Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

A few more pics of me chasing cans around during the last week. Well I say Cans but in the last 5 days, I've had 86627 on the front of 3 different services, each time with a different partner (people will talk...)

 

First pic was Saturday 22/06 screaming through Winwick, 86627 and 86610 with the Saturdays (granted it rarely runs) 4M83  1033 Coatbridge FLT - Crewe Basford Hall intermodal service. Here the train was seen running 57 mins early having escaped Eden Valley Goods loop 54 mins early. After Springs Branch junction the pair of 'Cans' were routed on the 'Up Slow' but this did little to reduce the time they'd made, losing approx only 3 mins. A fully loaded and colourful train with a pair of 86's in Daylight, what is not to love?

 

Second pic (Winwick again) was taken on Sunday 23/06 and another sampling of daylight 'Cans' on a Coatbridge liner just north of Warrington. After working south on Saturday with 86610, 86627 finds itself heading to Scotland again this time with 86604 for company on 4S56 17:00 Crewe BH - Coatbridge FLT.

 

And this morning as the sun was coming up, 86627 is seen leading 86609 at Acton Bridge with the 4M42 2152 Felixstowe North FLT to Garston FLT service.

 

Just goes to show what mileages these BR workhorses still put in!

48108821301_837f701985_o-min.jpg

48115271783_50dec64d79_o-min.jpg

48136285046_aa945df0bb_o-min.jpg

  • Like 17
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 08/05/2017 at 21:31, New Haven Neil said:

A few from the dust in the bottom of the slide box.  '76 mostly.

 

post-10195-0-14388300-1494275345_thumb.jpg

post-10195-0-48843200-1494275374_thumb.jpg

post-10195-0-35486700-1494275406_thumb.jpg

post-10195-0-96362300-1494275465_thumb.jpg

 

I see the loco in the send bottom picture appears to be 86244.

 

Never seen this having the 'highspeed' pantograph' before and must not have had it for too long.

 

At the very end of it's working life, 86244 appeared to have the Stone-Faiveley pantograph.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DJH1971 said:

I see the loco in the send bottom picture appears to be 86244.

 

Never seen this having the 'highspeed' pantograph' before and must not have had it for too long.

 

At the very end of it's working life, 86244 appeared to have the Stone-Faiveley pantograph.

 

It also has one of the observation boxes fitted at the non-pantograph end (86103 had the other) and so probably was a suitable candidate as an early test loco for the High-speed pan.

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

22 minutes ago, Titan said:

I expect the latter is due to the recent brake incident?

 

More so because the Highlander is yet to go over to Mk5s, and the locos can only work one type of train (converted 92s with Mk5 on the Lowlander, 90s/ACLG with MK2/3 to Inverness/Aberdeen/FTW). 

 

This hasn't stopped 87002 hauling Mk5 stock on an ECS, but with a failed 92 as a coupling adaptor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 298 said:

 

More so because the Highlander is yet to go over to Mk5s, and the locos can only work one type of train (converted 92s with Mk5 on the Lowlander, 90s/ACLG with MK2/3 to Inverness/Aberdeen/FTW). 

 

This hasn't stopped 87002 hauling Mk5 stock on an ECS, but with a failed 92 as a coupling adaptor.

Hi 298,

 

I was once told by an old driver the railway went to pieces after the Beaching Report and became worse still once "they" took buffers off trains.

 

Gibbo.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
44 minutes ago, Gibbo675 said:

I was once told by an old driver the railway went to pieces after the Beaching Report and became worse still once "they" took buffers off trains.

 

American railroads must have been in pieces since they were first built, then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

American railroads must have been in pieces since they were first built, then?

My dear Northmoor,

 

Short answer:

 

No.

 

Long answer:

 

American Railroads had unified coupling standards from quite an early stage, as did the railways in this country bye way of the RCH dimensions that governed, buffers, hooks, shackles, brake and steam pipe connections, and even drop head buckeye couplings allowing any and all vehicles to be coupled appropriately in service and easily when recovery was required.

