an engine produces counter torque and must have a retaining force (secure mounting) equal to this counter torque to produce useful work the engine had to be bolted down or the train wouldn't move plus if the carriages had weights in them as greenpeace claim the trains momentum would be greater thus the impact would be bigger so they clearly have no idea what they are talking about
It's about time we got a few Nuclear Power Stations built before the Coal runs out. As for the Wind Turbines, they are a complete waste of time. It takes Thousands of them to power even a small Town. The Wind doesn't blow all the time after all . Also if the Wind is too strong the Turbine Blades are feathered to stop the things collapsing. Let's have a bright and Glowing Future. Keep all the lights on with lovely clean Green Nuclear Power. Let's make Britain Great Again!!
@toyo671 Stop talking shite! We have enough unmined coal in this country to last us another 200 years + at current usage rates! the coal IS NOT going to run out! having said that, i am all for more nuclear energy! its clean, relatively green, the risk of pollution/accident ETC is very small in this country and the stations themselves if built properly and not on the cheap, can last YEARS! 40 or 50 years shouldn't be a problem! Greenpeace talk some shite!
Greenpiece argument is kind of stupid cause no (accidental) train crash is ever going to be anywhere nearly as destructive so from the aspect of transport the test more than proves a reasonable amount of saftey. I might want to follow that up with explosives but I'm guessing the reason they didn't do this is the container would fail.
John Baker-"I think anybody who considered that would be only trying to get into the comic strips" - brilliant reply!!! Sad end for the peak, but then again, it was only going to be scrapped anyway :( Does anybody know if the carriages were scrapped as well?
@rbrownlie91 I think its YOU talking 'shite' as you so 'eloquently' put it! How can radiation, which is admitted to be many THOUSANDS of times WORSE than Chernobyl be considered 'safe' Are you totally retarded? What of those 50 men who were sent in to estimate just what happened directly after the event ? You think THEY are still alive? Or that they wont die very soon? You need to remove your head from your anal cavity
em 1:20 min. eles quiseram pôr uma imagem como se o trem estivesse indo bater, mas tem um maquinista dentro! que pior! Para despejar todo o peso do impacto eles teriam que pôr um anteparo rígido o suficiente para suportar o impacto, como um vagão carregado de pedras. Como ficou solto, o contâiner pulou como uma bola sendo chutada! Pura pirotecnia!
This is laughable ! First Chernobyl (killed million + with radiation sickness) and then Fukishima (STILL melting down and releasing vast quantities of radioactive shit) will kill MANY more globally and far worse than Chernobyl and NOW America nuclear plant in trouble !
@thehoff1982 All the 46s were out of service by the end of that year, 1984. This one was simply allowed a spectacular last run before they scrapped her on the spot.
I used to be a member of Greenpeace. However after reading many reports and being involved in 'campaigns' I left. Most of the information they use in their 'scare' tactics is incorrect and/or out of date. Regardless of what 'fact's are presented to them, they disagree with them, unless they meet the 'beliefs' of Greenpeace.
they don't 'crumple' like a car when they collide into something. It was a 6 axle loco, if they weren't serious they would of used a 4 axle loco. The flask was also struck with the strongest part of the loco. Then theres the 'Engine being unbolted'. Even IF thats true, it doesn't change the fact that you have over 300 tons of steel impacting on the flask at 100mph and it survived. You don't need to be Einstein to realize that the kinetic energy released in that kind of collision is fuckin huge.
You know what, I actually understand greenpeace's stance and I support their existence. But what they're stance on this test is utter nonsense. First off their not the resident expert when it comes to the dynamics of train crashes. Air born coaches? Thats a joke. Even empty those coaches weight at least 20 tons. They're not going to fly like an airplane just because of a sudden sharp deceleration. As for the loco not being the strongest. ALL Locomotives are massive pieces of equipment,
Greenpeace needs to learn one thing: never argue with a country that has nuclear weapons. The next Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior may involve one (just keep the bombing away from New Zealand this time!)
So the flask involved was made by Sheffield Forgemasters, at a cost of £250,000, which was a lot of money back in 1981. To this day (because I saw it on Thursday) it's on display outside the Training Centre at Heysham Power Station, a few miles south of Morecambe. It's got a few dings in the buttresses, but that's it.
hey every1 i know the truth and the real crash, the mod from reme 35 base old dalby would not let nobody film it, the film was a stage. because the train blew the real tank to bits covering fields with low radio active wast and toxic wast lets just say i had a relative work there when it was an army camp. and believe me some of the grass on crown business park still grows orange
@B0B78422 - Er, your relative is pulling your leg. I was an apprentice at REME Old Dalby at the time and watched the crash live as it happened from the hillside at the rear of the depot. Colonel Keist gave us an extended lunch hour to see it. You weren't allowed to take cameras into the site at any time without permission (PC 'Blackbeard' would have dabbed you on the gate if you had!) so no-one inside the site took any photos or cine film. There was no nuclear spillage & the tank was fine.
@55022RSG I see. An how many Deltics were still available for this kind of test in 1984?? By then, they'd all been scrapped or preserved in private ownership.
How 'Greenpeace' got into this debate stresses the boundaries of credulity. You know much atmospheric radiation is released in conventional coal plants? Do you know how many hydroelectric dams you'd have to build to replace the watts from nuclear power generation? Those would be bigger liabilities without accidents. Advancing and developing nuclear energy is potentially and practically the greenest route you could go?
So the engine was released so it would go over the flask and not into it and the carriages were weighed down so they'd go into the flask and not over it. Ooooookay.
The CEGB actually put nuclear waste in the flask; that's how confident they were that it would not be broken. They could be sure of this since, as the bloke below said, it was all camera work, though the train actually hit at 3mph, not five.
The locomotive was fitted with a sort of remote control, allowing the loco to move without the Drivers safety devices to applying and hence applying the trainbrakes.
This is what i was told by an Ex-BR driver who knew some of the people involved.
As for greenpeaces complaints, total rubbish, the Peak classes were (and still are) some of the heaviest locos to grace the National Rail Network.
@1madaboutguitar Anyone who says that train hit at 5mph is a moron. If it hit at 5mph it wouldn't have...oh you know....EXPLODED! What kind of tard believes something like that, seriously. A 5mph crash doesn't not send the engine of a train hurtling 50 ft into the air.
@hzuiel The explosion was just a zoom in from an electric train set. The actual train was travelling at 5mph but sped up with playback and mixed with the scenery of an electric toy train set, together with effects...
