Class 92, By Accurascale

[cairnsroadworks]

1 hour ago, ERIC ALLTORQUE said:

Outside as well rotting away.......i would think the weather on 25kv equipment does nothing for it either,we have these and dont use them and commission new electric traction,nothing adds up these days.

I suspect it will be more expensive to repair a rotting 92 than buy a new 93/99… and given the 92’s reputation for reliability probably preferable too, but I guess we will have to see how reliable the new locos are as well. 

[toby_tl10]

36 minutes ago, cairnsroadworks said:

I suspect it will be more expensive to repair a rotting 92 than buy a new 93/99… and given the 92’s reputation for reliability probably preferable too, but I guess we will have to see how reliable the new locos are as well. 

Bear in mind that both the 93 and 99 can run on diesel while the 92 can't.

 

The case of the 92 does seem slightly different to the case of the 60. When the 60's were abandoned, 66's and 70's, which perform similar tasks, were brought in; but when the 92's were abandoned, I don't think any new electric locomotives had been introduced. With electric freight trains handled by 86's and 90's, what jobs would've been suitable for the 92's?

[rob D2]

IIRC it all comes down to over estimation of tunnel freight, then completely wiping out what there was with the migrant crisis. The jib they were built for disappeared .

 

Im more intrigued why they didn’t make a go of through the tunnel overnight sleeper trains - as I understand iteurope has a lot of cross border sleepers ?

Edited May 3, 2023 by rob D2

[nightstar.train]

Just now, rob D2 said:

Im more intrigued why they didn’t make a go of through the tunnel overnight trains - as I understand iteurope has a lot of cross border sleepers ?

 

The business case for the Chunnel sleepers was always marginal at best, but the rise of cheap flights in the 90s completely killed them. Part of the problem of course comes down to our border arrangements and the tunnel security requirements. You need segregated platforms and secure compounds to hold the stock between trips, plus all the passport controls and security at each station. Same reasons the regional Eurostars died before birth. 

 

It's a great shame. As I've lived in Glasgow the last nearly 20 years I'd love a sleeper train to Paris. 

[nightstar.train]

What might've been

 

 

[rob D2]

8 minutes ago, nightstar.train said:

 

The business case for the Chunnel sleepers was always marginal at best, but the rise of cheap flights in the 90s completely killed them. Part of the problem of course comes down to our border arrangements and the tunnel security requirements. You need segregated platforms and secure compounds to hold the stock between trips, plus all the passport controls and security at each station. Same reasons the regional Eurostars died before birth. 

 

It's a great shame. As I've lived in Glasgow the last nearly 20 years I'd love a sleeper train to Paris. 

Interesting ! Your user name says you had a strong interest !

[cairnsroadworks]

2 hours ago, toby_tl10 said:

Bear in mind that both the 93 and 99 can run on diesel while the 92 can't.

 

The case of the 92 does seem slightly different to the case of the 60. When the 60's were abandoned, 66's and 70's, which perform similar tasks, were brought in; but when the 92's were abandoned, I don't think any new electric locomotives had been introduced. With electric freight trains handled by 86's and 90's, what jobs would've been suitable for the 92's?

The domestic electric freight hauled by 86s and 90s were Freighliner ones so not covered by DB 90s at the time. 

 

When the 92s were abandoned by DB their domestic duties were taken over by pairs of 90s. Ironically, given where the GB 92s ended up, they were going spare because of the loss of the sleeper contract as prior to that, post privatisation DB 90 hauled freights were rare.
 

I’m not technical at all, but I think the sleeper 92s are heavily modified with a lot of equipment not required for hauling sleepers removed, but I might be wrong.  

[Peter749]

On 02/05/2023 at 04:03, toby_tl10 said:

There are quite a lot of photos and videos online where people run their 92038 with CS Mk5 stock.

Is there a reason why running 92038 with Mk5 Sleepers is in accurate? - Or is it a "I know something you don't" comment?

 

 

 

[Andy7]

5 minutes ago, Peter749 said:

Is there a reason why running 92038 with Mk5 Sleepers is in accurate? - Or is it a "I know something you don't" comment?

 

 

 

I had wondered along the same lines as you and also went to look. A quick peruse on Flickr confirms plenty of workings attached to the Mk5’s.

Not sure what the comment is about. 

[cairnsroadworks]

16 minutes ago, Andy7 said:

I had wondered along the same lines as you and also went to look. A quick peruse on Flickr confirms plenty of workings attached to the Mk5’s.

