imagine being a voltagelet
>>2060364Is this real? You guys don't have electrified rail?
>>2060374
>>2060374Various railroads tried electrification in the early 20th century when steam ruled the rails to combat local problems like smoke abatement, tunnels, and grades. Virginian, N&W, GN, and the Milwaukee Road all had their own electrified segments, among other lines. The diesels did it in, once the second generation locomotives hit the rails most of the wire had been pulled down.
>>2060387Probably for the same reason that trolley cars were replaced with buses: lobbying by motor companies.
>>2060391bot
>>2060391>lobbying by motor companiesYes, that surely has to be reason and not cheaper operations, more flexible routes, and so on. By 1914 the idea of someone with a car and a chauffeur's license and transporting someone to their destination directly was so widespread streetcar systems were losing hundreds of dollars (1914 dollars) a day and were getting laws passed to ban the practice.
>>2060387Interesting
KEEPING THE DREAM ALIVE
>>2060387>>2060391Electrification is only better than diesel if you have enough part of the rail network electrified and traffic is high enough for the fixed costs to be offset by cheaper operation. Early electrification was at times just specific stretches, like a steep grade or a tunnel. This would mean switching locomotives which is time and labour intensive. With diesel locomotives the bothersome operation of these electrified stretches could be done away with. Henceforth electrification was only implemented for larger networks, like the northeast corridor, or in Europe for large chunks of the national rail networks.tl;dr usefulness of electrification depends on the situation, and some early electrification was only to mitigate steam-specific limitations.
>>2060478i think that's my first time seeing a mainline train with a trolley polealso holy shit those wires could use some tension
>>2060365i'm always amazed at how the dirt poor pajeets are able to have a 90+ percent electrified network in a giant country while westoids will spend billions on developing gadgety battery train technology instead of just putting the damn wire up
>>2060528It's quite simple when you've a massive central bureaucracy, a cult-of-personality government, little to no rule of law and anti-corruption oversight, plus access to billions in World Bank investment since the late 1940s.
>>2060530and do you have any evidence that india's electrification was due to corruption?
>>2060531Specifically? No, just that the presence of everything else I noted enables corruption: especially in a country with a Corruption Perception Index of 36 (0 meaning corrupt, 100 meaning clean) as of 2024.>https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2024/index/ind
>>2060530good points, yet i still think we could easily do it with our wealth if there was any political will to make things better. like those battery (or even worse, fucking hydrogen) gimmicks are obviously inferior technology to good ol copper wire with a stick, and yet we will spend a ton of money on them while ignoring actual long-term investments that would benefit everyone (including our budgets) in the long run. why? seems to me like a priorities issue.
>>2060532>Specifically? Nothen the relevance is, especially when corruption usually makes infrastructure projects harder and more expensive?
>>2060534Whether or not corruption makes infrastructure projects harder and more expensive is besides the point. It's relevant because, like I said, corruption doesn't exist in a vacuum: it's an inevitable outcome of all the other things I mentioned as well.
>>2060537you are ignoring the key point: what is the relevance?
>>2060538I'm not sure what you're demanding I prove. As I said, I don't have any evidence that India's railway electrification was 'due to corruption', as was asked in >>2060531, because that doesn't make sense. We don't seem to be arguing whether or not India is considered to be 'somewhat corrupt', either.If we're in agreement that India is a 'somewhat corrupt' country, as I've pointed out in >>2060532, then there are many ways that corruption could have occurred in the electrification project. The specific methods aren't relevant, though, as you say.
>>2060539>then there are many ways that corruption could have occurred in the electrification projectyou were directly saying that corruption made electrification easier
>>2060393if only these people were bots. They all just watched the same wendover production video 10 years ago and never grew up and actually looked into anything.
>>2060527Calling IATR anything "mainline" is a big stretch.They run almost 11 miles outside of Mason City, IA serving local industries and interchanging with UP and CPKC.
>>2060553"main line" can also mean "part of the national railway network", which as you can see from your pic they clearly are
>>2060554"no"
>>2060556I never worked under GCOR when I railroaded, but that main track definition feels whack when you throw in yard limits.
>>2060556not present: a definition of "main line"
>>2060559Main track is the same thing as main line, moron.
>>2060558Yard limits is an authority type under GCOR.
