now, think for a moment about how difficult it would be to have to clear the route for 67s on the Robeston to Theale Murcos. It would remain 60-hauled for a while yet anyway due to the weight and the 66's insufficient pulling power. However, the tracks are in no way ready for 67s all over the route. Obviously, track work would have to be done to clear the route. Considering the fact we'll have more 67s (or whatever by 2010) on freight work, should it really be EWS' responibility to pay for most of the network to be cleared for their locomotives? That's not fair. NR are in charge of maintaining the network, they should be the ones paying to allow better locomotives (in terms of haulage capability), because let's face it, freight will get heavier, trains longers, more power and weight will become envitable for future locomotives. Not to mention passenger trains, which one day will be long enough for the job, packed with capacity and will no doubt be faster and heavier, due to more powerful engines needed to storm the Highlands of Scotland at 80mph and Shap at a full 140mph (some dreams coming in there). Passengers won't put up with bad track quality and ride. If nothing else, that would be the driving force to fix up the routes.
yorkie, you say 37s are reliable? Not in a couple of years time they won't. I daresay 67s aren't too reliable at the moment due to maintenance and lack of work. This will change hopefully. My point about 37s failing en-masse is a pretty realistic vision of what will happen eventually. They're ready to go to retirement now, let them do so. But send them off properly.
That is all I can be bothered to say right now, my keyboard is ready to collapse under all the hammering away of opinion on it.