Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Train porn

1…1314161819…48

Comments

  • #452
    dermo88
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,000 ✭✭✭dermo88


    One unusual thing I saw there was the 071 Class at Seapoint. Between 1989-1995 Iarnrod Eireann had a motive power shortage, so it was unusual to see an 071 South of Pearse, and even more so on a Freight turn.


  • #453
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,979 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    dermo88 wrote: »
    Iarnrod Eireann had a motive power shortage
    and now it seems they have to many, so much so that a few are in storage, or have very little work at times.

    shut down alcohol action ireland now! end MUP today!



  • #454
    dermo88
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,000 ✭✭✭dermo88


    end of the road

    and now it seems they have to many, so much so that a few are in storage, or have very little work at times.

    You have to remember that there were no Diesel Multiple Units apart from some borrowed NIR '80's between 1972 (First Gen DMU's de-engined and converted to Push Pull) and 1994 (Arrival of 16 x 2600 Class, 1 Spare). All Intercities, Suburban, Branch services were loco hauled. There was substantially more freight, but passenger services were sparse compared to today.


  • #455
    demanufactured
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,756 ✭✭✭demanufactured


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cfjUbcuMQg&feature=youtube_gdata_player


  • #456
    CaptainFreedom
    Registered Users Posts: 194 ✭✭CaptainFreedom


    Karsini wrote: »
    I've been in Inchicore several times and didn't see anything like it, so I'm not sure. There is a dedicated paint and spray facility there.

    The building 152 is seen entering is the running shed, not sure what end though


  • Advertisement
  • #457
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    CaptainFreedom wrote: »
    The building 152 is seen entering is the running shed, not sure what end though

    That would explain it, I wasn't allowed into the running shed. For good reason too.


  • #458
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 12,938 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Eiretrains wrote: »
    They operated simply to the goods yard in Arklow station, the containers been transferred to road for the final (costly and tedious) journey to Arklow port. You probably weren't the only one to miss these trains, as it was one of these experimental movements that lasted just six weeks, from mid June to the end of July 1992. :)

    Correct me if I am wrong here but wasn't there some dispute between the mine and Dublin Port over port fees that led to this Arklow trial?


  • #459
    flyingsnail
    Registered Users Posts: 2,752 ✭✭✭flyingsnail


    CaptainFreedom wrote: »
    The building 152 is seen entering is the running shed, not sure what end though

    It is entering the running shed from the Heuston end, it is on the 4th shed road counting from the running line.


  • #460
    Eiretrains
    Registered Users Posts: 268 ✭✭Eiretrains


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    Correct me if I am wrong here but wasn't there some dispute between the mine and Dublin Port over port fees that led to this Arklow trial?
    That's right, not sure if it was a dispute as such that Dublin Port raised fees, just Tara wanted a cheaper alternative.


  • #461
    lord lucan
    Registered Users Posts: 9,573 ✭✭✭lord lucan


    Fantastic footage,all that's missing is a bit of sound. Haven't seen much footage before of the old C class and ex-AEC railcars before so it's an interesting watch.



  • Advertisement
  • #462
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,979 ✭✭✭✭end of the road



    not a 071 start but apparently this has the same engine, enjoy anyway

    shut down alcohol action ireland now! end MUP today!



  • #463
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    end of the road wrote: »
    not a 071 start but apparently this has the same engine, enjoy anyway
    Love that sound. :)


  • #464
    CIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    How many tram terminals had an arch-type shed built for them...?

    This is what the Indianapolis Traction Terminal used to look like; a D.H. Burnham design, built at the corner of Illinois and Market Streets. At one time, interurban trams that connected the entire state of Indiana ran into here (total in excess of 2,900 km of track route); quite remarkable given Indiana's land area (94,321 square km). Peak of interurban tram use was from the turn of the century (c. 1907) to the late 1920s. Converted into the city's central bus terminal in 1941; closed down in 1968 and the shed torn down to build the Blue Cross/Blue Shield tower. The terminal building was demolished in 1972 and the site converted to a plaza. The BC/BS building is now a Hilton hotel, and the site of the plaza is now the hotel's lobby. Long-distance buses use Indianapolis' Union Station nowadays.
    TractionTerminals3.jpg

    TractionTerminals2.jpg


  • #465
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,468 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    CIE wrote: »
    Peak of interurban tram use was from the turn of the century (c. 1907) to the late 1920s. Converted into the city's central bus terminal in 1941; closed down in 1968

    man, how much of the world turned it's back on the tram in the run up to ww2/40ies? What folly with hindsight!


  • #466
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    I won't post my own (dreadful) pictures from the most recent Berlin railway festival but here are some good ones:

    linky

    52 6666 hauled our special excursion train out along a normally freight only route and partially around the Berlin Ring which required using some sections of S Bahn track. The Berlin S Bahn is third rail and I have never seen non-S Bahn vehicles use it, so it was an experience to be on a steam hauled train around it.

