WCRC to get sleeper contract and ETL for Ac Leg?

[mumrar]

junglejames, the comments regarding the Class 92s were obviously engineered towards a more serious debate about performance and I think with a loading of 16-18 carriages then the 92 would be superior to a 90.

The comments I made about 47s were tongue in cheek; I reckoned you had your Brush-tinted specs on so thought I'd wind you up a bit.

 

[Drimnagh Road]

So just for the record. 47s are the greatest locomotive the world has ever seen. Followed by the 87s and 90s!
Long Live 57301. AKA 47845, County Of Kent.

Hmmm, 47s... great body, but never liked the engine. They're great with a GM645 engine, i.e. 57s.

Regrettably, 57301 is in store, which is unfortunate, as I desperately need that machine for haulage.

The 90s are my favourite AC loco. Yes, haven't had great reliability lately but then DBS haven't liked them for some time and have probably been running them into the ground like they did with the 37s. Overhaul DBS style = a repaint.

 

[Aictos]

You sure. Think 90s are better up to 100. 91s are quite a bit slower off the mark than 90s are. Thats why they were able to put 90s on the Leeds jobs, and they kept to time still.

I'm 100% positive on my view that a 91 can outdo a 90 from a standing start and that's from a first hand view of seeing a 91 leave a station after a crew change plus from what more then one driver has said about them who actually drive the 91s.

Have you seen how much power the 91 has compared to a 90, it's like comparing a F1 racing car to a Audi!

Yes 91s might be slower off the mark hauling a Mk4 set but they are no slower then a HST accelerating from a station stop.

 

[mumrar]

I'm 100% positive on my view that a 91 can outdo a 90 from a standing start and that's from a first hand view of seeing a 91 leave a station after a crew change plus from what more then one driver has said about them who actually drive the 91s.

Have you seen how much power the 91 has compared to a 90, it's like comparing a F1 racing car to a Audi!

Yes 91s might be slower off the mark hauling a Mk4 set but they are no slower then a HST accelerating from a station stop.

As mentioned by me on another thread, the ability to accelerate a load from a stand is determined by the tractive effort of a locomtive, not by it's power.

Looking at the technical data on The Railway Centre, a Class 90 has 258kN versus 400kN for a Class 92. Curiously it is hard to find a figure for the Class 91 having Google searched.

 

[Aictos]

As mentioned by me on another thread, the ability to accelerate a load from a stand is determined by the tractive effort of a locomtive, not by it's power.

Looking at the technical data on The Railway Centre, a Class 90 has 258kN versus 400kN for a Class 92. Curiously it is hard to find a figure for the Class 91 having Google searched.

A Class 91 has 292kN available as tractive effort, thanks to Google and this site here,

http://brforum.csuke.com/locomotives_track.php

 

[The Planner]

92s are serious beasts when it comes to frieght and heavy loads. We persuaded them to trial the HOBC up the West Coast with one on the front, all 3300 tonnes of it. Pulled it from Willesden without breaking into a sweat. In the end it came down to cost and it ended up being top and tailed with 66s.

 

[4SRKT]

Not wishing to interject, and you guys can get back to your "what's-the-best-AC-electric-fest" as soon as you like, but is there any truth in the rumour that the sleeper could end up being duffs and 86s (electric duffs as we called them then, but probably wouldn't now)? That's what the thread's actually about.

Surely an 86 wouldn't be able to match the performance of an 87/2 -)) anyway? I've had some storming runs with them in my time, but never with 16 bogies.

 

[junglejames]

You have given a somewhat plausable statement as to the reason why the 90s are best, so what about something plausable as to the reason why the 'Pendos' (your words) are the worst? As you have comapared them side by side. What is it based on tractive effort, reliability?

You see i have nothing to compare In my rose tinted eyes a class 45 were far better and more reliable then a 47 any day. A class 115 was better then a class 117, and to bring it right upto date a class 313 was better then a 378 especially in this weather when the 378s only like an ambient temperature to work (something the UK doesnt get) in not to cold, not to hot, not to wet and not to dry. Of course the reason why a 313 was better then a 378 is because of all this computer nonsense that modern trains get Oh PIS isnt working computer will say NO! i can go on and on and on and on.

