Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium
12 hours ago, Poor Old Bruce said:

Class 86 at Hademore Crossing, between Tamworth and Lichfield in 1980 to show how high the pantograph was expected to go, and still perform effectively,  at a level crossing.

 

73910134_HademoreCrosssing1980.jpg.b048fd1c786471ad29b62894dda2d102.jpg

 

I think it is 86327, that was one of the few with the early type headlight. The others being 101, 103, 214 & 316, which weren't multi-jumper fitted, and 038 which I think still had a crossover pantograph.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold
On 30/10/2020 at 12:14, mpb56125 said:

86609 passing Runcorn on 30th October 2020 with Felixstowe to Garston working.

 

86 609 at Runcorn on 30th October 2020

 

 

Mark

33 years earlier and 609 had recently been converted from 009, as seen here at Euston on Saturday cobbler to Northampton.

86409_Euston_28031988

Were these locos BR's best buy?

  • Like 18
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 13/01/2021 at 23:04, Davexoc said:

 

I think it is 86327, that was one of the few with the early type headlight. The others being 101, 103, 214 & 316, which weren't multi-jumper fitted, and 038 which I think still had a crossover pantograph.

86038 did indeed have an AEI cross arm pantograph, seen here in September 1985 rolling into Euston to pick up empty stock.

 

86038_Euston_28091985

 

As did non-MU, headlight fitted 86316, seen here running through a snowy Milton Keynes on vans, in February 1986.

 

86316_MK_13021986_48129093

 

IIRC all class 87's had cross arm pans, except for 009 "City of Birmingham", until fitted with Brecknell-Willis pans from about 1983-4 on. I've searched Flickr and Google images, and have yet to come across a photo of 87009 with a cross arm pan, even pre-naming. I've only managed to find images as far back as 1977 in which the pan type can be positively identified, so the jury is still out as to whether 009 ever carried a cross arm pan.

 

I can't remember if any 86/2's had cross arm pans-i don't think so, but someone will no doubt tell me otherwise!

 

Edit:-a search on Flickr shows that 86420 was another with cross-arm pantograph.

 

Edit again:-King Arthur was of course 87010. The incident where 010 lost its pan, and my dad's comment that King Arthur had lost his crown is true, but obviously was not 009 as originally stated.

 

Edited by rodent279
  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, rodent279 said:

Were these locos BR's best buy?

There's a loaded question (and depends if you consider HST power cars, locos....)!

Even as a Leckie fan over diesel, I think the major rebuild of the 86s suspension just counts against them.  It's hard to argue against something like the Class 08 (almost unmodified in their lives) and 37.  The latter were introduced at about the same time and has seen some modification to produce the various sub-classes, but this was really to allow them to perform roles they were not originally designed for.  The 86's mods were to allow them to continue to perform the role they were designed for.

Almost 60 years service though, is still impressive for any front-line locomotive.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, rodent279 said:

I can't remember if any 86/2's had cross arm pans-i don't think so, but someone will no doubt tell me otherwise!

 

The 26th of August 1974 shot from Robmcrorie on Flickr shows 86 236 with a cross-arm.

 

Kilsby Tunnel

 

I’ve probably got some other examples, but I’ll need to do some digging. 

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Gold

86613 and 86632 passing Rugeley Trent Valley this morning working 4M45 Felixstowe to Garston, reported to be the final time 86’s will be on this working.

 

3B68B820-F9BD-4031-B1A9-246E86F40D16.jpeg.4e9630f8e50d8c220f9c77b26e17ed88.jpeg

 

926797D1-946A-405D-85E0-E4824DA5557F.jpeg.7c355b3dcf8c95d821434d424ba9ff91.jpeg

  • Like 16
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, DBC90024 said:

It would be great if someone has photographed it to put it up here as to how Crewe's electrification looked originally when electric trains ran only this far? How were the gantries configured?  Did the contact wires terminate before the spurs for liverpool/Glasgow and Manchester ?

Sorry no photos however they would’ve looked similar to how they look now with only the remodeling of 1985 changing things slightly. Crewe to Manchester was the first section to be electrified followed by Crewe to Liverpool however the whole station complex would’ve been electrified. Electrification was then extended south to London. The line to Liverpool diverges from the Glasgow line at Weaver Junction north of Crewe.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, rockershovel said:

I’m no fan of diesels, but the electrification programme seems to have been carried out so much better... 

Is there a hint of sarcasm in there?

 

The diesel programme lasted about 12 years for the main thrust and removal of steam traction after which we got just the 56, 58 and finally the 60 as freight flows developed the need for their power.

 

Electrification has been an ongoing stop start thing since 1950 and there is no real sign of when they will ever complete the Midland Main line, the South West, North Wales  in fact I think they want to now use other means to carry the electricity or it's means of production within the unit again but use cleaner means - wires are now so passé. 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Is there a hint of sarcasm in there?

 

The diesel programme lasted about 12 years for the main thrust and removal of steam traction after which we got just the 56, 58 and finally the 60 as freight flows developed the need for their power.