Not sure what the comment is about. 

 

24 minutes ago, Peter749 said:

Is there a reason why running 92038 with Mk5 Sleepers is in accurate? - Or is it a "I know something you don't" comment?

 

 

 

The model depicts the period prior to it being Dellner fitted when it carried the channel tunnel “polo mints” and Crewe eagle depot plaques, and only ran with the earlier mk3 sleepers. See my post earlier for full details. When 38 was Dellner fitted it lost the tunnel “polo mints” and depot plaques, which, if you have OCD like me, means you can’t run it with Mk5s as it’s not accurate 🤣🤣🤣

[cairnsroadworks]

On 02/05/2023 at 16:04, cairnsroadworks said:

Does the model have the Crewe IEMD Eagles on as well? It wore both from respray in 2016 until June 2017 but of course didn’t have Dellners at that stage either. Oh my OCD when I see modellers running it with Mk5s 🤣🤣🤣

 

It returned to traffic without the rings or plaques, with Dellners fitted, in early 2018 I think, it was the first to be fitted, and was involved in the early testing of the stock. 

This was my post with the details. 

[Peter749]

Too many variations with the CS 92s

 

You can have them without Crewe Depot Plates and without Dellners

 

[nightstar.train]

5 hours ago, rob D2 said:

Interesting ! Your user name says you had a strong interest !

 

Indeed! I've been fascinated with them since I discovered their existence in the late 90s. One of these days I will build myself a whole rake to run with my 92. 

[cairnsroadworks]

27 minutes ago, Peter749 said:

Too many variations with the CS 92s

 

You can have them without Crewe Depot Plates and without Dellners

 

Indeed. Although that period didn’t last long. 38 was the first to be fitted with Dellners and 23 was overhauled, as were most of the Cale ones, whilst they were still hauling the mk3’s, so didn’t get the Dellner till later. 

[rob D2]

53 minutes ago, nightstar.train said:

 

Indeed! I've been fascinated with them since I discovered their existence in the late 90s. One of these days I will build myself a whole rake to run with my 92. 

That’d be an interesting “ what if “ station. 
class 37/6s swapping to class 92s in an ultra modern station whilst the departures board displays “ Paris “, “ Vienna “ “ Milan “. !

[nightstar.train]

1 minute ago, rob D2 said:

That’d be an interesting “ what if “ station. 
class 37/6s swapping to class 92s in an ultra modern station whilst the departures board displays “ Paris “, “ Vienna “ “ Milan “. !

 

One day I'll be able to convert my loft and build my dream layout. In this dream I have a large roundy roundy to watch trains go by, with two large terminus stations so I can run trains between them. One of my ideas is to have a modern extension bolted onto one of the terminus stations, rather like Waterloo International. So hopefully I could do exactly that. Set off the Nightstar sleeper from one terminus with a pair of class 37s (need Accurascale to make the 37/6 in EPS guise) and Generator van on the front, few laps of the track and into the international station. Attach a class 92 to the other end and away for a few more laps before disappearing to a fiddle yard. Repeat in reverse next morning. 

 

I have a mad soft spot for sleeper trains, I have far too many of them relative to day stock. My dream layout will feature Intercity Swallow Highlander, Scotrail purple Highlander, Mk2/3 Caledonian sleeper Deerstalker express, Mk5 Caledonian sleeper Highlander and Mk 3 GWR Night Riviera. Plus the Nightstar international services of course. 

[adb968008]

5 hours ago, Peter749 said:

Is there a reason why running 92038 with Mk5 Sleepers is in accurate? - Or is it a "I know something you don't" comment?

 

 

 

Really ?

 

i dont know whats more depressing a snide remark,

or the fact the poster was  ignorant to read the facts from the very person being sniped who had spent time and research to present them to him.

Why do I bother !

😃

 

here you go lazy… (1 page back, and 32 pages back when I posted it first time around).

 

Quote

92038 worked with mk3’s however, alongside. 86401/86101/87002 and a variety of class 90’s.

 

The 92’s on mk3’s is quite a variety to the mk5’s and there was a handover period where one set was mk5 and another mk3.

 

Flickr suggests a starting date of 19th March 2015

and with the above, an end date of 22nd June 2017 for this livery variant.

