What's the deal with these? they literally make no noise

Magnets

>>954187
>Tractive effort 534 kN (120,000 lbf)

H O W

>>954193
>>954173

Magic.

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

File: 16559442943_d0e7c9a893_b.jpg (294KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 1024x683px

>>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