• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Class 89 GNER Service

Status
Not open for further replies.

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
I’ve only ever heard good things about 89001; is there any particular reason why only one was built in the end?

Courtesy of the AC locomotive group:

In the early 1980s the long-delayed electrification of the East Coast Main Line (ECML) was put back on the agenda. The original rolling stock plan was for locomotive-hauled trains formed of new locomotives and a new build of Mk3 coaches. In response to the plan, Brush designed a completely new electric locomotive and built a "production prototype" (the mechanical construction was sub-contracted to BREL Crewe) which became the one and only Class 89, 89001.

This loco appeared in 1986 and bore no resemblance to its predecessors. It had two streamlined cabs similar to the HST, a Co-Co wheel arrangement (as opposed to the Bo-Bo of all previous AC designs), and a 125mph top speed. The body was profiled to match the Mk3 carriage design and it was fitted with buckeye couplers and rubbing plates (another first for an AC electric). Brush envisaged a fleet of 89s for the ECML, but the loco was also capable of handling heavy freight services, so could theoretically provide modern traction for passenger and freight on the West Coast route too. The opportunity to standardise and modernise the fleets on Britain's two main north-south arteries was there for the taking.

Sadly, before fleet production could get underway (and indeed before the prototype even took to the rails) British Rail's policy towards the new ECML stock had changed in favour of fixed-formation trainsets, with a Class 91 Bo-Bo locomotive semi-permanently attached at one end of a rake of Mk4 coaches; and a new top speed of 140mph. This effectively ruled out the 89, which could only reach 125mph.

A production fleet never materialised, but the design paved the way for Brush to build the Eurotunnel Class 9s and the International Class 92s several years later. Ironically, the Class 91s that were built for the ECML have never been allowed to run above 125mph in regular service after all.

Lower top speed seems to have been one factor at least.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
5,352
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
Looking forward to seeing 89001 back out and about in whatever capacity that will be. From their May update, ACLG appear to have made great progress and say they're planning testing 'during 2019'..so fingers crossed.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
Looking forward to seeing 89001 back out and about in whatever capacity that will be. From their May update, ACLG appear to have made great progress and say they're planning testing 'during 2019'..so fingers crossed.

Maybe mainline charters? Seeing as no heritage lines have OLE.
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
I wonder what the chances are of a preserved MK3 rake plus DVT being saved for operation with the 89.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
I wonder what the chances are of a preserved MK3 rake plus DVT being saved for operation with the 89.

I think they need Mk4s if they want to run at 125, ISTR that while loco-hauled Mk3s are 125 rated Mk3b DVTs are only 110mph.
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
I think they need MkIVs if they want to run at 125, ISTR that while loco-hauled Mk3s are 125 rated Mk3b DVTs are only 110mph.

Good point. Plenty of MkIVs going around soon. They don't use TDM though, they use FDM and shielded cables
 
Last edited:

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
2,907
Could borrow the rake that Tornado's supposed to be getting, or the 125 group's, with the potential of the power car too.

Come to think of it, given how much Tornado's tours are often hauled by 'modern traction' as well 89001 might be the perfect loco for electrified routes.
 

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
910
I think they need Mk4s if they want to run at 125, ISTR that while loco-hauled Mk3s are 125 rated Mk3b DVTs are only 110mph.

The Mk3 DVTs were 125mph rated once upon a time. There could still be issues with clearance for the 89 though but I suspect clearances are better now than in 1986/87.

It was useless on the WCML unless it was working Willsden-Carlisle freights (That was the plan until it got moved to Hornsey).
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
The Mk3 DVTs were 125mph rated once upon a time. There could still be issues with clearance for the 89 though but I suspect clearances are better now than in 1986/87.

It was useless on the WCML unless it was working Willsden-Carlisle freights (That was the plan until it got moved to Hornsey).

I wonder when/why they downgraded them, they always seem to be referred to as 125mph max, mind you LH Mk3s often seem to be erroneously referred to as 110 maximum.

I've even see a few sources refer to the 89 as being 110mph max.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
I've seen at least one mark 3 DVT in the past 5 years or so with 125mph on the data panel (think it was Greater Anglia). I've also seen 125mph on at least one non-HST mark 3 coach, but then I've also seen mark 3s with 110mph on the data panel. Could it be that mark 3a was 110mph but mark 3b is 125?

For stock to run with the 89 though I'd prefer mark 4s, as they could be shared between the 89 and 91031 (though if both a mark 4 rake and a mark 3 one complete with a DVT of each type could be preserved that would be even better)
 
Last edited:

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
As in 110/125 for LHCS? I've only ever seen 125 stencilled on the data panels or listed in carriage working books.
Data panels is what I'm talking about; now that I've had time to dig up my photographic records I can tell you that I've seen the following speeds on data panels:
  • Mark 3 RFM, (Arriva Trains Wales): 125mph
  • Mark 3 DVT, (Greater Anglia): 125mph
  • Mark 3, (Greater Anglia): 110mph
I'm guessing if a maximum speed is given on the data panel then the vehicle in question is authorised to run at that speed if the linespeed allows and all other vehicles in the train are also cleared for at least that speed. I've zero evidence to suggest that a mark 3 DVT has ever run on a service train above 110mph though.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,079
I’ve only ever heard good things about 89001; is there any particular reason why only one was built in the end?

