89001 possibly returning to service

[TravisM]

Don’t forget, GBRf are or were investigating the possibilities of bringing parcel traffic back on the rails and I think Amazon is high on the list of possible contracts. With this in mind, getting 89001 back to work as well as using their 86’s and 87 along with converting surplus Mk III’s, could be a bit of a no brainier.

Edited January 3, 2019 by jools1959

[Pete the Elaner]

Don’t forget, GBRf are or were investigating the possibilities of bringing parcel traffic back on the rails and I think Amazon is high on the list of possible contracts. With this in mind, getting 89001 back to work as well as using their 86’s and 87 along with converting surplus Mk III’s, could be a bit of a no brainier.

Counting 86101 as an 87, these are the only 2 of the class left running in the country, so no spares are available.

89001 contains a lot of bespoke components.

There are 49 class 90s plus whatever if left inside 90050 so far more spares for Anglia's 15 once they are off-lease, especially if several are held back as donors.

 

Potential use of 89001 seems to be a short-term solution: use it until something fails, by which time a more permanent replacement will hopefully be available.

[black and decker boy]

I don't know what you guys think but to me, the only way 89001 could be brought into long term use would be if all its none standard electrical components were got rid of and components that are classed as standard electric loco components were fitted including the motors which only operate with its current fittings.

 

Removing all its guts and practically rebuilding the loco with standard fittings which yes I know would cost huge sums of cash is the only way I can see 89001 becoming a regular sighting on the rails.

Standard to what? There isn’t a common standard, each class and each generation are relatively unique. The only current production electrics are the class 88, no point trying to convert the 89 to one when the 10 existing ones are underused and such a task would cost enormous sums.

 

Within 18 months there will be 46 spare 110mph and 125mph AC electrics available for any charter/ freight / spot hire work

[Pete the Elaner]

I don't know what you guys think but to me, the only way 89001 could be brought into long term use would be if all its none standard electrical components were got rid of and components that are classed as standard electric loco components were fitted including the motors which only operate with its current fittings.

 

Removing all its guts and practically rebuilding the loco with standard fittings which yes I know would cost huge sums of cash is the only way I can see 89001 becoming a regular sighting on the rails.

As far as I understand, it would just be to cover for a short term shortage & not a term solution.

If it can be hired out for 4-6 months then sent back broken, the TOC would probably be happy with that.

 

I am not sure if it is a rumour or a serious suggestion.

[rodent279]

I have to say, I think rumour is more likely. One-offs like the 89 aren't quite like one-offs like DoG. In the end, 71000 is a kit of mechanical parts, which one way or another can be made/remade.

The parts for the 89, such as traction motors, chokes, control systems etc, could on paper be remade, but it's not as easy as making mechanical parts out of metal. A complex electric loco, with many electrical systems that have to integrate with each other and work together, is an altogether different proposition to rebuilding a steam loco.

Rebuilding the 89 with, say, class 90/91/92 drive and traction motors would be a bit like rebuilding DoG with 3 sets of Walschaerts valve gear, it would fundamentally change the loco, except that Walschaerts gear would be more of a known quantity.

It's possible, but beyond the means of a preservation group, and probably not financially viable in the short term, unless a manufacturer was to take it on as a test bed.

Edited January 4, 2019 by rodent279

[adb968008]

Counting 86101 as an 87, these are the only 2 of the class left running in the country, so no spares are available.

89001 contains a lot of bespoke components.

There are 49 class 90s plus whatever if left inside 90050 so far more spares for Anglia's 15 once they are off-lease, especially if several are held back as donors.

 

Potential use of 89001 seems to be a short-term solution: use it until something fails, by which time a more permanent replacement will hopefully be available.

I always thought an 87 was an upgraded 86, and a 90 was an upgraded 87. (It was until 1987 referred to as an 87/2).

Freightliner still has a bunch of 86’s in service.

I’d have thought there was a reason amount of commonality and spares.

 

Class 91s I understand have a completely different ancestry.

My guess is the class 90’s may find a future home in Bulgaria, with 91’s taking their duties.

 

If the class 89 is a no hoper, then why are they spending so much money on it ? If it was preservation only it would make more sense to conserve 86101/002 but instead they let 401 go off grid and 213 go to Bulgaria... AC locos don’t get much public support and it was only a few years back the group was on its uppers, therefore to survive this became a preservation group which is supported by its commercial arm, therefore there is a strategy that guides their spending...

Edited January 3, 2019 by adb968008

[frobisher]

If the class 89 is a no hoper, then why are they spending so much money on it ? If it was preservation only it would make more sense to conserve 86101/002 but instead they let 401 go off grid and 213 go to Bulgaria... AC locos don’t get much public support and it was only a few years back the group was on its uppers, therefore to survive this became a preservation group which is supported by its commercial arm, therefore there is a strategy that guides their spending...

