Lets talk about how beautiful and powerful the Class 60 is

>>946999
>public transit
nothing 'beautiful' about any of it

>>947025
truly an autist amongst autists

>>947025
>He thinks the 60 is a passenger locomotive!

laughing_edgy_autists.webm

a class 60 hauling passengers would be fucking overkill, it would be like a god hauling feathers

File: IL_60063160208w.jpg (327KB, 1280x851px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 1280x851px

>>947025
>Let's create a locomotive powerful enough to haul 4,000 tons and make it pull coaches

lmao

File: maxresdefault.jpg (546KB, 3000x1781px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 3000x1781px

class 60 a best

File: 1383146872174.jpg (39KB, 472x645px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 472x645px

>Tractive effort Maximum: 106,500 lbf (474 kN

>>947073
yeah, nothing comes close to the class 60, this locomotive single highhandedly replaced the need for double heading

which at the time was an incredible feat of efficiency, and to this days standards, it still is.

>>947085
>Nothing comes close.
Shit an SD-45 has the same tractive effort and they were built in the 60s.

>>947094
Yeah well American locomotives are built to be pulling 2 mile long trains, but they are actually inefficient, it's just that that's all you have over there, so theres no choice, when you guys produce the modern day Class 60, then ill be happy

>>947101
>Actually inefficient
Except they're not. The things you Euros lie about.

File: SD90MAC.jpg (272KB, 1024x787px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1024x787px

Will Britfags ever realize that they are just playing with toy trains on their little island?

>>947269
this desu

>>947094
>weighs 40 tons (30%) more
>doesn't have to fit in shitty victorian loading gauge

Yeah, if you have the abovementioned going for you, it *is* easy to do with 60s tech.

File: 1457361303045.png (432KB, 680x544px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 680x544px

>>947269
Hurr murican trains are real big durr. ZZZzzzz

>>949371
for you