Class 89 - Problems during testing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
1,455
Location
Glasgow
Disappointing to hear about the fault, but the rest of the progress is very encouraging!
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
12,002
Location
Glasgow
LNER could do with this loco at the moment.
Don't think they have enough Mk4 sets for a start; secondly they've plenty of 91s still; thirdly has the 89 been give mainline certification yet; fourthly I don't think any one in LNER has driven an 89 for at least 20 years! ;)

Ummmmm, why?
'Cos the Flying Badger must run free... 8-)
 

Tynwald

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2016
Messages
113
What a shame, but then **** happens. Device failure or drive circuit fault ? Top job.
 

geoffk

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2010
Messages
2,054
Don't think they have enough Mk4 sets for a start; secondly they've plenty of 91s still; thirdly has the 89 been give mainline certification yet; fourthly I don't think any one in LNER has driven an 89 for at least 20 years! ;)


'Cos the Flying Badger must run free... 8-)
Not really a serious suggestion but a nice idea. I managed to see it just once at Doncaster.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
12,002
Location
Glasgow
Not really a serious suggestion but a nice idea. I managed to see it just once at Doncaster.
A nice idea, yes. I won't disagree with that.

At least we should see it out on railtours in the near future once the bugs are ironed out.
 

Grumpy Git

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
1,628
Location
Earth (for now)
A nice idea, yes. I won't disagree with that.

At least we should see it out on railtours in the near future once the bugs are ironed out.

It's a real credit to the engineers involved that they have made so much progress to date. Remember this loco is a one-off prototype and used electrical/electronic systems that were (and remain) unique.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
12,002
Location
Glasgow
It's a real credit to the engineers involved that they have made so much progress to date. Remember this loco is a one-off prototype and used electrical/electronic systems that were (and remain) unique.
Indeed and presumably made more complex by the fact the electronics are outdated and so even the less 'unique' parts would be difficult to obtain. Certainly the 91s have a lot of now obsolete electronics in them.

The speedset is set up differently to the Class 90/91 which use basically the same system as I understand it, so there's another potential electronics issue assuming they have reinstated the speed set.

That's to say nothing of the basic control differences, the traction motors which I presume must be totally unique and so on and so on...

At least with most other preserved operational locos you either have the ability to rob other class members of spare parts or other members in existence; one off-prototypes are in the upper extremes of preservation difficulty.
 

Grumpy Git

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
1,628
Location
Earth (for now)
To be honest I would have thought the traction motors are probably the one item that are more or less the same as on other locos of the same era?

Happy to be proved wrong though.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
12,002
Location
Glasgow
To be honest I would have thought the traction motors are probably the one item that are more or less the same as on other locos of the same era?

Happy to be proved wrong though.
Does anything else use Brush TM 2201A traction motors?

Is there a record of the highest speed attained by 89001, and, if it is to be used on railtours, would it be allowed to 125mph?
No idea of their intentions, but I can imagine a 125 certifu5 wouldn't be easy to obtain for a variety of reasons.
 

paolocoopio

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2020
Messages
12
Location
Sheffield
Massive shame.

Growing up in Doncaster I remember the very first electric trains running and catching the 89 on those early services between Doncaster and Leeds. Remember it being attached to the end of a HST set for a while (as were the early class 91s too)
 

EveningStar

Member
Joined
11 Jan 2016
Messages
149
Location
Alnmouth for Alnwick
Growing up in Doncaster I remember the very first electric trains running and catching the 89 on those early services between Doncaster and Leeds. Remember it being attached to the end of a HST set for a while (as were the early class 91s too)
Was living in Leeds when the class 89 was new and introduced into service with the class 43 plus mark 3 set. Blown away with the acceleration up the hill out of Leeds. Not as if the HST's were tardy, yet this was clearly a different league.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,150
Location
Central Belt
I remember it at GNER, it was a regular performer on the follow trains. (as it was the diagram it was booked on)

0705 London Kings Cross - Leeds
1005 Leeds - London Kings Cross
1305 London Kings Cross - Leeds
1605 Leeds - London Kings Cross

Sadly it was frequently substituted for a class 90.
 

Grumpy Git

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2019
Messages
1,628
Location
Earth (for now)
As far as the last few years are concerned, the "rule" for locos in the UK seems to be diesel = Co-Co, electric = Bo-Bo, (with the sole exception of the 92's)

Any idea why the 89 was a Co-Co when all previous and subsequent electric locos have been Bo-Bo?
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
10,832
As far as the last few years are concerned, the "rule" for locos in the UK seems to be diesel = Co-Co, electric = Bo-Bo, (with the sole exception of the 92's)
Class 68 (and 67 if you go back further) doesn’t fit that.
 