I always understood that it was due to a ban on 100mph+ CO-CO locos due to the alleged track damage due to bogie hunting.. BR infrastructure teams believed the CO-CO bogies osscilated both vertically and laterally around the central axle, causing track hammer blows
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
Data panels is what I'm talking about; now that I've had time to dig up my photographic records I can tell you that I've seen the following speeds on data panels:
  • Mark 3 RFM, (Arriva Trains Wales): 125mph
  • Mark 3 DVT, (Greater Anglia): 125mph
  • Mark 3, (Greater Anglia): 110mph
I'm guessing if a maximum speed is given on the data panel then the vehicle in question is authorised to run at that speed if the linespeed allows and all other vehicles in the train are also cleared for at least that speed. I've zero evidence to suggest that a mark 3 DVT has ever run on a service train above 110mph though.

I had a look myself - Virgin, BR, Greater Anglia, ONE, NXEA, Chiltern, Caledonian Sleeper and W&S Mk3s of day and sleeper Mk3a and b are all marked 125mph. The DVTs vary, Virgin, ONE, GA & NXEA are all 125, but ATW, Chiltern and W&S are 110; I wonder what the reason for that is.

I always understood that it was due to a ban on 100mph+ CO-CO locos due to the alleged track damage due to bogie hunting.. BR infrastructure teams believed the CO-CO bogies osscilated both vertically and laterally around the central axle, causing track hammer blows

Certainly most BR electrics were Bo-Bo and I think the earlier Co-Co types were all 90 max or slower, so track damage could be another reason behind no more 89s.

Also - the 91s have body mounted traction motors, what do the 89s have? If it's axle-mounted perhaps the forces imposed on the track at 125mph by the bogies was another factor?
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
The DVTs vary, Virgin, ONE, GA & NXEA are all 125, but ATW, Chiltern and W&S are 110; I wonder what the reason for that is.
One common factor between ATW, Chiltern and Wrexham & Shropshire is their DVTs are all numbered 823xx having had ARR multiple working fitted for use with class 67s. Not saying that's the reason (and I've been told on here that they retain TDM for use with electric locos, though whether that's correct I can't be sure), but it's a possibility. I wonder if 82146 (the EWS/DB management train DVT and, as far as I know, the only ARR-fitted DVT which doesn't have an 823xx number) is any different?
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
One common factor between ATW, Chiltern and Wrexham & Shropshire is their DVTs are all numbered 823xx having had ARR multiple working fitted for use with class 67s. Not saying that's the reason (and I've been told on here that they retain TDM for use with electric locos, though whether that's correct I can't be sure), but it's a possibility. I wonder if 82146 (the EWS/DB management train DVT and, as far as I know, the only ARR-fitted DVT which doesn't have an 823xx number) is any different?

No idea in that respect, other than the TOC it seems somewhat random.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
I had a look myself - Virgin, BR, Greater Anglia, ONE, NXEA, Chiltern, Caledonian Sleeper and W&S Mk3s of day and sleeper Mk3a and b are all marked 125mph. The DVTs vary, Virgin, ONE, GA & NXEA are all 125, but ATW, Chiltern and W&S are 110; I wonder what the reason for that is.
Probably down to the bogies. The older BT10A bogies (bogie frame with a bolted-on fabricated lateral control rod spigot mounting, to get technical!) have generally been restricted to 110mph in recent years, so it has been ROSCO policy to fit them to the likes of the sleepers and Anglia stock. The later BT10B type (bogie frame with a welded-in cast lateral control rod spigot mounting) is fully 125mph cleared, so have been concentrated under the HST fleets for obvious reasons. I would also add that the data panels are not necessarily accurate.

And before anyone asks, no it isn't as simple as BT10A = Long Swing Link and BT10B = Short Swing Link. There are LSL BT10Bs for a start!
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
Probably down to the bogies. The older BT10A bogies (bogie frame with a bolted-on fabricated lateral control rod spigot mounting, to get technical!) have generally been restricted to 110mph in recent years, so it has been ROSCO policy to fit them to the likes of the sleepers and Anglia stock. The later BT10B type (bogie frame with a welded-in cast lateral control rod spigot mounting) is fully 125mph cleared, so have been concentrated under the HST fleets for obvious reasons. I would also add that the data panels are not necessarily accurate.

And before anyone asks, no it isn't as simple as BT10A = Long Swing Link and BT10B = Short Swing Link. There are LSL BT10Bs for a start!

