Class 91 Locomotive Questions.

[yh00157]

hello. I am a railroad fanatic living in Korea.

While studying mechanics in high school and junior college, I also watch railroad cars.

I am writing to ask questions.

While reading the Wikipedia article, I have a question about the Class 91 locomotive.

After privatization of British Rail, Adtranz/Bombardier carried out vehicle modification work.

For what reason did you modify the 31st Fleet locomotive?

I am asking a question because the content is somewhat lacking and I would like to know more.

Translated from Korean to English with Google Translate. There may be grammar mistakes, so please forgive me.

 

[RobShipway]

hello. I am a railroad fanatic living in Korea.

While studying mechanics in high school and junior college, I also watch railroad cars.

I am writing to ask questions.

While reading the Wikipedia article, I have a question about the Class 91 locomotive.

After privatization of British Rail, Adtranz/Bombardier carried out vehicle modification work.

For what reason did you modify the 31st Fleet locomotive?

I am asking a question because the content is somewhat lacking and I would like to know more.

Translated from Korean to English with Google Translate. There may be grammar mistakes, so please forgive me.

You have to remember that the class 91 locos where built between 1988 - 1991, so by the time the modifications took place between 2000 - 2003 any technology had advanced such that it was causing the original technology to have issues with making the class 91 less reliable to be used. Prior to these improvements the class 91 where failing 8 out 10 times due to electronic failure. The changes where to bogies, electrical systems, air compressors, and parking brakes; alterations to the cab layout at the Number 1 end; the replacement of the original gearboxes with newly designed Voith models; and the installation of TPWS and a new air-cooling system.

The above changes where designed to make it less likely that the class 91 locos would have failures and would then become more reliable. The changes where done as part of Project Delta.

 

[norbitonflyer]

I'm not aware of No 91131 (former 91031) having any different treatment to the rest of the fleet.

But perhaps you are referring to 91132 ? This was renumbered from 91023 - it had been involved in both the Hatfield and Selby accidents. Although relatively undamaged in both accidents (the derailment at Hatfield happened behind the locomotive, whilst at Selby, a head-on collision, the locomotive was propelling the train and thus escaped the worst of the damage), it was given a new number in what appears to have been a succesful attempt to break the jinx.

A similar coincidence found the lightly damaged rear carriages in the Southall collision repaired, only to then be in the train involved in the Ladbroke Grove collision a few years later.

Some years ago, 47216 was renumbered as 47299 after a clairvoyant claimed it was fated to have an accident. The fates saw through this ruse, as the renumbered locomotive had an accident shortly afterwards anyway.

 

[Snapper37]

If you are particularly interested in the cl91 reverb, can I recommend the book Train Doctor by Roger Senior? He was a riding fault finder on the ECML, and heavily involved with the 91 referb project.

 

[yh00157]

If you are particularly interested in the cl91 reverb, can I recommend the book Train Doctor by Roger Senior? He was a riding fault finder on the ECML, and heavily involved with the 91 referb project.

yes. I asked questions because I wanted to know various reasons why this locomotive was renovated.

I read the book you recommended, but there is a problem with overseas railroad books having to be shipped to Korea.

 

[D6975]

I'm not aware of No 91131 (former 91031) having any different treatment to the rest of the fleet.

You are forgetting that the text is a translation - it doesn't refer to the 31st loco, it refers to the fleet of 31 locos.

 

[trv100]

yes. I asked questions because I wanted to know various reasons why this locomotive was renovated.

I read the book you recommended, but there is a problem with overseas railroad books having to be shipped to Korea.

there are a few reasons, the main one though was to improve their reliability

 

[m79900]

I'm not aware of No 91131 (former 91031) having any different treatment to the rest of the fleet.

But perhaps you are referring to 91132 ? This was renumbered from 91023 - it had been involved in both the Hatfield and Selby accidents. Although relatively undamaged in both accidents (the derailment at Hatfield happened behind the locomotive, whilst at Selby, a head-on collision, the locomotive was propelling the train and thus escaped the worst of the damage), it was given a new number in what appears to have been a succesful attempt to break the jinx.

A similar coincidence found the lightly damaged rear carriages in the Southall collision repaired, only to then be in the train involved in the Ladbroke Grove collision a few years later.

