class 89001 avocet.

[PinzaC55]

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

 

I seem to remember reading that the BR engineers didn't like the idea of the punishment that the six wheel bogies of a fleet of 89's would dish out to their track.

Edited March 27, 2014 by PinzaC55

[Bomag]

I seem to remember reading that the BR engineers didn't like the idea of the punishment that the six wheel bogies of a fleet of 89's would dish out to their track.

 

The dynamic load of an 89 at 125mph was supposed to be similar to a 91 at 140mph. I was told by one of the mech-engs that they could get the 89 up to 140mph (and back down to 0) better than a 91 except for the track loads - however, he also told me that 86/2 on the Norwich line were not causing a problem. This was odd given the number of time I was out on the GEML several time a month surveying the impact of all those nose suspended traction motors!

[newbryford]

Looks like 89001 is being repaired/restored. Possibly to 125mph main line capability.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[ChrisH-UK]

A longish time ago in a galaxy not so far away I posted about a pic of the 89 on a Mk4 set in a Modern Railways Special. A couple of days ago while checking old magazines I found the exact same picture in issue 118 of Rail (Which has the former class 33 that was repainted in Mainline livery on the front) the pic is on pg 14, the caption reads

 

 

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.

[mpb56125]

Update on the AC loco group website http://www.aclocogroup.co.uk/news.php

 

Mark

[ess1uk]

Used to like seeing this loco when new.

[Chameleon]

Good to see they are restoring it. Presumably it'll be available for hire like the other locos?

[LNERGE]

Hopefully i can increase my mileage behind this machine one day.. Although i travelled from Stevenage to Peterborough behind it it was only under it's own power as far as Hitchin.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/gallery/image/23144-003jpg/

Edited May 3, 2016 by LNERGE

[russ p]

I remember having a cab ride on it between Doncaster and York about 1990 when York was the end of the wires. The driver preferred it to a 91,the thing is always remember about the ride and other occasions I saw it on its first stint was a sort of burning/ hot plastic smell

 

As regards stock it was often used on an evening train to York, which got there about half 10. On a Friday this went to Newcastle but had a loco change at York. It was made up of mk2 aircons

Edited May 3, 2016 by russ p

[JeffP]

Mentioning driver preference, I asked a driver at doncaster when it arrived there, which was better, 89001 or a 91. he preferred the 89 for acceleration, but said there wasn't much between them in everything else.

[cheesysmith]

This talk about the 89 and track forces, it is a red hearing. The 89 was designed to the standards laid down by the BR civil engineers, namely the same as a HST, with a static axle load of 17 tons and the unsprung mass of the gearbox on the axle, with the motors mounted onto the bogies (so the motors are on the sprung side of the primary suspension). It was just the BR civil engineers being over cautious of their Pway. The 89 would have been better than what was already running (the HST having 8 axles vs the 89 having 6), but the 91 came out at the same time with even better track friendly bogies. Coupled to the fact there was zero experiance of high speed track forces with a co co bogie, it was no woundering the civils reacted with caution. The 91 was a better loco ( higher power to weight, lower track forces etc) but it is still limited by trying to put its power down through only 4 axles ( remembering a 91 trying to climb out of Leeds in the snow) .

[russ p]

I seem to remember at the time there was a bit of needless comparison to the Amtrak SDP40 and E60 Co Cos, as both these types had derailments attributed to the wheel arrangement. Boiler tanks high up didn't help!

[Nimbus]

Didn't the WR borrow a Deltic for dipped rail joint high speed tests specifically because of its low track forces?

 

The Nim.

[Bomag]

This talk about the 89 and track forces, it is a red hearing.. It was just the BR civil engineers being over cautious of their Pway.

 

Oh one of those, given that every vehcile engineer I spoke to sweared blind that nose hung TMs on class 86's had no impact (ha!) on the p/way or that it was just bad trackwork - which it wasn't - then no wonder pronocements about track forces were taken with a bag of salt by the p/way department.

