Class 90 differences

[221101 Voyager]

Why were some class 90s reclassified as 90/1 and 90/2 in the 90s?

And is there any remains of their different subclass identity left today?

Any info about these subclasses would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Class 90/1 had the ETH equipment isolated.

Class 90/2 had different brake blocks. From memory, this was something to do with the higher performance required for the ECML hires at the time.

 

[sprinterguy]

Class 90/1 had the ETH equipment isolated.

They were also limited to 75mph maximum speed, as freight dedicated locomotives.

 

[hexagon789]

90/1 - ETS isolated & jumpers removed, gangway rubbing plates & drop-head buckeye couplers removed, high-phosphorous brake blocks fitted, 75mph maximum speed restriction imposed.

90/0 - without modification, standard 110mph subclass

 

[DB]

When the /1 had their ETS reinstated they retained the freight buffers and drawhook / shackle couplings (i.e. no drophead buckeye).

So far as I am aware the only operational 90s which retained retractable buffers, drophead buckeye and rubbing plate were the Anglia ones (now with LSL(2) and Freightline(13), and I believe still unchanged). The long-standing Freightliner locos and the operational DB ones were all modified a good few years ago - not sure whether there are any long-stored DB ones which still have the original configuration.

 

[O L Leigh]

My memory is perhaps faulty, but I think the last 10(?) were built without drophead buckeyes and Pullman rubbing plates as dedicated freight locos. As new, the IC swallow locos were meant to be for WCML passenger services, the Mainline livery locos for mixed traffic and the Railfreight triple grey for freight only. Of course there was rather more mixing in traffic, but that was the intention.

They were also limited to 75mph maximum speed, as freight dedicated locomotives.

I think that was just a nominal restriction and the locos themselves remained unchanged. Again from memory, it was only 86601 that was regeared for a lower maximum speed which had the added benefit of increasing it's tractive effort.

 

[43096]

When the /1 had their ETS reinstated they retained the freight buffers and drawhook / shackle couplings (i.e. no drophead buckeye).

So far as I am aware the only operational 90s which retained retractable buffers, drophead buckeye and rubbing plate were the Anglia ones (now with LSL(2) and Freightline(13), and I believe still unchanged). The long-standing Freightliner locos and the operational DB ones were all modified a good few years ago - not sure whether there are any long-stored DB ones which still have the original configuration.

90003-15 have lost their buckeyes and rubbing plates and had their buffers locked/welded in the extended position since Freightliner acquired them. 90001/2 are therefore the last two in original condition.

 

[43096]

My memory is perhaps faulty, but I think the last 10(?) were built without drophead buckeyes and Pullman rubbing plates as dedicated freight locos. As new, the IC swallow locos were meant to be for WCML passenger services, the Mainline livery locos for mixed traffic and the Railfreight triple grey for freight only. Of course there was rather more mixing in traffic, but that was the intention.

Your memory is faulty! https://www.flickr.com/photos/42318...w2t-zmdaTP-mTawra-GJcpHn-avFisw-9Anw5V-JJ1ZnH

 

[DBS92042]

When the /1 had their ETS reinstated they retained the freight buffers and drawhook / shackle couplings (i.e. no drophead buckeye).

So far as I am aware the only operational 90s which retained retractable buffers, drophead buckeye and rubbing plate were the Anglia ones (now with LSL(2) and Freightline(13), and I believe still unchanged). The long-standing Freightliner locos and the operational DB ones were all modified a good few years ago - not sure whether there are any long-stored DB ones which still have the original configuration.

The ex-Anglia now Freightliner 90s have had their rubbing plates and drophead buckeyes removed but I believe the majority of them have retained their retractable buffers for now.
90012 has had its retractable buffers replaced at one end although I think that's the only one that's had them removed

 

[Wyrleybart]

My memory is perhaps faulty, but I think the last 10(?) were built without drophead buckeyes and Pullman rubbing plates as dedicated freight locos. As new, the IC swallow locos were meant to be for WCML passenger services, the Mainline livery locos for mixed traffic and the Railfreight triple grey for freight only. Of course there was rather more mixing in traffic, but that was the intention.

From memory all class 90s were delivered as standard class 90/0s. The later batch of those were delivered in amended livery which I call "blacktop", then individualisation started happening with the European liveries. IIRC they all had retractable buffing gear from new

 

[Bonemaster]

From memory all class 90s were delivered as standard class 90/0s. The later batch of those were delivered in amended livery which I call "blacktop", then individualisation started happening with the European liveries. IIRC they all had retractable buffing gear from new

The first 25 were full intercity machines, then the next 12 upto 90037 were shared locomotives and the last 13 were freight locomotives.

Why were some class 90s reclassified as 90/1 and 90/2 in the 90s?

And is there any remains of their different subclass identity left today?

Any info about these subclasses would be greatly appreciated.

Class 90/1s were created as sectorisation to stop intercity steeling freight locomotives, exactly the same logic as creating 31/5s and 86/6s by removing the ETH capability and lowering the top speed. From then on the differences between the sub classes change at various times. There have been class 90/1 with ETH operational and higher speeds (when Freightliner locos were on at least one of their medium term hires to Virgin Trains) as well as those without. The simplest way to look at it that has been consistent for the last 30 years is that 90/0s are for passenger use, 90/1 are for freight.

90/2 was related to enhanced brake blocks, my recollection is that rather than to do with East Coast operations that this was sleeper related but I might be wrong. However they were pretty much common use on anything east coast or west coast when they were in use.

 

[221101 Voyager]

Thank you all for your responses, it's much appreciated!

The ex-Anglia now Freightliner 90s have had their rubbing plates and drophead buckeyes removed but I believe the majority of them have retained their retractable buffers for now.
90012 has had its retractable buffers replaced at one end although I think that's the only one that's had them removed

Why do 90s have two different buffer types?

As I've seen photos of the smaller type of buffer on passenger and freight workings and vice versa with the larger type of buffers too.

 

[DB]

Thank you all for your responses, it's much appreciated!


Why do 90s have two different buffer types?

As I've seen photos of the smaller type of buffer on passenger and freight workings and vice versa with the larger type of buffers too.

The larger ones are the retractable buffers, and are designed for use with rubbing plates / drophead buckeyes. Fixed buffers (the smaller ones) and no rubbing plates / buckeyes means less maintenance, hence not having them on locos used primarily for freight. That doesn't mean that they can't be used for passenger work, but they need to use a standard screw coupler if so.

Only other locos I can immediately think of with drophead buckeyes are un-rebuilt 73s, and 91s.

 

[43096]

Only other locos I can immediately think of with drophead buckeyes are un-rebuilt 73s, and 91s.

73951-952/961-965, 89001, 41001 and the 33/1s also have them.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

90/2 was related to enhanced brake blocks, my recollection is that rather than to do with East Coast operations that this was sleeper related but I might be wrong. However they were pretty much common use on anything east coast or west coast when they were in use.

You're right - your mention of the Sleeper now reminds me that it was for that, and not the ECML, for which these blocks were fitted.