daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old August 4th, 2009, 03:58 PM   #361
TedStriker
Over Macho Grande
 
TedStriker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,517
Likes (Received): 385

Thanks. Next time I'm at Marylebone I'll try and kick it's face off.
TedStriker no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 4th, 2009, 04:36 PM   #362
Slagathor
Gay love is love too
 
Slagathor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Hague
Posts: 8,459
Likes (Received): 6143

Brilliant
Slagathor está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 4th, 2009, 05:53 PM   #363
jsiren
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8
Likes (Received): 0

Just for laughs, here are some Finnish trains, which I happen to like quite a bit.

The good:
Sr2 (a version of the Swiss Lok2000) with older blue stock:


Russian-built Sr1 with double deck car carrier at Oulu, destined for a southbound night train:


Look at worker for scale.

A better view of the Sr1:


Sr2 with Intercity train consisting of single and double deck coaches:


The Finnish loading gauge is humongous, so double deck coaches are large, spacious and comfortable. Ride comfort is excellent. There are Intercity2 trains consisting entirely of double deckers, and night trains consisting of double deck sleepers, single deck coaches and restaurant, and double deck car carriers.

The bad - the Finnish Pendolino, which has gotten its share of bad press:


And the ugly - my pet project, two preserved 1950s railcars, which we run on Sundays:
jsiren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 02:03 AM   #364
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,091
Likes (Received): 289

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slagathor View Post




The cabin itself is asymmetrical in that the destination sign doesn't run across the entire width, of course.

That makes this train, by poshbakerloo's own standards of aesthetics, an ugly train.
Each side of the coaches is perfectly symmetrical...2 windows, a door, 4 windows, a door and 2 more windows...
__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 10:53 AM   #365
Slagathor
Gay love is love too
 
Slagathor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Hague
Posts: 8,459
Likes (Received): 6143

So? Doesn't change all the flaws it has.
Slagathor está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 12:10 PM   #366
Dahlis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 837
Likes (Received): 107

What ruins most british trains for me are the tacky paint jobs. Choose one or maybe two colours not all of them!
Dahlis no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 01:48 PM   #367
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,091
Likes (Received): 289

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slagathor View Post
So? Doesn't change all the flaws it has.
It doesnīt have any flaws...except the "cheek bones" what ever that is...
Its a nice shape, curved sides, not too tall or narrow or low and fat...all the windows are the same shape and size...
__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 01:51 PM   #368
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,091
Likes (Received): 289

Class 172

They are to come into service in 2010...
They look great!
They are to replace the 1980s Class 150 Sprinters around London

__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 03:02 PM   #369
TedStriker
Over Macho Grande
 
TedStriker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,517
Likes (Received): 385

The Class 172? It's got nicer headlights, but I'd still kick it's face off.
TedStriker no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 03:13 PM   #370
Slagathor
Gay love is love too
 
Slagathor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Hague
Posts: 8,459
Likes (Received): 6143

Quote:
Originally Posted by poshbakerloo View Post
Class 172

They are to come into service in 2010...
They look great!
They are to replace the 1980s Class 150 Sprinters around London

I see we've lost the four-windows-two-doors symmetry on the side there. The driver cabin is still off. Not an especially nice looking train at all. It's not butt-ugly, but it's nothing special either.
Slagathor está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 03:38 PM   #371
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,091
Likes (Received): 289

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slagathor View Post
I see we've lost the four-windows-two-doors symmetry on the side there. The driver cabin is still off. Not an especially nice looking train at all. It's not butt-ugly, but it's nothing special either.
It still has symmetry...but with an extra window in the middle...
What do you mean "The driver cabin is still off"?
__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 04:25 PM   #372
Slagathor
Gay love is love too
 
Slagathor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Hague
Posts: 8,459
Likes (Received): 6143

Quote:
Originally Posted by poshbakerloo View Post
It still has symmetry...but with an extra window in the middle...
Well how does it continue? Is it five all over? That sounds unlikely, because you're working with an odd number. Since carriages don't usually end in the middle of a window, one suspects this train has 5 windows followed by 2 doors followed by 2 windows followed by a carriage-split followed by 2 windows and 2 doors again (that boils down to: 5W - 2D - 2W | 2W - 2D - 5W. Basically the windows are arranged five-four-five-four in simpler terms). Which is no good. Either that, or it will be 5W - 2D - 5W | 5W - 2D - 5W which is also questionable where symmetry is concerned. Plus, that results in a bigger gap between doors which is impractical.