Some years ago, 47216 was renumbered as 47299 after a clairvoyant claimed it was fated to have an accident. The fates saw through this ruse, as the renumbered locomotive had an accident shortly afterwards anyway.

That’s a point though, why didn’t they just number it 91123? Also, I think it’s a real shame that this loco got scrapped. If any deserved to be preserved, this was it.

 

[D6975]

91023 was involved in 2 fatal accidents. After refurbishment it became 91132 to break the 'jinx'.

The accidents were only about 4 months apart.
(Hatfield/Heck)
It briefly carried 91032 as well I think.

 

[43096]

91023 was involved in 2 fatal accidents. After refurbishment it became 91132 to break the 'jinx'.

The accidents were only about 4 months apart.
(Hatfield/Heck)
It briefly carried 91032 as well I think.

Is 91123 not a different number from 91023? And of course everyone knew it was 23 renumbered. Should have become 91123 and not bothered with all the pointless nonsense.

 

[m79900]

91023 was involved in 2 fatal accidents. After refurbishment it became 91132 to break the 'jinx'.

The accidents were only about 4 months apart.
(Hatfield/Heck)
It briefly carried 91032 as well I think.

To break the jinx? I never would have thought the railways so superstitious.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Also, I think it’s a real shame that this loco got scrapped. If any deserved to be preserved, this was it.

The railway tends to make sure that any rolling stock involved in a high profile "adverse event" gets totally scrapped when it eventually gets withdrawn. This is to prevent "ghoulish collectors" wanting it or parts of it simply because of what it's been involved in.

To break the jinx? I never would have thought the railways so superstitious.

It was an attempt to try to avoid passengers realising that it was the same one that had been involved in two major crashes; nothing to do with superstition ( unlike with 47 299!! ); everything to do with not wanting to make passengers nervous if they saw which locomotive it was.

 

[D6975]

To break the jinx? I never would have thought the railways so superstitious.

It's happened several times - locos reallocated far away from their home depot because of superstition. 37675 jumps to mind - allocated to Laira, working off Blazey, sent to Motherwell because Blazey men wouldn't drive it after several minor incidents.

 

[37114]

It's happened several times - locos reallocated far away from their home depot because of superstition. 37675 jumps to mind - allocated to Laira, working off Blazey, sent to Motherwell because Blazey men wouldn't drive it after several minor incidents.

I believe one of the minor incidents involved a driver sadly being killed while backing it into the St Blazey roundhouse. 37412 was later named after the driver concerned.

 

[norbitonflyer]

It was a long time before anyone dared drive the locomotive recovered from the Tay after the 1879 disaster over the new bridge.
And the locomotive involved in the 1908 Grantham disaster was always considered unlucky.

 

[Swanny200]

And the Class 47 47299 known as Ariadne

 

[yh00157]

there are a few reasons, the main one though was to improve their reliability

yes. As for reliability issues, were they mainly due to mechanical and electrical defects?

For your information, I'm asking a question because I'm translating it into Korean, so I'm not sure about some parts.

 

[trv100]

yes. As for reliability issues, were they mainly due to mechanical and electrical defects?

For your information, I'm asking a question because I'm translating it into Korean, so I'm not sure about some parts.

Yes, they were quite flawed, the only flaw i can think of from the top of my head is that in the snow, when the trains ran southbound snow would go into the air intakes and melt in the electrics

 

[Spartacus]

Yes, they were quite flawed, the only flaw i can think of from the top of my head is that in the snow, when the trains ran southbound snow would go into the air intakes and melt in the electrics

Curiously one of the 91/1 modifications was to add additional vents to the loco sides. These were meant to have been on the original design but BR wanted cleaner lines than GEC/BREL had designed. I seem to remember the 91/1 program included a few modifications like this, rebuilding closer to the original design than they were originally built.

 

[yh00157]

Yes, they were quite flawed, the only flaw i can think of from the top of my head is that in the snow, when the trains ran southbound snow would go into the air intakes and melt in the electrics

thank you.

 

[Strathclyder]

The railway tends to make sure that any rolling stock involved in a high profile "adverse event" gets totally scrapped when it eventually gets withdrawn. This is to prevent "ghoulish collectors" wanting it or parts of it simply because of what it's been involved in.

Indeed. This was the case with the Class 40 (D326/40126) involved in the Great Train Robbery.

