Photos of AC electrics

[Davexoc]

3 hours ago, montyburns56 said:

Northampton 86235 1977 by David Ford

 

 

 

Interesting, in that there are 2 GW Syphon Gs, a BG and then what looks like a Mk1 Sleeper?

Flickr says a parcels working, but with that mixture is it really?

[Rugd1022]

12 hours ago, Davexoc said:

 

Interesting, in that there are 2 GW Syphon Gs, a BG and then what looks like a Mk1 Sleeper?

Flickr says a parcels working, but with that mixture is it really?

 

The sleeper coach might be en route to Wolverton works.... 

[montyburns56]

20 hours ago, Davexoc said:

 

Interesting, in that there are 2 GW Syphon Gs, a BG and then what looks like a Mk1 Sleeper?

Flickr says a parcels working, but with that mixture is it really?

 

That's why I didn't post it in the Modelling a Traditional Parcel Train thread as I wasn't sure if it was just a stock movement.

[montyburns56]

E2001 by 67c

 

 

[Johnson Street IEMD]

1 hour ago, montyburns56 said:

E2001 by 67c

 

 

That's a strange looking beast, isnt it?

[298]

2 hours ago, montyburns56 said:

E2001 by 67c

 

 

 

I'm surprised nobody has announced a model of it, considering the bottom of the barrel must be being scraped for locos to comission. You don't even need any overhead, just park it on a siding with a couple of coaches for "aerodynamic tests...."

[Johnson Street IEMD]

It looks like a co-co ... an early inspiration for the Class 89 or 92 perhaps ?

[Bomag]

2 hours ago, DBC90024 said:

It looks like a co-co ... an early inspiration for the Class 89 or 92 perhaps ?

 

Its an A1A - A1A as Class 80

 

As 18100 it was a Co-Co

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_80

[montyburns56]

20 hours ago, 298 said:

 

I'm surprised nobody has announced a model of it, considering the bottom of the barrel must be being scraped for locos to comission. You don't even need any overhead, just park it on a siding with a couple of coaches for "aerodynamic tests...."

 

You know I was searching Flickr for some other pics of it last night and the very same thought came to mind. You could even release it in its earlier gas turbine guise as well.

 

18100/E1000/E2001 1958 by Neil Ferguson-Lee

 

 

 

 E2001 Rugby 1972 by John Evans

 

 

 

[Johnson Street IEMD]

What I find strange about it is that it didnt appear to actually run much ... bit of a waste of time ... why make it, especially when they already had early 80s that also didnt work much, of the 81, 82, 83, 84, at leasdt two of the class I understand to have barely worked - it seems like that with this and some of the others just mentioned, that BR was trying to find a winning combination.

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, DBC90024 said:

What I find strange about it is that it didnt appear to actually run much ... bit of a waste of time ... why make it, especially when they already had early 80s that also didnt work much, of the 81, 82, 83, 84, at leasdt two of the class I understand to have barely worked - it seems like that with this and some of the others just mentioned, that BR was trying to find a winning combination.

 

It was specifically converted for testing and driver training, prior to the production 26kv locos being delivered; it was never intended to be a long-term revenue loco.

 

As to any of the production locos having "barely worked"; perhaps you can support this statement?

 

Some classes had more teething troubles than others, but there was never a surplus of 25kv locos, to the best of my knowledge - hence the 86 and 87 classes.

 

CJI.

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, DBC90024 said:

What I find strange about it is that it didnt appear to actually run much ... bit of a waste of time ... why make it, especially when they already had early 80s that also didnt work much, of the 81, 82, 83, 84, at leasdt two of the class I understand to have barely worked - it seems like that with this and some of the others just mentioned, that BR was trying to find a winning combination.

That's almost exactly what BR was doing.  However while some classes did spend time in store, a lot of miles were run in the active periods of their relatively short lives.

 

The AL1-5 were five manufacturers' responses to the same basic specification; in an outbreak of common sense (it didn't last) BR did specify a standard cab, so there is very little variation in those, it makes driver training much easier as the layout is identical.  Otherwise they are all different; auxiliary equipment is almost all different (each has different voltages), body styles, bogie design etc.  The AL6/Class 86 is the result of lessons learned from the previous five classes, most of the best features came from their own Doncaster-built design, although there may have been political considerations in this.  As I said, the common sense didn't last long so the AL5's under-suspended bogie design was also persisted with, to the detriment of the WCML permanent way until Flexicoil suspension and/or SAB resilient wheels finally dialled out most of those issues in the late 1970s.

[uax6]

It's not quite as easy as that really. It was origianlly designed to burn Jet A1 fuel/ parrafin, and it worked ok on that, except that its cost in fuel was exceptional. The original contract allowed Metro-Vick to convert it to run on Bunker C (Heavy oil used in ships), but the conversion never really got off the ground and Metro-Vick lost interest in it. BR then bought the body minus the turbine and used it to make a quickie 25Kv loco to help train drivers.

 

The reason she went from Co-Co to A1A-A1A was to do with the bogies, which Riddles didn't like, and only accepted under sufferance. Presumably the reduction in traction motors made them ride better, and also made it act more like the Bo-Bos that the real locos were.

 

Andy G

[cctransuk]

39 minutes ago, uax6 said:

... Metro-Vick lost interest in it. BR then bought the body minus the turbine ...

 

Don't think so - delivered to BR, always owned by BR - with or without the turbine.

 

Please check before posting.

 

CJI.

Edited August 15, 2021 by cctransuk

[uax6]

Humm. I thought that the venture was a joint one, BR finally paying for the mechanicals when Metro-Vick lost interest?

