Why were 86/1s & 86/2s not the other way around?

[Pete the Elaner]

I know basically how they differed, but why were the standard designs 86/0 & 86/2? Why initially leave 86/1 vacant?

What I find more puzzling is that the pilot 87s were initially numbered 86201/2/3 then re-numbered into the vacant 86/1 range? It was almost is if 86/1 was left vacant for a reason.

I can't find much detail about their conversion. I assume they were originally the same as the 86/2s but when were they converted? Was it before their brief period of being numbered as 86/2's?

['CHARD]

Even AC Loco Group doesn't offer much insight....

 

http://aclocogroup.co.uk/history86.php

[Dunsignalling]

I know basically how they differed, but why were the standard designs 86/0 & 86/2? Why initially leave 86/1 vacant?

What I find more puzzling is that the pilot 87s were initially numbered 86201/2/3 then re-numbered into the vacant 86/1 range? It was almost is if 86/1 was left vacant for a reason.

I can't find much detail about their conversion. I assume they were originally the same as the 86/2s but when were they converted? Was it before their brief period of being numbered as 86/2's?

I'm guessing that three variants might have been planned originally but the 86/1 didn't get built. It seems logical to me anyway.

 

John

[Pete the Elaner]

I'm guessing that three variants might have been planned originally but the 86/1 didn't get built. It seems logical to me anyway.

 

John

86's were all built well before TOPS.

When TOPS was introduced, there were 2 variations: With & without flexicoil suspension. There were 100 86's & 86/2s were clearly not going to be converted back to 86/0 so why leave 86/1 free?

[Pete the Elaner]

Even AC Loco Group doesn't offer much insight....

 

http://aclocogroup.co.uk/history86.php

Neither does Wikipedia, that's why I thought I would ask on here.

[Mike at C&M]

Might the key lie in the fact that the 86/1s are numbered 86.101 to 86.103, whilst the 86/2s started at 86.204?

 

When it was decided to build the 86/1s, they simply choose the first 3 which were being renumbered. Remember that the 86s are NOT renumbered in any logical order from their original numbers of E3101 to E3200

[Pete the Elaner]

Might the key lie in the fact that the 86/1s are numbered 86.101 to 86.103, whilst the 86/2s started at 86.204?

 

When it was decided to build the 86/1s, they simply choose the first 3 which were being renumbered. Remember that the 86s are NOT renumbered in any logical order from their original numbers of E3101 to E3200

Yes, but they briefly carried 86201-3, which is why I am intrigued.

[woodenhead]

There would have been 100 86s so there would have been a 86100 on tops, as that would eat into the 86/1 number range perhaps they simply opted to start the numbering at 200 and so got 86/2

[david.hill64]

86/1 were the test beds for the class 87 bogies and were therefore very different from the rest of the class 86 fleet. I assume that BR left the 86/1 series vacant specifically knowing that these would be produced but lead times etc on design and manufacture meant that they were converted to be part of the high speed (86/2) fleet first. Again an assumption from me, but BR would have known how many 100mph locos it needed (86/1 and 86/2) and how many 80mph (86/0). So logically it would have made sense to do the conversion to 86/2 and then when the new bogies were available and leave the number series ready. Why they chose to call the bulk of the fleet 86/2 and the three oddballs 86/1 rather then the other way round is beyond me.

 

The fastest ride I ever has behind an 86 was with 86101 on a test train where we managed 125mph for high speed train brake development tests.

[rodent279]

There would have been 100 86s so there would have been a 86100 on tops, as that would eat into the 86/1 number range perhaps they simply opted to start the numbering at 200 and so got 86/2

Not necessarily. You could start at 101, & number to 86200. If you can have 47500, you can have 86200.

 

TOPS didn't like classes starting with 3 digits, which is why there is no 47000, 56000 etc. Quite why this should be I don't know, it's only a number, and computers are number crunching machines. In my line of work we number mobile base stations using 5 digits, many of which end in 3 0's.

[Dunsignalling]

There would have been 100 86s so there would have been a 86100 on tops, as that would eat into the 86/1 number range perhaps they simply opted to start the numbering at 200 and so got 86/2

That sounds as good a reason as any to me.

