87101 Stephenson vs 87001 Royal Scot

[ianmacc]

Just bought the Hornby Stephenson thinking ideal for a 1990 WCML layout.

 

Noticed it’s 87001 Not 101 and is royal Scot on one side and looked it up to find it’s a preserved Loco in 2021 guise.  Perils of not being able to Browse. 
 

I can cover over the royal Scot plate with the etched Stephenson provided in the box. I also thankfully found that Stephenson had cast numbers so no need to scratch the body side of a 170 pounds Loco. 

 

Can these be bought anywhere? 
 

Don’t want to return a nice runner. 

[ianmacc]

Doesn’t matter I’ve found a set by Fox transfers of names and the numbers. 

Stand down

 

Edited January 17, 2021 by ianmacc
Fox not fix

[rodent279]

Not sure when 101 gained it's cast numbers, but it was sometime in the mid-90's I think. Originally it had transfer numbers as per the rest of the class.

001 was briefly named Stephenson back in 1975, but the plates were transferred to 101 soon after, and 001 became Royal Scot.

[Dagworth]

87101 has a completely different roof to 87001. 
 

Andi

[ianmacc]

Oh well I’ve invested a tenner in plates and numbers now so I’m going to apply rule 1(a).  
 

That is milder than running a Jinty into saint Pancras international but still enough to upset the purists! 

[john new]

Our page on the loco and the Stephenson naming is here - https://www.stephensonloco.org.uk/SLS_loco_assoc_class87s.htm

 

Just noticed the information on the plates location needs an update for recent changes outside the Society’s control.

 

Edited January 17, 2021 by john new
Added extra observations

[rodent279]

On 17/01/2021 at 11:34, Dagworth said:

87101 has a completely different roof to 87001. 
 

Andi

Here's a photo (not mine) showing the roof layout of 101.

Interestingly, I believe 87101 was the only AC electric loco to carry OHL warning flashes in the pre-privatisation era. (It's certainly the only one that I have found photographic evidence of).

Edited February 3, 2021 by rodent279

[nigb55009]

I see what you mean about warning flashes. It also seems to apply to DC electric locos. I have looked for myself, not because I didn`t believe you, but because it`s unbelievable. Firstly, why would you not put warnings on the very type of traction that needs it most? Secondly, why has nobody noticed it before? Even class 90 and 91 didn`t  have them when they were new. There`s just one thing, I`ll never be able to look at a photo again without checking, I`ve got fourteen OO gauge  electrics to repaint or renumber, it might take a bit longer now.

[Pete the Elaner]

20 minutes ago, nigb55009 said:

I see what you mean about warning flashes. It also seems to apply to DC electric locos. I have looked for myself, not because I didn`t believe you, but because it`s unbelievable. Firstly, why would you not put warnings on the very type of traction that needs it most? Secondly, why has nobody noticed it before? Even class 90 and 91 didn`t  have them when they were new. There`s just one thing, I`ll never be able to look at a photo again without checking, I`ve got fourteen OO gauge  electrics to repaint or renumber, it might take a bit longer now.

 

There was a logic to it which you eluded to it without realising:

 

Warning flashes were placed next to places where it is possible to access the roof (Usually bodyside steps).

AC locos deliberately have no way to access roof points because they were always expected to be under the wires.

It was therefore viewed that warning flashes were not needed to remind crews not to do something which was by design impossible.

With that in mind, it seems a bit pointless to later add them.

 

I read the above after seeing somebody else post it on here, so some of us knew about it.

[nigb55009]

I suppose it makes sense if the locos are always under the wires, but what about class 73s, they could work anywhere in theory. From the pictures I`ve seen, none of the Southern Region electric fleet seem to have had any warning flashes. The class 33s seem to only have one on the bodyside engine room door. I also looked at class 76s, they didn`t have any either. I assume rule applies, always under the wires.

[Pete the Elaner]

2 minutes ago, nigb55009 said:

I suppose it makes sense if the locos are always under the wires, but what about class 73s, they could work anywhere in theory. From the pictures I`ve seen, none of the Southern Region electric fleet seem to have had any warning flashes. The class 33s seem to only have one on the bodyside engine room door. I also looked at class 76s, they didn`t have any either. I assume rule applies, always under the wires.

 

Did 73s have any places where the roof could be accessed? If not, then this would be why they have no warning flashes.

I remember seeing one on the freight lines by Willesden Jcn low level station once, so running at least near OLE was not unknown even if it was uncommon.

With a 3rd rail, you don't access the live rail from the train. It is actually easier to access it without the train there, so warning signs would be more appropriate at crossings than on trains.

[nigb55009]

I see what you mean about roof access. From what I can see no electrics had bodyside steps, which makes perfect sense. One thing has occurred to me though. Warning flashes were still not applied even after the addition of orange cant rail stripes in the 1980s. Perhaps when they were applied it was down to the HSE rather group standards within the railway itself.

[TravisM]

Interesting to see the “business” part of the roof on 87101 but it would be interesting to see a side by side roof comparison between a Class 87/0 and 87/1.

[andyman7]

Thanks for a really useful image, it's not easy to find pictures of roof details like this. I notice there is a circular element on the cab roof areas that is missing on 87/0s too.