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

Options
1…1617192122…48

Comments

  • Options
    #542
    Tabnabs
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,691 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tabnabs


    If anyone has a spare 10 hours, the latest train porn project from Norwegian state television is now online

    http://www.nrk.no/nordlandsbanen/


  • Options
    #543
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,984 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    this class 14 loco was rebuilt from the frames up, i think she sounds fantastic to be honest.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0ZiXIVLWZY

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #544
    topnotch
    Registered Users Posts: 409 ✭✭topnotch


    tv programme filmed around 1997 may have been posted before.
    http://www.videopediaworld.com/video/55037/Rail-Away-Europe-02


  • Options
    #545
    dowlingm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR_lPC8C_ug

    Follow up to the tunnel breakthrough video above, showing the tunnel liner being installed and the muck trains bringing out spoil.


  • Options
    #546
    topnotch
    Registered Users Posts: 409 ✭✭topnotch


    There are some interesting photos in the planes trains automobiles section of this collection on flickr.

    www.flickr.com/photos/nlireland/8089570753/

    www.flickr.com/photos/nlireland/6633962763/in/set-721576267434


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #547
    CIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    Detailed film from October in 1937 showing the former New York, Westchester & Boston Railway, which had two branches serving White Plains and Port Chester in New York state's Westchester County. Electrification was 11,000 volts 25 Hertz AC OHLE, the same as the New Haven Railroad.

    Unusual for this railway, it was built with high platforms and gated fare control versus low platforms and conductor fare control (Metro-North converted the former New Haven to high platforms in the 70s, though). Also, the NYW&B's EMUs had a centre door for high platforms only whereas all EMUs up until the 1960s elsewhere in the states had doors at the ends of the cars only; modern EMUs that follow its door pattern are operated by New Jersey Transit and on the South Shore Line (Chicago-South Bend) today. In addition, during the period of this railway's operation, the "Northeast Corridor" was six tracks between New Rochelle and Port Chester, with the NYW&B's tracks being operated separately from the New Haven's.

    What wounded this railway's operation was the fact that its southern terminus was in the Bronx rather than Manhattan. There is only one operating remnant of this railway, that being part of the number 5 (IRT) service between East 180th Street (Bronx Zoo) station and Dyre Avenue station near the border with the Bronx and Mount Vernon.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_Hnmae2cHU


  • Options
    #548
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    A sort of 1950s health and safety video. Not sure if the guy standing on the roof at 1:45 is entirely safe.



  • Options
    #549
    csd
    Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭csd


    8389562239_175fd771e8_c.jpg
    Köln Hauptbahnof and its iconic 4711 advert. by csd75, on Flickr


  • Options
    #550
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,437 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MonfXuKuDU


    Sweet jaysus.


  • Options
    #551
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,469 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    all the UP's have the name covered over, any idea why? on the way to the scrappies?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #552
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    35 locos? Some people here would love it to be an 071 pulling the 34 201s I'm sure. :pac:


  • Options
    #553
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    all the UP's have the name covered over, any idea why? on the way to the scrappies?
    Maybe they're new and being delivered to their new owners (one already has graffiti on it though),


  • Options
    #554
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,469 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    dolanbaker wrote: »
    Maybe they're new and being delivered to their new owners (one already has graffiti on it though),
    Nah, dash2's are 70ies machines for the most part


  • Options
    #555
    Rocky Bay
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 276 ✭✭Rocky Bay


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Maybe they're new and being delivered to their new owners (one already has graffiti on it though),
    They seem to be GM SD40-2T's, a bit young to be scrapped. They are on their way to NREX, a leassor in Silvis, Illinois.


  • Options
    #556
    CIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    Union Pacific's 3985 doing what it was built to do, although in a modern setting. 143 cars on this double-stacked container train, going up Archer Hill in Wyoming. Usually, a train like this would have two SD70-type diesels with AC traction motors.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhgHrDbN4EU


  • Options
    #557
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    Great video - that train was carrying about the equivalent of a year's traffic between Dublin and Ballina. :D


  • Options
    #558
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    and putting out as much pollution as a small country in the process! I'd say that train should have a carbon tax of its own! thank god for progress!