Quote:
What do you mean "The driver cabin is still off"?
We've been over this: there are several factors that make the cabin look like a loose part that was belatedly screwed on.

These are not normally things I would pay much attention to, or indeed rate very highly, but you brought them up.

Last edited by Slagathor; August 5th, 2009 at 04:30 PM.
Slagathor está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 04:40 PM   #373
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,885
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slagathor View Post
We've been over this: there are several factors that make the cabin look like a loose part that was belatedly screwed on.
Don't be silly. Every component is just screwed on. The drivers cabin still fits in and completes the smooth and tempting lines of the trainset.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 05:12 PM   #374
Slagathor
Gay love is love too
 
Slagathor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Hague
Posts: 8,459
Likes (Received): 6143

Tempting? What kind of an odd perversion do you suffer from?
Slagathor está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 08:28 PM   #375
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,091
Likes (Received): 289

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slagathor View Post
Well how does it continue? Is it five all over? That sounds unlikely, because you're working with an odd number. Since carriages don't usually end in the middle of a window, one suspects this train has 5 windows followed by 2 doors followed by 2 windows followed by a carriage-split followed by 2 windows and 2 doors again (that boils down to: 5W - 2D - 2W | 2W - 2D - 5W. Basically the windows are arranged five-four-five-four in simpler terms). Which is no good. Either that, or it will be 5W - 2D - 5W | 5W - 2D - 5W which is also questionable where symmetry is concerned. Plus, that results in a bigger gap between doors which is impractical.
That is still symmetrical...2W-2D-5W-2D-2W...2W-2D-5W-2D-2W...

If u held a huge mirror in the middle of the 3rd window and looked into it...you would see the same as what is on the other side...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slagathor View Post
We've been over this: there are several factors that make the cabin look like a loose part that was belatedly screwed on.

These are not normally things I would pay much attention to, or indeed rate very highly, but you brought them up.
You said it first that it looked as if it was hanging off

Its just the way the external panels fit...nothing to do with the structure of the train its all integral. Its just the outer painted surface...
__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2009, 10:14 PM   #376
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,885
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slagathor View Post
Tempting? What kind of an odd perversion do you suffer from?
Don't worry, I'm fine. I'd be more concerned about you. What you associate with an artless word like tempting is abnormal.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2009, 01:07 AM   #377
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,091
Likes (Received): 289

This is the train that the Class 172 is replacing...1984 was when they first came in

Class 150...

__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2009, 06:27 AM   #378
TedStriker
Over Macho Grande
 
TedStriker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,517
Likes (Received): 385

[QUOTE=jsiren;40776684]Just for laughs, here are some Finnish trains, which I happen to like quite a bit.

Hi Jsiren, are you from Finland?

If so, do you have any photos of the VR Cargo trains that carry lorry trailers?
TedStriker no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2009, 11:06 AM   #379
Slagathor
Gay love is love too
 
Slagathor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Hague
Posts: 8,459
Likes (Received): 6143

Quote:
Originally Posted by poshbakerloo View Post
That is still symmetrical...2W-2D-5W-2D-2W...2W-2D-5W-2D-2W...

If u held a huge mirror in the middle of the 3rd window and looked into it...you would see the same as what is on the other side...
It's less symmetrical than the other train you showed us. That one had:

4W-2D-2W | 2W-2D-4W

2+2 is four so the symmetry continues right through the carriage split (4-2-4-2-4-2-4 ad infinitum). It doesn't with the new train. Does it?

Quote:
You said it first that it looked as if it was hanging off

Its just the way the external panels fit...nothing to do with the structure of the train its all integral. Its just the outer painted surface...
In post #11 of this thread, you mentioned as 'weird features' the following:

* Narrow windows.
* Strangely high roof
* Odd cab design at the front

The class 172 has an odd cab design at the front. By your own standards, it is therefore an ugly train.

"It's just the way the external panels fit" - yes, of course it is. Otherwise it would have fallen off already. Ugly trains look ugly because that's the way their external panels fit. It's not an excuse. The class 172 is not a pretty train - it has too many flaws to qualify as such by your own definition.