 

Electrification has been an ongoing stop start thing since 1950 and there is no real sign of when they will ever complete the Midland Main line, the South West, North Wales  in fact I think they want to now use other means to carry the electricity or it's means of production within the unit again but use cleaner means - wires are now so passé. 

 

Agreed ,,, electrification is like the age of the Glaciers ... moving at 1mm a year LOL ... and the real irony is the major rail freight terminals, a good number of which have no electric traction access for which we have an abundance of electric traction which could be put to use and in turn reduce the carbon emissions aspect.

 

We need more Daventry type yards with access to the electric network and large operators like Freightliner and DB who arent afraid to use them or source new traction (as per DRS and ROG with their recent/new arrivals of the 88 and 93 - as 40 units isnt going to change the landscape so greatly)

  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, woodenhead said:

Is there a hint of sarcasm in there?

 

The diesel programme lasted about 12 years for the main thrust and removal of steam traction after which we got just the 56, 58 and finally the 60 as freight flows developed the need for their power.

 

Electrification has been an ongoing stop start thing since 1950 and there is no real sign of when they will ever complete the Midland Main line, the South West, North Wales  in fact I think they want to now use other means to carry the electricity or it's means of production within the unit again but use cleaner means - wires are now so passé. 

 

That’s an interesting point, actually. I suppose that I was familiar with the Southern suburban and urban electrics from my childhood, which were a mature technology by then; the early electric trains on the main lines seemed so right, somehow, right from the off, without the chronic problems of the diesel fleet (which was also distinguished by its often filthy and decrepit carriage stock). 

 

Leaving aside the HST 125 units, which were a spectacular success, I was utterly soured on diesels from my experiences of standing on windswept platforms waiting for an early morning LCHS stopping train, often lacking lighting or heating... the breakdowns which were sufficiently common to be met with resignation, rather than anger...   even the much-hated “waggon trains” of early ECML electrification (and it’s telling that they seem to be pretty much the only brand franchise to have impressed themselves on the memories of commuters) were grudgingly accepted as being reliable, if nothing else. 

 

Electrification was THE FUTURE, in a way that diesels never were. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 50A55B said:

Back to when WCML expresses still had to change traction to get to Scotland and 87s just had to make do with a number. 87029 had been in traffic for only 5 months when I photographed it at Euston awaiting departure. Another Kodak Instamatic shot so not the sharpest but still one of my favourites.

 

Wonderful shot, and from my preferred period too.

 

Regards

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 05/02/2021 at 17:24, 50A55B said:

Back to when WCML expresses still had to change traction to get to Scotland and 87s just had to make do with a number. 87029 had been in traffic for only 5 months when I photographed it at Euston in October 1974, awaiting departure. Another Kodak Instamatic shot so not the sharpest but still one of my favourites.1491914558_97029EustonOct1974.jpg.aa3db9f62f5d4be8a33d8ba473185a65.jpg

 

Locomotive changes were already history by the time of the picture.  The full electric timetable to Glasgow began in May 1974 which is when locomotive changes ceased on Scottish services.  Prior to that electric working to Preston began in 1973 and some locomotive changes happened there and some remained at Crewe. :good_mini:

Edited by DY444
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 05/02/2021 at 13:37, Jim76 said:

Sorry no photos however they would’ve looked similar to how they look now with only the remodeling of 1985 changing things slightly. Crewe to Manchester was the first section to be electrified followed by Crewe to Liverpool however the whole station complex would’ve been electrified. Electrification was then extended south to London. The line to Liverpool diverges from the Glasgow line at Weaver Junction north of Crewe.

BR had so politically astute management in the 1950s. If the electrification of WCML had started from Euston would it ever have got past Birmingham or even Rugby? As it was the project got though to London albeit with some cuts because that is where most of the votes are.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

Locomotive changes were already history by the time of the picture.  The full electric timetable to Glasgow began in May 1974 which is when locomotive changes ceased on Scottish services.  Prior to that electric working to Preston began in 1973 and some locomotive changes happened there and some remained at Crewe. :good_mini:

Ah, thanks for the correction, I thought the full timetable had been from 1975.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the first part of the WCML electrification was London Euston to Crewe ? Not Crewe to Manchester ... does anyone have a breakdown/timeline of the whole project of it?

 

So ... for example

 

1 Crewe to Manchester - started 1963 - finished 1964, 

2 Crewe to London - started XXXX.. finished XXXX

3 Crewe to Glasgow, started XXXX finished XXXX

 

Etc etc etc

 

Kat@johnsonstreetIEMD 

Edited by DBC90024
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Manchester to Crewe service  started 1960

Liverpool to Crewe service started Jan 1962

Extension in stages to Stafford, Nuneaton, Rugby, Bletchley.

First train into Euston 12 November 1965

Full Euston - Manchester/ Liverpool service April 1966

Birmingham area switched on Dec 1966

Birmingham - Euston full service March 1967

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...