The one that fell off the crane at the docks. Interesting size comparison
with the US locos too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QUvcSAvi1U

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> The one that fell off the crane at the docks. Interesting size comparison
> with the US locos too:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QUvcSAvi1U
>
>

Interesting find, I suppose as a test track the Loco doesn’t have to
conform to normal North American requirements such as a Bell and a strong
Pilot plate / Cowcatcher which were disfiguring
attachments when Flying Scotsman did its tour years ago.

I wonder how long it has been since those poles supported a wire for
testing something electric.

GH

On 21 Mar 2024 10:59:56 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> The one that fell off the crane at the docks. Interesting size comparison
>> with the US locos too:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QUvcSAvi1U
>>
>>
>
>Interesting find, I suppose as a test track the Loco doesn’t have to
>conform to normal North American requirements such as a Bell and a strong
>Pilot plate / Cowcatcher which were disfiguring
>attachments when Flying Scotsman did its tour years ago.

I wonder how many derailments from rocks, shopping trolleys or other
detritus could have been prevented in this country if our trains had decent
cow catchers.

On 21/03/2024 11:14, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2024 10:59:56 GMT
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> The one that fell off the crane at the docks. Interesting size comparison
>>> with the US locos too:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QUvcSAvi1U
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Interesting find, I suppose as a test track the Loco doesn’t have to
>> conform to normal North American requirements such as a Bell and a strong
>> Pilot plate / Cowcatcher which were disfiguring
>> attachments when Flying Scotsman did its tour years ago.
>
> I wonder how many derailments from rocks, shopping trolleys or other
> detritus could have been prevented in this country if our trains had decent
> cow catchers.
>

Probably none. Cow-catchers deflect large animals (and humans) with a
relatively high centre of gravity so they fall away from the train.
Rocks, loose rails and other obstructions have a low centre of gravity
and will most likely go under the catcher.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2024 10:59:56 GMT
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> The one that fell off the crane at the docks. Interesting size comparison
>>> with the US locos too:
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QUvcSAvi1U
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Interesting find, I suppose as a test track the Loco doesn’t have to
>> conform to normal North American requirements such as a Bell and a strong
>> Pilot plate / Cowcatcher which were disfiguring
>> attachments when Flying Scotsman did its tour years ago.
>
> I wonder how many derailments from rocks, shopping trolleys or other
> detritus could have been prevented in this country if our trains had decent
> cow catchers.
>
>

To be honest I don’t think that many.
Our trains seem to dislodge a surprising amount of debri using the obstacle
deflectors that are fitted and nowadays our lighter versions of a pilot
plate without too much drama such as the when a train ploughed through a
large pile bricks from a failed bridge wall in the Cotswolds last year, yes
the train was damaged but it did not derail.
Presumably the cowcatcher evolved because livestock was the main risk and
only saw limited use here on the rare unfenced routes we had.
In North America where fencing was not practical to install it became std
fitment and rules and regs have dictated it remains and became the heavy
pilot plate of today where the greater risk for damage is now collisions
with Road vehicles on level/grade crossings. The strength,collision
protection, mass of NA Locomotives seems to see them come of well in most
such encounters but derailments do happen so they are not infallible. Here
most crossings have barriers and at least lights and compared to many NA
crossings are actually fairly level so a low loader getting grounded is
rare so road user misuse is the danger.
For the odd occasion where a cowcatcher would benefit you ideally need
North American weight to go with it.

GH

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 11:14, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On 21 Mar 2024 10:59:56 GMT
>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> The one that fell off the crane at the docks. Interesting size comparison
>>>> with the US locos too:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QUvcSAvi1U
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting find, I suppose as a test track the Loco doesn’t have to
>>> conform to normal North American requirements such as a Bell and a strong
>>> Pilot plate / Cowcatcher which were disfiguring
>>> attachments when Flying Scotsman did its tour years ago.
>>
>> I wonder how many derailments from rocks, shopping trolleys or other
>> detritus could have been prevented in this country if our trains had decent
>> cow catchers.
>>
>
> Probably none. Cow-catchers deflect large animals (and humans) with a
> relatively high centre of gravity so they fall away from the train.
> Rocks, loose rails and other obstructions have a low centre of gravity
> and will most likely go under the catcher.