[Pete the Elaner]

86/1 were the test beds for the class 87 bogies and were therefore very different from the rest of the class 86 fleet. I assume that BR left the 86/1 series vacant specifically knowing that these would be produced but lead times etc on design and manufacture meant that they were converted to be part of the high speed (86/2) fleet first. Again an assumption from me, but BR would have known how many 100mph locos it needed (86/1 and 86/2) and how many 80mph (86/0). So logically it would have made sense to do the conversion to 86/2 and then when the new bogies were available and leave the number series ready. Why they chose to call the bulk of the fleet 86/2 and the three oddballs 86/1 rather then the other way round is beyond me.

That sounds the most plausible explanation I have heard but your last question still remains unanswered. I agree that it seems an unusual way to do things.. unless BR expected all of the class to eventually be converted to 86/2, then 86300 would have made more sense than 86200?

[Pete the Elaner]

That sounds as good a reason as any to me.

No it doesn't.

There were already 2 types: those without flexicoil (86/0) & those with (86/2). Flexiciol was a successful modification so there was never a chance of the 86/2s all being modified back to 86/0.

[woodenhead]

Perhaps TOPS was pre-filled with 100 86/0 locomotives prior to the locomotives themselves being renumbered - a shadow number allocation, if that was the case then they would have to had started at 200 if they wanted the flexicoils to be a sub class.

[Dunsignalling]

Not necessarily. You could start at 101, & number to 86200. If you can have 47500, you can have 86200.

 

TOPS didn't like classes starting with 3 digits, which is why there is no 47000, 56000 etc. Quite why this should be I don't know, it's only a number, and computers are number crunching machines. In my line of work we number mobile base stations using 5 digits, many of which end in 3 0's.

Yes, but in TOPS (and similar systems) the first two digits describe the basic type of the vehicle, so 47 000 would be Class 47, number nought.

 

There were, of course, various subsequent renumberings involving the creation of sub-classes but (for instance) Class 47/4 still started at 47 401 and 47 500 was a 47/4 because the sub-class included more than 100 locos.

 

As the numbers of 47/4s increased, the heavy freight test-bed loco had to be renumbered from 47 601 to 47 901 to avoid confusion, though the number was not re-used.

 

John

Edited July 17, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[great central]

Going back to my days as a telephone engineer the number 0 actually means 10. Following the same logic on Tops that would mean E3200 actually being 86101 with straight numerical re-numbering as the 100th loco in the class as you would have to start at 86001 correctly from E3101. I'm sure I've read something in the past that TOPs followed similar principles, that being the reason that some preTops 00 numbered locos took either the last number in class or filled a gap think D9000 to 55022

[Poor Old Bruce]

Surely the original 86101 was the thyristor controlled one named 'STEPHENSON'. 

 

Forget that. Engaged fingers before brain. that was 87101 of course.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Poor Old Bruce

[Pete the Elaner]

Surely the original 86101 was the thyristor controlled one named 'STEPHENSON'.

No, that was 87101, not 86101.

86101-3 were prototype class 87's in a class 86 shell.

[david.hill64]

Surely the original 86101 was the thyristor controlled one named 'STEPHENSON'.

87101 was the thyristor loco.

[Pete the Elaner]

87101 was the thyristor loco.

I think we were typing those together

[Poor Old Bruce]

Got the message! Sorry folks. Must try harder. Correction was posted before the flak came down.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Poor Old Bruce

[forest2807]

Interesting discussion. I know the 86/1s had Class 87 bogies, but what about the rest of the underframe equipment? Was that 86 or 87 style?

[woodenhead]

Apart from the bogies and front end, was there much difference between an 86 and 87, Stephen was just the prototype for what became the 87/2 / 90 project.

[Pete the Elaner]

Interesting discussion. I know the 86/1s had Class 87 bogies, but what about the rest of the underframe equipment? Was that 86 or 87 style?

That's a good question & since I am creating an 87/1 from a Lime 87 & Hornby 86, I should have looked asked this myself earlier. I have the models to hand & have checked some photos of 86101 to answer it.

86101 has 86 equipment between its bogies but when looking at it side-on with the No1 (non-pan) end on the left, the left hand of the 2 compressors (removed on most 86s) has been replaced with a component which the 87s have here. I am not sure what this component is.

[Pete the Elaner]

Apart from the bogies and front end, was there much difference between an 86 and 87, Stephen was just the prototype for what became the 87/2 / 90 project.

Visually, not a lot. I expect the transformer was different though.

87101 Stephenson was indeed the 87/2 / 90 prototype, but that was 87101, not an 86/1.