Thread 2052289

Although I set out some preferences for the last one I ended up settling for literally anything to do with Britain. Those preferences about foreign exports and rare diversions remain in place but otherwise post what you like as long as it fits the broader requirement

Post DMUs.

>>2052298
Anythings allowed but here

Train Sim World 6 has been announced with the Rivera Line being the UK route

>>2052423
you want >>2043128

Who's also waiting for the new 2025 stock?
Hopefully the Bakerloo order gets put through before the option expires.

>>2052466
Nope 1972 stock is staying for another 10-20 years from what I read, and honestly that’s a good thing

>>2052476
I'll be honest, I don't think they have another 10 years in them, never mind 20. They'll also need the to expand the Bakerloo fleet if the extension to Lewisham ever gets funded.

>>2052306
Sexiest DMU ever.

>>2052509
>I don't think they have another 10 years in them, never mind 20
I think they do, especially when you look at 1938 stock. I don't really care about "modernisation" anyway, it's exciting to see how the new Piccadilly stock will be but there's something cosy and sentimental about 1972 stock

>>2052519
That's not an F40PH.

>>2052519
>>2052533
Neither are DMUs

Honestly goes hard, I remember hearing we have to wait until 2030 though.. Hopefully it either comes sooner or we what other competing companies have to offer until then

>>2052565
should've saved one of those...

>>2052519
Why do I specifically find old British freight trains so aesthetically appealing? I'm way too young to have seen any like these IRL (and there's no post-Beeching rail infrastructure left in my area anyway), yet they're the only reason I got remotely interested in rail stuff.

>>2052565
I know. I was referring to>>2052306's pic.

>>2052876
Yeah then the other guy mentioned F40s

>>2052843
>or we what
or we see what*

Honestly happy with this refurb. I missed the purple and white once it was entirely replaced with that soulless silver and white so this makes up for it

>>2052289 (OP)
>/n/ humour thread
“Privatised” rail transport in which 95% of the rail infrastructure is state owned, most of the rolling stock, and tickets are collected by the govt to be doled out to train operators.
UK’s trains haven't been privatised since WW1. Too many regulations. The used to require (before nationalisation) the trains to carry any cargo, even at a loss; price controls etc.
Simultaneously post WW2, loads of trained military logistics truck drivers were in surplus, easily undercutting cargo transport by road.

Government meddling has been a disaster for UK trains (and most of the rest of the UK).

>>2052843
>anyone investing the UK economy
Doubtful, unless recipients of backhand deals.

>>2053109
Ok
>>2053110
This is happening lol it's just a matter of when, it's not just about the UK economy

Had to post this again
https://youtu.be/c2YffL6svA8?si=fivIF5kFKppEW0bB

*blocks the aisle in your path
>Oh, proper sorry, mate. (heavy breathing). Didn’t realise I was colonisin’ the bloody aisle like it’s eighteen-fifty-seven or summin’.
(pathetic English mannerisms intensify). Go on, mate, carry on, mate.

>>2053337
>>2052435

>>2053351
hey man, making fun of Brits should be universally condoned in every thread

>>2053430
Only posts I'm interested in are ones of trains

class 385 my beloved

still in bewilderment of the apparent dearth of headlight fixtures on old British locomotives
I can understand the justification but it's still an alien concept to me to drive at night without good sight of the tracks ahead

>>2052519
LONG LIVE BRITISH RAIL

>>2053591
Headlights spoil your night vision. I see two perfectly good marker lights and a big gtfo yellow front on the train in your pic.
Trains running in rural areas tend to have car level of illumination.

>>2053678
You gotta stop putting this spin on it by saying "Headlights? Who needs them?" They did have headlights only they weren't anywhere near as powerful as modern LEDs hence the yellow fronts. Steam trains used only oil lamps 100 years prior

>>2053683
that's not the best photo example because they only started installing headlight fixtures after eliminating headcode housings
prior to that locomotives often only had two tiny red markers and nothing else, sometimes a single white headlamp in the middle which again is a baffling custom

>>2052289 (OP)
I much preferred the old trains in the Glasgow tube. Why did they even bother changing them.

>>2053705
Find a better quality image

>>2053696
If you can show me some 1940s/1950s locomotives at night without proper headlights I'll believe you. Otherwise you're probably both wrong

>>2053705
Better quality image of a better livery

>>2053743
Woops although I like this one too meant to send this

>>2053744
Also

>>2053707
this is how they rode, only headcodes were illuminated
may or may not have tiny marker lights, nothing else

>>2053775
Well so they at least had actual headlights

>>2053777
not to aid in seeing something in the dark in any capacity
it was not expected that the driver had to see the track ahead of him because all signals were illuminated, among some other reasons that do not convince me

>>2053779
Yeah well I genuinely thought for a second they'd have nothing besides the marker lights in the night but even if those headcodes aren't powerful enough by modern standards it doesn't seem to be the case. What can I say though safety standards were different and that must be why it became mandatory in the 1970s

No greater aesthetic than early 20th century electrics

>>2053825
here's something for you then, 1910 short film of the met: https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/collections-online/film-video/item/2005-3467

>>2054315
RIP

Choo Choo.

