Train porn

I'm surprised the "No. 31" survived the needle gun, given nothing much else did. Must have been good paint well applied.
At least it's confirmation that the identity hasn't changed, unlike some GNRI steam locos in the past.

Karsini wrote: »

I once heard a story from an IE driver friend of mine (may not be true but he swears it is) that loco 201 was coupled to a Mark 3 push-pull set on a Dublin-Limerick service. It was driven from the 6100 control car on the way back as far as Thurles; until CTC found out and ordered that the loco be run around.

I'm not sure if it is even physically possible due to the non-retracting buffers though.

But if it was a push pull set would that mean the loco wouldn't have to run round ?

Karsini wrote: »

Yes, but 201-205 and 210-214 were not permitted to operate push-pull trains. They had the MU equipment so were technically capable, but the different buffer design was the problem.

Ah right okay.

Captain Chaos wrote: »

I heard that story too, the loco used the standard screw coupler like the 121s did in push pull. Don't now the technical reason why the 201s had to use the knuckle couple for Mk3 PP sets and the 121s did not.

121's were allocated to the fleet as stopgap measures and were not able to be fitted with new couplers so they used their screw coupler units. The initial batch of 201's were ordered for use on the Mark 3 push pull units as well as the Enterprise and conventional stock haulage so they were fitted with alternative coupler links for the new units as well.

There actually isn't anything complex here, to be honest. The Mark 3 PP sets were to be powered by new engines whenever they were delivered along with some to run the Enterprise and some freight turns. Until the new engines came into traffic 121s were allocated for the sets. This is mentioned in the mark 3 PP briefing documents, a copy of which I have at home.

By the time the 201s entered traffic, the order had increased from 12 to 34, including the two ordered by NIR. This allowed IE to replace class 001 entirely and to allow their other GMs to move onto secondary links and duties.

I agree with you that they were underpowered for the 6 car sets and the links asked of them. I don't know if they could have had engines installed from withdrawn 001 class locos fitted; they would have made a massive difference to performance and timekeeping.

Temp101 wrote: »

I don't really understand this. 121's were working Mk.3 push-pulls for about five years before the 201's arrived, so I don't really think they were a stop-gap. They were just very slow. I also don't remember the initial batch of ten 201's doing anything much other than conventional train haulage. Any 201's on push-pulls I remember were from the later orders. Given that Class 47's worked Mk.3 push-pull sets on the Glasgow to Edinburgh route at rather higher speeds than I ever saw an IE one doing, using screw shackle between locomotive and train, I'm not sure what the objection was on IE.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

There actually isn't anything complex here, to be honest. The Mark 3 PP sets were to be powered by new engines whenever they were delivered along with some to run the Enterprise and some freight turns. Until the new engines came into traffic 121s were allocated for the sets. This is mentioned in the mark 3 PP briefing documents, a copy of which I have at home.

I agree with you that they were underpowered for the 6 car sets and the links asked of them. I don't know if they could have had engines installed from withdrawn 001 class locos fitted; they would have made a massive difference to performance and timekeeping.

I hear you re the official initial thoughts regarding the 121's as a stop gap. From memory, I seem to recall that it was expected that the new locos would release 071's to work the push-pulls and/or conversions to railcars/normal hauled stock? I'm afraid I never gave much credence to the thought of turning the driving trailers into railcars though, which coloured my previous comments. I think, even assuming the electrical equipment would have stood the additional load, that you would have needed such a lot of work to incorporate 12-645's into the 121's that it wouldn't really have made financial sense.

flyingsnail wrote: »

I have some here from when they first arrived and were doing a tour of the country.

Thanks! Great pics!

The DMUs for Metrolinx I posted on the photo thread. This is a fairly BFD as apart from 1950s Budd stainless DMUs which were grandfathered and the few units Colorado Railcar made before they went wallop, this is the only "FRA compliant" option available to run DMUs on mainline without temporal separation (no freight during operating hours, as on San Diego SPRINTER or Ottawa O-Train and their Euro DMUs)

Hopefully the damn things work in the winter especially! Not the prettiest DMU but the FRA regs value strength over looks.

MGWR - while Transport Canada does operate somewhat apart from FRA in some respects, it makes no sense to do so entirely given the huge amount of freight traffic between the two countries. There are definite areas of difference (like Positive Train Control on passenger lines). It's a bit like UK and Irish rules of the road - 90% shared, 10% different. EDIT: also, this DMU will run in the US, as Toronto took options on a US order for Sonoma Marin in California; Portland WES in Oregon are taking two to add to their Colorado Railcar DMU fleet. MBTA are likely sniffing around as they have a DMU project in the works.

Anyway, back to the videos. Here's the Toronto Transit CEO and PRO talking about the new streetcar rollout starting at the end of the month and demonstrating the vehicle bits and bobs. It does not mention what happens if, as may happen, all door boarding and long vehicles create skanger zones, but we'll see how it goes...

A few track machine start ups and shunts, two 071 timber runarounds, a surprise mk4 visit and an 071 hauled IWT liner I caught at Kildare.