Omega Owners Forum

Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Marks DTM Calib on 24 April 2009, 09:33:26

Title: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 24 April 2009, 09:33:26
Rumour has it that there is a Top Gear race occuring on Saturday between Jeremy Clarkson and Tornado between London and Edinburgh.

Lets hope the A1 loco kicks his ass!
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Jimbob on 24 April 2009, 09:34:25
would be good, but i reckon he has had it written into his contract that he must win all races  ;D
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Omega man 2 on 24 April 2009, 09:42:43
Quote
Rumour has it that there is a Top Gear race occuring on Saturday between Jeremy Clarkson and Tornado between London and Edinburgh.

Lets hope the A1 loco kicks his ass!

I'd love to see him lose at least once ;D

When is top gear back anyway?
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 24 April 2009, 09:47:50
The news is that Tornade is due to leave Kings Cross at 7.30 am....
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: tunnie on 24 April 2009, 10:45:03
Tornado train  :-?
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: TheBoy on 24 April 2009, 10:45:52
I could beat the Chiltern slug on a push bike ::)
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: tunnie on 24 April 2009, 10:48:37
Quote
I could beat the Chiltern slug on a push bike ::)

Yesterday saw almost record time, 8PM express, did the run in 46 mins.
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: TheBoy on 24 April 2009, 10:52:22
Quote
Quote
I could beat the Chiltern slug on a push bike ::)

Yesterday saw almost record time, 8PM express, did the run in 46 mins.
Is that good  :-?

We've thrown enough money at public tranport, it still doesn't work, way too expensive, and around these parts, slow.
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 24 April 2009, 10:55:31
This

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01250/tornado_1250692i.jpg)

Vs This:

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_04/bloat2SPLASH2503_468x714.jpg)
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: tunnie on 24 April 2009, 10:55:50
Quote
Quote
Quote
I could beat the Chiltern slug on a push bike ::)

Yesterday saw almost record time, 8PM express, did the run in 46 mins.
Is that good  :-?

We've thrown enough money at public tranport, it still doesn't work, way too expensive, and around these parts, slow.

I can't see me doing that run any quicker, be it in car, bus, train, bike.

The Chiltern line is slow by comparison, but thats down to the line, not the company. But its still for me, the best way to get to London.

In 2 years of commuting there has only ever been one big delay, and that was due to a fire at the London signal control, trains are always on time, if late, never by more than a few mins.

With that dumping of snow earlier this year, they ran a full service, with NO delays!
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Debs. on 24 April 2009, 11:00:00
Quote
This

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01250/tornado_1250692i.jpg)

Vs This:

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_04/bloat2SPLASH2503_468x714.jpg)

'Beauty and the breasts!' ;D
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: tunnie on 24 April 2009, 11:00:03
Quote
This

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01250/tornado_1250692i.jpg)

Vs This:

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_04/bloat2SPLASH2503_468x714.jpg)

According to Google and National Rail, its no contest.

National rail lists journey time of 4 hours 31 mins on train, Google Maps says 7 hours 9 mins. (google does always over estimate a bit, but 3 hours!  :o)

If he does beat it, he will have to seriously put his foot down
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Lizzie_Zoom on 24 April 2009, 11:03:15
If this story is true, I can't wait to see the race!! 8-) 8-) 8-)

Superheated steam driven Tornado v. hot winded driven Clarkson!! :D :D :D ;)
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: TheBoy on 24 April 2009, 11:05:45
Quote
This

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01250/tornado_1250692i.jpg)

Vs This:

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_04/bloat2SPLASH2503_468x714.jpg)
Secretly, I want Clarkson to win.  Purely to make me feel better that there is hope for middle-aged, overweight blokes ;D
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: TheBoy on 24 April 2009, 11:07:39
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
I could beat the Chiltern slug on a push bike ::)

Yesterday saw almost record time, 8PM express, did the run in 46 mins.
Is that good  :-?