    For those less interested in German loks, the class 52's are also known as "Kriegsloks" or "war locos" as they were produced in huge quantities by the third Reich, something like 7,000 examples were built, making them one of the most produced classes of all time worldwide.

    The 119 is an interesting beast. It is a Rumanian built heavy diesel loco which was forced upon the DR (Deutsche Reichsbahn) by the Soviets, who decided which countries of the COMECON could produce what. The Rumanian locos were hated by the DR as they were extremely unreliable. Many were heavily re-engineered upon arrival in East Germany to make them fit for purpose! Their nickname was the "U-Boot" for obvious reasons. This example was actually completely overhauled in West Germany by Krupp. The DB upon reunification became the (not so proud) owner of a lot of dubious stock from the East (some good stuuf too, in fairness) and they wanted to see if it would be worthwhile refurbising the 119s. They spent huge money on this one example and gave up! Too expensive to make them useful. The vast majority went to scrap.

    In contrast, the 118's were built in East Germany itself and saw long years of service after reunification. Some are still in service with small private operators today.


  • #467
    cml387
    Registered Users Posts: 8,357 ✭✭✭cml387


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    man, how much of the world turned it's back on the tram in the run up to ww2/40ies? What folly with hindsight!


    In the case of the USA it wasn't folly. That would imply mere foolishness.
    It was a deliberate act of destruction by the automobile industry which bought the tram companies to close them down.


  • #468
    CIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    cml387 wrote: »
    In the case of the USA it wasn't folly. That would imply mere foolishness.
    It was a deliberate act of destruction by the automobile industry which bought the tram companies to close them down.
    Sounds like someone is referring to the company called National City Lines. They had a lot of help from politicians, if not in terms of money then in terms of support (notable influence from New York City mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, who was avidly pro-bus and was responsible for putting public transport in his city under government control). They weren't as influential when it came to the interurban companies, but since many of those depended on city and town tramways for their alignments, they were damaged as a result.


  • #469
    CIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    Sorry for sticking a trolleybus in here, but this is the kind of advertisement that was foisted on the public to get them to accept buses over trams. Public Service Co-ordinated Transport, who once operated "surface" transport across a great swath of the state of New Jersey, used these "All-Service Vehicles" (essentially a dual-mode trolleybus which switched to petrol-engine power at the end of trolley wires) to replace a lot of trams with rubber-tyred buses. You may notice how the exterior of the bus resembles the PCC tram...as did the type of bus termed the "Old Look" that was built by companies such as GM, Mack, White, Brill et cetera (and of course Yellow Coach)...
    3593436002_0fb7a1dd9d_o.jpg

    PS. Public Service at one time was seriously considering converting the Newark City Subway to ASV. It's bad enough that New Jersey Transit made that system slower, and cut the service in half, when they retired the PCC cars in favour of the current Kinki-Sharyo-built LRVs, but at least nothing like that was done.


  • #470
    dowlingm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzgz2NCO9k

    Two of NJ Transit's dual mode monster ALP-45DPs

    20 of them are sat in Montreal AMT's yard - the test unit exerted track forces which caused a low speed derailment in Montreal Central Station. Having a 25kV AC transformer and diesel engines big enough for 100mph is a lot to pack in one loco!


  • #471
    CIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    dowlingm wrote: »
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzgz2NCO9k

    Two of NJ Transit's dual mode monster ALP-45DPs.

    20 of them are sat in Montreal AMT's yard — the test unit exerted track forces which caused a low speed derailment in Montreal Central Station. Having a 25kV AC transformer and diesel engines big enough for 100 mph is a lot to pack in one loco!
    There are two 12-cylinder "Genset" engines built by Caterpillar in that locomotive. You'd need a lot more axles if you were going to use two 12-645 engines. I'm surprised that AMT didn't alter the specs, since their top speeds usually are no faster than 70 mph.

    This engine apparently grew out of NJ Transit's odd (and failed) experiments with GM-built E8As (A1A-A1A), where they would remove one diesel engine (they originally had two 12-567s) and install a transformer and pantograph. Although there was (and still is) third rail in the tunnels between Manhattan and New Jersey dating back from when the Pennsylvania Railroad originally electrified the line into Penn Station NYC with third rail (they re-electrified with AC OHLE in the 1930s), NJ Transit (and New Jersey DOT before them) did not trust pre-existing third-rail dual-mode engines such as the GM-built FL9 or any others that currently exist (GE's "Genesis II" P32AC-DM or GM/Super Steel DM30AC of the Long Island Rail Road)...and so this bizarre creature came to be, an outgrowth of Bombardier "TRAXX" types. It was built in Kassel, Germany (which kinda flouts the whole "Buy American" requirements that modern US commuter railways prefer to adhere to), and due to weighing 32.65 tonnes per axle, could not travel on German rails to the shipping yards and therefore had to be transported by road.


