The 87/2: A New Loco Given Same Class Number

Status
Not open for further replies.

Inversnecky

Member
Joined
1 Jan 2021
Messages
457
Location
Scotland
We’ve seen many examples of members of a class being refurbished or reequipped and given a different class number, but I think the 87/2 is the first case I’ve come across of a new putative design being given not its own new class number, but a subset of an existing one:

1616277708948.jpeg
(Brian Perren, BR Electrification, 1986)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
2,649
Location
Up the creek
If I remember correctly what a friend, then a management trainee, told me, the reason was to get it past the Department of Transport, or more likely the Treasury. For some reason, a new design was not acceptable, but more examples of an existing one were.
 
Last edited:

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
6,159
Location
Dalton Georgia USA
The Class 87 at the time had very impressive reliability numbers too which may have factored into the decision.
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
21,776
Location
Nottingham
Although it looks quite different, the Class 90 is mechanically very similar to a Class 87, with the same bogies and the same key dimensions and I assume a similar layout of the main components. The ends needed re-designing to increase structural strength (even in that era crashworthiness standards were increasing) and it incorporated a new generation of solid-state control equipment instead of a mechanical tap changer. So there was probably some technical reason to keep it within the same class.
 

gimmea50anyday

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2013
Messages
3,174
Location
Back Cab
Looking at that magazine article the physical similarities between the class 89 and a HST power car can clearly be seen
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
13,514
Location
Another planet...
Although it looks quite different, the Class 90 is mechanically very similar to a Class 87, with the same bogies and the same key dimensions and I assume a similar layout of the main components. The ends needed re-designing to increase structural strength (even in that era crashworthiness standards were increasing) and it incorporated a new generation of solid-state control equipment instead of a mechanical tap changer. So there was probably some technical reason to keep it within the same class.
My understanding was that they're mechanically similar to the sole 87/1, less so than the squadron fleet of 87/0s.
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
2,238
Location
Cambridge, UK
My understanding was that they're mechanically similar to the sole 87/1, less so than the squadron fleet of 87/0s.
The 87101 was effectively the direct antecedent of the 90's, in it was BR's first AC loco with thyristor control instead of a tapchanger. According to the "Power for the World's Railways - GEC Traction and Its Predecessors, 1823 to the Present Day" book I have, 87101 and the 90's have individual axle SepEx power control (like the class 60s), a considerable advance in wheelslip control compared to the earlier BR AC locos.
 

ashkeba

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
1,733
Includes "I met Kenneth Grange briefly when his firm did the external and cab design for Class 89."

It would not be a surprise. I find the Class 89 strangely adorable and I have always really liked the Class 43.
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
2,238
Location
Cambridge, UK
I find the Class 89 strangely adorable
Personally I've always found the Class 89 particularly ugly...nowhere near as good looking as the 90s and 91s (and I've always found the 87's to much better looking than the 81-86 classes - I think it's the two-piece windscreen and the absence of headcode boxes that give it a cleaner 'form follows function' look).

Though the 90s have identical power outputs to the 87/0s, the 87/1 has different power outputs to both.
According to the Class 87 Wikipedia page, the 87101 power output is only about 3%/150hp/80kW lower so I would have thought insignificant in real-world use.
 
Last edited:

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
12,008
Location
Glasgow
According to the Class 87 Wikipedia page, the 87101 power output is only about 3%/150hp/80kW lower so I would have thought insignificant in real-world use.
To the point that the thyristor control allowed greater loads to be hauled than a conventional 87, but I just wanted to point out that 90s aren't exactly like a restyled 87/1.
 

ashkeba

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
1,733
Personally I've always found the Class 89 particularly ugly...nowhere near as good looking as the 90s and 91s (and I've always found the 87's to much better looking than the 81-86 classes - I think it's the two-piece windscreen and the absence of headcode boxes that give it a cleaner 'form follows function' look).
All of 81 to 87 are pretty ugly bricks, but yes, 87 is the best design of them because three windows and a headcode box do clutter the front, plus all the cables and rails.