We've thrown enough money at public tranport, it still doesn't work, way too expensive, and around these parts, slow.

I can't see me doing that run any quicker, be it in car, bus, train, bike.

The Chiltern line is slow by comparison, but thats down to the line, not the company. But its still for me, the best way to get to London.

In 2 years of commuting there has only ever been one big delay, and that was due to a fire at the London signal control, trains are always on time, if late, never by more than a few mins.

With that dumping of snow earlier this year, they ran a full service, with NO delays!
Remember with public transport, you have to take into account getting from home to the place you start public transport, then from the end of that to your final destination.

Anyone here wanting to go into the city, its the wrong option - car is faster, more convenient, and cheaper (even with Livingstone's toilet paper tax)
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 24 April 2009, 11:08:02
Quote
Quote
This

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01250/tornado_1250692i.jpg)

Vs This:

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_04/bloat2SPLASH2503_468x714.jpg)

According to Google and National Rail, its no contest.

National rail lists journey time of 4 hours 31 mins on train, Google Maps says 7 hours 9 mins. (google does always over estimate a bit, but 3 hours!  :o)

If he does beat it, he will have to seriously put his foot down


Yes Tunnie but, this is a steam train and will have to stop for water every 100miles! Plus possibly a top up of the lubrication setup (coal should just be ok)
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: tunnie on 24 April 2009, 11:09:26
Quote
Quote
Quote
This

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01250/tornado_1250692i.jpg)

Vs This:

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_04/bloat2SPLASH2503_468x714.jpg)

According to Google and National Rail, its no contest.

National rail lists journey time of 4 hours 31 mins on train, Google Maps says 7 hours 9 mins. (google does always over estimate a bit, but 3 hours!  :o)

If he does beat it, he will have to seriously put his foot down


Yes Tunnie but, this is a steam train and will have to stop for water every 100miles! Plus possibly a top up of the lubrication setup (coal should just be ok)

I guess those water traps between the rails are no longer in use  ;D
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: TheBoy on 24 April 2009, 11:10:09
Quote
Quote
Quote
This

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01250/tornado_1250692i.jpg)

Vs This:

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_04/bloat2SPLASH2503_468x714.jpg)

According to Google and National Rail, its no contest.

National rail lists journey time of 4 hours 31 mins on train, Google Maps says 7 hours 9 mins. (google does always over estimate a bit, but 3 hours!  :o)

If he does beat it, he will have to seriously put his foot down


Yes Tunnie but, this is a steam train and will have to stop for water every 100miles! Plus possibly a top up of the lubrication setup (coal should just be ok)
The concept of stopping for refuelling (water in this case) is alien to him I think ;D.
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 24 April 2009, 11:10:30
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
This

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01250/tornado_1250692i.jpg)

Vs This:

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_04/bloat2SPLASH2503_468x714.jpg)

According to Google and National Rail, its no contest.

National rail lists journey time of 4 hours 31 mins on train, Google Maps says 7 hours 9 mins. (google does always over estimate a bit, but 3 hours!  :o)

If he does beat it, he will have to seriously put his foot down


Yes Tunnie but, this is a steam train and will have to stop for water every 100miles! Plus possibly a top up of the lubrication setup (coal should just be ok)

I guess those water traps between the rails are no longer in use  ;D

Yep, removed (not that long ago though)

Tornado does not have a water scoop fitted anyway.
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: tunnie on 24 April 2009, 11:11:14
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
I could beat the Chiltern slug on a push bike ::)

Yesterday saw almost record time, 8PM express, did the run in 46 mins.
Is that good  :-?

We've thrown enough money at public tranport, it still doesn't work, way too expensive, and around these parts, slow.

I can't see me doing that run any quicker, be it in car, bus, train, bike.

The Chiltern line is slow by comparison, but thats down to the line, not the company. But its still for me, the best way to get to London.

