87031
Member
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 356
Of course all trains fail including HSTs , i bet you cant wait for 87002 to fail on the sleeper, it's ok we can just blame the coaches anyway
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
failed 92 on 1S25! (14/04/15)
- Thread starter 87031
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
That'll be the same HST trailers that FGW and VTEC will be substantially replacing with new Hitachi trains. As the initiator of this thread, surely you have stoked-up the frenzy of interest in the 'failure' of the 92s on the sleeper? I'm sure no-one wants to see any locos failing in service, so being petty does you not credit whatsoever.
I also refer you to post #32 ......
Last edited:
MCR247
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 10,292
Wow :roll: Actually I hope it doesn't fail as it would be incredibly selfish of me just wish that the pax onboard are inconvenienced just so I can say 'told you so' to some people on an internet forum...
I can't see why you hate 92s so badly.
Sometimes you just can't help this place. Obviously I know that not everyone wants the same thing but a couple of years ago threads about the sleeper were full of posts hoping it would become a separate franchise so it would be marketed better and be taken more seriously etc. Here are now with proper plans for it for the future being made and everyone is hoping they fall down at the first hurdle. Why? Because the locos were replaced with newer ones. Its quite pathetic tbh
87031
Member
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 356
Oh i dunno i think there's plenty more juice left in this thread yet. 
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Did i actually quote say i hate 92s anywhere on this thread??
Last edited:
no, but we can infer what you think by your unbridled joy at seeing a 40 year old 87 on the Sleeper!
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,275
I think many railway enthusiasts are loving the fact that 87002 is on the sleeper. Long term, the 92s will obviously settle into their role, but it is nice to see Royal Sovereign doing what she used to do for many years from a nostalgia point of view.
87031
Member
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 356
Yes i am enjoying it and why not it won't be for much longer so why not milk her last few runs on the mainline for all there worth. 92s will be sorted in no time i guess it's just ironic i asked someone on the forum before if needed could 87002 work the sleeper, i never actually though it would happen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
i am enjoying it and why not it won't be for much longer so why not milk her last few runs on the mainline for all there worth. 92s will be sorted in no time i guess it's just ironic i asked someone on the forum before if needed could 87002 work the sleeper, i never actually though it would happen.--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Well said it won't last so lets enjoy the nostalgia while we can.
MCR247
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 10,292
Thats fair enough. My problem is the people who seem to hope the current operation fails just because they're using 92s instead of 90s (or even 87s)
CallySleeper
Established Member
Update 23/4 22.30
5C11 Edinburgh ECS left Polmadie 90 late (ETA @ Waverley 23.18)
Stock for 1M11 (Glasgow portion) is nowhere to be seen, traction is anyones guess
Inverness is 8 down at Dalwhinnie but otherwise everything else is running well!
5C11 Edinburgh ECS left Polmadie 90 late (ETA @ Waverley 23.18)
Stock for 1M11 (Glasgow portion) is nowhere to be seen, traction is anyones guess
Inverness is 8 down at Dalwhinnie but otherwise everything else is running well!
just wait to hear the howls of derision when the teething problems occur with £150 million worth of CAF stock in a few years .....! lol
87031
Member
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 356
90037 on 1M11 maybe?
CallySleeper
Established Member
No idea, but 5M11 just popped out of Polmadie 91 down.
e: but knowing what the alternatives could be (67s, a 47, 55003) it probably is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
90037 on 1M11, 87002 is hauling 1S25 tonight.
Last edited:
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Saw a very smart 92 speed south through Bletchley this morning hauling the highland sleeper which was bang on time . It looked good and in working order 
Last edited:
Jamesb1974
Member
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 596
No. Do you? But what has that got to do with the fact that Gbrf (and early, its parent company Europorte) own and maintain the locomotive?
I don't think anyone has said that they either hate 92s, want to see the operation fail or see it fail at the first hurdle. And I don't think anyone has said that they want any of the above due to newer locomotives being put on the trains.
Failures and delays cost money, reflect badly on the companies involved, p*ss off the customers, impact on other services and generally cause no end of problems for all concerned.
What was said was that 92s are unreliable (which they are; fact) and that it was nice to see 'heritage' traction working the train.
captainbigun
Member
- Joined
- 3 May 2009
- Messages
- 977
Has anyone got the stats for 92s? Are they actually worse than 90s or any other electric loco?
i.e. other than the perception that they are unreliable, can anyone actually put numbers on it?
A lot of wibble here over nothing. 92s are here to stay, fact, new stock requires them. 90s will be of no use. Also fact that 87002 will fail at some point.
i.e. other than the perception that they are unreliable, can anyone actually put numbers on it?
A lot of wibble here over nothing. 92s are here to stay, fact, new stock requires them. 90s will be of no use. Also fact that 87002 will fail at some point.
