Train porn

ardmacha

I hope this thread is appropriate in the new sub-forum!

While in the US over the summer I was in the Henry Ford museum in Detroit, mostly expecting to see cars. But what blew me away was this
the Allegheny locomotive





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz14zIBWspA

Cookie_Monster

how about that, Americans over-building stuff :eek::eek::D

here is a seriously cool looking piece of kit:

CIE

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how about that, Americans over-building stuff :eek::eek::D

Overbuilding...? Frankly, that 2-6-6-6 articulated job was designed to pull very heavy coal trains (close to 77,000 tonnes) over a specific bit of mountain railway in West Virginia. Even with all its power, those trains often required two Allegheny-types.

Cookie_Monster

CIE wrote: »

Overbuilding...? Frankly, that 2-6-6-6 articulated job was designed to pull very heavy coal trains (close to 77,000 tonnes) over a specific bit of mountain railway in West Virginia. Even with all its power, those trains often required two Allegheny-types.

the Swiss would just blow holes in the mountain :pac:

like this one here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6tschberg_Base_Tunnel

The wiki entry doesn't even make it sound particularly competent...

Another piece of kit I've an affinity for, the Bo Bo Bo E656 of Italian rail, articulated and all


or how about this Russian Monster Co-Co Co-Co :eek:
4,500 kilowats

CIE

That'd be 6,035 horsepower. Looks like they have the articulated-loco concept that was featured on General Motors' FT from 1939 (which was single-cab Bo-Bo+Bo-Bo with 2,000 kW total); this demonstrator has two articulated units.

The successor to the 2TE116, the 2TE25A, has 6,705 horses (5,000 kW).

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/2ТЭ25А-001.jpg/800px-2ТЭ25А-001.jpg[/img]

Cookie_Monster

a 201 with her top off :pac:

CIE

IINM, this is the longest diesel-electric built...the General Motors DDA40X, for the Union Pacific. Do-Do wheel arrangement, two 16-645E3A engines, a whopping 30 metres long, fuel capacity of 31,154 litres, and rated at 6,600 horses (4,922 kW); could even hit a top speed of 90 mph.

foggy_lad

A few nice pictures of trains:)

CIE

I see someone likes the Pennsylvania Railroad's T-1 streamliner (4-4-4-4 "Duplex" non-articulated); had a reputation for being rather slippery on the rails when starting, but once it got going it pulled a 16-car passenger train at 100 mph.

The South Australian Railways' 520 class (4-8-4) had exterior styling that resembled the T-1. These ran on 5' 3"-gauge railways, for the record, and have an axle load of 35,400 lbs, which makes them lighter on their wheels than even the 071 class; some Irish railways they might be able to run on no problem, i.e. those with no loading gauge issues in terms of vertical and horizontal clearance, and track that's relatively straight and can handle an eight-coupled drivetrain.

corktina

look at the jugs on that!

Why are the very latest generation of locos so plug-ug,y?

Tabnabs

Some more heavy metal for you. 7350 hp/ 5406 kW

An Bradán Feasa

CIE wrote: »

IINM, this is the longest diesel-electric built...the General Motors DDA40X, for the Union Pacific. Do-Do wheel arrangement, two 16-645E3A engines, a whopping 30 metres long, fuel capacity of 31,154 litres, and rated at 6,600 horses (4,922 kW); could even hit a top speed of 90 mph.

Great Scott!

Tabnabs

The German's had some interesting things too


Streamlined 3-cylinder 4-6-4 originally built with a cab-forward configuration. (1934)


Steam turbine powered 4-6-2
Turbines proved to be too expensive to maintain (1923)


An unusual streamlined 2-8-2 with 2 inclined cylinders per powered axle - 8 cylinders in total (1941)

All taken from
http://www.worldrailfans.info/Articles/Europe/GSteamExperimental.shtml

Judgement Day

Can't resist adding this to this gallery of appalling looking locos.


An early CIE experiment on turf burning.

http://aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/LOCOLOCO/francocrosti/francocrosti.htm#turf

lord lucan

Closer to home,this has always been my favourite Steam loco.:)



And not to leave the Diesels out,the classic 121's.