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
4,403
Location
Gateway to the South West
As far as the last few years are concerned, the "rule" for locos in the UK seems to be diesel = Co-Co, electric = Bo-Bo, (with the sole exception of the 92's)

Any idea why the 89 was a Co-Co when all previous and subsequent electric locos have been Bo-Bo?
Generally, it's to do with weight distribution. All other things being equal, an electric is lighter. As 43096 says, though there are plenty of exceptions.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
12,002
Location
Glasgow
Good point.

So that still begs the question why was the 89 a Co-Co?
Experience with the 87s found the high-power vs Bo-Bo wheel arrangement was a problem with high-speed wheelslip in poor conditions. The more powerful 89 could have been even more problematic and certainly the Co-Co wheel arrangement made it very sure footed compared to a 91.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
13,506
Location
Another planet...
I remember it at GNER, it was a regular performer on the follow trains. (as it was the diagram it was booked on)

0705 London Kings Cross - Leeds
1005 Leeds - London Kings Cross
1305 London Kings Cross - Leeds
1605 Leeds - London Kings Cross

Sadly it was frequently substituted for a class 90.
For some of the time with GNER it was on the diagram that included the Bradford Forster Square run, that's how I managed to get it for haulage without spending more than a couple of quid on a Metro Day Rover!
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
12,002
Location
Glasgow
Is the 89 compatible with Mk3 Loco Hauled Stock and Mk3 DVT? Thinking about Jeremy Hoskings Swallow set
Compatible with any air-braked stock.

Presuming they have refitted TDM for push-pull then compatible with unmodified Mk3 stock that remains so-fitted as per your example.
 

Sean Emmett

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2015
Messages
390
Is the 89 compatible with Mk3 Loco Hauled Stock and Mk3 DVT? Thinking about Jeremy Hoskings Swallow set
My only ever runs behind it were the Kings Cross - Leeds and return legs for a steam special over the S&C. Carted the SLOA Mk1s down Stoke bank at 112-113 mph.
 

paolocoopio

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2020
Messages
12
Location
Sheffield
Is the 89 compatible with Mk3 Loco Hauled Stock and Mk3 DVT? Thinking about Jeremy Hoskings Swallow set

If I remember my very early experiences of when it first entered service. The tests and initial services were with MK3 and a HST on the back as DVT. Before the 91s and 225 sets were brought in to service.

Or could they have been MK4? I was only around 9-10 years old so my memory may be slightly blurring with my imagination.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
23,877
Location
Redcar
If I remember my very early experiences of when it first entered service. The tests and initial services were with MK3 and a HST on the back as DVT. Before the 91s and 225 sets were brought in to service.

Or could they have been MK4? I was only around 9-10 years old so my memory may be slightly blurring with my imagination.

I think you're blurring a few things there. The 91s were used for a short while before sufficient Mk4s were available on a few HST rakes with one power car removed and the other acting as a surrogate DVT and providing ETS to the rake (eventually they also provided traction power as sitting just above idle for hours led to a few exhaust fires by my understanding). The 89 however, as far as I'm aware, was commissioned in a slightly more conventional fashion using rakes of available loco hauled Mk3s on the WCML (where it's initial service took place). The 89 also predates both Mk4s and 91s by a few years at it's from the early/mid 80s rather than the late 80s/early 90s like the Mk4s and 91s.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,150
Location
Central Belt
I think you're blurring a few things there. The 91s were used for a short while before sufficient Mk4s were available on a few HST rakes with one power car removed and the other acting as a surrogate DVT and providing ETS to the rake (eventually they also provided traction power as sitting just above idle for hours led to a few exhaust fires by my understanding). The 89 however, as far as I'm aware, was commissioned in a slightly more conventional fashion using rakes of available loco hauled Mk3s on the WCML (where it's initial service took place). The 89 also predates both Mk4s and 91s by a few years at it's from the early/mid 80s rather than the late 80s/early 90s like the Mk4s and 91s.
I recall the 89 on some of the early services with Mk2 on London - Peterborough services (but I could be incorrect here)
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
23,877
Location
Redcar
I recall the 89 on some of the early services with Mk2 on London - Peterborough services (but I could be incorrect here)

Well it ended up being ECML traction so your recollection and my understanding could easily both be right :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top