Jump to content
 

86101, 86401 and 87002 heading to Europe? Nope!


Recommended Posts

On 24/02/2019 at 11:31, jools1959 said:

The 15 GA Class 90’s are heading to Freightliner once off lease as they seem to have finally given up on the Class 86’s (according to WNXX).  I hope LSL take on the two 86’s and 87002.

 

Freightliner are far from giving up on the 86's...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mersey507003 said:

Although this question could probably be used to start a completely new topic, I would just like to ask, if 3rd rail electrification is to be replaced by ohle when up for renewal, does that mean that all the emu's currently running off 3rd rail would be required to be converted to 25Kv and fitted with pantographs to collect power from the wires instead.

A DC electrification system is a complex thing that's got a lot of different parts.

There's a 3 phase AC distribution network, with associated cables and switchgear, transformer rectifiers, DC switchgear, the contact system (3rd rail, 4th rail or OLE). It doesn't all come up for renewal at the same time.

 

There's a lot of other stuff attached - for example in the southern area the signals are mostly powered from the 3 phase network, and often the substations are very remote where getting an alternative supply would be near impossible. DC systems make a different use of the running rails too, compared to AC systems, and they're fundamentally incompatible (AC/DC interfaces are a complicated nightmare and should be avoided where possible). Converting an existing DC route to AC would be an extra expensive and complicated project compared to electrifying a non-electric route.

 

Unfortunately low voltage DC has a hard time supplying enough amps to powerful trains. Eurostar performance through Kent was pretty laughable compared to what they could do on the ECML (where they were also current limited), let alone what they could do on an LGV.

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

15 hours ago, royaloak said:

 

92s are very complicated locos where-as 86s and 87s are comparatively very simple.

 

True but a lot of that complexity is because of the requirements imposed on locomotives designed to operate through the Channel Tunnel such as duplicated systems, enhanced fire suppression etc.  Without all that they would be much simpler.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, jools1959 said:

 

Network Rail have stated that there will be no further 3rd rail projects and there is serious consideration that then it’s up for renewal, 3rd rail will be replaced with OHLE.  25Kv AC is the new industry standard.

 

It's not really "serious consideration" any more (if indeed it ever was).  The argument that the need for substation renewal south of Basingstoke was justification for conversion to AC never stood up to analysis when you look at the actual cost of replacing a substation.  It was like saying that there is economic justification for rebuilding your entire house because the outside needs painting.  In any event NR have been quietly upgrading the Bournemouth Line substations since it became clear that conversion was not the best use of the available funds.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Zomboid said:

A DC electrification system is a complex thing that's got a lot of different parts.

There's a 3 phase AC distribution network, with associated cables and switchgear, transformer rectifiers, DC switchgear, the contact system (3rd rail, 4th rail or OLE). It doesn't all come up for renewal at the same time.

 

There's a lot of other stuff attached - for example in the southern area the signals are mostly powered from the 3 phase network, and often the substations are very remote where getting an alternative supply would be near impossible. DC systems make a different use of the running rails too, compared to AC systems, and they're fundamentally incompatible (AC/DC interfaces are a complicated nightmare and should be avoided where possible). Converting an existing DC route to AC would be an extra expensive and complicated project compared to electrifying a non-electric route.

 

Unfortunately low voltage DC has a hard time supplying enough amps to powerful trains. Eurostar performance through Kent was pretty laughable compared to what they could do on the ECML (where they were also current limited), let alone what they could do on an LGV.

The low voltage 750v conductor rail system that the LSWR chose back in the 1910s was practical enough for for its intended purpose as a suburban electrification, but it was never really suitable for long distance main line electrification. Despite that, it is coping remarkably well under the circumstances but it is getting pretty close to its practical limits with longer, ever more power-hungry trains. It isn't just about getting electricity to the trains but getting it back again via the running rails, where even greater voltage drops and stray current leakage would become limiting factors. Getting more power out of the system is a virtual non-starter.

Conversion to the standard 25kV AC might look appealing, and is simple enough from a rolling stock perspective as there are now very few stocks that are not inherently dual-voltage. The problems lie with the infrastructure, and the Southern's loading gauge was never particularly generous. There are a great many obstacles in the London area, in particular, where lines cross each other with minimal clearances and lifting or lowering is not a practical proposition. 

 

Jim 

Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, DY444 said:

 

It's not really "serious consideration" any more (if indeed it ever was).  The argument that the need for substation renewal south of Basingstoke was justification for conversion to AC never stood up to analysis when you look at the actual cost of replacing a substation.  It was like saying that there is economic justification for rebuilding your entire house because the outside needs painting.  In any event NR have been quietly upgrading the Bournemouth Line substations since it became clear that conversion was not the best use of the available funds.