Classes 90 and 91 are cleaner fronts but looked horribly dated almost from introduction with their very 1980s square car design noses. A style noticeably not continued afterwards, with more flowing noses on both replacing EMUs like 390 and 800+ and later locomotives like 88 and 68, or back to flat on 66.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
10,841
All of 81 to 87 are pretty ugly bricks, but yes, 87 is the best design of them because three windows and a headcode box do clutter the front, plus all the cables and rails.

Classes 90 and 91 are cleaner fronts but looked horribly dated almost from introduction with their very 1980s square car design noses. A style noticeably not continued afterwards, with more flowing noses on both replacing EMUs like 390 and 800+ and later locomotives like 88 and 68, or back to flat on 66.
I'd say the Class 90 design has aged much better than the 91, and is superior in looks to the 81-87s. The 91 only looked good in IC Swallow livery, it has looked very, very dated in everything else applied to it. There's something not quite right about the front of the 91, almost a lack of effort in styling which the Swallow livery disguised.
 

Inversnecky

Member
Joined
1 Jan 2021
Messages
457
Location
Scotland
Classes 90 and 91 are cleaner fronts but looked horribly dated almost from introduction with their very 1980s square car design noses.
I always thought they looked so 1980s, a very dated, car like design:

 

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
1,706
I'd say the Class 90 design has aged much better than the 91, and is superior in looks to the 81-87s. The 91 only looked good in IC Swallow livery, it has looked very, very dated in everything else applied to it. There's something not quite right about the front of the 91, almost a lack of effort in styling which the Swallow livery disguised.
I think the black/white cab styling helped a little - the actual InterCity livery started behind the cab. What has always looked really odd to me though is the Mk 4 DVT - it's like someone took the Class 91 nose cone and attached it to a Mark 4 coach because the cab windows are at a different angle to the rest of the nose, so it creates an angle. It just seems to protrude oddly. Add in the horns being below the lights (rather than between them) and the cable covers for the TDM cables that had small recesses. It just looked messy. Whereas whilst a Mk 3B DVT doesn't look like a Class 90 the styling seems much more cohesive. Personal taste I know!


https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/24206916726849411/


https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/635992778608618753/


https://farm66.static.flickr.com/65535/50711869847_91b7484afb.jpg
 
Last edited:

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
10,841
I think the black/white cab styling helped a little - the actual InterCity livery started behind the cab. What has always looked really odd to me though is the Mk 4 DVT - it's like someone took the Class 91 nose cone and attached it to a Mark 4 coach because the cab windows are at a different angle to the rest of the nose, so it creates an angle. It just seems to protrude oddly. Add in the horns being below the lights (rather than between them) and the cable covers for the TDM cables that had small recesses. It just looked messy. Whereas whilst a Mk 3B DVT doesn't look like a Class 90 the styling seems much more cohesive. Personal taste I know!
I always had a problem with the Mark 4 DVT cabs. If you're going to the bother of making the locos with one streamlined/one flat cab to fit with the unit-train idea, at least make the cab at the other end look identical. They were even ordered from the same manufacturer! :rolleyes:

As for the Mark 3 DVTs - why not just give them a Class 90 cab, unless there were issues based on the 110 vs 125 mph design speed of the two.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
Possibly because it was intended to blend in with both the Mk2 and Mk3 designs?

They could still have given it a Class 90 cab while matching the Mk3 body profile!

THe Mk3 DVT is visually a much better design than the Mk4 though.
 

Helvellyn

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2009
Messages
1,706
As for the Mark 3 DVTs - why not just give them a Class 90 cab, unless there were issues based on the 110 vs 125 mph design speed of the two.

They could still have given it a Class 90 cab while matching the Mk3 body profile!

THe Mk3 DVT is visually a much better design than the Mk4 though.

The Class 91 was designed to match the Mark 4s though, plus with the blunt end cab it was to be seen very much as part of the set. So the design inconsistencies just seem to stick out.