>>2060562no it isn't, you fucking retard
>>2060567You tell me what the difference is, jack ass.>>2060563I know. I argued with people all the time that yard limits is your authority for occupying the main, not the yard master's ROUTING INSTRUCTIONS. I pulled out my old rule book and it turns out it has the same definition for main track as GCOR.
>>2060570Nta but I worked a number of territories and never saw a yard with Yard Limits. Every one I worked into was designated "Other Than Main Track." I don't remember Argentine having them and I was told it was the biggest on the system. I began to wonder where they actually were, maybe it was mostly a holdover from a predecessor railroad on a distant part of the system.Not making an argument one way or the other, it was just funny to me that a bunch of rail yards don't have Yard Limits in the technical sense.
>>2060571Yard limits doesn't necessarily equal a yard and vice versa. Yard limits only applies on the main and not yard tracks. Where I worked, there was loads of yard limits.
>>2060362Electric trains have no oomph and are bad for your health, think ill stick with my CAR
>>2060572As an example of "not really a yard" having yard limits, we had 4 mile stretch designated as yard limits because there were 2 grain elevators side by side with a few storage tracks. It was easier to coordinate multiple jobs pulling and spotting and letting trains through than dealing with a dispatcher controlling it.
>>2060553Me on the right
>>2060570>You tell me what the difference is, jack ass.well it appears that under GCOR "main line" isn't a term in the rules
>>2060606Yeah, because the term used is main track. So again, what's the difference?
>>2060607the difference is that main line is used in different contexts to mean different thingsi'm not sure why you're struggling with this
>>2060611When would main track not mean main line?
>>2060615in contexts where the term main track isn't usedand tracks and lines aren't synonyms
>>2060528This is the difference between state-ownership and private ownership. Nationalised railways have their own issues, but will often be willing to spend on large capital projects like electrification. Electrification promises long term efficiencies by spending money now, the antithesis to short-term profit generation.Unless profit margins are threatened by diesel bills, there will never be an incentive large enough to change the operating model of US railroads. Wall Street, shareholders and the board want dividends and equity prices to increase now so they can line their pockets. It's a shame as US electrics were often unusual in their layout and far more interesting than a generic Co-Co or Bo-Bo.
>>2060528>>2060623It's not that investors are greedy or short-sighted. The payoff time for electrification could be close to a century, assuming there is one at all. You can hardly blame executives and investors for rejecting the idea.The price of electricity in the US is increasing and demand is rising faster than utilities can add capacity. The cost of labor and materials for installation (as well as train delays during) is high. The railroad will have to hire more maintainers to inspect and repair it. More power lines will have to be run from mainlines to tie into the grid. New electric locomotives will have to be purchased. The railroad will need to hire specialists to buy electricity and manage contracts with many different energy producers. There are probably other costs I can't think of offhand.If railroads don't go that route, they don't have to spend any of that money. The window for mass electrification being economically feasible here has come and gone, but it wasn't without earnest attempts by US carriers to try it - diesels just ended up being more practical. Overall I don't see what the fuss is, in some places electrification works and in others it doesn't make sense.>It's a shame as US electrics were often unusual in their layout and far more interesting than a generic Co-Co or Bo-Bo.Yeah but a modern electric freight locomotive is going to look almost identical to what's on the rails now but with a pantograph on top of it.
>>2060626>Overall I don't see what the fuss is, in some places electrification works and in others it doesn't make sense.And US freight railroads have continually acted to block electrification where it makes sense.
>>2060629>And US freight railroads have continually acted to block electrification where it makes sense.Proofs?
>>2060630ask any commuter rail agency
>>2060631>No answerAs usual.
>>2060632do you refuse to do any research of your own?
>>2060633I'm refusing to do your research
>>2060634https://www.reddit.com/r/transit/search?q=america+electrification&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on
>>2060635That's just a list of reddit results searching for "america electrification," but that doesn't substantiate anything you said.You can just admit you're bullshitting and stop replying to save some face if you want.
>>2060636if you can't be bothered to actually click on a link i can't help you
>>2060637You're that Indian who absolutely seethes at US railroads and then gets exposed because you don't know anything about our history and operations. Worry about your own subcontinent's issues. We don't worry about yours.
>>2060630I wonder if MILWanon is still around
>>2060641I am now angry. I hate what became of American railroading. How did this happen to this industry in particular? MBA's?