@hzuiel Nothing exploded; the loco's fuel tank ruptured, splashing diesel onto the hot engine. The fuel vaporised, then was ignited by sparks from the generator as it broke away from the engine (which stayed firmly in place) and flew 25-30 (not 50) feet into the air. I timed the train passing the platform end in another clip at 100.7 mph.
@danlefou We obviously both share the same view or idea of the validity of this test and it's set of circumstances so why nitpick at my choice of words?
@hzuiel Well, there's a common misperception that it was the engine that flew out, when it was actually the generator. I just wanted to set the record straight.
aggah a class 46 46s are great i hate green peace and the stupid idia of crashing a great loco in to a nucular flask boo grean peace hang your head in shame and go and think about what you have done!!!!!
Engine wasn't bolted my ass. If it wasn't the engine would of threw itself out of the body and frame. Those bolts won't hold a 1000+k pound deisel engine to the frame when it comes to sudden impact.
is it really a good argument they had, they drove a fucking train into a sealed box and it survived, short of actually takeing the stuff that was surpossed to go in the box out and using it to make a nuke, id think its safe to say thats one tuff mofucking stash box, need one for my green : p
BULL SHIT those carriges look like MK1s they have buckeye couplings this means that in a crash they wont fly in the air or roll over anyone who knows anything about trains know that. The Class 46 peak is a very heavy solid locomotive too
what a bunch of crap from greenpeace. saying the engine was unbolted. if it had been it it would surely rip itself out of the locomotive. and as for it being specially chosen to crumple on impact, the class 46 was the heaviest diesel locomotive they had.
we should use nuclear energy over coal, there is lots less pollution and it's not like it's dangerous. nuclear power stations don't melt down all the time.
Are you just repeating what the report said or have you researched this. It is dumb to simply take what is said at ce value. Fact is that money is involved, so it is within reason that they would fake this if they could. They are not about their reputation, their company is built on being the lowest bidder, quality comes second.
@alexx400 The Greenpeace allegations were so nonsensical that I'm surprised they had the balls to make them. All I can assume is that they knew eff all about railway locomotives; I'm pretty much 100% sure it wouldn't work if the engine was unbolted.
@capricornGTR uranium isn't great stuff to hold with your bare hands, but that's not so much because of radiation. coal is pretty well known to cause cancer just as well if not better than any radiation you're likely to come across as a result of nuclear power. there's also great lines about coal like "if you don't got silicosis or pay that's just atrocious..." and the rest is basically phil ochs saying that they should let the miners unionize
@capricornGTR If nuclear is so dangerous and coal is not; then how come the deaths from coal power in China equal 250 Chernobyl equivalents per year(extrapolating using the LNT model; using the 56 verifiable deaths 18000 chernobyls per year)? Coal deaths in China every year are on the same scale as the number of people killed in Auswitch concentration camp for fucks sake.
@capricornGTR 1. If it's so dangerous, where are all the deaths? The answer of course, is that it's very easy to contain and shield. The volume of material is tiny and it's just an inert, dense ceramic.
There have been studies on the likely effects of puncturing a fuel shipment cask(and the only way the author managed to accomplish that was by invoking terrorists using a massive shaped charge to punch a neat little hole). The computed result of this was ~1 death, again invoking LNTH.
@capricornGTR 2. The absorbed dose in man-sieverts from Chernobyl will scarcely increase over the next 300 years and the fig leaf of latency can no longer be invoked.
UN chernobyl forums 20th anniversary report(2006) found no increase in rates of cancer mortality during the first 20 years. One of the biggest most comprehensive studies, a cohort of 65 905 clean up workers who recieved 5-300 mSv, showed cancer rates of 73-85% of controls during all studied years(1991-1998).
@capricornGTR 3. Coal waste is so voluminous and so fleeting as to be almost uncontainable. Despite quite heroic efforts it still kills 30 000 annually in the United States. That's only particulates, not NoX, SoX, mercury pollution or long term effects of GHGs.
Coal in the west should be compared to civilian nuclear power in the west, zero deaths and counting from radiation exposure; similar number of deaths from accidents involving heavy machinery as any other large construction project.
@capricornGTR 3. cont. spent fuel is a few percent of fission products and TRUs stored in a matrix of dense uranium dioxide ceramic, stored inside zirconium tubes and either deep under water or in heavily shielded containers. There is no mechanism for significant exposure in properly designed reactors and Chernobyl demonstrated pretty conclusively that the worst case nuclear accident is tame compared to a state of the art coal plant.
@capricornGTR Just because you don't understand how doesn't mean it's not possible. Look into those statistics that soylentgreenb quoted of 30,000 deaths annually. Those aren't statistics he invented. Researchers factor in people dieing of respiratory problems caused by pollution and other such things. Besides those, there are more accidents in coal plants than nuclear plants on average that result in serious injury or death. Coal mining is one of the most dangerous professions. Etc.
@capricornGTR Fukushima is one of only 3 major accidents in the history of nuclear energy. Plus the experts don't even know how far reaching the effects of that accident are, so obviously neither do you. And you aren't considering what we're telling you. Nuclear plants under normal operation do not release pollution into the atmosphere, whereas coal is always releasing pollution, that results in many deaths every year according to scientists. Plus deaths from coal mining and accidents in plants.
the effects are reaching a lot more further than you think. Coal plants are better off being placed back in the ground and stick to burning "dead" trees. However Nuclear reactors are quite litterly operational catastrophies waiting to happen. Either way it's bs that peeps are dying. Especially when they know the risks before applying. IF they actually pay close attention or do some research on the job before applying. no coal minors/workers+no one to run the mills= no pollution from coal.
@capricornGTR You still aren't getting it. Of course the deaths in the coal mining industry, as well as accidents in coal plants are nothing to snuff at but we aren't even talking about that. The pollution itself from coal plants, kills people, via respiratory illness, according to scientists, in all sorts of areas within the vicinity of coal powered plants. There are 442 nuclear power plants currently in operation around the world. Not including decomissioned plants. Only just now has a 3rd
@capricornGTR major accident happened, and it was the result of a catostrophic natural disaster. Plus there are newer safer designs for reactors, all the major accidents have been old old reactorts. They can switch out the uranium for thorium and the risk of melt down drops to nearly nothing, even with older reactors, but especially with newer reactors. Use of breeder reactors and thorium could potentially power the world for 10's of thousands of years. Coal, 300 at best, plus the pollution.
@alexx400 "don`t melt down all the time"? True, but when they do will leave a huge area unusable for habitation for hundreds if not thousands of years... Did you sleep through Chernobyl? 336,000 people resettled and the fallout was detected over all of Europe. The waste products from these stations will still be highly hazardous long after life as we know it. As more and more and built the chance of further events increase. Sounds like pretty hardcore pollution to me.
