Jump to content
 

class 89001 avocet.

porkie

By porkie,
in UK Prototype Questions

 Share

Recommended Posts

Christopher125

Christopher125

Posted
Posted

But the ACLG's current main line contract involves their main line loco's wearing a specific livery...if <he speculates> that contract is the driving force for returning it to main line standards then fine by me...

 

A working loco in CS blue is a much better result than it mouldering away somewhere stuffed and mounted.

 

From what I gather the sleeper contract is not the driving force for it's restoration.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
newbryford

newbryford

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted

From what I gather the sleeper contract is not the driving force for it's restoration.

 

The sleeper contract could well be providing the finance for the restoration.

 

Cheers,

Mick

Link to post
Share on other sites
SGJ

SGJ

Posted
Posted

I think all the liveries this loco has had looked good, even the GNER dark blue. As to the use of it on the sleepers, wasnt there a problem with gauging issues on the WCML?

If I remember correctly it was at Euston where a problem would have been, but because of the class 92`s wasn't it sorted ( at the same time as the electrical interference issues the 92`s had ? ).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
phil-b259

phil-b259

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted

So why did BR opt for the 91 instead then? Or not have both?

One problem (that re-emerged when EWS were designing the class 67s) was that the CO-CO bogie design under the 89 was pretty much unique (every other 100mph+ design in the world used a BO-BO configuration) and consequently Brush were able to charge a high price for its use.

 

As a result EWS rejected it - even though the use of a BO-BO design on the 67s resulted in a very high axle loading and restricted route avalbility.

 

When BR was designing the class 91 and Mk4 carriage fleet, they were obliged (as a result of HM Treasuary) to spend as little as possible on the new trains and as such it was far more cost effective for BR to stick with the BO-BO configuration where there were a wide varity of maunfacturers to chose from rather than deplete the available funds in going for a unique solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
keefer

keefer

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted

in many ways, the 91 was a development of the APT power cars - particularly mounting the traction motors up inside the body and using cardan shafts to drive the bogie/wheelset mounted gearboxes

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bomag

Bomag

Posted
Posted (edited)

When BR was designing the class 91 and Mk4 carriage fleet, they were obliged (as a result of HM Treasuary) to spend as little as possible on the new trains and as such it was far more cost effective for BR to stick with the BO-BO configuration where there were a wide varity of maunfacturers to chose from rather than deplete the available funds in going for a unique solution.

 

 

That's not what I was informed by the project mech engineers. Firstly Mk3b carriages would have been much cheaper to build than Mk4s, both on a development cost and a per-unit basis. The cost of design swing plug doors had already been paid for by the CIE/442 work. Also, apart from the design of the bogies, the Class 89 was described to me as being very similar to a class 90. As the prototype development work had paid for the bogie design, 31 Class 89 should have been cheaper than paying to design a brand new loco, bogies and drive system for Class 91's. The reason why we got 91s/Mk4 is that the specification was upped from trains with a maximum of 125mph to 140mph to improve the COBA score. There was no way 89s/Mk3bs were going to meet this spec. I am guessing that the person who did the COBA score may have miscalculated the cost of signalling adjustments which is why we never got past 125mph in service. There was some actual work done on the track side, looking at the section from Grantham to Peterborough to fit in the new 90mph 158s with the 140mph 91s - it wasn't as simple of assuming that it was the same as with 75mph 156s and 125mph HSTs.

 

The irony is that with an extra 1500hp on the maximum rating Class 89s would have been better for the current 125mph service, even taking into account the 240hp reduction in continuous rating.

Edited by Bomag
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
phil-b259

phil-b259

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted (edited)

That's not what I was informed by the project mech engineers. Firstly Mk3b carriages would have been much cheaper to build than Mk4s, both on a development cost and a per-unit basis. The cost of design swing plug doors had already been paid for by the CIE/442 work. Also, apart from the design of the bogies, the Class 89 was described to me as being very similar to a class 90. As the prototype development work had paid for the bogie design, 31 Class 89 should have been cheaper than paying to design a brand new loco, bogies and drive system for Class 91's. The reason why we got 91s/Mk4 is that the specification was upped from trains with a maximum of 125mph to 140mph to improve the COBA score. There was no way 89s/Mk3bs were going to meet this spec. I am guessing that the person who did the COBA score may have miscalculated the cost of signalling adjustments which is why we never got past 125mph in service. There was some actual work done on the track side, looking at the section from Grantham to Peterborough to fit in the new 90mph 158s with the 140mph 91s - it wasn't as simple of assuming that it was the same as with 75mph 156s and 125mph HSTs.

 

The irony is that with an extra 1500hp on the maximum rating Class 89s would have been better for the current 125mph service, even taking into account the 240hp reduction in continuous rating.

I think that this is an example of where the BR board was very good at playing Whitehall at its own game. For example if BR worked the numbers and said to the DfT that 140mph running would generate £Y extra revenue then it is quite possible that might induce the been counters to look more favourably on new stock. Similarly going for a BO-BO configuration, where there was lots of 'competition' as it were to obstensably lower the price would have no doubt gone down well with civil servants. Equally leaving the costs of modifying the signalling off the bill, but still giving the impression that they would be done 'soon' is quite a smart trick to pull if you can get away with it.

 

You also need to rember that the Conservative Government of the day was, as with the present day, very much focused on the power of the 'market'. The 90s and Mk3s were built 'in house' by BR and this was seen as not good value for money by Whitehall* who no doubt applied political pressure for the future ECML electric stock to procured from private sector. Going for a new design fitted this mindset and may have helped.

