92044

[Stonesourscotty]

Can anyone tell me why i spotted 92044 aboard a Transporter on the M6 around Junction 16 at 1 o clock today it was heading southbound

Didnt look in a healthy state mind you...

 

[Turbostar]

These days, for some strange reason, it's cheaper to transport rolling stock needing attention etc., by road, than by rail. Obviously, sounds like it's come from Crewe, & being a Brush product, my guess is it's heading down to Brush Loughborough.

 

[bluenoxid]

If it goes kaput in the railways there is a lot of money to pay. If it falls off the back of a wagon, well you just have to ring Sally Traffic and wave at the irate motorists

 

[CraigS]

I believe 92044 is now owned by Eurotunnel as is a few other former Eurostar UK owned 92s so could it be enroute to Loughborough for overhaul for use by Europorte 2?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

92044 is indeed one of 5 former EPS 92s now owned by Eurotunnel.

 

[Phoenix]

About time it's quite ridicoulous,locos which do such sterling work like the 92's should be anywhere but stored.
But yes it's most likely that it's been given a good old working over to remove years of dust before it starts it's new life with it's new owner's.
Let's put it this way if a 92 can pull two 37's another 92 a whole car train and then some cargo wagon's then really there isn't much they cannot do.
Please someone argue this.

 

[westcoaster]

About time it's quite ridicoulous,locos which do such sterling work like the 92's should be anywhere but stored.
But yes it's most likely that it's been given a good old working over to remove years of dust before it starts it's new life with it's new owner's.
Let's put it this way if a 92 can pull two 37's another 92 a whole car train and then some cargo wagon's then really there isn't much they cannot do.
Please someone argue this.

cant go over most of the network as there is no juice.

 

[class 313]

cant go over most of the network as there is no juice.

Well no, there is. Just not enough of it...

I say 92s for passenger work.

 

[Galvanize]

I say 92s for passenger work.

No their 87mph top speed would be too much of a penalty to journey times! :roll:
Though the extreme accelleration could make up for that! Somehow!

 

[class 313]

No their 87mph top speed would be too much of a penalty to journey times! :roll:
Though the extreme accelleration could make up for that! Somehow!

Well they were built for passenger services...

 

[87015]

Be much better on the overnights than skodas especially in autumn slippin and slidin' season, not sure what sort of mods would be needed to the ETH provision on 92s to make it 'normal' ?

 

[class 313]

Be much better on the overnights than skodas especially in autumn slippin and slidin' season, not sure what sort of mods would be needed to the ETH provision on 92s to make it 'normal' ?

But when 92s slip, oh they slip

 

[Galvanize]

Well they were built for passenger services...

No they were built for CHANNEL TUNNEL FREIGHT, but to haul the ill fated Nightstar trains from London to the tunnel IIRC, with the aid of a genny van!

 

[westcoaster]

were they going to supply ear plugs to the punters, 92's make a right racket

 

[37402]

No they were built for CHANNEL TUNNEL FREIGHT, but to haul the ill fated Nightstar trains from London to the tunnel IIRC, with the aid of a genny van!

No they weren't. 92's were designed as dual purpose locos - hence the ETS supply. The only reason they haven't been used on domestic passenger trains is the fact that the index is too high; something which wouldn't have been a problem with the Nighstar stock. Genny van's (which, incidentally are set up on the system as locomotives, Class 96 - hellfire!) were for the tractors.

 

[87015]

No they were built for CHANNEL TUNNEL FREIGHT, but to haul the ill fated Nightstar trains from London to the tunnel IIRC, with the aid of a genny van!

Genny van was for the 37/6s, 92s would have ETH'd stock directly AFAIK, with the nightstar stock obviously having non-standard (by UK standards) ETH supply.

 

[class 313]

No they were built for CHANNEL TUNNEL FREIGHT, but to haul the ill fated Nightstar trains from London to the tunnel IIRC, with the aid of a genny van!

Weren't the genny vans for the 37s that would work the non electrified parts of the line?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

were they going to supply ear plugs to the punters, 92's make a right racket

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=B3BMmZi__gY

 

[37402]

But when 92s slip, oh they slip

No they don't. The lower top speed, lower gearing and heavier weight (an additional 40t when compared to say, a skoda) makes them *much* less prone to slippage.

 

[Galvanize]

No they weren't. 92's were designed as dual purpose locos - hence the ETS supply. The only reason they haven't been used on domestic passenger trains is the fact that the index is too high; something which wouldn't have been a problem with the Nighstar stock. Genny van's (which, incidentally are set up on the system as locomotives, Class 96 - hellfire!) were for the tractors.

Oh. I did say "chunnel" freight and nightstar. I had assumed they had no ETS!

Thanks for putting it in the right direction though

*calls taxi

 

[class 313]

No they don't. The lower top speed, lower gearing and heavier weight (an additional 40t when compared to say, a skoda) makes them *much* less prone to slippage.

What I meant was the slipping can get quite vicious! As felt on the Choppington Changer.

 

[Nym]

You should see one starting off light, I thought the TWPS was going to stop it leaving p13 at MAN, got to linespeed in about 4 seconds!