New Loco for IoM Railways?

Was it not the case with the Polish 0-8-0T, now on the NVR, that it arrived in a "fit to run in Poland" condition but needed lots of work to make it for for work here?

 

http://iomsrsa.com/the-news/131-2013/1626-21-pr

Wow that's ugly!

 

We'll doubtless get used to it.

John

 

Hope it doesn't go like a 3ft gauge class 70 as well as look like one, otherwise it will be a bigger fire risk than the steam loco's.

 

Looks like a cross between a 58 and a 70. I wonder why modern designers produce such terrible looking locomotives.

 

Largely because of expense. Beyers, for example, used to do things like disguising cutouts in side tanks by fitting little doors in 1/4" plate which would shut with a coachbuilt "click". No-one can afford such fripperies nowadays.

P.H.

 

Has anyone queried whetherThe IOMR needs ' a powerful diesel able to recover a failed locomotive and train'? I can understand the FR/WHR needing such a plan, with its mileage well away from main roads and back-up facilities, but the IOM is never more than 15 miles from Douglas bus depot and replacement buses. Except for the times when it is one-engine in steam, there are always other locos nearby able to leave their train at a loop to recover the failed service. Replacement buses could then be sourced to cover for the non-failed service. How much would it cost to have a spare locomotive in steam? Hardly the acquisition, shedding, maintenance and depreciation costs of a diesel that would rarely be used. How often are they expecting their steam locomotives to fail, anyway?
Or is it a case of ' we would like a shiny diesel for low-season trains, but how do we get the bean-counters to sanction it?'

 

Everywhere needs one.

PH

 

No doubt of that, but some doubt as to whether the previous one was as knackered and unsuitable as made out, an issue that's discussed earlier in the thread I believe.

I woulden't worry about the motives too much unless a second diesel or modern coaches start showing up.

 

The engine is described as "re-manufactured" and "re-conditioned" - anybody know what the original locomotive was, and how much of it has been incorporated?

Not a fan of the aesthetics, but let's face it - she was never going to win any beauty contests alongside the "Peacocks", so who can blame her designers for not trying?

(As regards the class 70 comparison, though...personally I quite like the 70s...they've got character!)

 

They're flaming awful!

Tom (I'll get my coat…)

 

Hopefully next to nothing, any loco with "re" mentioned so many times in it's description must have been complete crap initially, otherwise you would not radically alter it.

 

Does it even mention how powerful it is ? There is nothing on the remanufacturing companies website which is a shame as I would have thought they would want to shout this one from the rooftops.

 

According to their website it is 550 HP. See http://railequipmentsolutions.com/events/isle-man-railway-announcement/ IIRC the only "remanufacured" parts were the traction motors and mainframe. Ray.

 

with the driver's seat bang in the middle of the cab, shunting with it might be interesting.

 

I take it you mean for seeing the shunters hand signals ?, I was going to say without a Boiler or Bonnet to look down it should be good in that respect.

 

Sweeping statement indeed, if the original was, er, "complete crap", perhaps you were familiar with it and can enlighten us all to it's failings.

Cheers

Alan

 

You don't rebuild loco's that are fit for purpose...

 

Perhaps not, but fit for purpose on whichever railway it was on previously does not necessarily mean fit for purpose on th IoMR (questions of gauge, loading gauge, power and the like), thus re-manufacturing it to make it right for its new home seems eminently sensible, and probably a sight cheaper than building entirely from scratch.