In 2 years of commuting there has only ever been one big delay, and that was due to a fire at the London signal control, trains are always on time, if late, never by more than a few mins.

With that dumping of snow earlier this year, they ran a full service, with NO delays!
Remember with public transport, you have to take into account getting from home to the place you start public transport, then from the end of that to your final destination.

Anyone here wanting to go into the city, its the wrong option - car is faster, more convenient, and cheaper (even with Livingstone's toilet paper tax)

If we had offices in Marlybone or very close to the A40, i would seriously consider switching to bike!
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Andy B on 24 April 2009, 11:11:45
Quote
Quote
Quote
This

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01250/tornado_1250692i.jpg)

Vs This:

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_04/bloat2SPLASH2503_468x714.jpg)

According to Google and National Rail, its no contest.

National rail lists journey time of 4 hours 31 mins on train, Google Maps says 7 hours 9 mins. (google does always over estimate a bit, but 3 hours!  :o)

If he does beat it, he will have to seriously put his foot down


Yes Tunnie but, this is a steam train and will have to stop for water every 100miles! Plus possibly a top up of the lubrication setup (coal should just be ok)

Didn't think a train loco had to actually stop for water ......  :-/
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: TheBoy on 24 April 2009, 11:12:39
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
I could beat the Chiltern slug on a push bike ::)

Yesterday saw almost record time, 8PM express, did the run in 46 mins.
Is that good  :-?

We've thrown enough money at public tranport, it still doesn't work, way too expensive, and around these parts, slow.

I can't see me doing that run any quicker, be it in car, bus, train, bike.

The Chiltern line is slow by comparison, but thats down to the line, not the company. But its still for me, the best way to get to London.

In 2 years of commuting there has only ever been one big delay, and that was due to a fire at the London signal control, trains are always on time, if late, never by more than a few mins.

With that dumping of snow earlier this year, they ran a full service, with NO delays!
Remember with public transport, you have to take into account getting from home to the place you start public transport, then from the end of that to your final destination.

Anyone here wanting to go into the city, its the wrong option - car is faster, more convenient, and cheaper (even with Livingstone's toilet paper tax)

If we had offices in Marlybone or very close to the A40, i would seriously consider switching to bike!
That would then MAKE sense to use the slugline, as fall off public transport into your offices.
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: tunnie on 24 April 2009, 11:12:47
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
This

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01250/tornado_1250692i.jpg)

Vs This:

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_04/bloat2SPLASH2503_468x714.jpg)

According to Google and National Rail, its no contest.

National rail lists journey time of 4 hours 31 mins on train, Google Maps says 7 hours 9 mins. (google does always over estimate a bit, but 3 hours!  :o)

If he does beat it, he will have to seriously put his foot down


Yes Tunnie but, this is a steam train and will have to stop for water every 100miles! Plus possibly a top up of the lubrication setup (coal should just be ok)

I guess those water traps between the rails are no longer in use  ;D

Yep, removed (not that long ago though)

Tornado does not have a water scoop fitted anyway.

Its going to be quite a task to fill her up then? I am imagining the filler neck is on top of the boiler? The use to have those big tanks with a swing arm?

The line will have to be err lined  ;D With water tanker trucks with hoses?
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: tunnie on 24 April 2009, 11:14:07
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
This

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01250/tornado_1250692i.jpg)

Vs This:

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_04/bloat2SPLASH2503_468x714.jpg)

According to Google and National Rail, its no contest.

National rail lists journey time of 4 hours 31 mins on train, Google Maps says 7 hours 9 mins. (google does always over estimate a bit, but 3 hours!  :o)

If he does beat it, he will have to seriously put his foot down


Yes Tunnie but, this is a steam train and will have to stop for water every 100miles! Plus possibly a top up of the lubrication setup (coal should just be ok)

Didn't think a train loco had to actually stop for water ......  :-/

Steam ones do, water creates the steam  ;D

Usually they would have filled up at stations along the route.
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 24 April 2009, 11:14:08
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
This

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01250/tornado_1250692i.jpg)

Vs This:

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_04/bloat2SPLASH2503_468x714.jpg)

According to Google and National Rail, its no contest.