See Polmont and the changes resulting.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 21/03/2024 12:14, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 21/03/2024 11:14, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> On 21 Mar 2024 10:59:56 GMT
>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> The one that fell off the crane at the docks. Interesting size comparison
>>>>> with the US locos too:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QUvcSAvi1U
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting find, I suppose as a test track the Loco doesn’t have to
>>>> conform to normal North American requirements such as a Bell and a strong
>>>> Pilot plate / Cowcatcher which were disfiguring
>>>> attachments when Flying Scotsman did its tour years ago.
>>>
>>> I wonder how many derailments from rocks, shopping trolleys or other
>>> detritus could have been prevented in this country if our trains had decent
>>> cow catchers.
>>>
>>
>> Probably none. Cow-catchers deflect large animals (and humans) with a
>> relatively high centre of gravity so they fall away from the train.
>> Rocks, loose rails and other obstructions have a low centre of gravity
>> and will most likely go under the catcher.
>
> See Polmont and the changes resulting.
>

Polmont is the one exception that might have proved the rule.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 21/03/2024 12:10, Marland wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On 21 Mar 2024 10:59:56 GMT
>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> The one that fell off the crane at the docks. Interesting size comparison
>>>> with the US locos too:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QUvcSAvi1U
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting find, I suppose as a test track the Loco doesn’t have to
>>> conform to normal North American requirements such as a Bell and a strong
>>> Pilot plate / Cowcatcher which were disfiguring
>>> attachments when Flying Scotsman did its tour years ago.
>>
>> I wonder how many derailments from rocks, shopping trolleys or other
>> detritus could have been prevented in this country if our trains had decent
>> cow catchers.
>>
>>
>
> To be honest I don’t think that many.
> Our trains seem to dislodge a surprising amount of debri using the obstacle
> deflectors that are fitted and nowadays our lighter versions of a pilot
> plate without too much drama such as the when a train ploughed through a
> large pile bricks from a failed bridge wall in the Cotswolds last year, yes
> the train was damaged but it did not derail.
> Presumably the cowcatcher evolved because livestock was the main risk and
> only saw limited use here on the rare unfenced routes we had.
> In North America where fencing was not practical to install it became std
> fitment and rules and regs have dictated it remains and became the heavy
> pilot plate of today where the greater risk for damage is now collisions
> with Road vehicles on level/grade crossings. The strength,collision
> protection, mass of NA Locomotives seems to see them come of well in most
> such encounters but derailments do happen so they are not infallible. Here
> most crossings have barriers and at least lights and compared to many NA
> crossings are actually fairly level so a low loader getting grounded is
> rare so road user misuse is the danger.
> For the odd occasion where a cowcatcher would benefit you ideally need
> North American weight to go with it.

Yes, the train's cowcatcher[1] is an alternative to fencing. The latter
is kinder to both types of beast.

[1] or bull bars for male cattle - see other thread

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 11:14, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On 21 Mar 2024 10:59:56 GMT
>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> The one that fell off the crane at the docks. Interesting size comparison
>>>> with the US locos too:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QUvcSAvi1U
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting find, I suppose as a test track the Loco doesn’t have to
>>> conform to normal North American requirements such as a Bell and a strong
>>> Pilot plate / Cowcatcher which were disfiguring
>>> attachments when Flying Scotsman did its tour years ago.
>>
>> I wonder how many derailments from rocks, shopping trolleys or other
>> detritus could have been prevented in this country if our trains had decent
>> cow catchers.
>>
>
> Probably none. Cow-catchers deflect large animals (and humans) with a
> relatively high centre of gravity so they fall away from the train.
> Rocks, loose rails and other obstructions have a low centre of gravity
> and will most likely go under the catcher.