  • Options
    #559
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,984 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    and putting out as much pollution as a small country in the process! I'd say that train should have a carbon tax of its own! thank god for progress!
    no, absolute rubbish, the busses and trucks you favour would collectively put out way more then these, railways are better progress then dirty smelly busses and trucks which clog up our towns roads and citties

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #560
    CIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    end of the road wrote: »
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    And putting out as much pollution as a small country in the process! I'd say that train should have a carbon tax of its own! thank god for progress
    No, absolute rubbish, the buses and trucks you favour would collectively put out way more then these, railways are better progress than dirty smelly buses and trucks which clog up our towns roads and cities
    Imagine each container on its own super-lorry now? Getting stuck in motorway traffic?

    And 3985 has not been a coal burner in a long time. It was converted to oil firing in 1990, using the oil burner from the former 3977. Lorries put out more smoke going up hills than even that double-chimney steamer, never mind accelerating from every stop. Not to mention, the smoke was put out deliberately for the benefit those filming and taking photos (and Archer Hill is not a steep grade, at about 1 in 167); the normal emission, even when working hard, is a very light brown haze.

    Also, I see foggy_brain's prejudice towards big government, what with the apparent approval of so-called "carbon tax". It is sulphur and particulates that are pollution, not carbon dioxide which plants absorb like animals' bodies absorb oxygen.


  • Options
    #561
    dowlingm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    Luckily that engine is exempt from EPA Tier standards :D
    http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/loco.php


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #562
    CIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    dowlingm wrote: »
    Luckily that engine is exempt from EPA Tier standards :D
    http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/loco.php
    All older viable active diesels are "grandfathered" also. Still and all, the emissions from an oil-burning steamer aren't as onerous as one may think, especially when running at the "company" notches. (Not like Ireland ever ran 2-8-0s for comparatively-long freight trains like over in the UK.)


  • Options
    #563
    roundymac
    Registered Users Posts: 2,712 ✭✭✭roundymac


    How many containers could a 078/201 haul, leaving out the weight going over our bridges?


  • Options
    #564
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    roundymac wrote: »
    How many containers could a 078/201 haul, leaving out the weight going over our bridges?

    It's hard to answer because no one outside of the loco drivers, engineers at Inchicore and EMD themselves have the max tractive effort figures of these locos.

    What I do know is that taking inclines out of the equation the max freight trains lengths in this country are limited to 36 TEUs from what I believe are the max length of the longest passing loops. A TEU is one 20ft equivalent unit. For a container train with 40ft or 45ft containers on flat wagons the max is 18 wagons. If using the pocket wagons the max is 12 as 1 pocket wagon is classed as 3 TEUs due to it's length. A train of 18 fully loaded 40-45ft containers including the wagon weights weighs 900-1000 tonnes (around 50-55 tonnes each assuming a max loaded container 30-35 tonnes and 20 tonne wagon weight). The Tara mines train with 12 fully loaded wagons weighs about the same at 900-1000+ tonnes.

    From a very rough estimate of what I know the class 59 (a single class 59 has been recorded of hauling a train close to 12,000 tonnes before) and 66 can haul and the fact out 201 is a technical cousin of the 66. Also the fact that the 201 is a mixed traffic loco and not a dedicated freight dragger like the 66 the gearing ratios are different even though they have similar HP output at the rail so there is a big hauling difference between the two more so than the difference between a 59 and 66. I reckon a 201 could haul around 4,000 tonnes max. That would be around 70 40ft containers on flat rails and about 5-10 mph tops.

    I could be way off the mark here but that's what I reckon. I'd say I'm in for a shocker though.:pac:


  • Options
    #565
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,469 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    All things being equal an 071 can haul 5,486 tonnes.

    Tractive effort from wikipedia
    192 kN (43,000 lbf) at 24.3 km/h (15.1 mph) continuous

    35 netwons required per tonne (http://wiki.openttd.org/Tractive_Effort)
    = 5,486 tonnes.

    Given the 071 has 2250 hp and the 201 has 2970hp at the motors you could assume a figure of 7,241 tonnes.

    Very simple calc though...


  • Options
    #566
    dowlingm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    I *think* Dublin-Cork can handle 48 TEUs but can't remember where I read it. Passing loop length would likely be an issue on the Portarlington and Cherryville routes.