National rail lists journey time of 4 hours 31 mins on train, Google Maps says 7 hours 9 mins. (google does always over estimate a bit, but 3 hours!  :o)

If he does beat it, he will have to seriously put his foot down


Yes Tunnie but, this is a steam train and will have to stop for water every 100miles! Plus possibly a top up of the lubrication setup (coal should just be ok)

I guess those water traps between the rails are no longer in use  ;D

Yep, removed (not that long ago though)

Tornado does not have a water scoop fitted anyway.

Its going to be quite a task to fill her up then? I am imagining the filler neck is on top of the boiler? The use to have those big tanks with a swing arm?

The line will have to be err lined  ;D With water tanker trucks with hoses?


Lol no, the water tank is in the tender (6200 gallons!)

They often use the fire brigade but could also nip into the NRM at york for a re-fill.
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: tunnie on 24 April 2009, 11:15:29
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
This

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01250/tornado_1250692i.jpg)

Vs This:

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_04/bloat2SPLASH2503_468x714.jpg)

According to Google and National Rail, its no contest.

National rail lists journey time of 4 hours 31 mins on train, Google Maps says 7 hours 9 mins. (google does always over estimate a bit, but 3 hours!  :o)

If he does beat it, he will have to seriously put his foot down


Yes Tunnie but, this is a steam train and will have to stop for water every 100miles! Plus possibly a top up of the lubrication setup (coal should just be ok)

I guess those water traps between the rails are no longer in use  ;D

Yep, removed (not that long ago though)

Tornado does not have a water scoop fitted anyway.

Its going to be quite a task to fill her up then? I am imagining the filler neck is on top of the boiler? The use to have those big tanks with a swing arm?

The line will have to be err lined  ;D With water tanker trucks with hoses?


Lol no, the water tank is in the tender (6200 gallons!)

They often use the fire brigade but could also nip into the NRM at york for a re-fill.

Boiled in 100 miles  :o

No wonder they switched to diesel
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 24 April 2009, 11:16:42
Maintenance is why they switched to diesel!
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Andy B on 24 April 2009, 11:18:20
Quote
.......
Steam ones do, water creates the steam  ;D

Usually they would have filled up at stations along the route.


My emphasis was on the stopping rather than the need for the stuff. I have come across steam before  ;). Grey Funnel liners used to run off super heated 550 psi 850oF steam and had no problems getting hold of water to boil up! :y :y
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: tunnie on 24 April 2009, 11:20:44
Quote
Maintenance is why they switched to diesel!

and on the subject of that, is a DMU cheaper to maintain that a loco hauled service?

I see that new Wrexham & Shropshire service with envy from London, they have proper engines on their trains and proper carriages.

When i hear them start up the the 67's they sound like a train should do, rather than the weasel powered 165's
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Martin_1962 on 24 April 2009, 11:23:45
Quote
Quote
This

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01250/tornado_1250692i.jpg)

Vs This:

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_04/bloat2SPLASH2503_468x714.jpg)

According to Google and National Rail, its no contest.

National rail lists journey time of 4 hours 31 mins on train, Google Maps says 7 hours 9 mins. (google does always over estimate a bit, but 3 hours!  :o)

If he does beat it, he will have to seriously put his foot down


The rail timing is for 125mph trains!
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Kevin Wood on 24 April 2009, 11:25:47
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
This

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01250/tornado_1250692i.jpg)

Vs This:

(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_04/bloat2SPLASH2503_468x714.jpg)

According to Google and National Rail, its no contest.