That's because it was badly build and didn't have dome. Chernobyl power station was production electricity to year 2000... quite a long time after that accident.
@alexx400 I'm glad I'm not the only sane person. The only meltdowns that have taken place so far have been in OLD reactors. The issue is funding, reactors needs to be constantly updated and improved and periodically decomissioned and replaced with newer technology. There are no nuclear plants in the US that were built after the 60's i believe. Maybe the 70's. Plus they already have facilities under construction that can contain the waste in solid bedrock away from civilization, and containers
@rwerk66 No, it's not like that at all. Because new car designs don't reduce the chances of an accident to nearly nothing, no matter what safety features a car has, it can still be crashed, there are many reactor designs that are newer and much safer that have been built since the 60's, and dozens of newer designs that they haven't even gotten to try yet. In the news when they were talking about fukushima, a scientist they interviewed said france has some reactors that are built so that even if
Show me a single proposed reactor for the US that cannot have an SFP accident like R 4.
As for newer and untried designs, when they become tried or even about to get funded get back to me.
I have see designs for nuclear rockets to the stars - I like those - but they are not happening, so not relevant.
Right now I can cost effectively go solar and there is no sign of me having any nuclear sourced power now. I will stick with the here and now - not the maybe someday safety.
@rwerk66 That's the issue, people are pissing in their pants scared of nuclear so they don't even fun the research. Also according to what i've read, almost any uranium plant can be converted to thorium, it's not an if, they know it's capable of working, they just haven't for some reason. And if they switch to thorium, all your arm flailing paranoia goes right out the window because thorium won't reach the temperatures that uranium will if the core is exposed, and it takes far less time to cool.
@rwerk66 they melt down and the pressure causes them to explode, all of the escaping gasses and radiation are channeled through scrubbers that remove over 90% of the radiation before it escapes upwards into the atmosphere. So the backup to the backup of the backup is that even if the reactor is toast, very little radiation escapes and as long as everyone evacuated the facility, nobody dies.
Also from what i've read, they can switch to using thorium instead of uranium, and it won't melt down.
@alexx400 to transport the waste that can withstand train crashes, but people would rather drive their gas guzzling suv's and live on coal power which is a rapidly diminishing natural resource. And there have been far more deaths in and injuries in coal power plants than nuclear by proportion, not to mention the whole mining process that goes on for coal is MASSIVE and results in the deaths of many miners annually. I believe coal mining is the second most dangerous job in the world.
You do realize that there is a much higher average death toll every year in coal mining then in nuclear power plants, right?
Also, out of the all the accidents involving nuclear energy, most do not involve fatalities. Nuclear plants have also improved greatly since Chernobyl. As for Fukushima, there admittedly was a design fault- being built on a fault line.
Also, if you want to be taken seriously, don't insult people for their opinion.
OK most accidents in most plants of any type do not involve fatalities - that is relevant why?
Nuclear plants all have flaws - I base this opinion amongst other things the NRC reports.
There are many many plants at risk of going the way of reactor 4 at Fukushima - no matter how new the design. Again this is based on NRC reports and other studies.
I always thought it was a shame that a peak46 had to buy the farm on this one. Crumbs theres only 3 in preservation. Couldn't they have pushed a heavy loaded wagon instead...oh well.
Next time a similar test with a nuke flask, takes place, use a 125 mph Virgin Voyager because its supposed to have crumpled zones and fill it with weights
Morons from GreenPeace are sometimes no different to conspiracy theorists regarding 911. Neither of them are scientists and all they strive for is to stir shit up without any knowledge or authority on the matter.
However, I'll let them fight the bullshit "research" Japanese whaling vessels are claiming. You don't need to kill thousands of whales to research them. Bet the meat is sold to restaurants after that bullshit "research". Lying monkeys!
But those Japanese whaling ships ARE researching! they are researching how many whales it's possible to kill.
It is sold to restaurants- that's the whole point, theres no scientific reasoning behind it, its just a convenient bit of legislation to hide your true motives behind.
"But those Japanese whaling ships ARE researching! they are researching how many whales it's possible to kill."
Absolutely. The main problem is they're whaling and lying about it in our Australian waters. It's tantamount to trespass however our feeble Kevin Rudd prefers Asian trade to honesty. Some things have been said recently that "look" like something will be done, but I reckon it's just more bluster to hide imminent failings on this issue.
Man there are some dumb kids on this site. I work in the industry and the test was very necessary. You just can't replicate a crash between another train and a flask being transported in a lab.
The whole point is the flask CANNOT leak under any circ's, they have to be completely inpenetrable without the right tools so you don't get any leakage of the contaminated fluids inside. This isn't a case of the thing going off like a nuclear bomb. That's completely impossible.
4:05 williamstown service will be delayed due to left wing conspiracies. Connex would like apologise for any inconvenience, but they're total cunts, so they won't. So just sit there and shut the fuck up you pinko greeny fags.
Yeah those Greenpeace guys always trying to save our world and pointing out how companies polluting our water, food, air with harmful waste! Screw those guys they are jerks!
Lets like the money grubbing companies who are killing our eco-system!
@sniper6081 oh i hate them too! bunch a good dooing bastard who have nothing better to do than champion everyone else's causes!!! Away and work Greenpeace people.
@jmganjaman Really? Greenpeace is nature and the Earth? I just thought they were a bunch of loud mouth scientific illiterates. What logic. You hate Greenpeace? Then you murder children and eat babies.
the arranged crash seems 2 b only a cover up so it wont drive pp away from near by stations wich would mean less passengers cuz alot of the time when i hear Nuclear i avoid it at all cost and y would they have suck a thing inveted any how ??? i mean common Nuclear Flask? g wizz whats on most desater moves i seen its seeming become reality (nuke nuke nuke nothing but nukes)
I'll certainly concede to the CEGB that the Class 46 was the heaviest locomotive available for this test. Those things were pigs. No heavier diesel or electric locomotive has ever run in Britain that I know of; the 46 is significantly heavier even than the similar 45 and 44. I suppose the successor companies to CEGB still use the same waste flasks?
Believe the CEGB are wrong in saying the engine wasn't tampered with.. Technically anyway - wasn't the train heavily modified to reach the higher speed? I thought the 46's top speed was only 90?
A diesel driver on the Llangollen Railway told me the 90 mph top speed was only advisory, aimed at prolonging locomotive life, and a 46 with three coaches could easily reach 100 mph without any modification.