Tabnabs

Was there ever a more stylish diesel produced?

Tabnabs

TBH, it's not real porn until you can hear the beasts as well :cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BljsYMJL3Ls

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adqn9R6Y23E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KF6E1Tn9EY

foggy_lad

another big train



and one i put in to show what we could have if it were not for those lovely new DMU railcars:D

murphaph

Here are some smaller (though no less impressive IMO) Harz Mountain Narrow Gauge (1m) loks.

[IMG][/img] [/URL]
Train from Wernigerode to the summit of the Brocken arriving at Wernigerode West station. Your's truly in shot.

[/IMG]
Lok stops half way up the ascent to take on water and allow descending train to pass. Chance to stretch the legs. Snow getting progressively deeper as we climb. At the top it will be 6 foot deep in places.

The Harz railways are run as a business-and a freight carrying business at that! The trains that connect the various towns in the region are used by locals all year, with steam traction on much of the network. The "special" trains like the one pictured include those trains that run to the summit of the Brocken, East Germany's highest peak and for many years during the cold war a total no go zone as it was used by the soviets to eavesdrop on western military communications.

It's well worth a trip for anyone interested in trains.

ardmacha

The Harz railways are run as a business-and a freight carrying business at that!

I was surprised in the 1980s to see steam still used to a significant extent in the DDR and Poland. I didn't take many pics though, as this was somewhat verboten in those days.

Snow and trains always looks nice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B89N78zeKAs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGYJRsiuHEM

dowlingm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qegIRh9DFHc

CIE

dowlingm wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qegIRh9DFHc

The UAC Turbotrain, oh yes. Those once ran those between New York and Boston, too (by the New Haven, then Penn Central and Amtrak after that), there being a "dual-mode" version that could operate on third rail and so into Grand Central and Penn Station in New York City. Apparently they got up to 274 km/h (170 mph) during tests, but on the "high iron" they were never run faster than 100 mph.

CIE

Hmm; this thread's gone back to sleep. Might as well wake it up with some 186-mph ICE running.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qx0L_uut5fQ

foggy_lad

Sounds like the cameraman had a little accident:D:D

Paparazzo

I know nothing about trains, but I'm adding this:



And if satan had a train, it would be this:

CIE

Uh-oh, someone posted a pic of a Big Boy (Union Pacific's 4000-class); 4-8-8-4 articulated simple-expansion engine, with a firebox big enough to park a Cortina in (literally!) and two chimneys. These types of freight-specific heavy engine were the last hurrah for steam before diesels took over; some of the trains they had to handle during the war actually required two Big Boys, if you can imagine that. They had to refuel after going 30 miles up Sherman Hill in Wyoming (steepest grade of 1 in 64.5); they'd burn a short ton (0.893 ton, 0.907 tonne) of coal per mile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8f9VFlNyDQ

About the closest operational steam engine to a Big Boy is Union Pacific's #3985, a Challenger type (4-6-6-4) and the predecessor to the Big Boy (which was basically a stretched Challenger). This engine was resurrected in 1981, and converted to oil-burning in 1990 (as they claim, to prevent fires along the tracksides). It's currently the largest operational steam engine on the planet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OgSNQOTw2U

steamengine

:rolleyes::P:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLJaboxC3Do

steamengine

This from the BBC Top Gear series some time back :rolleyes::D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vns-9sqxmCw

dermo88

steamengine

What a wonderfully crazy and entertaining idea. Top Gear could have just revived Waterford to Rosslare and restored service to several other routes with their Pavee Point express.

Its dreadfully unsafe, but it looks like fun!!!!

CIE

Part 1 of that show demonstrates the importance of adhesive weight (starting at 05:47). The lack of same was the detriment of the Crampton-type steam engines. (They could have put a better suspension on the carriages as well.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81HgzHSwpcQ

steamengine

dermo88 wrote: »

steamengine

What a wonderfully crazy and entertaining idea. Top Gear could have just revived Waterford to Rosslare and restored service to several other routes with their Pavee Point express.