National rail lists journey time of 4 hours 31 mins on train, Google Maps says 7 hours 9 mins. (google does always over estimate a bit, but 3 hours!  :o)

If he does beat it, he will have to seriously put his foot down


Yes Tunnie but, this is a steam train and will have to stop for water every 100miles! Plus possibly a top up of the lubrication setup (coal should just be ok)

Didn't think a train loco had to actually stop for water ......  :-/

They didn't in the good old days. Most spectacular it was too, apparently.

Kevin
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Lizzie_Zoom on 24 April 2009, 11:29:25
The original A1 tenders carried 5,000 gallons of water, giving  a range of 100 miles.  This new tender for 60163 carries 6,200 gallons as Mark states,  so the range is reckoned to be increased to 120 miles (whoopy of course!! ;D ;D)

There are plans though for a second tender, as provided to A1 4472 Flying Scotsman in the 1970s, to carry 8,000 gallons, which would give a total estimated range of 300 miles.

Coal capacity in the original A1 tenders was 9 tons, but with 60163 due to the extra water capacity, this has been reduced to 7.5 tons which should still give a range of 300 miles before re-coaling.

 :y :y
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: tunnie on 24 April 2009, 11:29:41
some interesting info here, i did not know it was brand new...


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/news/article4908980.ece

Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Martin_1962 on 24 April 2009, 11:29:43
Quote
Quote
Maintenance is why they switched to diesel!

and on the subject of that, is a DMU cheaper to maintain that a loco hauled service?

I see that new Wrexham & Shropshire service with envy from London, they have proper engines on their trains and proper carriages.

When i hear them start up the the 67's they sound like a train should do, rather than the weasel powered 165's

They are not proper engines they are 67s

Proper engines are 37s 50s 55s 60s

Who would want a crappy 67 if there was the option of a large English Electric machine :)


Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: tunnie on 24 April 2009, 11:30:59
Quote
Quote
Quote
Maintenance is why they switched to diesel!

and on the subject of that, is a DMU cheaper to maintain that a loco hauled service?

I see that new Wrexham & Shropshire service with envy from London, they have proper engines on their trains and proper carriages.

When i hear them start up the the 67's they sound like a train should do, rather than the weasel powered 165's

They are not proper engines they are 67s

Proper engines are 37s 50s 55s 60s

Who would want a crappy 67 if there was the option of a large English Electric machine :)



Passengers of the 165's  ;)
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: tunnie on 24 April 2009, 11:34:49
cracking selection of photos here...

http://www.pistonheads.com/Gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=671900&d=0&nmt=

Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Lizzie_Zoom on 24 April 2009, 11:35:49
Quote
some interesting info here, i did not know it was brand new...


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/news/article4908980.ece


Oh yes Tunnie, and it is fitted with the latest railway safety electronics, so 60163 Tornado is fully equipped for today’s main line railway.

If you like the originally designed 1920s engine which Tornado is based on has been built to 21st century (steam) railway engine standards :y :y
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 24 April 2009, 11:37:44
Quote
Quote
Quote
Maintenance is why they switched to diesel!

and on the subject of that, is a DMU cheaper to maintain that a loco hauled service?

I see that new Wrexham & Shropshire service with envy from London, they have proper engines on their trains and proper carriages.

When i hear them start up the the 67's they sound like a train should do, rather than the weasel powered 165's

They are not proper engines they are 67s

Proper engines are 37s 50s 55s 60s

Who would want a crappy 67 if there was the option of a large English Electric machine :)




I had a nose around the 37 last night....interesting.

A little under powered though.

Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: bob.dent on 24 April 2009, 11:38:51
OK so what's Clarkson going to be driving?
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 24 April 2009, 11:40:09
Quote
OK so what's Clarkson going to be driving?


Its not known.

The guess is a modern jag or mini.

He could drive an E-type or old mini but, he wouldn't be able to live with them on that length of journey!
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: steverubberduck on 24 April 2009, 11:48:57
whatever he drives, all of the people behind the scenes would have sat down and made this a close race on paper.
just look at all of the previous races.
all of them have been close.
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: TheBoy on 24 April 2009, 12:12:12
Quote
Quote
OK so what's Clarkson going to be driving?


