What was the past really like?

Mrs. V in action, perchance?

 

True enough but it was a question of the quantity that they used.

 

Funnily enough, I'm presently engaged in a battle over this precise issue with my Superintendent,who apropos of nothing, wasn't even born when I first came to sea and hasn't a real clue about the practicalities of day to day vessel operation... I have inherited charge of a ship where the previous owners' crews had a very poor attitude towards fuel treatment - basically, they used the centrifuges as transfer pumps - and we are replacing fuel pumps, injector nozzles, inline filter elements and even the main fuel feed pumps at a horrendous frequency, as we try to eliminate all traces of grit, cat fines etc from the fuel system. It's costing us a fortune, which is making the 'Super' a very unhappy boy... By coincidence, our engines on board here are all B&Ws - but the same would be true of Sulzers, Wartsilas, MAKs etc. I suspect that even Doxfords would be struggling, were there any left...

 

I suspect in a head-on crash the drivers would have been fine...right up until the engines in the nose entered the cab area!

 

Pity the SR motormen whose cabs had the crash worthiness of an egg shell. See Littlehampton

 

A bit like my old Thames 15 cwt van, no seat belts either...

Dave

 

Yes at one level it was. But if the impact of your MBT fuel consumption is not fully appreciated and catered for it creates problems. If you are unable to adequately fuel them you cannot fight with them particularly if you are conducting a high speed, highly mobile offence. Consuming 500 gallons of fuel when an equally capable machine only requires 300 gallons to conduct an identical mission envelope is not the wisest of choices.

 

Interestingly enough fuel economy is a big issue in the US Army, after they woke up to some of the difficulties & costs experienced in getting fuel to the battlefront

 

When Churchill was presented with a ambitious battle plan he said one word - petrol?

post D day landings fuel was delivered to France by PLUTO - Pipeline Under The Ocean from Kent and Isle of Wight

 

I did read somewhere that the nose ends on some of the pilot scheme loco's were for crew protection in the event of a smack, also I (and I'm happy for someone to correct me) believe that another reason for nose ends was to prevent the driver 'from hypnosis from the repetitive blur from the sleepers'! Not sure myself! Simon as regards crash worthiness I've been up top on Class 11's 20's, 37's, 40's, 42's and 50's and I how do I put this... It's like being in a tank! Look at 87025 and the pacer it went into at Winsford in 1999. What one would you prefer to be in?

 

Clearly 87025 but it's not a reasonable comparison. The class 70 were definitely built with safety in mind

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...-brings-evolution-technology-to-europe-1.html

Rigidity isn't synonymous with safe.

I don't think this represents a safe environment
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuneaton_rail_crash#/media/File:86242_after_Nuneaton_(3).jpg

 

Steering column gear change???

 

Harrumph..........that's just Cheshire 'metropolitan elite' us poor plebs had to make do with a sheet from the 'News of the World'

 

they don't need to, they can ask the CIA for info

 

Oh yes, and so slack was the linkage it would slot into reverse instead of first at the lights sometimes! Still it did me well and toured all over Scotland.

Dave

 

When you think of crash worthiness the driver on any Mk 1 based Southern EMU wouldnt have stood a chance, all they could have hoped for was that they wouldnt be trapped and suffer because no way would you walk away from any head on crash , i'm not sure how the drivers on the plastic pigs would have fared? they would have had crumple zones but your still at the sharp end,

 

Was this model the one with a crank handle that sloted in below the rear doors, or am I thinking of another model.