That's a mighty heavy engine block sailing through the air! For those who are curious, it's a sulzer double 6, (similar to that found on a class 47) and weighs nearly 20 tons!
Comment removed
60163Jordan 1 week ago
Wrong loco to be used in the crash tbh...46009 - You were a real beast, R.I.P!
60163Jordan 1 week ago
ehm frisky and outgoing girl who wants to have fun
8lesleyDanley8 1 week ago
typical green peace talking absolute bollocks as usual...what about the poor old driver that must of upset his day lol
fucem1 1 week ago
an engine produces counter torque and must have a retaining force (secure mounting) equal to this counter torque to produce useful work the engine had to be bolted down or the train wouldn't move plus if the carriages had weights in them as greenpeace claim the trains momentum would be greater thus the impact would be bigger so they clearly have no idea what they are talking about
hod05 1 week ago
It's about time we got a few Nuclear Power Stations built before the Coal runs out. As for the Wind Turbines, they are a complete waste of time. It takes Thousands of them to power even a small Town. The Wind doesn't blow all the time after all . Also if the Wind is too strong the Turbine Blades are feathered to stop the things collapsing. Let's have a bright and Glowing Future. Keep all the lights on with lovely clean Green Nuclear Power. Let's make Britain Great Again!!
toyo671 1 month ago
@toyo671 Stop talking shite! We have enough unmined coal in this country to last us another 200 years + at current usage rates! the coal IS NOT going to run out! having said that, i am all for more nuclear energy! its clean, relatively green, the risk of pollution/accident ETC is very small in this country and the stations themselves if built properly and not on the cheap, can last YEARS! 40 or 50 years shouldn't be a problem! Greenpeace talk some shite!
bunglebiker 1 week ago
Greenpiece argument is kind of stupid cause no (accidental) train crash is ever going to be anywhere nearly as destructive so from the aspect of transport the test more than proves a reasonable amount of saftey. I might want to follow that up with explosives but I'm guessing the reason they didn't do this is the container would fail.
antares4141 2 months ago
John Baker-"I think anybody who considered that would be only trying to get into the comic strips" - brilliant reply!!! Sad end for the peak, but then again, it was only going to be scrapped anyway :( Does anybody know if the carriages were scrapped as well?
jubileehands 3 months ago
mmh Im a student living by herself
TessaJanitaxe474 3 months ago
@rbrownlie91 I think its YOU talking 'shite' as you so 'eloquently' put it! How can radiation, which is admitted to be many THOUSANDS of times WORSE than Chernobyl be considered 'safe' Are you totally retarded? What of those 50 men who were sent in to estimate just what happened directly after the event ? You think THEY are still alive? Or that they wont die very soon? You need to remove your head from your anal cavity
colliecandle 7 months ago
em 1:20 min. eles quiseram pôr uma imagem como se o trem estivesse indo bater, mas tem um maquinista dentro! que pior! Para despejar todo o peso do impacto eles teriam que pôr um anteparo rígido o suficiente para suportar o impacto, como um vagão carregado de pedras. Como ficou solto, o contâiner pulou como uma bola sendo chutada! Pura pirotecnia!
juniormorini 7 months ago
This is laughable ! First Chernobyl (killed million + with radiation sickness) and then Fukishima (STILL melting down and releasing vast quantities of radioactive shit) will kill MANY more globally and far worse than Chernobyl and NOW America nuclear plant in trouble !
colliecandle 7 months ago
fuck greenpiece fucking bellends
pyronathanpyro 9 months ago 3
"Tonight, on the season finale of Thomas the Tank Engine, BoCo decides to end it all in spectacular fashion."
neildKoR 9 months ago 2
This was filmed in may 1980 .
BROADTRAIN1979 9 months ago
My Dad helped paint the flask a few years after that event...it's sat outside haysham powerplant at the moment, still yellow:)
Baatis15 9 months ago
total waste of a peak! epic clip though.
thehoff1982 9 months ago
@thehoff1982 All the 46s were out of service by the end of that year, 1984. This one was simply allowed a spectacular last run before they scrapped her on the spot.
danlefou 9 months ago
fuck greenpeace
exet 9 months ago
The timescale for estimating the downside of Nuclear power is 200,000 years
In 200,000 years when we go back and examine the impact we will know.
And just counting the deaths of the biorobots at chernobyl to get a statistic is a great injustice to millions of affected people.
rwerk66 10 months ago
I seriously worry about the way people misuse statistics in this debate.
The estimated chances are wrong.
A 0.000000001/ yr chance of something does not mean it wont happen and does not mean it will happen in 1/0.000000001 years.
It also does not mean because it happened today it won't happen again tomorrow.
And the experimental data does not match the industry estimates so far.
rwerk66 10 months ago
Solar energy powers my house and it only cost $13000 in total
TheSolarmike 10 months ago
OK spin experts below:
The new plants solve none of the problems at fukushima - stop the spin and wait for the analysis.
Used to be greepeace member - lol.
Read Nureg-1738 ect - this accident is possible at every plant with a fuel pool
R4 was not in operation and the Reactor design irrelevant.
Stop this nonsense you stupid nasty people,
rwerk66 10 months ago
I used to be a member of Greenpeace. However after reading many reports and being involved in 'campaigns' I left. Most of the information they use in their 'scare' tactics is incorrect and/or out of date. Regardless of what 'fact's are presented to them, they disagree with them, unless they meet the 'beliefs' of Greenpeace.
c53204 11 months ago
They should have redone the test and let the Greenpeace lot ride on the train.
EmmaLovelace 11 months ago 28
2 cars and one locomotive very unlike especially with freight trains try somthing like 100 mph between 15-25 cars
phantomhacker90 1 year ago
Comment removed
danlefou 9 months ago
Greenpeace está correto!
heliodequeiroz 1 year ago
they don't 'crumple' like a car when they collide into something. It was a 6 axle loco, if they weren't serious they would of used a 4 axle loco. The flask was also struck with the strongest part of the loco. Then theres the 'Engine being unbolted'. Even IF thats true, it doesn't change the fact that you have over 300 tons of steel impacting on the flask at 100mph and it survived. You don't need to be Einstein to realize that the kinetic energy released in that kind of collision is fuckin huge.
vejet 1 year ago 14
You know what, I actually understand greenpeace's stance and I support their existence. But what they're stance on this test is utter nonsense. First off their not the resident expert when it comes to the dynamics of train crashes. Air born coaches? Thats a joke. Even empty those coaches weight at least 20 tons. They're not going to fly like an airplane just because of a sudden sharp deceleration. As for the loco not being the strongest. ALL Locomotives are massive pieces of equipment,
vejet 1 year ago 3
Haha unbolted engine. If engine were really unbolted it would rip itself out of the loco at the moment it started.