  • Options
    #567
    flyingsnail
    Registered Users Posts: 2,752 ✭✭✭flyingsnail


    dowlingm wrote: »
    I *think* Dublin-Cork can handle 48 TEUs but can't remember where I read it. Passing loop length would likely be an issue on the Portarlington and Cherryville routes.

    Its 42

    Source http://www.irishrail.ie/index.jsp?p=174&n=222
    The maximum train size permitted on the network is 42 TEU's between Dublin and Cork and 36 TEU's on all other routes.


    The lines between Ballina and Dublin Port and Ballina and Waterford Port are cleared to carry 9'6” high cube containers on standard floor wagons, thus allowing a dramatic increase in possible payloads on trains.


  • Options
    #568
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,241 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    It is claimed that a 201 hauled 1,500 tonnes from Cork to Mallow (probably the single largest climb in the country) in a test. I don't know what speed though.

    I'm not aware of any weight limits on bridges over and above the normal axle limits - this has mean restrictions on 201s in some places, although I'm not sure if there are any left. The viaduct in Drogheda is only allowed one train at a time - I think it has interlaced track. http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=drogheda&ll=53.714879,-6.337228&spn=0.000813,0.002642&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hnear=Drogheda,+County+Louth&gl=ie&t=h&z=19
    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    All things being equal an 071 can haul 5,486 tonnes.

    Tractive effort from wikipedia
    192 kN (43,000 lbf) at 24.3 km/h (15.1 mph) continuous
    Such a speed may not be popular with other traffic. :)


  • Options
    #569
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Victor wrote: »
    I'm not aware of any weight limits on bridges over and above the normal axle limits - this has mean restrictions on 201s in some places, although I'm not sure if there are any left. The viaduct in Drogheda is only allowed one train at a time - I think it has interlaced track. http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=drogheda&ll=53.714879,-6.337228&spn=0.000813,0.002642&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hnear=Drogheda,+County+Louth&gl=ie&t=h&z=19

    Such a speed may not be popular with other traffic. :)
    It used to have interlaced track but it's standard single track now.


  • Options
    #570
    CIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    flyingsnail wrote: »
    dowlingm wrote: »
    I think Dublin-Cork can handle 48 TEUs but can't remember where I read it. Passing loop length would likely be an issue on the Portarlington and Cherryville routes.
    It's 42.
    The maximum train size permitted on the network is 42 TEU's between Dublin and Cork and 36 TEU's on all other routes.

    The lines between Ballina and Dublin Port and Ballina and Waterford Port are cleared to carry 9’6” high cube containers on standard floor wagons, thus allowing a dramatic increase in possible payloads on trains.
    Source http://www.irishrail.ie/index.jsp?p=174&n=222
    Self-imposed due to not investing in improvements to the infrastructure? Much of the former MGWR used to be double track after all.

    (And the "TEU's" with apostrophe is actually on their web site; that translates to "TEU is" rather than TEUs which means "more than one TEU".)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #571
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    All things being equal an 071 can haul 5,486 tonnes.

    Tractive effort from wikipedia
    192 kN (43,000 lbf) at 24.3 km/h (15.1 mph) continuous

    35 netwons required per tonne (http://wiki.openttd.org/Tractive_Effort)
    = 5,486 tonnes.

    Given the 071 has 2250 hp and the 201 has 2970hp at the motors you could assume a figure of 7,241 tonnes.

    Very simple calc though...

    What about the difference between the tractive effort of the UK class 59 and 66. They both have about the same hp give or take 300hp but the 59 can haul way more than a 66.

    Is the calculation really that simple, and is gear ratio not taken into account? Also weight of the loco. CSX in the US ordered some of it's locos with extra ballast in a sub class of it's locos to enable them to haul heavier trains than other exact same models that didn't have ballast installed.

    There just seems to be a lot of other factors to be taken into account to me.
    Like, can the loco get all that power to the rails without slipping and what not. I read an account in an IRRS journal about an 071 unable to haul 7 or 8 Mk2s up the small incline out of Mullingar station in poor rail conditions and was delayed for a considerable time. It could have been having an off day or not all of it's traction motors were working but still.


Advertisement