Yep, i frequently mention the pendo in the same line as the word 'worst'.
However im not comparing it to the 90, as they are 2 totally different trains.
The 90 is obviously more versatile, as its a loco, but thats about it.
The performance of the pendo I have no problem with. However it has been poorly designed and thought about when it comes to other things. Smelly toilets, vestibules and toilets that are far too large etc etc.
However, where I do firmly believe that pendos are the worst, is in their standard class coaches. I hate them. The seats are too hard, upright and uncomfortable. They are too dark and dinghy. They seem too narrow and cramped. Why when the 225 is apparently the same width?
I cant stand pendos in standard class. The only train i have yet to walk off of before it even left. The only train i refuse to travel in standard class. Im lucky in the fact that i have a choice. Some people dont.

So thats why i hate the pendos. Purely my opinion though.

 

[4SRKT]

The Pendo Hate comes to yet another thread! One day in the not too distant future it will be on ALL threads!

 

[junglejames]

I'm 100% positive on my view that a 91 can outdo a 90 from a standing start and that's from a first hand view of seeing a 91 leave a station after a crew change plus from what more then one driver has said about them who actually drive the 91s.

Have you seen how much power the 91 has compared to a 90, it's like comparing a F1 racing car to a Audi!

Yes 91s might be slower off the mark hauling a Mk4 set but they are no slower then a HST accelerating from a station stop.

They should be quicker than a HST. If 91s arent quicker than HSTs Id be worried.
Right, 90s v 91s, with a rake of Mk4s behind. 90s are quicker from a stand, and remain quicker for quite a while. Then eventually the 91 gets into its stride, and catches up. Acceleration to 110 mph is quite close, but the 90 just edges it. This is why 90s can keep to time on the Leeds jobs. The number of stops allows them to use their acceleration to its potential.

From 0 to say about 60mph or so, 90s have the better acceleration. After this, the 91s kick in, and show off their power.

 

[tbtc]

toilets that are far too large

Good luck turning your wheelchair around in anything significantly smaller...

 

[junglejames]

A Class 91 has 292kN available as tractive effort, thanks to Google and this site here,

http://brforum.csuke.com/locomotives_track.php

The best I can find for the 91 is 46000lbf. This compares to a 90 which has 58000lbf. This makes sense considering the 91 is lighter, and is geared for 140mph.
Also goes along with everything i have ever heard.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Good luck turning your wheelchair around in anything significantly smaller...

OK, I will reword it. All the toilets are the large size.
Not only me to say it. People have often said the pendos and voyagers were poorly designed inside, especially in reagrds to the vestibules

 

[Sun Chariot]

The Pendo Hate comes to yet another thread!

Oh yes indeed! I used the little tykes on a weekly basis, for two years, between London and Manchester. Agreed.
Whilst the first class seats fitted my 6'6" frame (and the cabins were agreeably quiet and comfortable), the days I was wedged into standard, I felt hot and claustrophobic and I got absolutely no work done.
To be fair on 'em, to get the 07:05 off Euston and be walking out of Piccadilly exactly 120 minutes later, that's pretty darned impressive.

 

[junglejames]

junglejames, the comments regarding the Class 92s were obviously engineered towards a more serious debate about performance and I think with a loading of 16-18 carriages then the 92 would be superior to a 90.

The comments I made about 47s were tongue in cheek; I reckoned you had your Brush-tinted specs on so thought I'd wind you up a bit.

Has anyone else noticed it?
Im sure its not intentional, but it made me chuckle. I had my Brush tinted specs on (possible, but 47s are still the best, Brush or no Brush), then whilst im going on about how amazing the 90s are, he assures me that Brush (92) is better!!!
Thanks Mumrar, you made me chuckle.


Nearly as much as the one who prefers GMs to Sulzers!!! LOL
Mr 57 man, we wont agree on whats best between sulzers and GMs, as your a self proclaimed GM fanatic!
GMs improved the reliability of the freight 47s, as they were much more modern engines. However the passenger 57s, Im not sure theyve improved at all. They could well have been a waste.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not wishing to interject, and you guys can get back to your "what's-the-best-AC-electric-fest" as soon as you like, but is there any truth in the rumour that the sleeper could end up being duffs and 86s (electric duffs as we called them then, but probably wouldn't now)? That's what the thread's actually about.

