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

[rodent279]

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.

I believe the transformer, rectifiers & traction motors are all class 87 types. To all intents & purposes, an 86/1 is a class 87/0, though somewhat heavier. Edited July 17, 2017 by rodent279

[rodent279]

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.

They got at least as far as 86045 under TOPS. Not sure if there were ever any higher numbered 86/0's. By the time my interest in railways kicked off, (late 1978/early 1979), they were numbered 86001-039, 101-103 & 204-261. Names were starting to be applied to the 86/2's, I still have the sheet of suggested names my dad gave me, which differs slightly to those applied eventually.

Edited July 17, 2017 by rodent279

['CHARD]

 I still have the sheet of suggested names my dad gave me, which differs slightly to those applied eventually.

 

So if Rodent 279 was the name dad gave you eventually, what else was on the options list?

[Flood]

The June 1972 Railway Observer has the following:

 

"In a paper given at an IEE colloquium on 24th April some details of the renumbering scheme for electric locomotives were given:

 

.....

86.001-048       Class 86/1, maximum speed 81 m.p.h.

86.501-552       Class 86/2. 86.501-503 rebuilt with Class 87 bogies; 86.504-552 will be re-geared for high-speed passenger duties.

87.001-034       New locomotives to be delivered this year. 87.034 may be experimentally fitted with thyristor control."

 

Note that initially 86/0 was known as 86/1. This was the same with all the classes, the /0 classification was not used until a little while later when it was realised that it did not cause any problems. The stating of 81 m.p.h. is probably a typo.

 

So the 86/2s originally were to be 86 501 etc but even at this stage the rebuilds with 87 bogies were envisaged.

 

Also of note is there only being 34 Class 87s, not 36.

[Pete the Elaner]

Note that initially 86/0 was known as 86/1. This was the same with all the classes, the /0 classification was not used until a little while later when it was realised that it did not cause any problems.

I had to read that twice, but that is the key & your post answers my initial question.

 

I guess the 86/2s ended up as 862XX after someone realised it was a bit bizarre numbering them 865XX, leaving 862XX vacant?

['CHARD]

I had to read that twice, but that is the key & your post answers my initial question.

 

I guess the 86/2s ended up as 862XX after someone realised it was a bit bizarre numbering them 865XX, leaving 862XX vacant?

 

I agree, and finessing this a little further, whilst originally envisaged that 501-3 and 504-52 should form one sub-class based on intended use (Class 1), the common sense from the actual Operating Department/ DM&EE came into play and pretty well decreed that they should form two separate TOPS sub-classes based on their technical differences.

[Pannier Tank]

Also of note is there only being 34 Class 87s, not 36.

 

there were 36 Class 87 built, 87 001 to 87 035 + 87 101 

 

 

Additional Information from http://aclocogroup.co.uk/history87.php

 

An order was placed for 34 powerful, 5000hp Bo-Bo locomotives (later amended to 36 units) with electrical equipment from GEC.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Pannier Tank

[stovepipe]

86201-3 first appeared in the 1973 locoshed book, which was correct to 27 Jan 1973, so the change from the 865xx range had happened by then. It wasn't until the 1975 edition though, correct to 16 Nov 1974, that 86101-3 first appeared.

 

It's interesting to note that E3173 which became 86204, was actually fitted with flexicoil suspension in May 1969, about 3-4 years before the other 86/2s were converted.

Edited July 17, 2017 by stovepipe

[Holmesfeldian]

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.

 

 

47601 was renumbered 47901 because its power plant was changed from the class 56 prototype to the class 58.

[Dagworth]

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.

Be careful, the underframe gear changed at some point late in life and what is under the preserved one is not as it was when she was first converted.

 

Andi

[rodent279]

So if Rodent 279 was the name dad gave you eventually, what else was on the options list?

Ha ha!

 

Apparently, I would have been Ruby if I'd been born a girl!

[ChrisH-UK]

It's interesting to note that E3173 which became 86204, was actually fitted with flexicoil suspension in May 1969, about 3-4 years before the other 86/2s were converted.

 

I'm assuming that was from its time as part of the HST development program when it was fitted with the aerodynamic cab but I fully expect to be proved wrong.

[big jim]

Slightly off topic, weren't class 90s originally designated 87/2, seem to remember seeing literature with it on back in the 80s

[rodent279]

Slightly off topic, weren't class 90s originally designated 87/2, seem to remember seeing literature with it on back in the 80s

Yes, they were.

[EddieB]

The June 1972 Railway Observer has the following:

 

Note that initially 86/0 was known as 86/1. This was the same with all the classes, the /0 classification was not used until a little while later when it was realised that it did not cause any problems.

I think there were similar comments in either Railway Magazine or Railway World (or both) when TOPS renumbering commenced. The class 86s were, with the class 45s, the first to receive new numbers, and IIRC, the 86/2 series the first among the 86s (i.e. starting with 86 201, which was the first renumbered loco I saw).