Modern trams no longer have the lifeguard gate and tray arrangements that
earlier vehicles
had,the thinking now is to design the body work to be low enough to deflect
a pedestrian away to the side, that many designs are now low floor that is
now reasonably easy to accomplish.

The traditional pointy wedge Cowcatcher would often deflect an animal
upwards rather than sideways , not too much of a problem when you had a
substantial smoke box and boiler in front of the crew but in the Diesel era
you don’t want to do that as if it is a hard car weighing a couple of tons
rather than a softer animal it could put the crew at risk so modern
thinking is to deflect to the side.
The traditional shaped cowcatcher has been replaced by the heavy plate
pilot.

GH

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 13:24:55 +0000
Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>On 21/03/2024 12:10, Marland wrote:
>> To be honest I don’t think that many.
>> Our trains seem to dislodge a surprising amount of debri using the obstacle
>> deflectors that are fitted and nowadays our lighter versions of a pilot
>> plate without too much drama such as the when a train ploughed through a
>> large pile bricks from a failed bridge wall in the Cotswolds last year, yes
>> the train was damaged but it did not derail.
>> Presumably the cowcatcher evolved because livestock was the main risk and
>> only saw limited use here on the rare unfenced routes we had.
>> In North America where fencing was not practical to install it became std
>> fitment and rules and regs have dictated it remains and became the heavy
>> pilot plate of today where the greater risk for damage is now collisions
>> with Road vehicles on level/grade crossings. The strength,collision
>> protection, mass of NA Locomotives seems to see them come of well in most
>> such encounters but derailments do happen so they are not infallible. Here
>> most crossings have barriers and at least lights and compared to many NA
>> crossings are actually fairly level so a low loader getting grounded is
>> rare so road user misuse is the danger.
>> For the odd occasion where a cowcatcher would benefit you ideally need
>> North American weight to go with it.
>
>Yes, the train's cowcatcher[1] is an alternative to fencing. The latter
>is kinder to both types of beast.
>
>[1] or bull bars for male cattle - see other thread

I don't think cows on the line are the main issue for trains in the USA these
days.

On 21 Mar 2024 12:10:31 GMT
Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>with Road vehicles on level/grade crossings. The strength,collision
>protection, mass of NA Locomotives seems to see them come of well in most

There isn't as much mass difference as you think. An SD70 weighs approx 170 tons
compared to approx 125 for a class 66 which is a smaller difference than I'd
expect given the size difference. Clearly a lot of the engine room of an SD70
is empty space.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 21/03/2024 12:14, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 21/03/2024 11:14, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> On 21 Mar 2024 10:59:56 GMT
>>>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The one that fell off the crane at the docks. Interesting size comparison
>>>>>> with the US locos too:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QUvcSAvi1U
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting find, I suppose as a test track the Loco doesn’t have to
>>>>> conform to normal North American requirements such as a Bell and a strong
>>>>> Pilot plate / Cowcatcher which were disfiguring
>>>>> attachments when Flying Scotsman did its tour years ago.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder how many derailments from rocks, shopping trolleys or other
>>>> detritus could have been prevented in this country if our trains had decent
>>>> cow catchers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Probably none. Cow-catchers deflect large animals (and humans) with a
>>> relatively high centre of gravity so they fall away from the train.
>>> Rocks, loose rails and other obstructions have a low centre of gravity
>>> and will most likely go under the catcher.
>>
>> See Polmont and the changes resulting.
>>
>
> Polmont is the one exception that might have proved the rule.