  • Advertisement
  • #472
    dowlingm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    AMT and NJT have a lot of connections - AMT have leased quite a bit of kit from NJT and also went in jointly on the Multilevel Coach order. The ALP45 was actually an joint Request For Proposals rather than AMT joining an NJT orderbook as Metrolinx did with the SMART DMUs. The Mount Royal Tunnels and the Hudson Tunnels in MTL and NYC respectively present similar structure gauge challenges and are not permitted for diesel operation.

    As for Buy American - US passenger RRs can buy whatever they like as long as they don't ask for federal funds to pay for it. I don't have confirmation of this but I did see one forum post say the ALP45s and 46s were NJ $ with no fed assistance.


  • #473
    CIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    Anything can be done with a Form D in the USA, even running diesel through the North River Tunnels. It's at the platforms in New York Penn Station that the NY fire department starts to wag the fingers, although Amtrak I believe has operated diesel shunters through there and into the East River tunnels. A good few tunnels that used to be electric only now permit diesel full time, including railway tunnels under the Detroit River.

    I don't understand the Mount Royal tunnel situation. Why wasn't the ventilation improved enough to allow diesel operation through it? That has to be cheaper than going with those unproven dual modes. Not to mention re-electrifying to high-voltage AC (25kV 60Hz) making for lower clearance (due to potential for electric arcs) than with the former 3kV DC electrification used by the boxcab electrics (started as 2.4kV DC); improve ventilation and you could conceivably use F40PHs through the tunnel with 3kV DC. Gare Centrale itself isn't a problem what with Amtrak running its diesel Adirondack train in there.


  • #474
    dowlingm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    The tunnel was upgraded to 25kV in the 1990s, after which the practice of towing VIA trains one way and coasting the other was forbidden, presumably because of the reduced clearance (the height of the tunnel was one of the reasons NJT and AMT collaborated as they both have tunnels standard bilevels can't fit) Here's 45DP and MR90 together in happier times when the DP was in testing and not in the Saint-Eustache Doghouse.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WXE8OJ_rF4


    Basically AMT didn't reckon there would be a problem with a train running through in E-mode with some diesel left in the tank, but after the DP order was done then the trouble started with assertions that the existing fire extinguishing and ventilation couldn't cope. As for the unproven DPs, they seem to be doing ok in Jersey so the question is what kind of crappy track CN put in Gare Centrale. (Bad me - should not pre-empt the TSBofC report)


  • #475
    CIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    Amtrak has not yet permitted any of the ALP-45s on their rails. Those machines have no purpose unless they can operate into Manhattan. Even if there had been that project to build new tunnels and platforms under Penn Station (a project that was as convoluted and overpriced as Dublin's Interconnector DART Underground), what with NJ Transit cutting service left and right, there would have been little purpose for them, unless it was to extend all of their "Newark Division" trains into Manhattan; and one railway branch that used to have direct Manhattan service, today called the North Jersey Coast Line (but originally the New York & Long Branch Railroad), now no longer has such direct service, and it would almost be like pulling teeth to restore the direct service that started under the Pennsylvania Railroad and ended in the late 1980s because NJ Transit did not want to do engine changes with the ALP-44s.

    As for those MR90s, they look to me like they should have become the new EMU for NJ Transit. They would have had to been upgraded to a 100-mph top speed at least, and the end doors for low platforms would need reconfiguration to allow both low- and high-platform boarding, but that would have been the way to go. (The state of New Jersey has not bought a new EMU for its commuter services since 1978.)


  • #476
    dowlingm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    NJT want bilevel EMUs to replace the Arrow IIIs.
    http://www.njtransit.com/pdf/2012_8_08_BoardItems.pdf

    If they want single levels then it will likely be Silverliner Vs as long as they can get Rotem to agree a realistic delivery schedule rather than the delays SEPTA got
    http://www.septa.org/service/rail/silverliner/ada.html
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaBcysZVq9o


  • #477
    CIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    Those New Jersey "multi-level EMUs" (or "multi-level power cars" as they're calling them there) are unusual for US EMUs, i.e. since the 1960s at least; since these will be configured to operate using the push-pull cars as trailers, these will have to be the first EMU since the 1950s that use AAR couplers.


  • #478
    cbl593h
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭cbl593h


    http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3093924

    Now that's porn.


  • #479
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    cbl593h wrote: »
    http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3093924

    Now that's porn.
    Another undertaker special!


  • #480
    cbl593h
    Closed Accounts Posts: 193 ✭✭cbl593h


    Our man in Havana wrote: »
    Another undertaker special!

    Probably all died from salmonella........... :D


  • Advertisement
  • #481
    CIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    On the outward journey the opening of the level crossing gates at Carroll’s Cross had been hindered as part of a protest against the closure.
    More of the national "government" steamrolling over the will of the people.


Advertisement