I would check, but the book is on my shelf at home, and I'm in work..

Andy G

Edited August 15, 2021 by uax6

[Johnson Street IEMD]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

It was specifically converted for testing and driver training, prior to the production 26kv locos being delivered; it was never intended to be a long-term revenue loco.

 

As to any of the production locos having "barely worked"; perhaps you can support this statement?

 

Some classes had more teething troubles than others, but there was never a surplus of 25kv locos, to the best of my knowledge - hence the 86 and 87 classes.

 

CJI.

 

I had read that the 83 i think it was literally spent more time not running than running and i think the 84 had a similar fate - i am pretty sure there is more about this further up in the feed. Its not my area of primary interest so i am happy to be wrong on this matter either way

 

kind Regards, kat

[Bomag]

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

That's almost exactly what BR was doing.  However while some classes did spend time in store, a lot of miles were run in the active periods of their relatively short lives.

 

The AL1-5 were five manufacturers' responses to the same basic specification; in an outbreak of common sense (it didn't last) BR did specify a standard cab, so there is very little variation in those, it makes driver training much easier as the layout is identical.  Otherwise they are all different; auxiliary equipment is almost all different (each has different voltages), body styles, bogie design etc.  The AL6/Class 86 is the result of lessons learned from the previous five classes, most of the best features came from their own Doncaster-built design, although there may have been political considerations in this.  As I said, the common sense didn't last long so the AL5's under-suspended bogie design was also persisted with, to the detriment of the WCML permanent way until Flexicoil suspension and/or SAB resilient wheels finally dialled out most of those issues in the late 1970s.

 

AL5/85 had bogie mounted traction motors, only AL6/86 had axle mounted motors. Although the 86/2 and 86/4 may have been better than 86/0 on reducing track damage they still knackered the track. We had to redo several sections of the GEML within a couple of years of electrification as the 86/2 wanted to straighten the curves.

[Bomag]

44 minutes ago, DBC90024 said:

 

I had read that the 83 i think it was literally spent more time not running than running and i think the 84 had a similar fate - i am pretty sure there is more about this further up in the feed. Its not my area of primary interest so i am happy to be wrong on this matter either way

 

kind Regards, kat

 

The 83s, were stored 67-71 and after the rectifiers were replaced lasted until the early 1980s (except for damage/fire). So not really 'more time not running'.

 

The 84s were a bag of bolts, being built by NBL.

[cctransuk]

13 hours ago, uax6 said:

Humm. I thought that the venture was a joint one, BR finally paying for the mechanicals when Metro-Vick lost interest?

I would check, but the book is on my shelf at home, and I'm in work..

Andy G

 

All I can say is that it was numbered as BR capital stock - which, to the best of my knowledge, indicated that it was BR property.

 

Privately-owned prototypes seemed to have invariably been numbered in separate series; hence D0280 becoming D1200 on it's purchase by BR.

 

CJI.

[wombatofludham]

13 hours ago, Bomag said:

 

The 84s were a bag of bolts, being built by NBL.

North British really seemed to suffer trying to transition from heavy engineered steam to more technically demanding diesel and electric.  The 84s really were lemons, although arguably one of the more attractive designs.  They seemed to spend most of their time as mobile adverts for the new railway, being hauled around the network to show off how modern BR were which, given their less than stellar reliability, was irony on steroids.

[Northmoor]

27 minutes ago, wombatofludham said:

North British really seemed to suffer trying to transition from heavy engineered steam to more technically demanding diesel and electric.  The 84s really were lemons, although arguably one of the more attractive designs.  They seemed to spend most of their time as mobile adverts for the new railway, being hauled around the network to show off how modern BR were which, given their less than stellar reliability, was irony on steroids.

Once re-engineered, they at least lasted nearly 20 years (their withdrawal in 1980 resulted from BR's rationalisation of small classes, not because of reliability), which was twice that of some of their diesel output.  The NB Type 2 diesels were also made redundant by the closure of lines they operated on - primarily in Scotland - or traffics being handled by adequate numbers of BRCW Type 2s.

[298]

2 hours ago, Northmoor said:

Once re-engineered, they at least lasted nearly 20 years (their withdrawal in 1980 resulted from BR's rationalisation of small classes, not because of reliability), which was twice that of some of their diesel output.  The NB Type 2 diesels were also made redundant by the closure of lines they operated on - primarily in Scotland - or traffics being handled by adequate numbers of BRCW Type 2s.

 

Their quill drives were the main reason for their eventual withdrawal (and conversion to one as an unpowered Loadbank as it wasn't required to be self propelled).

 

I always thought it a bit odd that BR couldn't decide on one class of loco to be used for ECSs out of Euston, but that decision probably led to one of each class surviving long enough to be preserved.

Edited August 16, 2021 by 298

[montyburns56]

21 hours ago, DBC90024 said:

What I find strange about it is that it didnt appear to actually run much ... bit of a waste of time ... why make it, especially when they already had early 80s that also didnt work much, of the 81, 82, 83, 84, at leasdt two of the class I understand to have barely worked - it seems like that with this and some of the others just mentioned, that BR was trying to find a winning combination.

 

I live in South Manchester and one of the reasons that I've always had a soft spot for E2001 was that it was used for testing and crew training on the Styal Loop which was one one of the first parts of the WCML to be electrified at 25KV AC, as the AL locos hadn't yet been completed. 

[Johnson Street IEMD]

Getting back to what i do love

 

4M87 - Felixstowe to Trafford park 

 

90s 012 and 005 virtually on time through Stafford station this evening 

 

 

[montyburns56]

Class 312/2 Preston by Martyn Hilbert