Its not known.

The guess is a modern jag or mini.

He could drive an E-type or old mini but, he wouldn't be able to live with them on that length of journey!
LOL, I struggle after 50 miles is a modern mini. This is from someone who has no trouble doing 200m in a Rover 25...
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Martin_1962 on 24 April 2009, 12:13:56
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Maintenance is why they switched to diesel!

and on the subject of that, is a DMU cheaper to maintain that a loco hauled service?

I see that new Wrexham & Shropshire service with envy from London, they have proper engines on their trains and proper carriages.

When i hear them start up the the 67's they sound like a train should do, rather than the weasel powered 165's

They are not proper engines they are 67s

Proper engines are 37s 50s 55s 60s

Who would want a crappy 67 if there was the option of a large English Electric machine :)




I had a nose around the 37 last night....interesting.

A little under powered though.



Ultra reliable though and sound good.

I prefer the V16 over the V12 on the CSVT range - hence a 50 fan
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Lizzie_Zoom on 24 April 2009, 12:15:26
Quote
Quote
Quote
OK so what's Clarkson going to be driving?


Its not known.

The guess is a modern jag or mini.

He could drive an E-type or old mini but, he wouldn't be able to live with them on that length of journey!
LOL, I struggle after 50 miles is a modern mini. This is from someone who has no trouble doing 200m in a Rover 25...


No, especially being stuck in traffic jams on the M25 / M1 or A1 whatever!! :D :D :D ;)

In fact thinking about those factors, Clarkson has lost the race before he starts! ::) ::) ;D ;D ;)
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 24 April 2009, 12:26:46
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Maintenance is why they switched to diesel!

and on the subject of that, is a DMU cheaper to maintain that a loco hauled service?

I see that new Wrexham & Shropshire service with envy from London, they have proper engines on their trains and proper carriages.

When i hear them start up the the 67's they sound like a train should do, rather than the weasel powered 165's

They are not proper engines they are 67s

Proper engines are 37s 50s 55s 60s

Who would want a crappy 67 if there was the option of a large English Electric machine :)




I had a nose around the 37 last night....interesting.

A little under powered though.



Ultra reliable though and sound good.

I prefer the V16 over the V12 on the CSVT range - hence a 50 fan


Lol, lot of body work rust on this one being plated up which the guys working on it were surprised about given how much oil the engine leaks (seems to be a common thread for diesel locos!)

We had a closer look at the rail crane engine last night, white metal all round the sump so it needs lifting out......and a distinct lack of oil in the sump  >:(

Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: ians on 24 April 2009, 12:50:42
Quote




Yes Tunnie but, this is a steam train and will have to stop for water every 100miles! Plus possibly a top up of the lubrication setup (coal should just be ok)

..sounds like quite a few Omega's over on General Help recently ::)
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Martin_1962 on 24 April 2009, 14:15:38
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Maintenance is why they switched to diesel!

and on the subject of that, is a DMU cheaper to maintain that a loco hauled service?

I see that new Wrexham & Shropshire service with envy from London, they have proper engines on their trains and proper carriages.

When i hear them start up the the 67's they sound like a train should do, rather than the weasel powered 165's

They are not proper engines they are 67s

Proper engines are 37s 50s 55s 60s

Who would want a crappy 67 if there was the option of a large English Electric machine :)




I had a nose around the 37 last night....interesting.

A little under powered though.



Ultra reliable though and sound good.

I prefer the V16 over the V12 on the CSVT range - hence a 50 fan


Lol, lot of body work rust on this one being plated up which the guys working on it were surprised about given how much oil the engine leaks (seems to be a common thread for diesel locos!)