Its dreadfully unsafe, but it looks like fun!!!!

Couldn't believe it when I saw it on Top Gear some months back, there's nothing that bunch of crazies won't get up to - hilarious indeed.

dermo88

Yes, it proves a few things though.

1. Steamengine made the point regarding the Crampton type. We saw the sports car with 300hp on one axle pouring its heart out. Power is not the be all and end all with a train. Torque is the defining factor. Its the balance between moving a lot of people who want to go fast, but the demand for seats on a light super fast express will always exceed the supply.

2. Brian Guckian made the point previously that "High Speed Light Rail" is the next big thing. Could he actually have a point after this experiment from Top Gear?

3. Could the railway safety authority 'relax' standards somewhat and let a few big boys have fun? I mean something like this on Waterford to Rosslare could get the line restored for less than 50,000 Euro. AND.....it could make a profit.

But as that episode shows, how long before someone dies!!!
_________________________________________________________________

dermo88

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/43177/173816.JPGKTMB Ipoh.JPG

This is the Malaysian Electric version of the 22K. Its what I imagine the NIR Enterprise would look like if they Electrified to Belfast. Now can someone help me get that to a full screen image without URL please

101sean

Click on the Insert Image icon and paste the URL in the box or manually put [IMG][/IMG] either side and hey presto! -

ardmacha

Its what I imagine the NIR Enterprise would look like if they Electrified to Belfast.

Except for the narrow gauge of course!

dermo88

Yes, its meter gauge. Does'nt stop her getting up to 145kph though, although it fails hopelessy on the beer glass test on the older sections of track in Suburban Kuala Lumpur which were relaid in the early 1990's. It was take a 2 cm gulp first. Even then it was not enough when it got rough, and that was at 80-90kph

murphaph

Here are some pics from last weekend on the lovely island of Rügen and its 26km long narrow gauge line. The narrow gauge network on Rügen used to be much more extensive nut the majority was closed by the DR in 1969.

There also exists standard gauge DB lines on the island which connect via a causeway to the network on the mainland. Interchange between the two networks is possible at the town of Putbus.

The system is run for profit, which it mostly generates from tourist ticket sales (single tickets are proportionally much more expensive than monthly ones, so local people can use the line to commute but the railway can stay open with the revenue from tourists)

The lok which hauled our train was a 1953 built unit. She was built in the LOWA Lokomotiv Plant Karl Marx in Babelsberg (nr. Berlin) which was previously an Orrenstein & Koppel factory before the GDR came into existence and nationalised all such plants.


Being watered here before the off from Göhren. I didn't want to subject my GF to the entire 52km round trip as it takes 2 hours+ so we just went about halfway and back.


The return journey-loks are not turned and I saw no sign of turntables at the Göhren terminus to I presume they have never been turned on this system.


The sign means (very loosely translated) "if you get hit by soot/sparks etc. it's your problem!" The health and safety mania one sees in the UK and Ireland is not yet very evident in Germany-thank God. You can stick your head out the window all you want-if your head gets chopped off by a pole it's your problem lol.


Lok running around her train at Göhren terminus.

Judgement Day

Some very old porn for steamengine and all the other posters here old enough to remember the Clogher Valley Railway in its heyday.

Losty Dublin

Judgement Day wrote: »

Some very old porn for steamengine and all the other posters here old enough to remember the Clogher Valley Railway in its heyday.

On an RPSI special the other week, I was speaking to a man who recalled travelling on the Clogher Valley line pre war. As lines went, it was well and truly a basket case but ironically enough it's poor state indirectly led to the adoption of diesel in Ireland so it played it's part in progress.

starch4ser

steamengine

Judgement Day wrote: »

Some very old porn for steamengine and all the other posters here old enough to remember the Clogher Valley Railway in its heyday.

Thanks for that JD - Steamengine here - not Methuselah. They did have some very attractive tank engines, but there doesn't seem to be any pics on the net.