But it did result in the DBSOs having to be weighted to reduce the chance
of large objects being trapped under the train. I presume the later DVTs
were either heavier, ballasted to achieve the same result, or designed
differently to deflect more objects.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 22/3/24 00:28, Marland wrote:
>
> Modern trams no longer have the lifeguard gate and tray arrangements that
> earlier vehicles
> had,the thinking now is to design the body work to be low enough to deflect
> a pedestrian away to the side, that many designs are now low floor that is
> now reasonably easy to accomplish.

They have come back - certainly Citadis and Urbos 3/100 are fitted with
trip gates and 'lifeguards'. They may be an optional fitting, but both
the Citadis and Urbos in my city have drop gate guards. I've 'heard' one
deployed in France, with a Citadis scraping it's way down the road as
the driver appeared unaware that something had tripped the rear gate.

However by the time the 'lifeguard' has saved you from having the wheels
cut you up, you would have already suffered serious and probably fatal
injury from being crushed between the underside of the front and the
road surface. They might 'save' a child, but an Adult wouldn't come out
of the encounter well.

I've seen a locomotive come into the station with the pilot/cow catcher
bent inwards almost far enough foul the brake rigging. And it was thick
steel plate. Apparently they hit a bull cow at near line speed. There
was still bits of blood and gore all over the front were various pointy
attachments had extracted their due.
Beef cattle are pretty solid.

Matthew Geier <matthew@sleeper.apana.org.au> wrote:
> On 22/3/24 00:28, Marland wrote:
>>
>> Modern trams no longer have the lifeguard gate and tray arrangements that
>> earlier vehicles
>> had,the thinking now is to design the body work to be low enough to deflect
>> a pedestrian away to the side, that many designs are now low floor that is
>> now reasonably easy to accomplish.
>
> They have come back - certainly Citadis and Urbos 3/100 are fitted with
> trip gates and 'lifeguards'. They may be an optional fitting, but both
> the Citadis and Urbos in my city have drop gate guards. I've 'heard' one
> deployed in France, with a Citadis scraping it's way down the road as
> the driver appeared unaware that something had tripped the rear gate.
>
> However by the time the 'lifeguard' has saved you from having the wheels
> cut you up, you would have already suffered serious and probably fatal
> injury from being crushed between the underside of the front and the
> road surface. They might 'save' a child, but an Adult wouldn't come out
> of the encounter well.
>
> I've seen a locomotive come into the station with the pilot/cow catcher
> bent inwards almost far enough foul the brake rigging. And it was thick
> steel plate. Apparently they hit a bull cow at near line speed. There
> was still bits of blood and gore all over the front were various pointy
> attachments had extracted their due.
> Beef cattle are pretty solid.

Polmont again, though I don’t know the kind of cattle involved.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:07:08 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 13:24:55 +0000
>Certes <Certes@example.org> wrote:
>>On 21/03/2024 12:10, Marland wrote:
>>> To be honest I don’t think that many.
>>> Our trains seem to dislodge a surprising amount of debri using the obstacle
>>> deflectors that are fitted and nowadays our lighter versions of a pilot
>>> plate without too much drama such as the when a train ploughed through a
>>> large pile bricks from a failed bridge wall in the Cotswolds last year, yes
>>> the train was damaged but it did not derail.
>>> Presumably the cowcatcher evolved because livestock was the main risk and
>>> only saw limited use here on the rare unfenced routes we had.
>>> In North America where fencing was not practical to install it became std
>>> fitment and rules and regs have dictated it remains and became the heavy
>>> pilot plate of today where the greater risk for damage is now collisions
>>> with Road vehicles on level/grade crossings. The strength,collision
>>> protection, mass of NA Locomotives seems to see them come of well in most
>>> such encounters but derailments do happen so they are not infallible. Here
>>> most crossings have barriers and at least lights and compared to many NA
>>> crossings are actually fairly level so a low loader getting grounded is
>>> rare so road user misuse is the danger.
>>> For the odd occasion where a cowcatcher would benefit you ideally need
>>> North American weight to go with it.
>>
>>Yes, the train's cowcatcher[1] is an alternative to fencing. The latter
>>is kinder to both types of beast.
>>
>>[1] or bull bars for male cattle - see other thread
>
>I don't think cows on the line are the main issue for trains in the USA these
>days.
>
The main hazard to crew seems to be the cargoes (too high up for a
deflector to deal with) of the assorted vehicles which get in the way
on crossings, one briefly famous example resulting in a cabful of
oranges.