It was a long time before anyone dared drive the locomotive recovered from the Tay after the 1879 disaster over the new bridge.

29 years to the day before it (NBR No.224) was driven across the new bridge in fact: 28th December 1908 was when it was next recorded crossing the Tay hauling the Sunday evening mail train to Dundee.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Anothger renumbering of an unlucky vehicle was motor coach No 13 of the great Northern & City Railway which, following a fatal accident, was renumbered 8. The numbers 2-9 had originally been left vacant for locomotives intended to take over Great Northern Railway hauled stock from steam locomotives at Finsbury Park, but in the event through running did not start until 1975 (by which time electrification had reached the main line) so only No 1 was built, and used for shunting. The numbers 7 and 9 were used for new motor coaches after the block allocated to such vehicles (10-39) had been filled

 

[Tracked]

And the locomotive involved in the 1908 Grantham disaster was always considered unlucky.

Think I've mentioned this before, there's a bit in Historic Railway Disasters (OS Nock) about this; a friend of his caught it and it gave a poor run from Leeds to London, the driver saying "it's not a good engine, never has been since the accident"

Then a few years later it ended up on the Great Central, OS Nock himself on the service saying the driver and firemen didn't know of its history and it gave a fine run to Leicester.

 

[fammorris]

You have to remember that the class 91 locos where built between 1988 - 1991, so by the time the modifications took place between 2000 - 2003 any technology had advanced such that it was causing the original technology to have issues with making the class 91 less reliable to be used. Prior to these improvements the class 91 where failing 8 out 10 times due to electronic failure. The changes where to bogies, electrical systems, air compressors, and parking brakes; alterations to the cab layout at the Number 1 end; the replacement of the original gearboxes with newly designed Voith models; and the installation of TPWS and a new air-cooling system.

The above changes where designed to make it less likely that the class 91 locos would have failures and would then become more reliable. The changes where done as part of Project Delta.

The original contract for gearboxes for the Class 91 were originally fulfilled by Voith with its HE22 gearbox. Subsequently GEC (not sure whether they were GEC Alsthom by then) placed an order with David Brown Gear Industries. It was these DBGI gearboxes that were subject to replacement by further Voith units due to the unreliability of theformer.

 

[Swanny200]

And if I recall correctly, the same David Brown of Aston Martin fame

 

[trebor79]

The original contract for gearboxes for the Class 91 were originally fulfilled by Voith with its HE22 gearbox. Subsequently GEC (not sure whether they were GEC Alsthom by then) placed an order with David Brown Gear Industries. It was these DBGI gearboxes that were subject to replacement by further Voith units due to the unreliability of theformer.

Why were the original Voith replaced with DB gearboxes?

 

[TGV]

Yes, they were quite flawed, the only flaw i can think of from the top of my head is that in the snow, when the trains ran southbound snow would go into the air intakes and melt in the electrics

They were also a single point failure on wheels. So many of the critical systems and components were effectively in series, like the aux proved circuit. Any one thing went down and the whole loco, and thus train, was dead in the water. 14 was fitted with a duplex pantograph for a while in an attempt to build in some redundancy and resilience but the idea wasn't kept on although 14 did run around with the duplex design for a few years before being modified back to a single pantograph. However if you look above the No2 cab on that loco, you can still see where the roof profile was changed to accommodate it.

 

[trainswitheddy]

Wasn't sure where else to post this, but apparently 91117 was taken out of Barrow Hill heading to Leicester for reactivation but thought it was stripped for 89001?

 

[RichardAsh1981]

14 was fitted with a duplex pantograph for a while in an attempt to build in some redundancy and resilience but the idea wasn't kept on although 14 did run around with the duplex design for a few years before being modified back to a single pantograph.

I believe this started about the time the replacement with what ended up being the IEP was mooted, because the proposed replacements all had a pantograph each end which compared badly to one pan on the class 91. The new roof profile and twin pantographs spent some time in the HV test lab at work being doused in water (by an array of garden hoses, pumps and tanks) whilst energised at 25kV to prove the clearances.

 

[D365]

Wasn't sure where else to post this, but apparently 91117 was taken out of Barrow Hill heading to Leicester for reactivation but thought it was stripped for 89001?

what hardware would a GEC electric (90/91) and a Brush electric (89, 92, Eurotunnel) have in common?