SkyyCaptainn 1 year ago
Greenpeace needs to learn one thing: never argue with a country that has nuclear weapons. The next Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior may involve one (just keep the bombing away from New Zealand this time!)
lcmortensen 1 year ago
I know it wasn't I was involved in this test.
HanZiField 1 year ago
Greenpeace can just buy their own stuff and fix the world.......oh wait, they use our money!
acenace24 1 year ago
Greenpeace just sits on their asses all day
acenace24 1 year ago
1:12
GelandnaleG 1 year ago
greenpeace can go to hell
CThompson151 1 year ago 2
So the flask involved was made by Sheffield Forgemasters, at a cost of £250,000, which was a lot of money back in 1981. To this day (because I saw it on Thursday) it's on display outside the Training Centre at Heysham Power Station, a few miles south of Morecambe. It's got a few dings in the buttresses, but that's it.
LunkShooter 1 year ago
so greenpeace wants us to use fossil fuels? okay
johnlovesmoney 1 year ago 4
hey every1 i know the truth and the real crash, the mod from reme 35 base old dalby would not let nobody film it, the film was a stage. because the train blew the real tank to bits covering fields with low radio active wast and toxic wast lets just say i had a relative work there when it was an army camp. and believe me some of the grass on crown business park still grows orange
B0B78422 1 year ago
@B0B78422 - Er, your relative is pulling your leg. I was an apprentice at REME Old Dalby at the time and watched the crash live as it happened from the hillside at the rear of the depot. Colonel Keist gave us an extended lunch hour to see it. You weren't allowed to take cameras into the site at any time without permission (PC 'Blackbeard' would have dabbed you on the gate if you had!) so no-one inside the site took any photos or cine film. There was no nuclear spillage & the tank was fine.
Panjetani 7 months ago
wtf there is a man in the train lol
pyronathanpyro 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hey Greenpeace, go suck a fat one!
GamertagUbaeef 1 year ago
heavist available? bollocks the Class 46 wasnt the heaveyish available the Class 55 Deltics were!!!
55022RSG 1 year ago 2
@55022RSG The Deltics were retired by this point.
theredraven 1 year ago
@55022RSG I see. An how many Deltics were still available for this kind of test in 1984?? By then, they'd all been scrapped or preserved in private ownership.
baconsandwich2007 1 year ago
@55022RSG Heaviest available to whom? Was a class 55 available in the right time, place and within the right budget for a crash test?
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb 100 tonne 55 or 138 tonne 46. You decide
baz15god 1 year ago
LMAO "leave our employment rapidly or make a name for themselves in the comic strips" this guy takes no shit.
AppleOfGlasgow 1 year ago 19
@AppleOfGlasgow Shutup
1madaboutguitar 6 months ago
I saw this very flask at Oldbury power station in the 80s, it only had a few bent ribs.
SaOuGenLa 1 year ago
deze trein had toch voorrang of niet?
jack15295 1 year ago
Everything is just rubbish!
God, Greenpeace, go away.
Courtanie 1 year ago
How 'Greenpeace' got into this debate stresses the boundaries of credulity. You know much atmospheric radiation is released in conventional coal plants? Do you know how many hydroelectric dams you'd have to build to replace the watts from nuclear power generation? Those would be bigger liabilities without accidents. Advancing and developing nuclear energy is potentially and practically the greenest route you could go?
granddad2002 1 year ago
Greenpeace sounds like 9/11 truthers. Nitpicking things that seemed weird and making up random accusations to explain them.
TheStann 1 year ago 2
people stop watching this crap and watch porn its entertaining
yorni2008 1 year ago
@yorni2008 LMAO, amazing comment haha.
AppleOfGlasgow 1 year ago
So the engine was released so it would go over the flask and not into it and the carriages were weighed down so they'd go into the flask and not over it. Ooooookay.
SpellboundSolution 1 year ago
The CEGB actually put nuclear waste in the flask; that's how confident they were that it would not be broken. They could be sure of this since, as the bloke below said, it was all camera work, though the train actually hit at 3mph, not five.
FlukemasterGeneral 1 year ago
Did he died?
AGoGoPogo 1 year ago
@AGoGoPogo
The locomotive was fitted with a sort of remote control, allowing the loco to move without the Drivers safety devices to applying and hence applying the trainbrakes.
This is what i was told by an Ex-BR driver who knew some of the people involved.
As for greenpeaces complaints, total rubbish, the Peak classes were (and still are) some of the heaviest locos to grace the National Rail Network.
AKirkland07 1 year ago
RUBBISH!!!!
kkfan91 1 year ago 3
FAKE
1madaboutguitar 1 year ago
@1madaboutguitar
How is this fake?? Its a staged accident...
AKirkland07 1 year ago
@AKirkland07 Its all camerawork, the actual train hit at 5mph
1madaboutguitar 1 year ago
@1madaboutguitar Anyone who says that train hit at 5mph is a moron. If it hit at 5mph it wouldn't have...oh you know....EXPLODED! What kind of tard believes something like that, seriously. A 5mph crash doesn't not send the engine of a train hurtling 50 ft into the air.
hzuiel 11 months ago
@hzuiel The explosion was just a zoom in from an electric train set. The actual train was travelling at 5mph but sped up with playback and mixed with the scenery of an electric toy train set, together with effects...
1madaboutguitar 11 months ago
@1madaboutguitar My condolences to your parents.
hzuiel 11 months ago 3
@hzuiel Ha Ha
1madaboutguitar 11 months ago
Comment removed
danlefou 9 months ago
@1madaboutguitar Troll fail.
danlefou 9 months ago
@hzuiel Nothing exploded; the loco's fuel tank ruptured, splashing diesel onto the hot engine. The fuel vaporised, then was ignited by sparks from the generator as it broke away from the engine (which stayed firmly in place) and flew 25-30 (not 50) feet into the air. I timed the train passing the platform end in another clip at 100.7 mph.
danlefou 9 months ago
@danlefou We obviously both share the same view or idea of the validity of this test and it's set of circumstances so why nitpick at my choice of words?
hzuiel 9 months ago
@hzuiel Well, there's a common misperception that it was the engine that flew out, when it was actually the generator. I just wanted to set the record straight.
danlefou 9 months ago
and Again rubish!! ha
honchomike563 1 year ago 2
aggah a class 46 46s are great i hate green peace and the stupid idia of crashing a great loco in to a nucular flask boo grean peace hang your head in shame and go and think about what you have done!!!!!