Also, isn't there some commonality with the Brush built locos built for the Le Shuttle service, which previously allowed spares to be constructed when she was on GNER service? Until those locos are no longer supported, the possibility remains.

[Zomboid]

I always thought an 87 was an upgraded 86, and a 90 was an upgraded 87. (It was until 1987 referred to as an 87/2).

Freightliner still has a bunch of 86’s in service.

 

In the sense that UP4014 is an upgraded Locomotion maybe. There's a few generations of electrical technology in there. 87101 is/was pretty close to a 90, and the 87 was based on the 86/1s, but you wouldn't recognize much in a 90 of you're only familiar with the as-built 86s. Edited January 4, 2019 by Zomboid

[DY444]

AIUI the stated intention is to restore the locomotive to operational condition and to assess whether the commercial environment (be that railtours or TOC/FOC use) justifies the additional expense of getting main line certification. 

 

The spares issue is a genuine one.  89001 is a one off and obtaining electronic components for 25-30 year old locomotives can be difficult, a problem which afflicts Class 90, 91 and 92 too.  In many cases there are ways of upgrading systems with more modern components but this sometimes means a degree of recertification is required.  This has been done to an extent with Class 91 (as they are fully deployed and it's worth doing), the GBRF 92s (long term traffic for them and having major overhauls or total rebuilds anyway), largely avoided with Class 90 (the GA ones have had some mods but the FOC ones are not fully deployed and some can be used as spares donors) but is unlikely to be an ongoing viable option for 89001 unless backed by a TOC/FOC or someone like Wabtec (nee Brush).

 

This problem is less of an issue for Classes 86/7 as there is a bigger spares pool, they are largely electro-mechanical so refurbishment or manufacture of parts is a more viable proposition and equivalents for the limited number of electronic components are still generally available.  I think it was Chris Green who said that maintaining Class 90s required technicians whilst maintaining Class 86s and 87s required blacksmiths. 

[TravisM]

I’m surprised that someone from either the AC group, LNER or GBRf has not stood up and confirmed or denied the rumour as I’m sure that this thread is read by them, unless of course it’s now commercially sensitive?

[black and decker boy]

I’m surprised that someone from either the AC group, LNER or GBRf has not stood up and confirmed or denied the rumour as I’m sure that this thread is read by them, unless of course it’s now commercially sensitive?

Rumours around the 89 occur regularly on forums and especially whenever restoration work hits a milestone despite repeated statements from AC Loco Group that they are simply aiming to restore to working order before assessing cost and viability of any add in work that may be necessary to go Mainline. Given the 89 doesn’t (?) have TPWS, OTMR or GSM-R, bespoke designs may be needed. There is also the looming issue of ETCS on the southern ECML.

[kevinlms]

I’m surprised that someone from either the AC group, LNER or GBRf has not stood up and confirmed or denied the rumour as I’m sure that this thread is read by them, unless of course it’s now commercially sensitive?

What and turn it into another thread like the Tornado one? Given the way that went, the last thing they'd want is to be expected, to answer pages and pages of questions, DEMANDING to know the details of a business arrangement, or else be accused of a cover up!

[Fat Controller]

Also, isn't there some commonality with the Brush built locos built for the Le Shuttle service, which previously allowed spares to be constructed when she was on GNER service? Until those locos are no longer supported, the possibility remains.

I believe the builder's plates were similar; the 'Brush' locos at Eurotunnel may have been assembled at Loughborough, but the components therein came from ASEA and Brown-Boveri as well as Brush itself. How many of the original gubbins remains, and how much was exchanged at the mid-life upgrade, when some locos were upgraded to 7mW against the 5.5mW original, I wouldn't like to guess.

[jim.snowdon]

Also, isn't there some commonality with the Brush built locos built for the Le Shuttle service, which previously allowed spares to be constructed when she was on GNER service? Until those locos are no longer supported, the possibility remains.

We've been here before, and any similarity between the traction equipments on the 89 and the 92/LeShuttle locomotives is down to not much more than the number of traction motors and power from the 25kV overhead. The latter are equipped with three-phase drives, whereas the 89 has separately excited DC motors, and as such probably has more in common with the class 60s and, oddly enough, the DC drive in the Docklands B90/92 cars, all of which originated with Westinghouse.