Its the combination of more modern motive power with more sensitive electronics with older coaching stock that caused the issue, specifically the ETS. I don't know, but I suspect it was stray earthing faults the Mk2s in the rake rather than the Mk3s, it has caused issues with 67s and other Mk2 stock before.
HSTs have a different ETS system, tend to be coupled and uncoupled less and the power cars have less complicated electronics.
al.currie93
Member
- Joined
- 27 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 381
I'd agree with this being the likely cause (given that circuit breaker tripping was given as a reason). Older electrical systems are definitely less complicated and sensitive than newer ones, and their integration does lead to problems (like circuit breaker tripping).
87031
Member
- Joined
- 25 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 356
It seems they do fail although till now because it was always on freight trains no one really noticed or cared. I guess they could of done more extensive testing with the 92s but not easy with the stock in use all the time, never mind we will just have to wait for 87002 to QUOTE fail so we can start a new thread 87002 failed on 1S25
tsr
Established Member
At which point everyone will moan that services through the North of England get such old trains and ask why it was not reasonably foreseen that they would need to use newer locos more recently purpose-built for the job. Bonus marks for those managing to suggest that 87002 should be couple to 442s for the exclusive purpose of running a through service from Weymouth Quay to Mistley via Crossrail.
captainbigun
Member
- Joined
- 3 May 2009
- Messages
- 977
It seems they do fail although till now because it was always on freight trains no one really noticed or cared. I guess they could of done more extensive testing with the 92s but not easy with the stock in use all the time, never mind we will just have to wait for 87002 to QUOTE fail so we can start a new thread 87002 failed on 1S25
Well....I've dug out some figures, and whilst I cannot share them. 90s and 92s are closer than some would have us believe here.
The GB 92's were given an overhaul before they were put back in service so it's not like they just wheeled them out of some dusty train shed at a whim. Things fail and unforeseen problems do occur, it's a fact of life and no amount of clap trap on here will change that.
The goal now is to understand what the problems are and what can be done to fix them.
The goal now is to understand what the problems are and what can be done to fix them.
Well now we have had a couple of failures hopefully that's it for a while and Serco now have an idea of what they need to do if a failure occurs, hopefully it's treated as a learning curve and they can use the problems to their advantage for the future.
Given the gravity of the delays I hope they go beyond the delay repay full refund and offer those affected either a discount or a free journey to restore faith. A refund for a five hour delay just doesn't cut it with me unfortunately.
Given the gravity of the delays I hope they go beyond the delay repay full refund and offer those affected either a discount or a free journey to restore faith. A refund for a five hour delay just doesn't cut it with me unfortunately.
My understanding was that some of the 92s that are being used include those that had been stored for several years. So far, only 018, 023, 033, & 038 have received their full overhaul. 92028 is a unit that falls into the gbrf mixed pool, and might well have been in effect just wheeled out of a shed.
Failed Unit
Established Member
Just on another parallel with new trains v old. 378s were bad in the first year. The hold their own now. The 91s and HSTs were better than the pendo / voyagers when they were new.
It takes time to fix things. The 90s don't have the nickname Skoda's for nothing. The WCML wasn't failure free when the 87s and 90s were on the expresses. (The 47s failed instead )
I do agree. I get the impression a lot of people want serco to fail. Not sure why - it isn't as if they are national express.
It takes time to fix things. The 90s don't have the nickname Skoda's for nothing. The WCML wasn't failure free when the 87s and 90s were on the expresses. (The 47s failed instead )
I do agree. I get the impression a lot of people want serco to fail. Not sure why - it isn't as if they are national express.
Last edited:
I don't know if there's a desire for them to fail, as much as there is an expectation/fear that it will happen.
Last edited:
Jamesb1974
Member
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 596
Well without any kind of validation, we only have your word for that. And to be frank, your word is pretty useless without validation!
Don't the Class 92 have most systems duplicated? If so, one would think that it would make them more resilient against failures. But I guess it also means more to go wrong
How easy is it to alter electrical systems in locos? It seems fairly short-sighted to have new stock that can only be hauled by 92s, 73/9s (and presumably 68 and 88s when they arrive). Could a pool of 90s have their electrics upgraded to cover in the event of a fleet-wide problem?
It *could* in theory be done quite easily by just using components that will give you the required power output, but then you have to consider things like the cooling that you use, the currents you are drawing, etc. That and railway politics, DBS would only upgrade a fleet of their class 90s to cover GBRF 92s if they were guaranteed a long term return - eg running all of the electric legs for the remainder of the franchise, but this is unlikely as GBRF need to make a profit somehow.
Obviously the platforms at Euston couldn't accommodate the sleeper being double-headed in the event of a 92 failure when the new stock arrives. But can topping and tailing provide the necessary power, by leaving on the back whatever brings in the ECS?
- Status