MrJezza31 1 year ago
fucking hell, they crashed a train into a container
fairyheli2 1 year ago
Engine wasn't bolted my ass. If it wasn't the engine would of threw itself out of the body and frame. Those bolts won't hold a 1000+k pound deisel engine to the frame when it comes to sudden impact.
capricornGTR 1 year ago
is it really a good argument they had, they drove a fucking train into a sealed box and it survived, short of actually takeing the stuff that was surpossed to go in the box out and using it to make a nuke, id think its safe to say thats one tuff mofucking stash box, need one for my green : p
couger911 2 years ago
even if they did fake something about the train, WHO CARES?
THEY CRASHED A FUCKING TRAIN INTO IT
mynameisdarthtater 2 years ago 9
BULL SHIT those carriges look like MK1s they have buckeye couplings this means that in a crash they wont fly in the air or roll over anyone who knows anything about trains know that. The Class 46 peak is a very heavy solid locomotive too
1position69 2 years ago 2
what a bunch of crap from greenpeace. saying the engine was unbolted. if it had been it it would surely rip itself out of the locomotive. and as for it being specially chosen to crumple on impact, the class 46 was the heaviest diesel locomotive they had.
we should use nuclear energy over coal, there is lots less pollution and it's not like it's dangerous. nuclear power stations don't melt down all the time.
alexx400 2 years ago 74
@alexx400
How is dumping nuclear waste into the ocean and into old copper mines not poluting the environment?
snedie69er 2 years ago
Are you just repeating what the report said or have you researched this. It is dumb to simply take what is said at ce value. Fact is that money is involved, so it is within reason that they would fake this if they could. They are not about their reputation, their company is built on being the lowest bidder, quality comes second.
IHATEYOUMORE01 2 years ago
Thankyou for a logical statement, there are way to many environmentalists out there touting their BS.
PokemonHaloFan 2 years ago
@alexx400 The Greenpeace allegations were so nonsensical that I'm surprised they had the balls to make them. All I can assume is that they knew eff all about railway locomotives; I'm pretty much 100% sure it wouldn't work if the engine was unbolted.
MontytheHorse 1 year ago
Comment removed
capricornGTR 1 year ago
@capricornGTR uranium isn't great stuff to hold with your bare hands, but that's not so much because of radiation. coal is pretty well known to cause cancer just as well if not better than any radiation you're likely to come across as a result of nuclear power. there's also great lines about coal like "if you don't got silicosis or pay that's just atrocious..." and the rest is basically phil ochs saying that they should let the miners unionize
ucihapokujin 1 year ago
@capricornGTR If nuclear is so dangerous and coal is not; then how come the deaths from coal power in China equal 250 Chernobyl equivalents per year(extrapolating using the LNT model; using the 56 verifiable deaths 18000 chernobyls per year)? Coal deaths in China every year are on the same scale as the number of people killed in Auswitch concentration camp for fucks sake.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
Comment removed
capricornGTR 1 year ago
@capricornGTR 1. If it's so dangerous, where are all the deaths? The answer of course, is that it's very easy to contain and shield. The volume of material is tiny and it's just an inert, dense ceramic.
There have been studies on the likely effects of puncturing a fuel shipment cask(and the only way the author managed to accomplish that was by invoking terrorists using a massive shaped charge to punch a neat little hole). The computed result of this was ~1 death, again invoking LNTH.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@capricornGTR 2. The absorbed dose in man-sieverts from Chernobyl will scarcely increase over the next 300 years and the fig leaf of latency can no longer be invoked.
UN chernobyl forums 20th anniversary report(2006) found no increase in rates of cancer mortality during the first 20 years. One of the biggest most comprehensive studies, a cohort of 65 905 clean up workers who recieved 5-300 mSv, showed cancer rates of 73-85% of controls during all studied years(1991-1998).
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@soylentgreenb look up nuclear vs coal
capricornGTR 1 year ago
@capricornGTR 3. Coal waste is so voluminous and so fleeting as to be almost uncontainable. Despite quite heroic efforts it still kills 30 000 annually in the United States. That's only particulates, not NoX, SoX, mercury pollution or long term effects of GHGs.
Coal in the west should be compared to civilian nuclear power in the west, zero deaths and counting from radiation exposure; similar number of deaths from accidents involving heavy machinery as any other large construction project.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
@capricornGTR 3. cont. spent fuel is a few percent of fission products and TRUs stored in a matrix of dense uranium dioxide ceramic, stored inside zirconium tubes and either deep under water or in heavily shielded containers. There is no mechanism for significant exposure in properly designed reactors and Chernobyl demonstrated pretty conclusively that the worst case nuclear accident is tame compared to a state of the art coal plant.
soylentgreenb 1 year ago
Comment removed
capricornGTR 1 year ago
@capricornGTR Just because you don't understand how doesn't mean it's not possible. Look into those statistics that soylentgreenb quoted of 30,000 deaths annually. Those aren't statistics he invented. Researchers factor in people dieing of respiratory problems caused by pollution and other such things. Besides those, there are more accidents in coal plants than nuclear plants on average that result in serious injury or death. Coal mining is one of the most dangerous professions. Etc.
hzuiel 11 months ago
Comment removed
capricornGTR 11 months ago
@capricornGTR Fukushima is one of only 3 major accidents in the history of nuclear energy. Plus the experts don't even know how far reaching the effects of that accident are, so obviously neither do you. And you aren't considering what we're telling you. Nuclear plants under normal operation do not release pollution into the atmosphere, whereas coal is always releasing pollution, that results in many deaths every year according to scientists. Plus deaths from coal mining and accidents in plants.
hzuiel 11 months ago
the effects are reaching a lot more further than you think. Coal plants are better off being placed back in the ground and stick to burning "dead" trees. However Nuclear reactors are quite litterly operational catastrophies waiting to happen. Either way it's bs that peeps are dying. Especially when they know the risks before applying. IF they actually pay close attention or do some research on the job before applying. no coal minors/workers+no one to run the mills= no pollution from coal.
