What's the deal with these? they literally make no noise at all, and they don't look like they could even haul a car, nevermind tons of freight, how the fuck do they do it?
Magnets
>>954187
>Tractive effort 534 kN (120,000 lbf)
H O W
they look fucking rancid
whos fucking idea was this
>>954196
delte this,
its governmetnt secret
>>954553
>whos fucking idea was this
Americans.
i dont understand why we had/need these locos anyways
what are we doing with the fucking piles and piles of class 56's just rotting away in yards?
what a waste
>>954603
a very common sight in most yards
they cant keep getting away with this
>>954173
>literally make no noise
>literally
>>954603
The newest 56 is now 22 years old. Old locos are expensive to run & maintain; many of the 56's weren't exactly reliable to begin with (lol Electroputere). The 56's use an (AC) alternator but DC traction motors, with a complex 30 year old control system between them: newer locomotives like the 70 use AC traction motors and a modern control system. The 70 is far more efficient to run and meets modern EU emissions limits.
Basically the 70 is newer, cheaper & easier to maintain, cheaper to run and more efficient.
>>954748
>22
>Old for a freight engine
GP 38s and GP40s are mid 1970s manufacture and have plenty of life in them.
>>954758
you're dealing with 1970's and 80's british engineering here, they're lucky they haven't rusted to pieces or completely broke down.
>>954609
FREE MARKET ALWAYS FIXES EVERYTHING
THESE CHEAPO AMERICAN LOCOMOTIVES ARE SO MUCH BETTER THAN THE OLD ONES GUYS
GUYS
GUYS?
>>954759
>1970's and 80's british engineering here
& Communist Romanian engineering for some of them.
Some older loco's are going strong: some 37's are still going on the mainline, there's the 57's that are re-engined 47's. There's 33's in use, and the 73 is still going strong. The 56's just aren't useful enough or ubiquitous enough to be included in that group.
>>954553
if you want cool trains then get a bigger loading gauge