Surely an 86 wouldn't be able to match the performance of an 87/2 -)) anyway? I've had some storming runs with them in my time, but never with 16 bogies.

Dont know if there is or not. I cant see it though. If 87s were still in regular service, then perhaps. But not now.
An 87 would out perform an 86. A 90 would out perform an 87. A 92, would apparently outperform a 90. But thats not me saying that. Thats Mumrar, the non Brush tinted spectacle wearer!!

 

[Sun Chariot]

We're showing our age. 87/2 = 90. It's what BREL originally intended to call 'em.

 

[junglejames]

We're showing our age. 87/2 = 90. It's what BREL originally intended to call 'em.

So it is. Id forgotten.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The Pendo Hate comes to yet another thread! One day in the not too distant future it will be on ALL threads!

Is it Justin Smith in another disguise?

 

[captainbigun]

No idea what this is all about but there's bugger all chance of DBS being replaced on this contract. No one else has the machinery.

As for the class vs class debate.

92 will outperform the lot to its max speed come rain or shine, up hill or down hill. Co-Co with immense starting TE, no contest. Next in the queue is the 89, then 90, then 91. However speed is a factor, 90 accelerates to around 70 quicker than a 91, then a 91 has a higher rate of acceleration. 91 accelerates quicker than 89 between 85 and 105.

An 87 will match 90 in all weather, 90 has the edge in when there's no slip. Introduce slip and the 90s are crap, as we've seen recently. They ramp the power up too quickly after a slip and a cyclical slip-ramp down-ramp up starts until eventually it sorts itself.

An 86 would take the 16 wagons to 100 but it'd take a bit longer than an 87.

 

[Pumbaa]

Is it Justin Smith in another disguise?

I'm pretty sure it is - won't give up either
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No idea what this is all about but there's bugger all chance of DBS being replaced on this contract. No one else has the machinery.

That was dismissed pretty quickly! What may actually happen is 92s replacing 90s, but that has been planned for the last 12 months. When it happens/if it happens will be anyones guess.

 

[captainbigun]

1M16 and 1M11 are both currently timed for 100 south of Crewe due to the integration with the early morning Pendos. The current timings would have to be changed for 92s to be seen reguarly.

The DBS 90s are pretty unreliable, but the 92s are currently worse! They don't like high line volts which can be a problem when a pendo is regenerating in the section.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

A Class 91 has 292kN available as tractive effort, thanks to Google and this site here,

http://brforum.csuke.com/locomotives_track.php

Interesting; the combined volume has them at 190kN but does match the figures given on this thread for the 90 and 92.

 

[87031]

Yep, i frequently mention the pendo in the same line as the word 'worst'.
However im not comparing it to the 90, as they are 2 totally different trains.
The 90 is obviously more versatile, as its a loco, but thats about it.
The performance of the pendo I have no problem with. However it has been poorly designed and thought about when it comes to other things. Smelly toilets, vestibules and toilets that are far too large etc etc.
However, where I do firmly believe that pendos are the worst, is in their standard class coaches. I hate them. The seats are too hard, upright and uncomfortable. They are too dark and dinghy. They seem too narrow and cramped. Why when the 225 is apparently the same width?
I cant stand pendos in standard class. The only train i have yet to walk off of before it even left. The only train i refuse to travel in standard class. Im lucky in the fact that i have a choice. Some people dont.

So thats why i hate the pendos. Purely my opinion though.

I echo totally what you say on pendos i spent 30 mins on one and never again do i ever want to travel on one...there is nothing to like about them. id rather travel on a pacer

 

[junglejames]

I echo totally what you say on pendos i spent 30 mins on one and never again do i ever want to travel on one...there is nothing to like about them. id rather travel on a pacer

Ditto. Pacers are wicked fun.
Imagine Euston to Glasgow on one!! hehe
Think people are getting annoyed over me slagging off pendos all the time. Jealousy do you reckon?!! lol
So i wont mention pendos in a bad light again? Deal?
I'll call them by a secret name!!!!