It always seemed to me that if 25kV access to Southampton docks was the requirement, the route from Basingstoke via Salisbury would be a more sensible approach. That route is much quieter so should have more space for freight paths (though it's only 2 aspect signals isn't it? That would be a limiting factor), and isn't already electrified. It would provide a useful diversion for dual voltage units too. But sadly it's also a pretty ridiculously unlikely prospect.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

RE 3rd rail electrification, the thing preventing any more of it installed is not the technical aspects of it (although it is true that as a power supply system it is very inefficient electrically speaking), its the safety aspect.

 

The ORR have made it VERY CLEAR they WILL NOT approve ANY new or extended (even just a mile or two) unexposed (as in what is installed on the NR system) conductor rail.

 

The only new conductor rail electrification which the ORR will permit is where sidings have been altered as part of a depot rebuild or where new berthing facilities are built on the existing 3rd rail network.

 

Thus the current 'gaps' like the Maeshlink, Uckfield, North Downs, or potential extension to the Mersyrail system will never be realised - particularly with the emergence of battery / hydrogen as viable 'clean' fuel sources.

 

Conductor rail which is shrouded on the top and the sides (as per the DLR) is perfectly acceptable and can readily be instilled / extended at will - but obviously this is incompatible with the exposed top contact variant used by NR / LU

 

The 4 rail exposed conductor rail system used by London Underground (LU) is permitted to be extended - but thats more because recent / planned extensions are / will all be in tunnels. Were significant open air mileages to be proposed then their would be incredible pressure to devise an alternative despite the restrictive clearances of the Edwardian era central section

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

  • RMweb Premium

I would like to think the priority was to reduce the amount of diesel mileage under the wires, even if that meant traction changes on route, or more mixed traction locos like the Class 88. The pricing of paths could be a way to encourage that. Is that a factor in Freightliner's decision to take on GA 90s and keep the 86s?

 

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

Were significant open air mileages to be proposed then their would be incredible pressure to devise an alternative despite the restrictive clearances of the Edwardian era central section

 

Simples... Even smaller trains and mandatory wearing of safety helmets by passengers...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Zomboid said:

It always seemed to me that if 25kV access to Southampton docks was the requirement, the route from Basingstoke via Salisbury would be a more sensible approach. That route is much quieter so should have more space for freight paths (though it's only 2 aspect signals isn't it? That would be a limiting factor), and isn't already electrified. It would provide a useful diversion for dual voltage units too. But sadly it's also a pretty ridiculously unlikely prospect.

 

The Salisbury route together with the Laverstock triangle and line to Redbridge would have been an easier proposition. 

 

However I was involved in a lengthy dialogue with the DfT over the financial justification for AC to Southampton and as part of that I wanted to know what they proposed to do to encourage freight operators to use electric traction when there was no economic benefit.  Did they intend to legislate or give out grants.  No they did not.  The "plan" if I can dignify it with that title was to spend several billion on the scheme and then leave it up to the market to decide whether it intended to use it or not.  Utter madness so no surprise it got canned.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • RMweb Premium
On 25/02/2019 at 09:25, caradoc said:

 

There is currently a half-hourly 'express' coach service between Oxford and the Other Place (Cambridge),

 

 

Remarkable, given that in my day (the 1970s) the service was operated by a firm named Percival's and its logo was a clock face showing (I think) half past ten, which was the departure time of the one daily service.

  • Funny 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 26/02/2019 at 11:27, phil-b259 said:

RE 3rd rail electrification, the thing preventing any more of it installed is not the technical aspects of it (although it is true that as a power supply system it is very inefficient electrically speaking), its the safety aspect.

 

The ORR have made it VERY CLEAR they WILL NOT approve ANY new or extended (even just a mile or two) unexposed (as in what is installed on the NR system) conductor rail.

 

The only new conductor rail electrification which the ORR will permit is where sidings have been altered as part of a depot rebuild or where new berthing facilities are built on the existing 3rd rail network.

 

Thus the current 'gaps' like the Maeshlink, Uckfield, North Downs, or potential extension to the Mersyrail system will never be realised - particularly with the emergence of battery / hydrogen as viable 'clean' fuel sources.

 

Conductor rail which is shrouded on the top and the sides (as per the DLR) is perfectly acceptable and can readily be instilled / extended at will - but obviously this is incompatible with the exposed top contact variant used by NR / LU

 

The 4 rail exposed conductor rail system used by London Underground (LU) is permitted to be extended - but thats more because recent / planned extensions are / will all be in tunnels. Were significant open air mileages to be proposed then their would be incredible pressure to devise an alternative despite the restrictive clearances of the Edwardian era central section

Hypothetical and nebulous I know,

 

but would the side contact Manchester to Bury line fall under that ruling ?

The Bury line was supposed to be covered (though mostly the wood rotted away). I have some L&Y, LMS and BR porcelain track insulators from this line in my parents shed, though they look pretty much as any other on the SR.

 

Quite how this line avoided becoming standard 3rd rail, or just abandonment to diesels I don’t understand.