 

As Flood says, the /0 designation didn't exist prior to carrying of TOPS numbers; the "Toffee Apples" were class 31/1, the "Skinheads" class 24/1 (not that I like those nicknames, just that they help to identify the sub-classes concerned).

 

I'd suggest the original intention was to have the 86s in two series starting at 86 101 and 86 201, but which was changed to 86 001 and 86 201 before 86 001 emerged (E3199 in May 1973), but after 86 201 had been applied (E3191 in August 1972). On the other hand, renumbering of the Peaks into 45 001 and 45 101 series happened from the start (April and March 1973 respectively), suggesting that a decision had been taken to start class numbering generally from 001 in the intervening period.

[Pete the Elaner]

I'm assuming that was from its time as part of the HST development program when it was fitted with the aerodynamic cab but I fully expect to be proved wrong.

I didn't realise that they were the same loco until now.

From what I have read previously, the springs were separate from the HST programme. They were an attempt to improve the rough ride & track damage characteristics of the as-built AL6s.

[rodent279]

I didn't realise that they were the same loco until now.

From what I have read previously, the springs were separate from the HST programme. They were an attempt to improve the rough ride & track damage characteristics of the as-built AL6s.

Correct. My dad was on a test train behind Zebedee as it was known, which went through Leighton Buzzard at over 120 mph. The line speed at the time was 80.

I believe some testing was also done with this loco into cant deficiency and ride around curves at high speed.

Edited July 18, 2017 by rodent279

[DY444]

I've always assumed it turned out as it did because more than 3 standard 86/2s had been completed at the time so it was less work to renumber 86201-3 than the rest.

Edited July 18, 2017 by DY444

[Pete the Elaner]

I've always assumed it turned out as it did because more than 3 standard 86/2s had been completed at the time so it was less work to renumber 86201-3 than the rest.

True, but that does not answer the original question of why BR skipped 86/1 in the first place, jumping straight to 86/2

Flood's earlier post answers this.

[45125]

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.

 

i always thought there was two types before  Flexicoil and non Flexicoil........ Two different types of traction motor........

[Pete the Elaner]

i always thought there was two types before  Flexicoil and non Flexicoil........ Two different types of traction motor........

I lack knowledge on the history of this.

86/1s aside, the sub-classes seemed to be divided by suspension, not traction motors, so I don't know when these differed.

86/0 86/3 & 86/4 all had the same motors. The difference between these seem to be that 86/0 had original suspension, 86/3 had resilient wheels & then they were all given flexicoil to become 86/4.

By the time I started taking an interest in the late 80s, all 86's had flexicoils so the only differences were electrical. Did they always have different motors? I think this is unlikely because I understand they were renumbered to TOPS at random, not E3100-48 as 86/0 then E3149-99 as 86/2.

['CHARD]

I lack knowledge on the history of this.

86/1s aside, the sub-classes seemed to be divided by suspension, not traction motors, so I don't know when these differed.

86/0 86/3 & 86/4 all had the same motors. The difference between these seem to be that 86/0 had original suspension, 86/3 had resilient wheels & then they were all given flexicoil to become 86/4.

By the time I started taking an interest in the late 80s, all 86's had flexicoils so the only differences were electrical. Did they always have different motors? I think this is unlikely because I understand they were renumbered to TOPS at random, not E3100-48 as 86/0 then E3149-99 as 86/2.

 

The plot thickens.  

 

According to the bible,

 

86/2 AEI 282BZ axle hung - 4040hp, 19200lbf at 77.5 mph

86/1 GEC 412AZ frame mounted - 5000hp, 21300lbf at 87 mph

86/4 AEI 282AZ axle hung - 3600hp, 20000lbf at 67 mph

 

That does suggest that other changes were made at the time of or before TOPS renumbering, because the traction characteristics and TMs do indicate the contrasting duties for the principal subclasses.

[Pete the Elaner]

I knew 86/2 & 86/4 has different traction motors but did not know which way around the changes were made:

 

Did they upgrade the suspension on 86/2s first because they had traction motors more suitable for faster running

or

Did they install motors more suitable for faster running in 86/2s because these had flexicoil suspension?

 

I am glad I asked the opening question. It is digging up all kinds of interesting (but probably useless ) information.

[Pannier Tank]

adding into the mix, over the years there were Class 86/0, 86/1, 86/2, 86/3, 86/4, 86/5, 86/6, 86/7, 86/9

['CHARD]

From the AC Loco Group pages again....

 

The first significant change to the Class 86 fleet (as it became known in the early 70s) was the separation of the class into two principle sub classes, determined by the traction motor type. The 86/0s were the standard loco, essentially as built, and were generally restricted to freight and slower passenger duties, with their maximum speed dropped from 100mph to 80mph. The 86/2s became the high-speed passenger locomotives, all being fitted with flexicoil suspension. Forty-nine locomotives were originally converted, increased soon afterwards to 58. As traction motor types were distributed amongst the fleet seemingly at random, renumbering from the original E3XXX series to the new TOPS series was also essentially random, so, for instance, 86001 was not previously E3101.