But Mk3 DVTs have T4 bogies though and that's the only vehicles which seem to differ between 110 and 125 all the Mk3 seated vehicles seem have 125 on the data panels that I've seen.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
4,435
I had a look myself - Virgin, BR, Greater Anglia, ONE, NXEA, Chiltern, Caledonian Sleeper and W&S Mk3s of day and sleeper Mk3a and b are all marked 125mph. The DVTs vary, Virgin, ONE, GA & NXEA are all 125, but ATW, Chiltern and W&S are 110; I wonder what the reason for that is.

But Mk3 DVTs have T4 bogies though and that's the only vehicles which seem to differ between 110 and 125 all the Mk3 seated vehicles seem have 125 on the data panels that I've seen.

The Mk3s that took me from Diss to Liverpool Street and back on Thursday were all plated at 110mph. I suspected that was the case and remembered to look as I had this thread in mind.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
The Mk3s that took me from Diss to Liverpool Street and back on Thursday were all plated at 110mph. I suspected that was the case and remembered to look as I had this thread in mind.

Interesting, I've yet to see anything other than DVTs and some sleepers as anything other than 110.
 

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
910
I suspect the 125/110 mph difference on a DVT might be to do with whatever sticker is available!

I travelled a bit on the 90/DVT sets when the worked the North Berwick branch and the stickers inside the guards office all said "Max speed 125 mph".

There is a video of a Mk3 DVT doing 125 mph tests on the ECML on YouTube somewhere.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
I suspect the 125/110 mph difference on a DVT might be to do with whatever sticker is available!

I travelled a bit on the 90/DVT sets when the worked the North Berwick branch and the stickers inside the guards office all said "Max speed 125 mph".

There is a video of a Mk3 DVT doing 125 mph tests on the ECML on YouTube somewhere.

What did they test the 89 at 125 with -presumably Mk3 stock?
 

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
910
Found the videos of the DVT test.
s


HST PC,DVT,test car,RFM,2x sleepers all being shoved by a 91!

This same user has tons of videos posted of the 89 working in BR days.

I am sure they used HST stock with one of the surrogate HST DVTs for 125mph testing on the ECML. The TGS next to the loco was fitted with loco-hauled style drawgear. (Buffers, drop buckeye etc). I think the International stock would have been used on the WCML if any 125mph running was done there.
 
Last edited:

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
Found the video of the DVT test.

HST PC,DVT,test car,RFM,2x sleepers all being shoved by a 91!

This same user has tons of videos posted of the 89 working in BR days.

I am sure they used HST stock with one of the surrogate HST DVTs for 125mph testing. The TGS next to the loco was fitted with loco-hauled style drawgear. (Buffers, drop buckeye etc)
Found the video of the DVT test.

HST PC,DVT,test car,RFM,2x sleepers all being shoved by a 91!

This same user has tons of videos posted of the 89 working in BR days.

I am sure they used HST stock with one of the surrogate HST DVTs for 125mph testing. The TGS next to the loco was fitted with loco-hauled style drawgear. (Buffers, drop buckeye etc)

I love that lash-up!

I know they ran back-to-back power cars north of Newcastle to test the Mk4s on the then not fully unelectrified line to Edinburgh.

HST Mk3 stock for the 89?
 

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
910
Mk4 did not exist at the time. 89001 and 87101 went to HE. More to to with training drivers on modern 87/1, 89,90 & 91.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,714
Location
Glasgow
Mk4 did not exist at the time. 89001 and 87101 went to HE. More to to with training drivers on modern 87/1, 89,90 & 91.

I appreciate that, I just wondered whether they make up a test rake out of various vehicles or used Mk3s.
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,612
Location
In the cab with the paper
I always understood that it was due to a ban on 100mph+ CO-CO locos due to the alleged track damage due to bogie hunting.. BR infrastructure teams believed the CO-CO bogies osscilated both vertically and laterally around the central axle, causing track hammer blows

If you follow the link posted up-thread to the Train Testing website and have a look at the technical drawings of the Cl89 you will notice that the wheelbase between the lead axle and centre axle on each bogie is different to the wheelbase between the centre axle and trailing axle. This was intended to improve the bogie dynamics and eliminate (or at least mitigate) bogie hunting to the point where 125mph operation was possible within safe parameters while not causing excessive damage to the track.

I don’t believe the old “badger” failed because it was a bad loco, but rather because it was overtaken by a better idea which later became the Mk4+Cl91 IC225 formation. That these trains never fulfilled its design potential (140mph and tilt) makes one wonder if the original ECML proposal of Mk3+Cl89 wouldn’t have delivered the same results at a lower cost. We shall never know.

Having used the ECML frequently through the early-mid 1990s and experienced both Cl91 haulage and Cl90 deputising, my experience was that the Cl91 was a thoroughbred express passenger loco. It always seemed slow off the mark, but the impression I formed at the time was that this was deliberate so that the train wafted out of stations in a smooth, unhurried way. You often didn’t know you’d started moving until you looked out of the window. Cl90s, by contrast, were all about power but had no class and I could tell there was one at the back of the train without having to see it because there would be a hard jolt pulling away from each stop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top