>>2060615I would assume main track is of a specific line, main line is the main network. It's like how there are short lines that do smaller work and spurs within those short lines. To speak nothing of technically-compatible lines, like the Memphis trolley or the railroad that goes around the Henry Ford Museum.
>>2060639OH LOOK IT'S THIS FAGGOT AGAIN
>>2060652You can make up whatever head canon you want–it's perfectly normal for children to play pretend. It doesn't make it correct.
>>2060554>industrial spur is main line because it is connected to the network
>>2060674in one sense - when you're distinguishing the main rail network from subways, light rail, etc. - yes
>>2060681Nobody cares about that except for retards like you and the idiots making youtube videos where they call cars "coaches."
>>2060683what the fuck are you on about
>>2060684What are you on about, retard? You're talking about subways and shit when everyone with actual knowledge is mocking your stupid pedantry.
>>2060685so far all you've done is go on insane tangents and fail to prove "main track" and "main line" are synonyms
>>2060686They literally are. You're some idiot that wants to talk about "the national network" and other bullshit to obfuscate the simple truth.
>>2060687>They literally are.[citation needed]
>>2060688Prove that they're not. Try using a source that's neither reddit nor your feelings.
>>2060636
>>2060690the positive claim - the one that requires proof - is the one that you are making
>>2060701Sorry, sweaty, that's not how it works here. You're wrong.
What did BC Rail's electrics run on?
>>2060708>You're wrong.[citation needed]>>2060727The very rare 50 kV AC. The only surviving 50 kV railways are the Deseret Power Railway (pictured) and the Sishen–Saldanha iron ore line in South Africa.
I guess this is the best thread to post this in. I am fucking hyped for Rail Baltica.
>>2060739Ummmm, sweaty, where are the citations for your claims? Please, no wikipedia articles. Can you prove they're still using those locomotives?
>>2060744it's quite clear that you have no actual argument
>>2060752Sir, do you have any sources for that claim?
>>2060362>Britain is the shittest YET AGAINYou just can't make this shit up anymore.
>>2060753behaving like an annoying faggot is a sign of losing the argument>>2060768consecutive uk governments have proven completely incapable of doing rail investment in any sort of sensible way
>>2060775Sir, you haven't provided any sources for your claims. The graph you have posted is a non-sequiter.
>>2060626>The payoff time for electrification could be close to a century, assuming there is one at allProbably more like 20 years, but that is a time frame that is too long for most investors. >The price of electricity in the US is increasing and demand is rising faster than utilities can add capacity.Electric railways can use regeneration, which can -20% off primary electric supply needs. In some areas railways can become net generators. It's a trade off between road vs mechanical maintenance, but the total maintenance will probably be lower.>The railroad will need to hire specialists to buy electricity and manage contracts with many different energy producers. That won't be much different from the diesel supply contracts that already exist. You do bring up good points and I definitely agree that any program would not be a simple exercise. However, a lot of these issues have been solved on other railways around the globe, like the Sishen-Saldanha and Trans-Siberian railway line, both of which run through remote regions similar to west of the Mississippi.>>2060683Coaches/cars/wagons come from old road travel vehicles like stagecoaches, carriages, etc.In the UK coaches and carriages generally refer to passenger vehicles and wagons to goods vehicles.In the US, is 'car' used for everything and you specify what it is?>>206072750 kV AC. Which is why the insulators (white disc stacks) on the locomotive and masts are so large. You do not want 50 kV of energy in an arc or short circuit.>>2060768>>2060775Most of the passenger miles (~80%) in the UK use electric trains. It's a great statistic but reflects just how dominant London and the South East are in terms of demand. More investment needs to be made on routes with latent demand and diesel islands need to be eliminated to get network effects and better asset utilisation.We've become experts at sweating assets but resilience and spare capacity are desperately needed.
>>2060778>In the US, is 'car' used for everything and you specify what it is?Yes. Passenger car, hopper car, tank car, gondola, flat car, autorack, etc.
>>2060778>Probably more like 20 years>Electric railways can use regeneration>In some areas railways can become net generators. >but the total maintenance will probably be lower.All of this sounds like wishful thinking from someone desperate to see electrification for its own sake>That won't be much different from the diesel supply contracts that already exist. Now there are fuel managers and electrical purchasers>But here's how they do it in other parts of the worldLargely irrelevant. US railroads have studied electrification since electrification became possible. It offers no advantages in the diesel era in the US.