capricornGTR 11 months ago
@capricornGTR You still aren't getting it. Of course the deaths in the coal mining industry, as well as accidents in coal plants are nothing to snuff at but we aren't even talking about that. The pollution itself from coal plants, kills people, via respiratory illness, according to scientists, in all sorts of areas within the vicinity of coal powered plants. There are 442 nuclear power plants currently in operation around the world. Not including decomissioned plants. Only just now has a 3rd
hzuiel 11 months ago
@capricornGTR major accident happened, and it was the result of a catostrophic natural disaster. Plus there are newer safer designs for reactors, all the major accidents have been old old reactorts. They can switch out the uranium for thorium and the risk of melt down drops to nearly nothing, even with older reactors, but especially with newer reactors. Use of breeder reactors and thorium could potentially power the world for 10's of thousands of years. Coal, 300 at best, plus the pollution.
hzuiel 11 months ago
@alexx400 "don`t melt down all the time"? True, but when they do will leave a huge area unusable for habitation for hundreds if not thousands of years... Did you sleep through Chernobyl? 336,000 people resettled and the fallout was detected over all of Europe. The waste products from these stations will still be highly hazardous long after life as we know it. As more and more and built the chance of further events increase. Sounds like pretty hardcore pollution to me.
tspcrowther 1 year ago
@tspcrowther
That's because it was badly build and didn't have dome. Chernobyl power station was production electricity to year 2000... quite a long time after that accident.
MokomaSusi 1 year ago
@alexx400 Oh i beg to differ Mr Alexx400.
thepiper84 1 year ago
@alexx400 I'm glad I'm not the only sane person. The only meltdowns that have taken place so far have been in OLD reactors. The issue is funding, reactors needs to be constantly updated and improved and periodically decomissioned and replaced with newer technology. There are no nuclear plants in the US that were built after the 60's i believe. Maybe the 70's. Plus they already have facilities under construction that can contain the waste in solid bedrock away from civilization, and containers
hzuiel 11 months ago
@hzuiel
Of course meltdowns are only in old reactors when as you point out they are all old reactors.
It's like saying that most car accidents are in old cars - so new cars wont have accidents.
rwerk66 10 months ago
@rwerk66 No, it's not like that at all. Because new car designs don't reduce the chances of an accident to nearly nothing, no matter what safety features a car has, it can still be crashed, there are many reactor designs that are newer and much safer that have been built since the 60's, and dozens of newer designs that they haven't even gotten to try yet. In the news when they were talking about fukushima, a scientist they interviewed said france has some reactors that are built so that even if
hzuiel 10 months ago
@hzuiel
Show me a single proposed reactor for the US that cannot have an SFP accident like R 4.
As for newer and untried designs, when they become tried or even about to get funded get back to me.
I have see designs for nuclear rockets to the stars - I like those - but they are not happening, so not relevant.
Right now I can cost effectively go solar and there is no sign of me having any nuclear sourced power now. I will stick with the here and now - not the maybe someday safety.
rwerk66 10 months ago
@rwerk66 That's the issue, people are pissing in their pants scared of nuclear so they don't even fun the research. Also according to what i've read, almost any uranium plant can be converted to thorium, it's not an if, they know it's capable of working, they just haven't for some reason. And if they switch to thorium, all your arm flailing paranoia goes right out the window because thorium won't reach the temperatures that uranium will if the core is exposed, and it takes far less time to cool.
hzuiel 10 months ago
@rwerk66 they melt down and the pressure causes them to explode, all of the escaping gasses and radiation are channeled through scrubbers that remove over 90% of the radiation before it escapes upwards into the atmosphere. So the backup to the backup of the backup is that even if the reactor is toast, very little radiation escapes and as long as everyone evacuated the facility, nobody dies.
Also from what i've read, they can switch to using thorium instead of uranium, and it won't melt down.
hzuiel 10 months ago
@hzuiel
SFPs have scrubbers do they?
The Fukushima reactors have systems to remove the radiation from venting also - that is what the suppression torus is.
The fact is that in some circumstance the systems will fail - this is one of those circumstances.
A car accident kills a few people - a reactor problem may wipe out a country - different thing entirely.
rwerk66 10 months ago
@hzuiel
As for thorium - yes it is preferable - but how many of the proposed reactors can switch to thorium?
How many thorium reactors have successfully operated?
Again - a nice theory- but one not being practiced - Like saying we could all drive a safer car so cars are safer???
rwerk66 10 months ago
@alexx400 to transport the waste that can withstand train crashes, but people would rather drive their gas guzzling suv's and live on coal power which is a rapidly diminishing natural resource. And there have been far more deaths in and injuries in coal power plants than nuclear by proportion, not to mention the whole mining process that goes on for coal is MASSIVE and results in the deaths of many miners annually. I believe coal mining is the second most dangerous job in the world.
hzuiel 11 months ago
@alexx400
Not all the time- just every 25 years ruining lives, killing thousands, causing deformities for generations.
Not to mention the accidents you forget to mention that are not meltdowns.
So yes - fine we can make countries unliveable as long as we don't do it every day.
You need a brain and a calculator.
rwerk66 10 months ago
@rwerk66
You do realize that there is a much higher average death toll every year in coal mining then in nuclear power plants, right?
Also, out of the all the accidents involving nuclear energy, most do not involve fatalities. Nuclear plants have also improved greatly since Chernobyl. As for Fukushima, there admittedly was a design fault- being built on a fault line.
Also, if you want to be taken seriously, don't insult people for their opinion.
Commander6444 10 months ago
@Commander6444
Who said coal was good.
OK most accidents in most plants of any type do not involve fatalities - that is relevant why?
Nuclear plants all have flaws - I base this opinion amongst other things the NRC reports.
There are many many plants at risk of going the way of reactor 4 at Fukushima - no matter how new the design. Again this is based on NRC reports and other studies.
The new design argument is pure rubbish.
rwerk66 10 months ago
@alexx400 *cough* japan *cough*
iToasterman 10 months ago
@iToasterman
Look at the original comment's date- 1 year ago.
Commander6444 10 months ago
@Commander6444 point?
iToasterman 10 months ago
@iToasterman
That if you thought he was ignorant to what's happening in Japan, this was before it ever happened.
Commander6444 10 months ago
@Commander6444 i don't think its ignorant O_o i think japan is a big statment for that comment
iToasterman 10 months ago
I always thought it was a shame that a peak46 had to buy the farm on this one. Crumbs theres only 3 in preservation. Couldn't they have pushed a heavy loaded wagon instead...oh well.
vorlonb3 2 years ago
Love the way the engine (the heaviest part of the loco) went sailing up into the over the flask.
And why only three carriages?
AtheistOrphan 2 years ago
Next time a similar test with a nuke flask, takes place, use a 125 mph Virgin Voyager because its supposed to have crumpled zones and fill it with weights
sandletters39 2 years ago
Maybe DRS might like to repeat this. I'm sure they could spare a Class 66.
or several, perhaps.