 

* Hence the privatisation of BREL halfway through the class 91 procurement.

Edited by phil-b259
Link to post
Share on other sites
Taigatrommel

Taigatrommel

Posted
Posted

(every other 100mph+ design in the world used a BO-BO configuration) 

 

Not so, and Alsthom themselves have constructed C-C high speed locomotives- SNCF CC 6500, CC 21000 and CC 40100 for example.  Similarly, Germany's iconic BR 103 is a Co-Co locomotive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
jamie92208

jamie92208

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted

Not so, and Alsthom themselves have constructed C-C high speed locomotives- SNCF CC 6500, CC 21000 and CC 40100 for example.  Similarly, Germany's iconic BR 103 is a Co-Co locomotive.

 

Also the French CC7000's (I think that's correct) one of which was the co holder of the world speed record for electric traction for many years.

 

Jamie

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Premium
phil-b259

phil-b259

Posted
  • RMweb Premium
Posted

Not so, and Alsthom themselves have constructed C-C high speed locomotives- SNCF CC 6500, CC 21000 and CC 40100 for example.  Similarly, Germany's iconic BR 103 is a Co-Co locomotive.

 

I didn't realise the CC 6500 had a top speed of 124mph or that the German 103 was designed to run at a maximum of 120mmph. So Alstoms bogie design could have potentially given the Brush design under the 89 some competition then?

 

Mind you I am pretty sure you won't prove me wrong when I say we haven't seen a 140mph Co-Co design yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Taigatrommel

Taigatrommel

Posted
Posted

I didn't realise the CC 6500 had a top speed of 124mph or that the German 103 was designed to run at a maximum of 120mmph. So Alstoms bogie design could have potentially given the Brush design under the 89 some competition then?

 

Mind you I am pretty sure you won't prove me wrong when I say we haven't seen a 140mph Co-Co design yet.

 

Not quite, though CC 21000 and CC 40100 have a top speed of 220kph, or 136.7mph.  That said, given Corail stock has a maximum speed of 200kph, I doubt they were timetabled for such speeds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
russ p

russ p

Posted
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

Without giving the exact details I can tell you from a comfort point of view the English Electric CO bogie rides ok at 120 mph!

Was 30 years ago

Edited by russ p
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 years later...
Purnu

Purnu

Posted
Posted
On 13/12/2015 at 04:09, ChrisH-UK said:

The Class 89 has been used recently on some workings between London and Leeds resulting in the unique locomotive being paired with Mk.4 coaching stock for the first time. Following the fitting of Time Division Multiplex  (TDM) equipment at Bounds Green, the locomotive can now be utilised for push-pull working. Avocet heads the 1210 King's Cross-Leeds as it approaches Werrington Junction, north of Peterborough, on February 16. Photo W. A. Sharman.


Apologies for the resurrection of an old thread. With the recent Accurascale announcement of the 89 it brought back a few memories from my younger years.
 

One in particular relates to the above. I’m positive that I experienced a run from Doncaster-Leeds and back with a similar formation, 89 & Mk4s (pre GNER) but I can’t seem to find any photographic evidence to support it (plenty of the 89 with air-con Mk2s and Mk3s). I don’t have access to the magazine that was quoted in the original post either.

 

Were these just test runs or actual services?

 

It’s entirely (most) probable that my memory is wrong but I’m still curious. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Purnu

Purnu

Posted
Posted (edited)

Thanks ‘The Pilotman’, I appreciate the reply but my request for information was for (as stated) pre GNER, as in the 89 & Mk4s carrying Intercity livery.  
 

Apologies if this was not clear.

Edited by Purnu
Clarification
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Pete the Elaner

Pete the Elaner

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Purnu said:


Apologies for the resurrection of an old thread. With the recent Accurascale announcement of the 89 it brought back a few memories from my younger years.
 

One in particular relates to the above. I’m positive that I experienced a run from Doncaster-Leeds and back with a similar formation, 89 & Mk4s (pre GNER) but I can’t seem to find any photographic evidence to support it (plenty of the 89 with air-con Mk2s and Mk3s). I don’t have access to the magazine that was quoted in the original post either.

 

Were these just test runs or actual services?

 

It’s entirely (most) probable that my memory is wrong but I’m still curious. 

 

Do you need to be 100% certain?

When the first few 91s had passed acceptance tests & put into service, the 89 was placed into the same pool. This was before Mk4s were available so it was with HST Mk3 sets & an HST DVT.

The Mk4s arrived a while later. The 89 continued to supplement the class 91 fleet until its 1st withdrawal some time after this.

It is possible that an HST DVT set was retained for the 89  & it only ever worked with this, but highly unlikely.

While it is always possible to find evidence of something which did happen, it is impossible to find any evidence of something which could have but didn't happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Purnu

Purnu

Posted
Posted

Pete. If I’m honest, it was for (my) memories sake more than anything else. 

 

Having searched various photo hosting sites and turned up nothing has made me question them. Could be I’m using the wrong search criteria 😕
 

As you say, it may have or may not. I’m just curious and it got me wondering 🧐

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
lyneux

lyneux

Posted
Posted (edited)

Theres a photo in the book "East Coast Electrification" by Colin Boocock of 89001 on a rake of Mk4s in Intercity livery from 16th Feb 1990 on a Leeds service.

 

Hope that helps! PM me if you would like to see a copy.


Guy

Edited by lyneux
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 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
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...