CaptainSkidmark

Laden with Boeing 737's



OOPS

Drimnagh Road

Lucky there wasn't 737s on the train in the second photo, Mr O'Leary wouldn't have been too pleased to learn his latest deliveries had ended up in a ravine due to somebody setting the points wrong.

Cookie_Monster

the comparison with the planes really shows how obscenely big US stuff is :eek:

Mr Magners

starch4ser wrote: »

I've never posted her before so I hope you don't mnd a question. The train above from my memory always looked like that, by which I mean dirty. Did they ever look clean and new?

Oh and the post showing the IR train pulling all the Bell containers, I remember seeing loads of them from my childhood.

Cookie_Monster

Mr Magners wrote: »

I've never posted her before so I hope you don't mnd a question. The train above from my memory always looked like that, by which I mean dirty. Did they ever look clean and new?

this one looks pretty clean, though they spent much of their lives filthy...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joe_bloggs_railway_photos/5591939228/
like this
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joe_bloggs_railway_photos/5581551877/in/set-72157626297124152

Losty Dublin

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the comparison with the planes really shows how obscenely big US stuff is :eek:

That's what's is called the loading gauge. It's the width of the infrastructure which in turn allows wider carriages, wagons, loco's and, of course, cargo. Impressive as it is, not every route in the US would be able to handle a load like that.

I'd love to know what speed that train would be allowed to run at

CIE

Drimnagh Road wrote: »

Lucky there wasn't 737s on the train in the second photo, Mr O'Leary wouldn't have been too pleased to learn his latest deliveries had ended up in a ravine due to somebody setting the points wrong.

Here's the story behind that second photo.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the comparison with the planes really shows how obscenely big US stuff is

That's what's is called the loading gauge. It's the width of the infrastructure which in turn allows wider carriages, wagons, loco's and, of course, cargo. Impressive as it is, not every route in the US would be able to handle a load like that

The fuselage of the Boeing 737 is only 12' 4" wide. Might be considered wide for most AAR clearances, but it really isn't too wide given that most of their track centres in the midwest and certain eastern railways are that wide (now you know why most of the passenger platforms outside the northeastern USA have stayed low-level). The USA's "double-stack" container trains can reach up to 21 feet above the rail head, and new regulations now require a 23-foot overhead clearance (even for OHLE; just one reason why they don't electrify too much over there, i.e. aside from cost).

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I'd love to know what speed that train would be allowed to run at

Probably track speed (most freight railways have a maximum speed of 79 mph, due to federal regulations, although some allow 90 mph if they can afford to install cab signalling out of pocket and go up to the next "track class"). The heaviest empty weight of the "next-gen" Boeing 737 is in the 22-tonne range, and that by itself is way lighter than a single double-stack car (those have loadings of 22 tonnes per axle); and you've only got the empty fuselages there on that train.

Losty Dublin

CIE wrote: »

The fuselage of the Boeing 737 is only 12' 4" wide. Might be considered wide for most AAR clearances, but it really isn't too wide given that most of their track centres in the midwest and certain eastern railways are that wide (now you know why most of the passenger platforms outside the northeastern USA have stayed low-level). The USA's "double-stack" container trains can reach up to 21 feet above the rail head, and new regulations now require a 23-foot overhead clearance (even for OHLE; just one reason why they don't electrify too much over there, i.e. aside from cost).Probably track speed (most freight railways have a maximum speed of 79 mph, due to federal regulations, although some allow 90 mph if they can afford to install cab signalling out of pocket and go up to the next "track class"). The heaviest empty weight of the "next-gen" Boeing 737 is in the 22-tonne range, and that by itself is way lighter than a single double-stack car (those have loadings of 22 tonnes per axle); and you've only got the empty fuselages there on that train.

They don't appear to be secured down though so on that basis it would be unlikely that they would be allowed do high speeds.

CIE

Losty Dublin wrote: »

They don't appear to be secured down though so on that basis it would be unlikely that they would be allowed do high speeds.

They've got older engines on the front (looks like SD40-2s to me) so they're probably not being transported too far anyway.

CIE

This is what some short lines in the USA have to put up with. (0:35 to end.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g11qWro1LzQ