The Clansman was certainly booked to do EUS-COV in 63 mins in the 1976/7 timetable. I know that cruising at slightly over 100 in the 100-105 range was very common, logs of the time bear that out from when the WCML first became a 100mph railway. 110 and more seems to be less common, more when running late than the norm.
I think that OTDRs only appeared from the 1990s
OTMR didn't become mandatory until the end of 2005, with only the new fleets fitted from the 1990s; most vehicles were modified in the run up to the 2005 deadline, so an 86 wouldn't have been fitted in the late 1990s.
Possibly down to cost and and the fact that the 90s were very similar to the 87s so perhaps a degree of homogeneity within the fleet as well. Also for the extra 22 tonnes over a Class 87/90 the 89 gives you only 745hp more, not a huge difference.
I did say 'only appeared from the 1990s', I rather presumed that the 86s wouldn't have had it at this point. It seemed to be more from about 2002/3 when timing logs stopped showing many significant breaches of linespeed (and by significant I mean really doing say 110 in a 100 section sort of thing rather than trying for Mallard's record!).
I could well imagine, the performance must've been a revelation.
If 87s could manage and they had a propensity towards high-speed wheelslip in the wet, a 90 should fare better with its far more advanced wheelspin protection system.
As I mentioned earlier E3100 was involved in experimental stepless tap-changer trials with transductors and silicon rectifiers. It was originally numbered E3305 and it, like E3303 and 3304 was to be fitted with 'B' type 80mph freight gearing.
Once the 90s were correctly "tuned" they were fine, but I recall in their early days they were even more wheelspin-prone than class 87s, and also when taking power there was a loud hum over the coach PA system. It was all sorted out within a couple of months, and thereafter they seldom gave any problems.
91s were similar, very light-footed until modifications were made to the rate that the power ramped up. I believe originally their acceleration characteristics would've been much more like the 90s until modified.
Post # 14
Yep, that's it in a nutshell. Given the fact that the 100mph locos had mixed traffic gearing anyway and the specified freight loads weren't especially taxing I've never understood why they originally planned to have batches of 80mph geared freight locos. I could understand if the 100mph locos had express passenger specific gearing perhaps but not otherwise.
Possibly the lower-geared freight locos would have been capable of hauling greater loads without resorting to double heading?
Didn't used to have such substantial freights in 1960, certainly not on the AC lines. Don't forget that most freights then had no continuous brakes, and needed to be controllable by the guards' van handbrake if they broke away from the loco. Even the faster freights were normally only partially continuously braked at the front, sometimes just by empty vacuum-fitted wagons marshalled in only for this purpose.
At the time there was a belief among BR's civil engineering team that a high-speed Co-Co would be even harder on the track due to both vertical pitching and horizontal hunting around the central axle. They effectively banned Co-Co development for passenger trains
The TOPS numbers presumably reflect what would have happened as 3 AL1s and 2 AL2s were written off before renumbering.Post # 14
As I understand it only E3303/4 even got out on the line. E3301/2 were regeared and renumbered even before commissioning, and E3305 was significantly reworked even before delivery as a technology demonstrator.
A short summary of the initial types is :
Orig TOPS Numbered TOPS Num Builder Works Electrical Works Rectifier
AL1 81 E3001-23 81001-23 BRCW Smethwick BTH>AEI Rugby Mercury arc
AL3 83 E3024-35 83001-12 Vulcan Earlestown EE Preston Mercury arc
AL4 84 E3036-45 84001-10 N British Glasgow GEC Witton Mercury arc
AL2 82 E3046-55 82001-10 Beyer Peacock Manchester MetVick>AEI Trafford Park Mercury arc
AL5 85 E3056-85 85001-30 BR Doncaster AEI Trafford Park Germanium
AL5 85 E3086-95 85031-40 BR Doncaster AEI Trafford Park Silicon
AL1 81 E3096-97 81024-25 BRCW Smethwick BTH>AEI Rugby Mercury arc
AL3 83 E3098-99 83013-14 Vulcan Earlestown EE Preston Mercury arc
AL3 83 E3100 83015 Vulcan Earlestown EE Preston Silicon
OK, IT cut/paste hasn't come out perfectly, but you get the idea I hope.
Not body mounted, that only came in with the APT. They were bogie mounted but with some form of flexible drive so that the motor was supported by the primary suspension and not part of the "unsprung mass". The 86 had a "nose suspended" arrangement where the drive was rigid so that side of the motor moved up and down with the axle, the other side being attached to a pivot on the bogie frame.
There would have been electric part-fitted and unfitted freight on the southern WCML, but as part of the Weaver-Glasgow electrification project the catch points were removed from the sections including Shap and Beattock so only fully fitted freights were permitted.
Expect the motors were much lighter on diesels? Motors on a diesel probably rated around 400-500hp max (know those on a 45 are rated at 337hp) whereas an 86 will be 1000hp+ so must be considerably bigger?
All through the 1970s the Edinburgh-Glasgow "push-pull" with Class 27s, which I have written about here in the past from personal experience, were commonly run at well over their 90mph limit in the latter halves of the journey in both directions where it is slightly downhill to the termini. Four such locos every hour over the track.
As I pointed out earlier, those motors will be fairly small. Total output of 4 motors on a class 27 probably same as one on an 86. Not saying an 86 motor is four times heavier but will be substantially heavier than that on a 27.
91/Mk4 kit was designed for tilt to be added later if desired. Its why the vehicle sides tapered inwards, to allow for tilt. They also had a 140mph capacity but was never used because signalling wasnt installed. Then there came in a requirement that speeds greater then 125mph needed cab signalling.