[Titan]

Didn't the WR borrow a Deltic for dipped rail joint high speed tests specifically because of its low track forces?

 

The Nim.

 

They actually borrowed one specifically for its high track forces.  IIRC The standard was that nothing running at any speed should impose a higher track force than A Deltic running at 100mph. I believe that Class 47s were designed for 100mph but restricted to 95 for this reason.

 

As a side note it was discovered that there was not a sufficient scientific evaluation of this until just after the Deltics were withdrawn. So 55015 was dragged off the scrap line and taken to the RTC Derby and put on a special test rig to measure it!

[Allegheny1600]

I seem to remember at the time there was a bit of needless comparison to the Amtrak SDP40 and E60 Co Cos, as both these types had derailments attributed to the wheel arrangement. Boiler tanks high up didn't help!

Surely it would have made more sense to look to Germany where the class 103 Co-Co electric had been in service since about 1970, at up to 200Kmh (124Mph)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB_Class_103 (18.7 ton axle load)

I know you said it was a needless comparison, I should say a completely worthless comparison as the E60 had very little in common apart from being an electric 6 axle machine. 29 ton axle load, geez!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_E60

 

PS I always loved the class 89, I was so disapointed when it wasn't chosen for multiplication, I would have far rather had a fleet of these than 'just' class 90's!

Edited May 5, 2016 by Allegheny1600

[JeffP]

Didn't the French C-C 6500 locos get 200kph ratings at one time?

 

Is the fact that they were C-C, not Co-Co important?

[Allegheny1600]

Didn't the French C-C 6500 locos get 200kph ratings at one time?

 

Is the fact that they were C-C, not Co-Co important?

Hi Jeff,

In this instance, I would say "yes" it's an important distinction because the CC6500's (and I really do love them!) are mono motor bogies, kind of like a full size Lima or Hornby ringfield motor bogie!

As their wheelbase is therefore much shorter and without the axle hung motor of the class 89 or class 103, I wouldn't like to draw comparisons between them. As you say, they certainly were 200Kph machines though and wonderful to travel behind.

Cheers,

John

[Titan]

Hi Jeff,

In this instance, I would say "yes" it's an important distinction because the CC6500's (and I really do love them!) are mono motor bogies, kind of like a full size Lima or Hornby ringfield motor bogie!

As their wheelbase is therefore much shorter and without the axle hung motor of the class 89 or class 103, I wouldn't like to draw comparisons between them. As you say, they certainly were 200Kph machines though and wonderful to travel behind.

Cheers,

John

 

I don't think the class 89 were axle hung, more like bogie mounted as per HST and most other BR electrics (notable exception being class 86 which were axle hung)

Edited May 6, 2016 by Titan

[Glorious NSE]

I seem to remember at the time there was a bit of needless comparison to the Amtrak SDP40 and E60 Co Cos, as both these types had derailments attributed to the wheel arrangement. Boiler tanks high up didn't help!

Strangely those railroads with solid reputations for high quality track didn't have the same problems as some other railroads did...  

 

Will be good to see the 89 back on the main line again. <Livery froth> Reckon it'll look superb in Caledonian Sleeper dark blue. </Livery froth>

 

 

Edited May 6, 2016 by Glorious NSE

[russ p]

I hope they don't paint it any modern livery.

The contract for the sleeper was for nearly new loco's this and indeed the 92s hardly qualify for that,but somehow GB hang on to the contract

[cornish trains jez]

Intercity swallow would be the best livery! Certainly the smartest livery.

[BR Blue]

Always liked this loco. Got into the cab at an Ilford Open date in May 1989.

[Glorious NSE]

Intercity swallow would be the best livery!

 

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.

[cornish trains jez]

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.

 

Agree. However, to do the loco justice would be to return it to its original livery - Intercity or swallow version. An enthusiasts vote would probably lean in favour of it too.