>>2060781I'm just laying out the fact that once electrification works are completed it can pay for itself far quicker than you think, especially in the mountains. Prime example is the Cascade Tunnel, which limits the entire capacity of the BNF Northern Transcon to 30 trains per day. Every time a train passes through, the tunnel needs venting for 20−30 minutes. No venting needed for electric locomotives.The only moving parts on an electric locomotive are the motors and bogie components, halving maintenance costs per locomotive. The contact wire is the only part of the civil engineering that experiences any major wear, and even that lasts 25-30 years.
>>2060776fuck off>>2060781"lol no" is not a convincing argument
>>2060790Sir, you've refused to cite sources or use proper punctuation and capitalization. In addition to your weak arguments and name calling, I'm going to have to assume you are a worthless phone poster, ESL, or both. Please don't post on 4chan(nel) ever again.
>>2060787>I'm just laying out the fact that once electrification works are completed it can pay for itself far quicker than you thinkI doubt it. I think the costs are higher. A 20 year payoff could be justified by investors. It seems probably costs are so high and the payoff so long that it's not going to happen without some kind of public intervention.>Cascade TunnelIt would be cheaper to modify the ventilation system than electrify the entire line, or even that subdivision. If the ventilation was too severe of a limitation, that would have already been done or another plan undertaken to increase capacity.>The only moving parts on an electric locomotive are the motors and bogie components, halving maintenance costs per locomotive.The costs of diesel maintenance is reduced, but now there's the cost of maintaining the overhead wire and related equipment and connections to the grid to offset the gains. And it seems very unlikely every subdivision, branch, spur, and yard will be electrified so there will still be a need for a sizeable diesel fleet.The clear advantage electrification seems to offer is higher top operating speeds, which is unnecessary for freight.>>2060790>"lol no" is not a convincing argumentWe don't give a shit about izzat in the US.
>>2060801These retards never account for transmission losses. It is literally more efficient to bring the 240 ton power plant with you.
>>2060668Not that anon.
>>2060374No one cares about electrified rail or not except India.
>>2060820And every other first world country on the planet, minus Canada.
>>2060824Yeah but they don't actually care; besides, they don't haul freight like U.S. and Canada do.
>>2060799pot meet kettle>>2060801>The costs of diesel maintenance is reduced, but now there's the cost of maintaining the overhead wire and related equipment and connections to the grid to offset the gains.And again, you provide no sources.>And it seems very unlikely every subdivision, branch, spur, and yard will be electrified so there will still be a need for a sizeable diesel fleet.Batteries and bimodes exist. Plus the existing fleet of diesel locomotives is not undifferentiated.>higher top operating speeds, which is unnecessary for freight.peak america freight railroad brain>We don't give a shit about izzat in the US.Wow, you know the latest /pol/ buzzword! Good for you!>>2060802[citation needed]
>>2060801>The clear advantage electrification seems to offer is higher top operating speeds, which is unnecessary for freight.It's higher operating speeds across the board. The horsepower curve is a lot flatter for electric traction and allows more tractive effort at higher speeds. Higher average speeds gives better asset utilisation. E.g. you can get 2x the trains from A to B by travelling at an average of 40mph compared to 20mph.>The costs of diesel maintenance is reduced, but now there's the cost of maintaining the overhead wire and related equipment and connections to the grid to offset the gains. And it seems very unlikely every subdivision, branch, spur, and yard will be electrified so there will still be a need for a sizeable diesel fleet.You don't need to electrify everything. You can have bi-mode locomotives that allow for switching and EMUs with batteries that allow for movement around the depot.>>2060802Transmission losses are a factor but ~35% efficiency is beaten out by a combined cycle power plant at ~60%. Even with transmission losses of 10% and locomotive efficiency of 95% (~51.3%). Transmission losses would need to approach 40% to match a diesel locomotive's efficiency.
>>2060857>>2060868I've covered these points in your previous meltdown threads on this topic. If electrification made sense, it would be either completed or underway by now. We don't give a shit how India does it, if anything we should be doing the opposite.
>cost of infrastructure (wires, transformers, plants, wattage loss through wires)>versus standalone energy density of petroleum Are any of the trains turbos?
>>2060873(You)
>>2060877Post a picture of your hand.