 

On the British railways the situation described above has steadily been eroded bye way of all manner of coupling types that require special equipment and in certain cases translator vehicles to effect the coupling of vehicles. There has not been, as far as I can ascertain, any attempt to standardise couplings in any meaningful way to allow trains to work coupled together easily or even effect a rational transition from one standard to another. When failures do occur the recovery is made considerably more difficult as a result of couplings being manufactured to conflicting standards rather than simply sending the nearest available locomotive.

 

I am well aware of the utter stupidity of certain operators unwilling attitude to allow another company's vehicle to be attached to theirs but this is more a matter of commercial nonsense than operational practicality due to the pirate-ised rail industry.

 

The ridiculous situation described in the post that I comment upon was that a class 87 had to haul a failed class 92 to be able to effect a coupling with the coaches. That is not in any way shape or form a sensibly engineered solution to the coupling of vehicles running upon a closed system, neither is it energy, maintenance or capital asset efficient, period.

 

Gibbo.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Raising the dust as it flies through Diss on a "Norwich in 90" service

 

Diss

22 August 2019

90007, Sir John Betjeman, and 82132 on 9P91, 09:00, Norwich - London Liverpool Street (10:30)DAS828876.jpg.673bf445f20064ea19526b80b8779708.jpgDAS828879.jpg.4e6bbf973dcdf82f615222ef3f77c1b7.jpg

  • Like 17
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
On 18/08/2019 at 13:15, Gibbo675 said:

My dear Northmoor,

 

Short answer:

 

No.

 

Long answer:

 

American Railroads had unified coupling standards from quite an early stage, as did the railways in this country bye way of the RCH dimensions that governed, buffers, hooks, shackles, brake and steam pipe connections, and even drop head buckeye couplings allowing any and all vehicles to be coupled appropriately in service and easily when recovery was required.

 

On the British railways the situation described above has steadily been eroded bye way of all manner of coupling types that require special equipment and in certain cases translator vehicles to effect the coupling of vehicles. There has not been, as far as I can ascertain, any attempt to standardise couplings in any meaningful way to allow trains to work coupled together easily or even effect a rational transition from one standard to another. When failures do occur the recovery is made considerably more difficult as a result of couplings being manufactured to conflicting standards rather than simply sending the nearest available locomotive.

 

I am well aware of the utter stupidity of certain operators unwilling attitude to allow another company's vehicle to be attached to theirs but this is more a matter of commercial nonsense than operational practicality due to the pirate-ised rail industry.

 

The ridiculous situation described in the post that I comment upon was that a class 87 had to haul a failed class 92 to be able to effect a coupling with the coaches. That is not in any way shape or form a sensibly engineered solution to the coupling of vehicles running upon a closed system, neither is it energy, maintenance or capital asset efficient, period.

 

Gibbo.

 

 

 

 

Hi Gibbo

 

Now this coupling situation. About 25 to 30 years ago I was traveling to Bristol by train to see the model railway show. On the opposite of isle to me were some BR staff, also going to the show, who were talking about the various types of couplings and me being me said to them it sounds like a model railway club layout where everyone has his own types of couplings. They said it was worse.

 

There you go real life imitating art. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rugd1022 said:

In 1966 some scenes for 'The Avengers' were shot at Watford Junction with a fake enamel sign put up for the occasion...

 

 

 

 

 

 

22195511_10214644009039500_2295704485189726603_n.jpg

 

One of my favourite episodes. Plenty of AC electric action, plus an eccentric rail enthusiast too - think the baddes were trying to blow-up the Prime Minister..........

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

  • 1 month later...

91119 at King's Cross, Friday, 29 September 2019.

 

Just stepped off a Great Northern service in Finsbury Park when I saw it pass towards London, and my mind just went "f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, F*CK! There's no way I'll make it there in time. But I'll give it a try!"

 

Ran down to the Underground, just caught a Victoria line train after missing a Piccadilly line train by a matter of seconds, and then sprinted up to the main line station when I got off the train. All the time I thought for sure I'd miss it, but Lady Luck was on my side. Got some pictures, a nice chat with the driver, and a video of the train leaving.

 

I was also informed that 91119 won't leave the fleet until next year, so if any of you haven't caught it yet, there's still time.

IMG_20190927_220425_693.jpg

  • Like 16
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...