Just when you thought asthetics coulden't get any worse...

Its not a wind up - if you go onto Freightliners website and look in the news section the same picture is there!

 

I dont get why they found it so hard to design something that looked good...

 

Have all the good designers died? Getting on for nearly 50 years ago they came up with this which looks beautiful:

http://class50.zenfolio.com/p821508223/e19c724b1
http://class50.zenfolio.com/p821508223/e864d907

 

I'm no lover of paraffin cans, but there's always been something about those Westerns - that and the Deltics, the rest you can keep for me.

 

This is terrible! What an ugly loco! I sincerley hope that the ship carrying them sinks!

 

On that photo it looks like it has 4w bogies. Is it a Bo-Bo? If so how powerful is it and/or how heavy is it?
(Class 70, quite apart from the fact that it should be a d.c. electric, if it's now added to the end of the diesel classes should be a type 5 - I've never heard of a Bo-Bo type 5 before!)

Phil

 

Are they re-using US army surplus Humvee protective armour for the cab ends?

 

Those are works bogies - not the ones it will run on in practice.

 

Glad you agree, I have already mentioned that the class 70 series is for DC electrics but someone answered that the remaining unused 60 series clash with coach No's for TOPS purposes. 67's are Bo-Bo's, are they class 5?

 

Ah, forget about them. But they were over-weight when new and had to run without the fuel tanks full; not sure if they've been modified to fix this or whatever. But it's a fair point, and yes they are type 5.

I suppose whoever runs TOPS can make the rules up as they see fit, I often wondered what would happen when they ran out of numbers. At the end of the day its only an audit/accountancy code, it doesn't really mean anything.

 

Ah, forget about them. But they were over-weight when new and had to run without the fuel tanks full; not sure if they've been modified to fix this or whatever. But it's a fair point, and yes they are type 5.

I suppose whoever runs TOPS can make the rules up as they see fit, I often wondered what would happen when they ran out of numbers. At the end of the day its only an audit/accountancy code, it doesn't really mean anything.[/quote:2mdawdbc]

Has there ever been a Class 49 ? (I think Lion was unofficially Class 48).
There's also class 54 ? (Class 53 Unofficially being Kestral)

 

Has there ever been a Class 49 ? (I think Lion was unofficially Class 48).
There's also class 54 ? (Class 53 Unofficially being Kestral)[/quote:1kwtkhdf]
I thought class 53 was the Brush "Falcon". Just googled class 53 & it was indeed "Falcon". Also found out that class 48 was allocated to a small batch of 47's fitted with a "Vee" Sulzer engine instead of the twin inline one, they were rebuilt to standard 47's though. The presrved 47 on the GCR is one of these (D1705). To make things more complicated I understand that this "Vee" engine was in fact fitted to "Kestrel"!

 

Its ok some TOCs dont allow you to change ends through the loco anyway!!! Health and Safety hazzard!!!

I have a friend who was hauled before a manager after he'd been spotted doing just that by the companys health and saftey consultant!

 

So will they name 70 013 Oliver Cromwell ? :-k

 

Yeah, but that is a bit like saying, a streamlined BRICK

 

Correct ! Class 48 was the 2650 hp Sulzer V engine which was the precursor of the 4000 hp V engine fitted to Kestrel but which BR decided not to to order. Since LION was no longer in existence when the TOPS codes were introduced it seems unlikely that this was ever allotted a code.

On the other hand Class 53 was allotted to D1200 Falcon ( the diesel electric version of the Class 52 Westerns ) and one presiumes that had Kestrel been retained by BR it would have had a number in the 60 series ( possibly 69 ? ) as it would have had the highest hp figure at that time.

 

Horse...manure. The pic on the Freightliner web site is a VERY rough graphic mockup of a VERY roughly similar-in-outline machine. It is certainly not 'the same' picture as that linked to in the OP. http://www.freightliner.co.uk/default.aspx?PageID=131

Yeah, it's based on some sort of very rough idea of what Freightliner is looking at - probably the pic on their web site - but the photo linked to in the OP is a very obvious Photoshop wind / mock-up, not the real thing.

Ask yourselves: Why would a new loco be produced with obviously wooden handrails? Why would a new loco be produced with old-style BR high-intensity headlights? Answer: It wouldn't.

Rather amusingly, the 'shock, horror' frothing from all you gullible types is more entertaing than the original pic... #-o

 

Im afraid your mistaken, although i kinda wish you were right. For one thing the same photo of the front end can be seen on the news release, with another one on the linked pdf of the press release. It shows the body while still being finished, hence the wooden handrails and accommadation bogies.

Chris

 

As Chris has already pointed out I was looking at this part of the website http://www.freightliner.co.uk/newsdetail.aspx?newsid=156 not the glossy artistic impression. OK the finished paint job will probably try to make the best of an ugly design, but ugly it will still remain which for a freight loco I agree is not the end of the world. Passenger units tend to have a sleek look to try and sell the idea that they are fast etc, which isn't necessary for something where mid speed grunt is the priority. However if the question is being asked - yes I do think it would look better after a minor shunt incident!