In article
-septembe
r.org, (Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:07:15 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 04:49:45 -0600
wrote:
In article , d ()
wrote:
They all seem to have been sent up north in another intelligent
move. Whats the best place to send a 3rd rail equipped
electro-diesel? Scotland!
Genius!

They're effectively new diesel locos. Some of the conversions don't
even have a third rail capability now.

Why doesn't that surprise me. Remove a useful capability no doubt to
save a few grand on upgrading the shoe beams with no thought
whatsoever as to potential future requirements.


I'm sure they can put it back if anyone finds a need for any more low
powered third-rail locos. Perhaps you don't know that a class 73 has
less than half the power of a 66?

So? That doesn't stop it being used as a general dogsbody loco on
the 3rd rail or running in pairs.

It seems the need for such things is low. But if you travelled around the
Southern region as much as you spout nonsense, you'd see some:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...57668319839600
/

The need is lower than it was but it's still enough to justify some of the
locos continuing in use in 3rd rail territory. Converting an existing loco
bypasses a number of regulatory hurdles compared to a wholly new one and the
world market for medium power diesel locos is small.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:50:31 -0600,
wrote:

In article
-septembe
r.org, (Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 16:07:15 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2017 04:49:45 -0600
wrote:
In article , d ()
wrote:
They all seem to have been sent up north in another intelligent
move. Whats the best place to send a 3rd rail equipped
electro-diesel? Scotland!
Genius!

They're effectively new diesel locos. Some of the conversions don't
even have a third rail capability now.

Why doesn't that surprise me. Remove a useful capability no doubt to
save a few grand on upgrading the shoe beams with no thought
whatsoever as to potential future requirements.


I'm sure they can put it back if anyone finds a need for any more low
powered third-rail locos. Perhaps you don't know that a class 73 has
less than half the power of a 66?

So? That doesn't stop it being used as a general dogsbody loco on
the 3rd rail or running in pairs.

It seems the need for such things is low. But if you travelled around the
Southern region as much as you spout nonsense, you'd see some:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/reclin...57668319839600
/

The need is lower than it was but it's still enough to justify some of the
locos continuing in use in 3rd rail territory.

And some do remain. There are both the original spec and the
re-powered 73/9s in service in the SR with GBRf.

Converting an existing loco
bypasses a number of regulatory hurdles compared to a wholly new one and the
world market for medium power diesel locos is small.

The 73s have the advantage of being light, so they have an RA of just
6. The class 66 has an RA of 7, while class 67 and 92 have an RA of 8.