 

Jim

[phil-b259]

Rumours around the 89 occur regularly on forums and especially whenever restoration work hits a milestone despite repeated statements from AC Loco Group that they are simply aiming to restore to working order before assessing cost and viability of any add in work that may be necessary to go Mainline. Given the 89 doesn’t (?) have TPWS, OTMR or GSM-R, bespoke designs may be needed. There is also the looming issue of ETCS on the southern ECML.

 

Which may be why a short term hire to LNER could be beneficial to the ACL loco group as the TOC can help fund the TPWS, OTMR and GSM-R kit which gets left on the loco once the hire is over.

 

ECTS fitment would also be simplified if the loco was mainline registered as Network Rail is under an obligation to design and arrange fitment to the first loco of any class (the TOC funds the rest once the prototype installation has been certified as it were) - providing said loco is mainline certified at the time ECTS is being installed on the network.

[rodent279]

I was checking out some trains from Birmingham to London the other day. A Pendo is generally 5 - 6 minutes faster than the original electric service from 1967 when it was timed to be capable of doing with a Class 81/85 and 12 vac braked Mk1s. The WMT service via Northampton is about the same timings as when it was a 310 unit, which were limited to 75mph due to problems if they were coupled to a 304.

 

But how many stops are the Pendos making compared to the 1967 timetable?

[rodent279]

I thought a few photos of the Flying Badger might be pertinent.

 

Kings Cross at the head of the 1736 commuter service to Peterborough. 25/07/1988.

 

 

At Leeds, 1320 KX-Leeds & 1700 return, 11/02/1989.

 

 

 

Looking a bit sorry for itself, Butterley, June 1993.

 

 

[keefer]

But how many stops are the Pendos making compared to the 1967 timetable?

or indeed how much 'recovery time' is built into the timetable these days?

I say 'these days' but seems to have been like this since the '90s at least - any number of services with better modern stock should be quicker, but end-to-ends are similar or slower than equivalents from the past. i'm sure we're all familiar with trains where, if everything has gone ok, at some point they have to 'wait time'. whereas on other days, there can be a succession of delays but it still arrives 'on time'

probably not helped by the introduction of penalties/compensation for late running or changing definitions of what is 'on time'?

[russ p]

Its never been the prettiest of things especially with the larger yellow panel.

I always thought from day one if the lights had been arranged like an HST it would have looked so much better.

Its never really had a face, having said all that drivers that have worked on it always sing its praises and I rode on it about 1989 and it seem to be better than a 91 from a stand though it did smell of burning electric!

[Ragtag]

Have to disagree there Russ, ever since the first time I saw it the looks struck me as something special. Got to be one of the best looking locos in my opinion, though admittedly I do prefer it in GNER. Seems to look smarter in one overall colour. 

Don't think it would suit LNER red somehow...

Edited January 5, 2019 by Ragtag

[LMS_LNER_SR_GWR_fan2004]

I think the morale is that British built trains are better than their foreign replacements no matter how old they are. I am really excited if this is true!

 

Best regards, Matthew

[DY444]

But how many stops are the Pendos making compared to the 1967 timetable?

 

Iirc the standard stopping pattern was Coventry and New St only.  A few peak hour trains stopped at Hampton In Arden and/or Watford Junction.  One morning up train ran non-stop from New St.  Birmingham International didn't exists back then. 

 

It's a very difficult comparison because so much has changed - traffic levels, traction and brakes, tpws, speed limits and infrastructure, driving styles and tolerance of "enthusiastic" time recovery, train dispatch etc etc. 

Edited January 6, 2019 by DY444

[jjb1970]

One problem with the LNWR services to Birmingham via Northampton is that they seem to sit in Northampton for ages. A couple of times I used the service when I had to go to Coventry regularly and it felt more like a Birmingham - Northampton service and a Northampton - London service with connecting passengers allowed to remain on board at Northampton between each service.

[Pannier Tank]

One problem with the LNWR services to Birmingham via Northampton is that they seem to sit in Northampton for ages. A couple of times I used the service when I had to go to Coventry regularly and it felt more like a Birmingham - Northampton service and a Northampton - London service with connecting passengers allowed to remain on board at Northampton between each service.

 

I travelled on a LNWR Service from Bletchley to Birmingham International where we were booked for a 15 Minute stop. On this occasion an additional Class 350 was added to the service; I have noticed this on other occasions.  

Edited January 6, 2019 by Pannier Tank

[rodent279]

The next time I got close to the Badger was 12 years later, at Norwich Community Rail Day, 24/09/2005. By then withdrawn from service with GNER and in the care of the AC Locomotive Group, it was looking much better cared for. I haven't clapped eyes on it since. I'd love to see it on the big railway again, but I'm not holding my breath.

Here it stands next to 84001, also in the care of the ACLG.

 

 

Edited January 6, 2019 by rodent279