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Matthew Geier <matthew@sleeper.apana.org.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I've seen a locomotive come into the station with the pilot/cow catcher
>> bent inwards almost far enough foul the brake rigging. And it was thick
>> steel plate. Apparently they hit a bull cow at near line speed. There
>> was still bits of blood and gore all over the front were various pointy
>> attachments had extracted their due.
>> Beef cattle are pretty solid.
>
> Polmont again, though I don’t know the kind of cattle involved.
>
> Sam
>
It was an Ayrshire a Dairy breed estimated to be around 1000Lbs so not as
heavy as some of the larger Breeds bred for their meat.

What caused the wheelset to derail was a substantial leg bone which
happened to get in just the right position to lever it off the track.

GH

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:22:40 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Matthew Geier <matthew@sleeper.apana.org.au> wrote:
>> On 22/3/24 00:28, Marland wrote:
>>>
>>> Modern trams no longer have the lifeguard gate and tray arrangements that
>>> earlier vehicles
>>> had,the thinking now is to design the body work to be low enough to deflect
>>> a pedestrian away to the side, that many designs are now low floor that is
>>> now reasonably easy to accomplish.
>>
>> They have come back - certainly Citadis and Urbos 3/100 are fitted with
>> trip gates and 'lifeguards'. They may be an optional fitting, but both
>> the Citadis and Urbos in my city have drop gate guards. I've 'heard' one
>> deployed in France, with a Citadis scraping it's way down the road as
>> the driver appeared unaware that something had tripped the rear gate.
>>
>> However by the time the 'lifeguard' has saved you from having the wheels
>> cut you up, you would have already suffered serious and probably fatal
>> injury from being crushed between the underside of the front and the
>> road surface. They might 'save' a child, but an Adult wouldn't come out
>> of the encounter well.
>>
>> I've seen a locomotive come into the station with the pilot/cow catcher
>> bent inwards almost far enough foul the brake rigging. And it was thick
>> steel plate. Apparently they hit a bull cow at near line speed. There
>> was still bits of blood and gore all over the front were various pointy
>> attachments had extracted their due.
>> Beef cattle are pretty solid.
>
>Polmont again, though I don’t know the kind of cattle involved.
>
The breed doesn't seem to have been recorded so it was probably just
one of the usual various dairy breeds with a routine sized thigh bone.

On 21/03/2024 20:22, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Matthew Geier <matthew@sleeper.apana.org.au> wrote:
>> On 22/3/24 00:28, Marland wrote:
>>>
>>> Modern trams no longer have the lifeguard gate and tray arrangements that
>>> earlier vehicles
>>> had,the thinking now is to design the body work to be low enough to deflect
>>> a pedestrian away to the side, that many designs are now low floor that is
>>> now reasonably easy to accomplish.
>>
>> They have come back - certainly Citadis and Urbos 3/100 are fitted with
>> trip gates and 'lifeguards'. They may be an optional fitting, but both
>> the Citadis and Urbos in my city have drop gate guards. I've 'heard' one
>> deployed in France, with a Citadis scraping it's way down the road as
>> the driver appeared unaware that something had tripped the rear gate.
>>
>> However by the time the 'lifeguard' has saved you from having the wheels
>> cut you up, you would have already suffered serious and probably fatal
>> injury from being crushed between the underside of the front and the
>> road surface. They might 'save' a child, but an Adult wouldn't come out
>> of the encounter well.
>>
>> I've seen a locomotive come into the station with the pilot/cow catcher
>> bent inwards almost far enough foul the brake rigging. And it was thick
>> steel plate. Apparently they hit a bull cow at near line speed. There
>> was still bits of blood and gore all over the front were various pointy
>> attachments had extracted their due.
>> Beef cattle are pretty solid.
>
> Polmont again, though I don’t know the kind of cattle involved.
>