We had a closer look at the rail crane engine last night, white metal all round the sump so it needs lifting out......and a distinct lack of oil in the sump  >:(



Will it get some GM oil????
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 24 April 2009, 14:19:04
Its a 1950's Mclaren 3 cylinder diesel engine with 70-80bhp at 1200rpm....its VERY big.

Probably a mono grade oil I suspect and a lot of it at that!
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: tmx on 24 April 2009, 16:42:42
Tg is scheduled to be back on @ the beggining of june

most of the filming has been done except this and a few other treats according to TG magazine :y
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Big Fra on 24 April 2009, 17:49:53
I believe there is gonna be a bit where the chaps buy cars at a classic car auction.

I know James May buys a Citroen Dyane.  ;)
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: over50now on 24 April 2009, 19:06:55
Know someone who is engineer for First Capital Connect at Hornsey Train Servicing Depot, North London.  The Tornado is at the depot this evening, leaving the depot at 5am tomoro.
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: JohnM on 24 April 2009, 19:20:21
Quote
OK so what's Clarkson going to be driving?

Jag xkr (rummour has it)
- not diesel I thinks.

And I don't think the tornado loco is cleared for 125mph either!

Does anybody have a route diagram and timings for the ECML?

edit:  Could be May driving & Clarkson playing train-driver/passenger.
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Kevin Wood on 24 April 2009, 23:11:59
Mate of mine spotted Clarkson at Dunsfold trying to put very large dogs into very small cars too. <terribly sorry old boy, I am a little tired>

 ;)

Kevin
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 26 April 2009, 19:59:41
So, it happened.....and some great shots on You Tube

Clarkson was on th train, hammond on a bike and captain slow in a car....

If you dont want to see the result then dont look here:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKRNKaqxru4[/media]
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 26 April 2009, 20:15:24
Clarksons transport - very nice;

(http://www.penguin-web-solutions.co.uk/images/60163_Welwyn%20North_25-4-09b.jpg)

May s transport, also very nice (rather long way to go in one of those though)

(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b394/Marks_DTM_Calib/Jag.jpg)

And I envy Hammond even less!

(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b394/Marks_DTM_Calib/bike.jpg)

I rather like the 24hr bike breakdown truck following Hammond!
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: tunnie on 26 April 2009, 20:48:11
Great Stuff!  :y

Can't wait for the new series  :)
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: albitz on 26 April 2009, 21:21:48
An old steam train called "The Oliver Cromwell"(iirc)came through Colchester last week,it was doing a run from London to Norwich,caused a lot of excitement,on local TV news etc;I think they said it had been the last steam train to officially run before the complete switch to diesel/electric. :-/
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 27 April 2009, 08:06:31
Quote
An old steam train called "The Oliver Cromwell"(iirc)came through Colchester last week,it was doing a run from London to Norwich,caused a lot of excitement,on local TV news etc;I think they said it had been the last steam train to officially run before the complete switch to diesel/electric. :-/


Yep, they (GCR) completed a full restroration on it last year at Loughborough where it ran for a few months before going back to the main line again.

It was the last mainline steam express passenger engine to run a service
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 27 April 2009, 13:20:13
Clarkson does not look to happy.

I wonder if he realises how bloody hard that dirt is to shift.

(http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b394/Marks_DTM_Calib/Clarkson.jpg)

Or maybe hes going to audition for a new series of the incredible Hulk! (given his body language he can certainly pose for it!)
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 27 April 2009, 13:21:13
Ow yes, for those who dont recognise the car and bike. The car is a Jaguar XJ120 and the bike is a Vincent Black Shadow.
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Andy B on 27 April 2009, 15:23:29
Quote
Ow yes, for those who dont recognise the car and bike. The car is a Jaguar XJ120 and the bike is a Vincent Black Shadow.

I can't see any pictures (at work), but the Jag will be an X[size=12]K[/size]120  ;)  ;)  ;)
Title: Re: Clarkson vs Tornado
Post by: Marks DTM Calib on 27 April 2009, 15:25:59
Just a typo...