The Mark 3B DVT cab has a family link to a Class 90 but InterCity only had 15 out of a fleet of 50 mixed traffic locos. They worked with more Class 86s and 87s than Class 90s! It works for the Mark 3 body profile whereas I think trying to fit a Class 90 style cab (straight sides, narrows at the ends) might have looked odd.
 

Aictos

On Moderation
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,397
I'd say the Class 90 design has aged much better than the 91, and is superior in looks to the 81-87s. The 91 only looked good in IC Swallow livery, it has looked very, very dated in everything else applied to it. There's something not quite right about the front of the 91, almost a lack of effort in styling which the Swallow livery disguised.
I disagree because while the best livery was indeed the InterCity Swallow livery, the second best livery was the GNER livery after which the liveries are pretty much meh.

So to correct you, everything after GNER looked very dated.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
21,776
Location
Nottingham
The Class 91 was designed to match the Mark 4s though, plus with the blunt end cab it was to be seen very much as part of the set. So the design inconsistencies just seem to stick out.

The Mark 3B DVT cab has a family link to a Class 90 but InterCity only had 15 out of a fleet of 50 mixed traffic locos. They worked with more Class 86s and 87s than Class 90s! It works for the Mark 3 body profile whereas I think trying to fit a Class 90 style cab (straight sides, narrows at the ends) might have looked odd.
However, as I think I mentioned upthread, structural strength requirements for cab ends were increased sometime between the construction of the 87 and the 90, so they couldn't have used an 87 cab without having to hide some major extra structure somewhere inside it. Probably also the Intercity people would have assumed they would get all the 90s and designed the DVT accordingly. Otherwise, if history had been a bit different, the 86s and 87s might have gone from the WCML but the 90s stayed, in which case a DVT based on an 87/87 cab might have echoed back to the obsolete 1960s design.

Incidentally, I always found the 87 design less attractive than the 86 because the cab side windows were unchanged (at least visually) from the 86 but the new windscreens were a bit shallower and didn't continue the window line. I assume the change was something to do with fitting stronger windscreens, similar to the removal of curved glazing from the MU designs that had them from new.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
10,841
I disagree because while the best livery was indeed the InterCity Swallow livery, the second best livery was the GNER livery after which the liveries are pretty much meh.

So to correct you, everything after GNER looked very dated.
Nah. Swallow was just so much better than anything else they have carried. There was very little style to GNER’s livery - just throw blue paint over everything and add a red stripe. All of a sudden the 91s look old as soon as they got that livery.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
12,008
Location
Glasgow
They could still have given it a Class 90 cab while matching the Mk3 body profile!

THe Mk3 DVT is visually a much better design than the Mk4 though.
Yes it looks much tidier and somehow even now with the right livery fits today well enough, somehow with the Mk4 DVT it just doesn't yet they are the same vintage.

Nah. Swallow was just so much better than anything else they have carried. There was very little style to GNER’s livery - just throw blue paint over everything and add a red stripe. All of a sudden the 91s look old as soon as they got that livery.
It's an interesting one - much as I like GNER, somehow IC looks more modern compared to it. The GNER livery does have a sort of hark back to the past essence to it, but I get the impression that was intentional.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
It's an interesting one - much as I like GNER, somehow IC looks more modern compared to it. The GNER livery does have a sort of hark back to the past essence to it, but I get the impression that was intentional.

It definitely was intentional - the whole branding package was designed to hark back to the past - company name, crests, livery, interior design, etc. Later on they moved away from it a bit with the 'Mallard' refurbishment of the Mk4s and later the HSTs, and fitted a much more 'modern' looking interior.
 

ashkeba

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
1,733
It definitely was intentional - the whole branding package was designed to hark back to the past - company name, crests, livery, interior design, etc. Later on they moved away from it a bit with the 'Mallard' refurbishment of the Mk4s and later the HSTs, and fitted a much more 'modern' looking interior.
And then they moved back to the past, imitating the "inefficient and uneconomic" GNR a bit too closely?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top