 

similarly I understand the L&Y built its power station for the line in Clifton!, several miles from the Bury line, and yet didn’t even electrify the route to Radcliffe from Clifton, buts another subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
54 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Hypothetical and nebulous I know,

 

but would the side contact Manchester to Bury line fall under that ruling ?

The Bury line was supposed to be covered (though mostly the wood rotted away).....

 

Yes it would because although the top was covered, one of the sides wasn't and could in theory be easily touched.

 

On the DLR (the only conductor rail system the ORR will permit to be installed these days) the conductor rail is only exposed on the underside and the covers actually extend below both sides of the rail so to touch it you have to reach round and put your hand / a metallic item up a slot to make contact with it.

 

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

On 06/03/2019 at 23:00, Andy Kirkham said:

 

Remarkable, given that in my day (the 1970s) the service was operated by a firm named Percival's and its logo was a clock face showing (I think) half past ten, which was the departure time of the one daily service.

 

I used the service (from Oxford) in the mid 1970s to reach good spotting locations such as Hitchin and Cambridge. IIRC it was operated jointly with Premier Travel of Cambridge and was slightly more than one coach per day, although nothing like today's service of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
  • RMweb Premium
On 07/03/2019 at 00:22, phil-b259 said:

 

Yes it would because although the top was covered, one of the sides wasn't and could in theory be easily touched.

 

On the DLR (the only conductor rail system the ORR will permit to be installed these days) the conductor rail is only exposed on the underside and the covers actually extend below both sides of the rail so to touch it you have to reach round and put your hand / a metallic item up a slot to make contact with it.

 

Presumably some plonker has already tried that?

P

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, Mallard60022 said:

Presumably some plonker has already tried that?

P

 

Not that I know of...

 

However one downside of the DLR system is that the conductor rail pickups on the trains must face upwards - which means special protectors have to be fitted at stations to shield the pickups from things like metal umbrellas which get dropped between the platform and the train.

 

You can see some of them in this picture of Limehouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limehouse_station#/media/File:Limehouse_station_MMB_14_DLR_57.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
12 hours ago, uax6 said:

Bit of a shame that they are selling the 87, as that means that the ACloco group collection will have a class missing from its collection....

 

Andy G

They are missing 80, 88,90,91 & 92, soon 93.

Whilst some are obviously for the future, and 80 is oppourtunity passed, they do own only the unique classes in preservation :81/2/3/5 & 89, where as there are 3 class 87’s preserved. The 90 is safe, and at least 3 class 91s are marked for preservation, but Ive not seen ACLG expressing interest publically for a 91, so that might end up another gap.

An interesting acquisition for ACLG could be 90050, its a wreck, If a shell is all they preserve..

 

The 86/4 is a dilema, I can understand, they only need one, but it doesn't need to be working, where as 86401 is a runner, and is the only one of its sub type left (a blessing and a curse with its rubber lined tyres which will some day corrode).

They could always let 86401 go, and pick up an 86/6 which puts practicality over history, but an 86/6 isnt a practical railtour machine, in which case stick with a static 86/4.. which wastes a good machine... the other option is cash it in, change the wheels and export it, and keep a static 86/6 instead.

 

As for the 87, they can always import one back from Bulgaria someday if they really wanted one.

 

i’m not sure how all the work on the 89 fits with a “static” preservation group, unless thats got a commercial non-preservation future ?

Edited by adb968008
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

You could argue that 86101 is as much an 87 as an 86, so perhaps the ACLG are looking to kill two birds with one stone. But equally, isn't 86401 closer to a standard 86 than 86101 so would be a better choice since there are other preserved 87s?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Missing an 84 as well, but that’s covered by the NRM (if they still own it) on loan at Bo’ness. It was in the custody of the ACLG at one point and must have been a good reason to pass pack to the NRM...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly there isn't the obvious appetite for the ACLG ( now known as the Roarers and Badger Preservation Group) to maintain its status as a collector of locomotives, and if it means being leaner whilst other owners (86259, 87001, 87035, etc) fill in the gaps then that'd be better rather than failing completely with too many assets to manage.

 

Despite probably being the last UK built mixed traffic loco, 90050 is too far gone to be viable and by the time a good one becomes available at the right price you'd still need deep pockets to preserve an 80-odd ton paperweight with 30yr old electronics.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

A lot of money seems to be being spent on 89001 which makes me think that a return to the mainline is imminent, possibly with a deal with LSL to operate it.  We’ll just have to wait and see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, jools1959 said:

A lot of money seems to be being spent on 89001 which makes me think that a return to the mainline is imminent, possibly with a deal with LSL to operate it.  We’ll just have to wait and see.

 

I was under the impression it wad the sleeper contract that suddenly allowed them to work on 89001, the question is now that work has gone what future does the badger have? As someone who donated towards the ACLG fund for this engine the idea of them selling it off would leave me wondering whether to ask for my money back (especially if they make a profit after all the work done) and whether any future campaigns should be supported

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...