AndreiTupolev 2 years ago
perhaps they would require to be regeared for 100 mph but their maximum speed is only 75 mph.
sandletters39 2 years ago
90MPH in regular service, but easily capable of 100 with a light train.
danlefou 2 years ago
Morons from GreenPeace are sometimes no different to conspiracy theorists regarding 911. Neither of them are scientists and all they strive for is to stir shit up without any knowledge or authority on the matter.
However, I'll let them fight the bullshit "research" Japanese whaling vessels are claiming. You don't need to kill thousands of whales to research them. Bet the meat is sold to restaurants after that bullshit "research". Lying monkeys!
MrOllyK 2 years ago
But those Japanese whaling ships ARE researching! they are researching how many whales it's possible to kill.
It is sold to restaurants- that's the whole point, theres no scientific reasoning behind it, its just a convenient bit of legislation to hide your true motives behind.
mrspivvy 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@mrspivvy
"But those Japanese whaling ships ARE researching! they are researching how many whales it's possible to kill."
Absolutely. The main problem is they're whaling and lying about it in our Australian waters. It's tantamount to trespass however our feeble Kevin Rudd prefers Asian trade to honesty. Some things have been said recently that "look" like something will be done, but I reckon it's just more bluster to hide imminent failings on this issue.
MrOllyK 1 year ago
Greenpeace LOL!!! STFU
performancens 2 years ago
green peace sucks ass...
damage to our world has allready been done.. why keep on
BIASpotter 2 years ago
Whether it's true or not, you know Greenpeace will always say the same thing.
Leadwerks 2 years ago
Uhhh... so greenpeace doesn't want us to use a fuel source that's got plenty of fuel? hmm...
goldendisc 2 years ago
Man there are some dumb kids on this site. I work in the industry and the test was very necessary. You just can't replicate a crash between another train and a flask being transported in a lab.
The whole point is the flask CANNOT leak under any circ's, they have to be completely inpenetrable without the right tools so you don't get any leakage of the contaminated fluids inside. This isn't a case of the thing going off like a nuclear bomb. That's completely impossible.
phatman5000 2 years ago
how did they get it up to speed without a driver?
jackieboyish 2 years ago
Remote control. BTW, greenpeace needs to shut the fuck up. They are not experts in any of this. Just a bunch of hippies slowing everything down
Lonewolfs117 2 years ago 2
those hippys are going to send the UK back to the dark ages.
Owentheguitarist666 2 years ago 4
The controls were set and the brakes were released outside the cab.
sandletters39 2 years ago 2
4:05 williamstown service will be delayed due to left wing conspiracies. Connex would like apologise for any inconvenience, but they're total cunts, so they won't. So just sit there and shut the fuck up you pinko greeny fags.
murrangurk 2 years ago
lol rubbish!
SchumieFan01 2 years ago
I fucking hate Greenpeace.
sniper6081 2 years ago 84
Yeah those Greenpeace guys always trying to save our world and pointing out how companies polluting our water, food, air with harmful waste! Screw those guys they are jerks!
Lets like the money grubbing companies who are killing our eco-system!
Dumbass
1jks 2 years ago
You're not really that dense, are you?
sniper6081 2 years ago
@sniper6081 oh i hate them too! bunch a good dooing bastard who have nothing better to do than champion everyone else's causes!!! Away and work Greenpeace people.
thepiper84 1 year ago
@sniper6081 then you hate our planet and nature punk ass bich!!
jmganjaman 1 year ago
@jmganjaman Really? Greenpeace is nature and the Earth? I just thought they were a bunch of loud mouth scientific illiterates. What logic. You hate Greenpeace? Then you murder children and eat babies.
sniper6081 1 year ago
I'm usually all for Greenpeace, but this sounds stupid to me; making up reasons to justify they're own existance
mattouli 2 years ago 5
It's impressive that the tail-end cab of the locomotive was almost completely intact once the smoke cleared.
gguru1 2 years ago
I wonder if a "Shed" could be modified to do 100mph and then used in a crash test similar to the one shown on this video.
R.I.P 46009
Captainscarletfan 2 years ago
the arranged crash seems 2 b only a cover up so it wont drive pp away from near by stations wich would mean less passengers cuz alot of the time when i hear Nuclear i avoid it at all cost and y would they have suck a thing inveted any how ??? i mean common Nuclear Flask? g wizz whats on most desater moves i seen its seeming become reality (nuke nuke nuke nothing but nukes)
rather dumb huh
coolnerd92 2 years ago
Greenpeace is obviously a neo- enviromental group based against any human devolopement.
They are more against solutions to enviromental troubles than finding solutions in the first place.
They are counter productive to society and I wish that they would shut the Hell up,
tarmac2001 2 years ago 8
One less peak!!!!!
4SRKT 2 years ago
Fucking greenpeace - trouble written all over them.
bertyUK 2 years ago 3
Green peace are a bunch of lying leftist scumbags. Take nothing they say without a big tablespoon of salt.
TheTerminator97 2 years ago 5
I've never heard that before. Care to elaborate on the phrase, "say nothing without a big tablespoon of salt"?
naxps 2 years ago
Search "Operation Smash Hit" for a documentary on this crash and the whole test programme. The driverless loco is shown being started on its way.
danlefou 2 years ago
I'll certainly concede to the CEGB that the Class 46 was the heaviest locomotive available for this test. Those things were pigs. No heavier diesel or electric locomotive has ever run in Britain that I know of; the 46 is significantly heavier even than the similar 45 and 44. I suppose the successor companies to CEGB still use the same waste flasks?
dblissmn 2 years ago
They do indeed!
cjmillsnun 2 years ago
Believe the CEGB are wrong in saying the engine wasn't tampered with.. Technically anyway - wasn't the train heavily modified to reach the higher speed? I thought the 46's top speed was only 90?
daveworley 2 years ago
I found a report saying the collision speed was only about 90.
danlefou 2 years ago
A diesel driver on the Llangollen Railway told me the 90 mph top speed was only advisory, aimed at prolonging locomotive life, and a 46 with three coaches could easily reach 100 mph without any modification.
They often did so when making up lost time.
danlefou 2 years ago
That's a mighty heavy engine block sailing through the air! For those who are curious, it's a sulzer double 6, (similar to that found on a class 47) and weighs nearly 20 tons!
smiffy1071 2 years ago
What Kind of Engine was that? never seen one of these locomotives before
jtreign9097 2 years ago
class 44 i think type it in on google (class 44 )
Gauge1channel 2 years ago
thanks
jtreign9097 2 years ago