>>2054363
Cursed

>>2054350
Literally the same PEP except for coach formation. Kind of like how the 507/508 were (meant) to be until they decided couple them to 455/7s. Hadn't they done that the /7s would've been the DC equivalent to 318s

What's the consensus on 334s? I always assumed they were fine but recently read there were reliability issues when they were introduced

>>2054396
One of the driving trailers on 314203 was taken from a 507 after it was destroyed in the Newton crash in 1991

>>2054406
(normal 314 interior for comparison)

>>2054406
So they removed the shoegear?

I'm not super paranoid about foreign investment to the point I feel the countries being "taken over" but thoughts on DB operating trains here? They can't "own the railways" like some people like to wrongly suggest but although it used to bother me I kinda like seeing DB red with the yellow fronts

>>2053970
On its way to Dartford where I grew up

>>2054521

I went out with a girl from Temple Hill once. Total slag.

class 86

>>2054862
Cursed

>>2054935
Nah the yellow front with DB red might be neato but I'd be interested to see more stuff like this

You guys suck

At least there isn't that stupid ass restriction on image quality anymore anyway

>>2054395
Double cursed

>>2055593
And now for a palette cleanser in the form of this photo of a Pacer enjoying the majestic Canadian Rockies

>>2055593
Here's a version that actually isn't cursed

>>2052298
Here is a Sprinter. Or maybe a Pacer. Not sure of the correct name.

>>2052335
The Golden Arrow to Dover.

>>2056030
Not really for this thread

>>2056061
That's a pair of coupled Pacers. Shitboxes on tracks they were, that leaked and steamed up utterly in rain, bounced horribly on any track imperfections, and screeched like banshees on any curve. Good riddance.
Also they were always packed around me, as they had so much less capacity than every other train type in service at the time.

>>2055594
It somehow reminds me of that picture about bears being able to appreciate natural beauty

>>2056317
inb4
>saved muh branch lines
Pacers weren't that much cheaper than Sprinters and the maintenance costs in the long term were nearly the same. BR should've canned the Pacer project and kept on running Class 101's, gradually replacing them over time with Sprinters as the budget allowed.

The fact that Pacers and Sprinters have stuck around as long as they have is the most glaring sign that the government doesn't give a fuck about anything north of Watford

>>2056346
Even with the reputation Pacers had I haven't heard any complaints about Sprinters

>>2052203
look at the height of that tunnel
how did this locomotive not get voltage to its roof going under that overpass

>>2056360
The Harton Electric Railway had low voltage (550V DC) so low clearances needed. Seems like the North East was a hotspot for electric railways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kom4AaeLnlc

Now you can get insulation coatings that allow you to drop clearance requirements by a lot. In the Great Western Electrification Programme they managed to save £39m by doing this under a bridge in Cardiff compared to raising the bridge above the railway. Clearance is now 20mm to the bridge and 70mm to the train roof, whereas it would be 370mm normally.
>https://www.modernrailways.com/article/gwep-home-straight
>https://epc.ac.uk/article/case-study-affordable-railway-electrification/

Get in

>>2056527
thank you I also think the photo angle might be playing tricks on me and the locomotive is significantly lower than the coal car

>>2056581
My 2p but I prefer the silver/grey livery. This setup seems pretty wasteful, a combination of the worst aspects of DMU + Loco-hauled stock.

>Loco+stock - slow acceleration, no redundancy
>DMU - no flexibility, fixed sets.

One way they could make it better is to have a battery and powered bogie on the DT acting as a regen brake and booster to get near line speed.

In an ideal world, the Chiltern Mainline is electrified and uses EMUs instead.

>>2056758
>silver/grey livery
Hell no, Chiltern Railways peaked with the purple/white livery, I always thought that one was soulless but this new paint scheme is closer to the former.
I don't really have any complaints about anything to do with the rolling stock or the mainline itself anyway. Yeah electrification would be great but I appreciate it for what it is, I have a soft spot for diesel

>>2056758
>>2056892
As I say that I wasn't really thinking about the 67/68s and MK3s as much as I was the 165/168s. The silver/grey livery looks alright but it's mainly the silver/white livery I wasn't crazy about

>>2055594
Why would someone do this? Why would a BR Pacer be shipped to Vancouver and if so, why the special carriage instead of just towing them?

Turned out this is well known. It was for a transport expo in Vancouver and it needed more fittings to be of Canadian rail standards. BR didn't sell any Pacers there and it was shipped back after a couple of years. Still I enjoyed riding on Pacers in my childhood.

https://youtu.be/-S84kngX2sc

why is painting the ends of locomotives yellow no longer compulsory? someone give me a rundown

>>2057405
the rules are now "yellow end unless lights are sufficiently powerful"

>>2054524
Paddington to Man Picc!? Good. Fuck Euston.

>>2057418
When I've used Euston in the past most of my time was spent in the bar with friends whether arriving or leaving London. The best way to experience a railway station is with a pint in your hand.

>>2057410
thank you, that makes sense