The image you posted, with Dellners, without rings, or crewe plaque started on 9th Feb 2018… which is more a kin to the 92010 model.

it couldnt work mk5’s prior because the ETS ratings for mk3 to mk5 are different too, in addition to couplings.. so during the change over period from mk3 to mk5’s the 92’s had to be managed accordingly, as Dellner fitted 92’s could only work mk3’s if the ratings were adjusted.

 

Here is 92038, in its revised state with Dellners, but on mk3’s in Feb 2019.

 

(not mine / flickr)

 

92038 was one of the trio which infamously failed at Carlisle on mk5 testing 26th June 2019, with three 92’s (one on a sleeper, 038 on a mk5 test run and a rescue 92) all ending up failed next to each other for 3 days blocking 3 lines!

 

(Also not mine / Flickr url) 

 

This is what gave 86101/401 and 87002 that burst of extra life in that interim period…

 

fwiw 92038 has yoyoed back to / forth loughborough recently for its new overhaul… certainly indications suggest its not healthy. It was on ecs duties a while, then a christmas tree, its only done a few Scottish trips recently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by adb968008

[toby_tl10]

11 hours ago, Andy7 said:

I had wondered along the same lines as you and also went to look. A quick peruse on Flickr confirms plenty of workings attached to the Mk5’s.

Not sure what the comment is about. 

A quick search on Flickr also gives you these - 3 states of 92038 (Flickr links, not my pics)

 

1 - With roundels, hauling Mk3's

2 - Without roundels, hauling Mk3's

3 - Without roundels, hauling Mk5's

 

Haven't seen 92038 (or indeed any 92) hauling Mk5's with roundels. However, I'm more than happy to be corrected and learn more on this issue if there is evidence.

 

And even Accurascale themselves are running 92038 with roundels with their Mk5's. So it's really not that big of a deal.

https://www.facebook.com/AccurascaleUK/posts/pfbid0uCtNvzzPwWXsZb95ppYGUBUAjw7VBzUV7wESeAxGBqX7nSrXkJKzqQuWjJMmPEqyl

Edited May 4, 2023 by toby_tl10
added last para

[Bucoops]

10 hours ago, rob D2 said:

That’d be an interesting “ what if “ station. 
class 37/6s swapping to class 92s in an ultra modern station whilst the departures board displays “ Paris “, “ Vienna “ “ Milan “. !

 

"Peckham".

[E100]

Or and hear me out...  You love the polo mints and Crewe depot plates to the point of running 038 with the mk5's and live in vain hope that one day they add them back.

[adb968008]

12 hours ago, rob D2 said:

That’d be an interesting “ what if “ station. 
class 37/6s swapping to class 92s in an ultra modern station whilst the departures board displays “ Paris “, “ Vienna “ “ Milan “. !

In a few weeks you maybe able to put DRS 37/6’s and pretend anyway ?

 

You could put ROG 37’s with them, and future proof yourself… one day they will go one way to Newport with a ROG 37.

😀

[cairnsroadworks]

3 hours ago, toby_tl10 said:

A quick search on Flickr also gives you these - 3 states of 92038 (Flickr links, not my pics)

 

1 - With roundels, hauling Mk3's

2 - Without roundels, hauling Mk3's

3 - Without roundels, hauling Mk5's

 

Haven't seen 92038 (or indeed any 92) hauling Mk5's with roundels. However, I'm more than happy to be corrected and learn more on this issue if there is evidence.

 

And even Accurascale themselves are running 92038 with roundels with their Mk5's. So it's really not that big of a deal.

https://www.facebook.com/AccurascaleUK/posts/pfbid0uCtNvzzPwWXsZb95ppYGUBUAjw7VBzUV7wESeAxGBqX7nSrXkJKzqQuWjJMmPEqyl

Re the latter point, I’ve whined on FB about that too 🤣🤣🤣

 

You won’t see a 92 with roundels on mk5’s as it never happened. I think 38 was the only one that reappeared with them in Cale blue?

[cairnsroadworks]

2 hours ago, E100 said:

Or and hear me out...  You love the polo mints and Crewe depot plates to the point of running 038 with the mk5's and live in vain hope that one day they add them back.

You’ve got me!

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, E100 said:

Or and hear me out...  You love the polo mints and Crewe depot plates to the point of running 038 with the mk5's and live in vain hope that one day they add them back.

Yes but you just know they will add the mints back wrong way around.

[E100]

34 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Yes but you just know they will add the mints back wrong way around.

 

Oh I don't even want to imagine. Probably podium style (medium)(large)(small)