Again: I'm not the one who brought up all these nonsensical categorizations. But you judge non-English trains by certain parameters without realizing those parameters also illustrate flaws in English trains.

If you think a train looks pretty because, when it comes around the corner approaching the station, you think "Hey, that looks nice..!" then that's fine. Everyone has their own taste in style and design.
But your parameters don't hold up, that's what I have a problem with. You dismiss non-English trains based on the facts they have asymmetrical window placement or odd cabin ends when there are plenty of English trains who also suffer from the same 'malfunctions'.

What you're trying to do is provide your personal dislike with some sort of justified official foundations, but it's not working.

Why can't you just say you like a train because it appeals to you?

For what it's worth: I think the class 150 is a pretty train. I used it a lot when I lived in England to get to- and from work. But if I have to judge it using your silly conditions, then I'm going to find flaws. And quite obvious ones.
I like the class 150 because it has a history, because of the sound of the engine, because the windows still open (unlike on modern airconditioned trains) and because it has sentimental value for me; it reminds me of things.
I'm sure if you give it some proper thought, you'll have similar reasons for liking trains. Maybe even because they remind you of everything that's good about England and you're proud of your country. That's fine. But there's no reason to invent a list of requirements that are supposed to explain why a train looks pretty. Especially when that list seems to be created to 'prove' that non-English trains DON'T look pretty rather than the other way around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
Don't worry, I'm fine. I'd be more concerned about you. What you associate with an artless word like tempting is abnormal.
Relax. It was a joke, you stickler.
Slagathor está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2009, 12:56 PM   #380
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,091
Likes (Received): 289

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slagathor View Post
It's less symmetrical than the other train you showed us. That one had:

4W-2D-2W | 2W-2D-4W

2+2 is four so the symmetry continues right through the carriage split (4-2-4-2-4-2-4 ad infinitum). It doesn't with the new train. Does it?
5W-2D-2W | 2W-2D-5W...its still symmetrical, the middle just runs thru a window rather than between them...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slagathor View Post
In post #11 of this thread, you mentioned as 'weird features' the following:

* Narrow windows.
* Strangely high roof
* Odd cab design at the front

The class 172 has an odd cab design at the front. By your own standards, it is therefore an ugly train.

"It's just the way the external panels fit" - yes, of course it is. Otherwise it would have fallen off already. Ugly trains look ugly because that's the way their external panels fit. It's not an excuse. The class 172 is not a pretty train - it has too many flaws to qualify as such by your own definition.

Again: I'm not the one who brought up all these nonsensical categorizations. But you judge non-English trains by certain parameters without realizing those parameters also illustrate flaws in English trains.

If you think a train looks pretty because, when it comes around the corner approaching the station, you think "Hey, that looks nice..!" then that's fine. Everyone has their own taste in style and design.
But your parameters don't hold up, that's what I have a problem with. You dismiss non-English trains based on the facts they have asymmetrical window placement or odd cabin ends when there are plenty of English trains who also suffer from the same 'malfunctions'.

What you're trying to do is provide your personal dislike with some sort of justified official foundations, but it's not working.

Why can't you just say you like a train because it appeals to you?

For what it's worth: I think the class 150 is a pretty train. I used it a lot when I lived in England to get to- and from work. But if I have to judge it using your silly conditions, then I'm going to find flaws. And quite obvious ones.
I like the class 150 because it has a history, because of the sound of the engine, because the windows still open (unlike on modern airconditioned trains) and because it has sentimental value for me; it reminds me of things.
I'm sure if you give it some proper thought, you'll have similar reasons for liking trains. Maybe even because they remind you of everything that's good about England and you're proud of your country. That's fine. But there's no reason to invent a list of requirements that are supposed to explain why a train looks pretty. Especially when that list seems to be created to 'prove' that non-English trains DON'T look pretty rather than the other way around.
I donīt count a very narrow line that runs across the roof a ugly designing, if I did, I would not like it...

The roof design in a 170 and 172 is the same as any other English train, slightly curved but not too high...

"Why can't you just say you like a train because it appeals to you?" It does...but for the same reason that all English trains do...I never go to another country and think, "oooh what nice looking trains" because to me, they all look weird and in many cases just plain ugly, which was the point of this whole thread, I wanted to see what other people think...

...and...what other people think about English train designs...
__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium