• 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)

Status
Not open for further replies.
najaB

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,726
Location
Scotland
marks87 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Only if the carriages have the necessary cabling to allow remote control of the trailing loco.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

C

captainbigun

Member
Joined
3 May 2009
Messages
977
Domh245 said:
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.
Click to expand...

68 and 88 not suitable.

You'd have to change the transformer in 90 to increase ETS output. That would be monumentally expensive. It's not going to happen.
 
A

alexl92

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2014
Messages
2,368
captainbigun said:
68 and 88 not suitable.

You'd have to change the transformer in 90 to increase ETS output. That would be monumentally expensive. It's not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Ah. I just assumed that as newer locos they'd work okay.
 
A

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,124
Location
Redcar
Peter Mugridge said:
Well.... the V250s in the Netherlands were brand new straight out of the box and therefore much newer still, but as for them actually working....
Click to expand...

You see that can't be correct because as we well know nothing ever goes wrong on the continent and everything is always wonderful...
 
C

captainbigun

Member
Joined
3 May 2009
Messages
977
CosherB said:
The 68 ETS of 96 would be ample for the diesel sections, I'd assume the 88 will have a similar ETS? Obviously well short of the 180 (on AC) for the 92!
Click to expand...

88 will be the same I'd assume, rest of the loco is the same. The new stock I'll require the 92. 87/90 also unsuitable.

But of debate whether the 68 actually has fully rated output of 96 or whether that's short term rating.

All irrelevant as DRS won't feature and the 88s don't exist!
 
Trainfan344

Trainfan344

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2012
Messages
2,305
92028 and 92014 were parked in the bay at Stafford yesterday (25/04/2015) Anybody know why?
 
R

Redonian

Member
Joined
31 May 2014
Messages
99
92018 and 92038 are presently at Rugby having been brought from Brush at Loughborough by a 66. The former is headed for Warrington and the latter to DIRFT so presumably the plan is to get some running time with freight but it's already come unstuck as 92038 has expired.
 
CosherB

CosherB

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2007
Messages
3,041
Location
Northwich
Redonian said:
92018 and 92038 are presently at Rugby having been brought from Brush at Loughborough by a 66. The former is headed for Warrington and the latter to DIRFT so presumably the plan is to get some running time with freight but it's already come unstuck as 92038 has expired.
Click to expand...

Am I correct in thinking that 018 is a refurbished loco whereas 038 has been wheeled out and just had a lick of paint? GBRf may have to refurb all seven sleeper locos, both dedicated and back-up .....
 
C

captainbigun

Member
Joined
3 May 2009
Messages
977
None of the logos have been 'wheeled out'. The long term stored examples like 18 have been through Brush for an extensive overhaul. Others like 38 have been in use with GB for some time and have been constantly active thus not requiring the same level of work.
 
sprinterguy

sprinterguy

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,574
Location
Macclesfield
CosherB said:
The 68 ETS of 96 would be ample for the diesel sections, I'd assume the 88 will have a similar ETS? Obviously well short of the 180 (on AC) for the 92!
Click to expand...
As far as I know (based on the written sources I have to hand), the class 92s have an ETS rating of 108 on AC power, not 180.
 
C

captainbigun

Member
Joined
3 May 2009
Messages
977
sprinterguy said:
Thought it was around 70 on DC. Might have to check again later but if not then there seem to be typos being perpetuated through multiple different books.
Click to expand...

I think they've been upped as the supply voltage has been changed from 1500V to 1000V.
 
C

cjmillsnun

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
3,275
captainbigun said:
I think they've been upped as the supply voltage has been changed from 1500V to 1000V.
Click to expand...

ETS has always been 750-1000V. Even for Nightstar. It wouldn't be standard ETS if it wasn't.

My sources also give 108 on AC and 70 on DC.

I'd be very surprised if it could do more than that on DC bearing in mind the current draw from the motors alone. Much more and you'd be tripping out substations.
 
C

captainbigun

Member
Joined
3 May 2009
Messages
977
cjmillsnun said:
ETS has always been 750-1000V. Even for Nightstar. It wouldn't be standard ETS if it wasn't.

My sources also give 108 on AC and 70 on DC.

I'd be very surprised if it could do more than that on DC bearing in mind the current draw from the motors alone. Much more and you'd be tripping out substations.
Click to expand...

Not so. Night star was UIC standard that's 1500V. Why do you think the ex night star gen vans haven't been guzzled up?

My source, the loco....

Also evidenced on the data panel.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/98587...iTY-rGpa4m-rGpa2N-rJgnzr-roEVje-rGXgXr-qKXpkS
 
Last edited:
bb21

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,465
Stop-starts again today up lowland. Just passed Tring 89 minutes down.
 
87031

87031

Member
Joined
25 Jun 2009
Messages
356
92033 worked the heavily delayed up lowland last night might explain the stop/start mentioned previously in the thread.
 
8

87015

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2006
Messages
5,078
Location
GEML/WCML/SR
87002 via Eccles etc last night on the Inverness, very nice.

Bar tab came to more than the berth, although spent less time in the berth to be fair :lol:
 
I

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,615
87015 said:
Bar tab came to more than the berth, although spent less time in the berth to be fair :lol:
Click to expand...

My bar tab behind 87002 was so extensive as to cause me to require a second attempt at my PIN. :$
 
najaB

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,726
Location
Scotland
Was there another class 92 failure last night? I saw 92028 (I think, was in a passing train) parked at Carlisle this morning.
 
O

Observer

Member
Joined
3 Nov 2014
Messages
799
Would the problems with the 92s perhaps convince an argument that new electrics should be purchased in time for the CAF stock to arrive? Or would that not be feasible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top