>>2060873>>2060886>loses his shit and starts accusing everyone of being indianas expected
>>2060918Calm down Vihaan lol
>>2060918Just post a picture of your hand, Ramesh. It's so easy.
>>2060920>>2060921okay i am going to to accuse you of samefagging because you type the exact same way
>>2060930Ok go ahead. I'm giving you permission
>>2060930>Noooo! Only one person can think I'm an idiot!
>>2060933>>2060937i mean, i'd hope for the sake of my faith in humanity that there weren't two retarded faggots
>>2060943You're correct! There's only one.>(You)
>>2060944yes, yes, very clever
>>2060873>If electrification made sense, it would be either completed or underway by now.Is this nigger's only argument that [Good thing] isnt good simply because we dont have it yet?
>>2061031We had it. Multiple railroads tried it. It wasn't needed in the diesel era and by the time second generation diesels started on the rails nearly all freight electrification had been removed.
>>2061031yes, he is incapable of understanding that organisations do not always make the most societally optimal decisions
>>2061054>organisations do not always make the most societally optimal decisions>But I do!Stop posting, Ramesh.
>>2061056oh he's mad
>>2060527>also holy shit those wires could use some tensionwire is actually pretty heavy so having it completely taut is bad for it and hard to achieve without damaging it in the process. and a bit of slack helps maintain contact
>>2060528people will shriek about jeet stuff and crapitalism stuff but really it's just that normies are afraid of wires AND are afraid of electric trains because of boomer era electrified rail frying one or two retards once>>2060778>In the US, is 'car' used for everything and you specify what it is?yes, and not because of cagiebrain (though that helps). a car is just the north american way to specify any mostly enclosed vehicle for moving stuff, including the non-self-propelled. you would maybe say "wagon" if it's open toppedsimilarly, "truck" is any work vehicle that does short trip hauling, and is usually not completely enclosed. for example a "coal truck" is a comparatively short train with open-topped bins for moving coal just a few miles from a depot to a power plant. minecarts used to be called trucks.
>>2061087Everything you said is utter bullshit. Your hands used to be cut off for less heinous offenses. We need to go back.
>>2061086Funny, because high-speed railways need the wire tightened a lot. The wave that the pantograph contacting the wire causes needs to propagate along the catenary faster than the train to avoid contact loss and arcing.I guess the IATR only works at low speed and uses trolley poles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UuLKFxseqQ
>>2060528here in scotland we are putting up wire that's not connected to any other wire so we need to do battery shit to get to that wire but also we don't have that train yet and won't for like 5 years
>>2060873>If electrification made sense, it would be either completed or underway by now.Now I know for sure you're an Amerimutt. Nowhere else are people likely to make such an argument.Overall, electrical traction tends to be cheaper to operate, but requires a higher capital outlay (obviously). This is an attractive proposal for governments in most of the world (as they tend to get cheaper financing than private corps can) but in the US, private corps decided to sell off as much of the electrical traction infrastructure for scrap as they could for a one-off profit. Now they're stuck because they can't bring themselves to invest in reducing their operational costs; the margins are a little too thin for their long-term capital costs and their management aren't very imaginative or forward-thinking (outside of a horizon of the next quarter's figures).
>>2060374Electricity does not transfer well over distance. To electrify the majority of rail in the US you would need powerplants out in literally nowhere. Diesel is very obviously superior.
>>2060528It's very easy to electrify something if you have zero quality or safety standards, yes.
>>2061926tell me about these american towns without electricity>>2061927>not pictured: indian railway electrification
>>2061923Of course the turd worlder would post how mad he is at America on Christmas day. You don't know how the economy works here, you don't know how railroads work here (or their history), you don't know anything about the US yet we live in your head rent free.If electrification made sense, we'd have built it. And as I've told you before many times, we did try it out; there just wasn't an economic case to be made for it once dieselization happened. Seethe all you want.>>2061948>not pictured: indian railway electrificationI don't want to be more like India.
>>2061949oh look, here he is spouting gibberish again
>>2061951I said you could continue seething and you did. What's the problem?
>>2061953your gibberish responses
>>2061926Do what everyone else does. Step up the voltage with transformers to transmit, then step down the voltage at the point of use.If huge distances need covering then HVDC lines can be used and then converted to the voltage needed at a substation near to the point of use.You can also use auto-transformers to double the supply voltage whilst maintaining the catenary voltage at normal levels. It's been used in Japan, France, the UK and many other nations. It can been used to increase power supply (and overall capacity/performance) or to increase the distance between feeder stations to catenary.