An Ayrshire.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 21.03.2024 17:10, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2024 12:10:31 GMT
> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>> with Road vehicles on level/grade crossings. The strength,collision
>> protection, mass of NA Locomotives seems to see them come of well in most
>
> There isn't as much mass difference as you think. An SD70 weighs approx 170 tons
> compared to approx 125 for a class 66 which is a smaller difference than I'd
> expect given the size difference. Clearly a lot of the engine room of an SD70
> is empty space.

If you've got the loading gauge to work with, it makes life easier for
maintenance to have a more open and accessible internal layout in the
engine bay. In the 1960s and 70s, it was not uncommon for North American
locomotives to be designed around a basic 4 axle design that could be
fitted with 6 axles for enhanced tractive effort, and in the latter
case, often ballasted to bring the axle weight up to increase tractive
effort. In EMD nomenclature, the 4 axle road switcher types are "general
purpose" with a GP prefix, while the 6 axle version are "special duty"
with an SD prefix (the 4 axle with carbody style gained the "full" or F
prefix).

For example the E3 version of the EMD 645 series 2 stroke diesel in its
V16 configuration, indicated by the "40" number series, gave rise to the
GP40, SD40 and F40 series. The latter, with passenger speed gearing
(indicated by a P suffix) and provision for head-end power (indicated by
an H suffix) was a mainstay of the Amtrak network for some years, and
remains in service (rebuilt) with VIA, as the F40PH.

Robin

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:47:48 +0000
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:07:08 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>>I don't think cows on the line are the main issue for trains in the USA these
>>days.
>>
>The main hazard to crew seems to be the cargoes (too high up for a
>deflector to deal with) of the assorted vehicles which get in the way
>on crossings, one briefly famous example resulting in a cabful of
>oranges.

Some of the crashes can be quite spectacular:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWhdaFl8Nq0

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 21.03.2024 17:10, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On 21 Mar 2024 12:10:31 GMT
>> Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> wrote:
>>> with Road vehicles on level/grade crossings. The strength,collision
>>> protection, mass of NA Locomotives seems to see them come of well in most
>>
>> There isn't as much mass difference as you think. An SD70 weighs approx 170 tons
>> compared to approx 125 for a class 66 which is a smaller difference than I'd
>> expect given the size difference. Clearly a lot of the engine room of an SD70
>> is empty space.
>
> If you've got the loading gauge to work with, it makes life easier for
> maintenance to have a more open and accessible internal layout in the
> engine bay. In the 1960s and 70s, it was not uncommon for North American
> locomotives to be designed around a basic 4 axle design that could be
> fitted with 6 axles for enhanced tractive effort, and in the latter
> case, often ballasted to bring the axle weight up to increase tractive
> effort. In EMD nomenclature, the 4 axle road switcher types are "general
> purpose" with a GP prefix, while the 6 axle version are "special duty"
> with an SD prefix (the 4 axle with carbody style gained the "full" or F
> prefix).
>
> For example the E3 version of the EMD 645 series 2 stroke diesel in its
> V16 configuration, indicated by the "40" number series, gave rise to the
> GP40, SD40 and F40 series. The latter, with passenger speed gearing
> (indicated by a P suffix) and provision for head-end power (indicated by
> an H suffix) was a mainstay of the Amtrak network for some years, and
> remains in service (rebuilt) with VIA, as the F40PH.

Given how few hood units are popular in North America, most of the
accessibility is in the open air. NA locos often look as if they’ve been
constructed out of a platform on wheels with a number of tin sheds plonked
on top covering the different components of the loco, and the sheds were
all built by people who didn’t talk to each other.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply