Future of the Class 89

[alexl92]

Any news on 89001's respray?

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Swallow livery apparently....

 

[31160]

Swallow livery apparently....

Well given the ACLG have just sold the 86 and 87 to LSL, could we seeing a lease soon as IC Swallow seams to be their go to livery

 

[superjohn]

Well given the ACLG have just sold the 86 and 87 to LSL, could we seeing a lease soon as IC Swallow seams to be their go to livery

Maybe, but it is hard to see what work LSL will have for the fleet they have already acquired let alone leasing more.

 

[43096]

Maybe, but it is hard to see what work LSL will have for the fleet they have already acquired let alone leasing more.

It’s not stopped them so far. I could see the logic of taking either 86101 and 87002 or 90001/2 but not for taking all four.

 

[O L Leigh]

I can think of three reasons -

1. More powerful
2. Higher top speed
3. Surer-footed

...didn't fit Euston.

 

[hexagon789]

...didn't fit Euston.

In what sense - loading gauge?

 

[O L Leigh]

I don't recall. Whatever the reason it wasn't cleared to go there.

 

[hexagon789]

I don't recall. Whatever the reason it wasn't cleared to go there.

So it could be a paperwork issue rather than the loco itself being unsuited?

Either way, given as I know know, the plan was that the 89s would effectively have been instead of 91s I suppose it doesn't matter much unless the preservation group wish to run the 89 on a tour into Euston

 

[O L Leigh]

It may have been. However, given that it ran quite extensively on the WCML at various times it seems odd not to have cleared it.

 

[pdeaves]

Presumably it was only cleared where it needed to be cleared rather than wasting effort clearing other areas not required.

 

[hexagon789]

It may have been. However, given that it ran quite extensively on the WCML at various times it seems odd not to have cleared it.

In which case a gauging issue seems more likely I would say

 

[hexagon789]

Presumably it was only cleared where it needed to be cleared rather than wasting effort clearing other areas not required.

Again, seems perfectly feasible, but I do wonder what the reason for not running a test into Euston at any point was?

Surely they could've found a quiet period to gain a path at some point if that was the problem

 

[O L Leigh]

I've seen some reference made to the "Badger" being quite a tall loco which may have caused problems with the OLE.

My own feeling is that it was due to a gauging or other technical issue rather than simply not bothering to do the paperwork. It seems like such a useful loco to have deployed to the West Coast route given that it is a more arduous route than the East Coast and carries larger and heavier trains. Even if there was no intention for squadron deployment on passenger services out of Euston I can see how experience gained using it on, say, the heavy Anglo-Scottish sleeper services would have been useful from a technical perspective at least.

 

[hexagon789]

I've seen some reference made to the "Badger" being quite a tall loco which may have caused problems with the OLE.

My own feeling is that it was due to a gauging or other technical issue rather than simply not bothering to do the paperwork. It seems like such a useful loco to have deployed to the West Coast route given that it is a more arduous route than the East Coast and carries larger and heavier trains. Even if there was no intention for squadron deployment on passenger services out of Euston I can see how experience gained using it on, say, the heavy Anglo-Scottish sleeper services would have been useful from a technical perspective at least.

Perhaps it was simply not considered worthwhile using it on the WCML to gain experience with it being a one-off and the subsequent plan for 91s to haul sleepers, given its sidelining until GNER obtainined it for use to cover for 91s on maintenance in the late-1990s

 

[43096]

I've seen some reference made to the "Badger" being quite a tall loco which may have caused problems with the OLE.

Quoted elsewhere as being same height as a 90 “pan down”, slightly more than a 91 and slightly less than an 87.

 

[Mag_seven]

My own feeling is that it was due to a gauging or other technical issue rather than simply not bothering to do the paperwork

According to "Modern Locomotives Illustrated No 210 - Classes 89 and 90" it was not allowed to travel into Euston station due to "gauge restrictions". No mention made of anything else.

 

[hexagon789]

According to "Modern Locomotives Illustrated No 210 - Classes 89 and 90" it was not allowed to travel into Euston station due to "gauge restrictions". No mention made of anything else.

Though couldn't that just be not running the paperwork if the dimensions are indeed alright?

 

[captainbigun]

The correct answer is track circuits, no longer an issue of course.

It made it as far south as Wembley and did plenty of testing up and down the WC including the Liverpool branch.

 

[Mag_seven]

The correct answer is track circuits, no longer an issue of course.

Were there non-standard track circuits in the Euston station area then?

 

[Bald Rick]

Were there non-standard track circuits in the Euston station area then?

Loads, although the highest concentration of the reed track circuits was around Harrow & Wealdstone, and Queen’s Park. They all went about 20 years ago.

 

[Cowley]

Loads, although the highest concentration of the reed track circuits was around Harrow & Wealdstone, and Queen’s Park. They all went about 20 years ago.

I don’t really know much about track circuits apart from the basics. I’d be interested to know why that might have caused issues with 89001 back then though if anyone would be able to explain in not too technical terms to a layman?

 

[Bald Rick]

I don’t really know much about track circuits apart from the basics. I’d be interested to know why that might have caused issues with 89001 back then though if anyone would be able to explain in not too technical terms to a layman?

I’m no expert (as ever, Jack of all trades), but... the reed track circuits worked by generating a certain electrical frequency in the circuit. The nature of the microprocessor D.C. control systems on the Class89 meant, I assume, that they could generate a frequency that interfered with these track circuit frequencies, and could potentially generate a false clear.

Of course it could have been something entirely unrelated.

Paging @MarkyT who will be able to provide a much better explanation.

 

[Cowley]

I’m no expert (as ever, Jack of all trades), but... the reed track circuits worked by generating a certain electrical frequency in the circuit. The nature of the microprocessor D.C. control systems on the Class89 meant, I assume, that they could generate a frequency that interfered with these track circuit frequencies, and could potentially generate a false clear.

Of course it could have been something entirely unrelated.

Paging @MarkyT who will be able to provide a much better explanation.

I actually understood that thanks @Bald Rick.

 

[captainbigun]

I’m no expert (as ever, Jack of all trades), but... the reed track circuits worked by generating a certain electrical frequency in the circuit. The nature of the microprocessor D.C. control systems on the Class89 meant, I assume, that they could generate a frequency that interfered with these track circuit frequencies, and could potentially generate a false clear.

Of course it could have been something entirely unrelated.

Paging @MarkyT who will be able to provide a much better explanation.

This is it. Though unclear why 90 was OK and 89 wasn't. As you say, these track circuits are long gone and should the need arise I cannot see an issue in clearing 89001 through to Euston. More challenging is availability of staff at NR for this work currently.

 

[MarkyT]

Reed type TCs were particularly popular at one time where dual DC and AC immunity was required. Some were able to be configured as jointless too so they could also save insulated joints even where there was no electrification at all. They used AC frequencies on the rails, but those were chosen to be well away from the supply frequency and the most common harmonics of 50Hz, which was also useful in DC only areas where there are harmonics present in the power supply from rectification. The problem with the early locos with high power electronics in their traction control systems was that their high-frequency switching often produced variable sweeping frequencies in their traction return current which was returned through the rails, which are of course shared with the track circuit current. It is always incumbent on an introducer of new rolling stock to prove it doesn't introduce any new unmitigated major risks to existing infrastructure and operations, so that requires a lot of expensive and time-consuming theoretical work, trials, independent reviews, design refinements, etc, and if all else fails, possibly ruinously expensive infrastructure modification, which has 'derailed' many a proposal over the years. The bigger the new fleet, the more value such work can have of course, but the irony of all this is that old fashioned traction with its crude switching is often far 'noisier' than any new vehicle, but clearly they have established grandfather access rights from the bad old days so inevitably remain unchallenged... unless there's an incident!. Roger Ford once famously recounted his attendance at some signalling compatibility tests of new stock on the WCML, possibly Pendolinos. When a cl.90 went past between one of the planned test runs, the carefully set up instrumentation went right off the scales! Now axle counters are the primary fixed train detection method on new schemes, much of this problem has gone as that technology shares no electrical commonality with the traction power. Traction builders have become much better at understanding the problem and filtering out interference at the most troublesome frequencies 'at source', because electromagnetic compatibility has become so much more important generally today.

 

[hexagon789]

I’m no expert (as ever, Jack of all trades), but... the reed track circuits worked by generating a certain electrical frequency in the circuit. The nature of the microprocessor D.C. control systems on the Class89 meant, I assume, that they could generate a frequency that interfered with these track circuit frequencies, and could potentially generate a false clear.

Of course it could have been something entirely unrelated.

Paging @MarkyT who will be able to provide a much better explanation.

Thank you for explaining it, it seems such a trial thing to preclude running of a class into Euston but I can sort of understand the issue.

Though, don't 90s also have microprocessor controls?

 

[O L Leigh]

Roger Ford once famously recounted his attendance at some signalling compatibility tests of new stock on the WCML, possibly Pendolinos. When a cl.90 went past between one of the planned test runs, the carefully set up instrumentation went right off the scales!

I have a feeling that you may be forward-dating that anecdote a bit, as it sounds very similar to an older one concerning thyristor tests using 87101 in, I believe, Linslade Tunnel. In that case the noisy interloper that sent the dials off the gauges was an unidentified tap-changer passing on the opposite line.

While it does neatly illustrate that newer generally means electrically quieter, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will always be immediately compatible.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thank you for explaining it, it seems such a trial thing to preclude running of a class into Euston but I can sort of understand the issue.

Though, don't 90s also have microprocessor controls?

Indeed they do, but I suspect what happened in the ‘black box’ was in some way different.

 

[317362]

On initial runs of 89 and 91 on ECML in 1988, every time one passed at least one signal, all the lights on the signal lit up briefly, we used to see it and be amazed, but happened every time. Similar issue?