>>2062007I don't know how much of the problem is distribution, in certain parts of the country it probably would be, in others it wouldn't. Many new trunk lines would certainly have to be built.But the main problem would be adding extra generating capacity. Most utilities are falling behind on that as demand is stripping supply because of immigration, EVs, and data centers. It will take many new plants to meet that demand plus whatever is needed to meet the demands of freight trains. That will add costs for railroads, shippers, and ultimately the public in form of higher prices for goods and electricity.If they don't electrify, none of that needs to happen - the infrastructure to produce and move diesel fuel around the country already exists.So again, there's really no economic case for electrification to happen. If there was, railroads would have already done it or plans would be underway to do it.
>>2062019once again all you can raise is hypothetical objections with no actual data. sad!
>>2062022Post a picture of your hand.
>>2062022>Non-argumentWorry about your own shithole, Vihaan. We don't worry about you.
>>2062019Generating capacity would be a tough one I agree. Saying that, combined-cycle power plants are so much more efficient (>60% vs 30-35% thermal efficiency). If the infrastructure was built, RRs could reduce the amount of diesel burned by 25%, power all their operations (including transmission losses), and still have power spare to supply other loads on the grid.Plus you can use other energy sources with electric traction. Nukes, hydro, solar, wind, and natural gas are all options that you can't fit into a locomotive.I know this is all hypothetical and institutional inertia will never allow this to happen but that doesn't mean we can't discuss it.
>>2062023>>2062026>seething retard can only respond with accusations of being indiansad!
>>2062027One thing to consider is that railroads absolutely do not want to get into the power generation game. Building new plants is billions and billions of dollars more to finance and a long list of permits to get lined up (and a high degree of risk if either falls through). They're just not going to go that route, ever. They'd rely on big power utilities to build their capacity. At the most they'd become part owners of existing/new plants. And of course, they can transport coal to them.>Nukes, hydro, solar, wind, and natural gas are all options that you can't fit into a locomotive.I don't see the point. Bragging rights? Investors don't care. FEC runs some LNG locomotives, not sure how they're working out. I could see that becoming common before electrification. >>2062028Vihaan I already said it's fine if you continue to seethe here: >>2061949
>>2062029Still no argument. Sad!
>>2062057It's fine that you're mad, Vihaan
>>2062029>>Nukes, hydro, solar, wind, and natural gas are all options that you can't fit into a locomotive.>I don't see the point. Bragging rights? Investors don't care. FEC runs some LNG locomotives, not sure how they're working out. I could see that becoming common before electrification.It's basically about being able to diversify away from a single point of failure i.e. high oil prices. When the shale oil runs out, the USA will be reliant on foreign oil again.
>>2062058>im not mad please don't write down that im mad
>>2062061>>2062064Fine by me if you continue seething, Vihaan.
>>2062065Where is the seething except from you?
>>2062066Continue seething, Vihaan. Be my guest.
>>2060742Not that I know shut but it seems like very little rail rock bedding and I always thought they used some sort of linear machibe that autoplaces tracks but it depends on length and appl context as well as local conditions I suppose
>>2062067oh he's mad
>>2062071Vihaan, I already gave you permission to seethe here: >>2061949. What's the problem?
>>2062075oh he's really mad
>>2062080Continue, Vihaan.
>>2062082seething so hard he can't come up with new slurs
>>2061949>If electrification made sense, we'd have built it.American exceptionalism is so goddamn funny.
>>2062019>demand is stripping supply because of immigrationHuh?>EVs, and data centers. It will take many new plants to meet that demandWouldnt it make sense to invest in the grid now that there's incentive to do so? Must every infrastructure improvement exist at the bleeding edge of efficiency which for some reason includes immigrants, EVs and Data Centers but not electrified rail? Im so confused
Vihaan you've been seething about the US since last year and I haven't thought about India once
>>2062483>a week and he still can't come up with new slurs
>>2062502Calling you by your name is a slur? India's a strange place, probably a bad idea for us to be anything like them.
>>2062507don't play dumb you retarded faggot
Heavy electric haulage
Guess the country
These were operating since the 1920s into the 2000s
>>2062823south africa, there's not much to guess when you keep the title
>>2062827Well, I am a retard
