87002

[60163]

Happy New Year everyone!

Just wondering, is 87002 back at Warrington now? Any word on how long it'll be there....? Thanks in advance.

 

[peter.rabbit]

Yes. Saw it there on Monday 30 December at WBQ.

 

[dannyandy]

Using information from WNXX it came back to the WCML on the 28th and was at Mossend, not sure where it is now though. I should imagine it will stay until early march when the last of the 'icy' weather has/should have gone.

 

[Boothby97]

Using information from WNXX it came back to the WCML on the 28th and was at Mossend, not sure where it is now though. I should imagine it will stay until early march when the last of the 'icy' weather has/should have gone.

On the 28th it went Doncaster to Mossend to Warrington. Was at Doncaster on the morning of the 28th when I visited there, http://www.flickr.com/photos/sboothby/11604074254/

 

[breadfan]

It found itself a bit of passenger work, on the up sleeper, this morning, I am led to believe.

 

[RichmondCommu]

It found itself a bit of passenger work, on the up sleeper, this morning, I am led to believe.

Oh wow! When did that last happen?

 

[scotraildriver]

It worked from Carnforth to Preston due to an issue with the class 90

 

[trainplan1]

Yep, 90028 with traction motor issues.

 

[RichmondCommu]

It worked from Carnforth to Preston due to an issue with the class 90

Why did it not run all the way to Euston? Surely it would have lost more time at Preston with another loco swap?

 

[trainplan1]

Why did it not run all the way to Euston? Surely it would have lost more time at Preston with another loco swap?

"Rescue" driver might not have signed all the way to London. Then the DBS driver may not sign 87's?
Not sure what the reason was but probably easier to stick with the planned traction and drivers if they were available.

 

[captainbigun]

It was not a route knowledge or train handling issue. I can only assume that DB had already despatched 90024 and that it meeting the train at Preston was deemed not to add further significant delay. It could have quite easily run to Euston behind 87002.

 

[theblackwatch]

It was not a route knowledge or train handling issue. I can only assume that DB had already despatched 90024 and that it meeting the train at Preston was deemed not to add further significant delay. It could have quite easily run to Euston behind 87002.

Though the 66 minute late arrival into Preston behind the 87 (where the train then stood for almost an hour) became 179 minutes late into Euston behind a 90 - I wonder if the right decision was made...

 

[captainbigun]

Though the 66 minute late arrival into Preston behind the 87 (where the train then stood for almost an hour) became 179 minutes late into Euston behind a 90 - I wonder if the right decision was made...

Completely agree....the offer was made.

Passengers ejected at Preston for Pendo south.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

They were worried about the crush of photographers heading to Euston blocking all open platforms and the tube entrance.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Completely agree....the offer was made.

Passengers ejected at Preston for Pendo south.

So everyone was turfed out of their beds when the train could have continued? I wonder how many of those will use the sleeper service gain? Another nail in the coffin?

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Wait were the pax ejected or was the train 3 hours late?

 

[andythebrave]

Ah, 87002 - with 7 Mk3s on the down Royal Scot, 5th April 1985 - 67m 36s from Carlisle to Glasgow.

I won't report any of the speeds but I was informed that it had just had new tyres fitted and that the speedometer was, therefore, likely to be slightly inaccurate.

Good to see it still going.

 

[gazthomas]

How cool to have an 87 on a service train!