89001 - Please help

jbilton · Post by **jbilton** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:52 pm

Hi
I can't find it now...but there is an artists impression of the Class 89 when first proposed by BR....and it had HST cabs and three bogies making it a Bo-Bo-Bo.
Cheers
Jon

USRailFan · Post by **USRailFan** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:59 pm

OK maybe not much in common with an 87, but the fronts (except for the lower parts of course) look extremely similar to a Class 43 (HST power unit).

chrisiveson · Post by **chrisiveson** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:59 pm

USRailFan wrote:Looks to me like they recycled parts of an HST Power Unit and a Class 87...

Hmm.!!!!

Suppose from a distance....................like half a mile.

arabiandisco · Post by **arabiandisco** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:01 pm

the windscreen is similar. ish.

Has more in common with the HST prototype.

http://www.old-dalby.com/images/hst-hol1.jpg

Though very little there, really...

Anonymizeruk · Post by **Anonymizeruk** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:03 pm

Well, the ends were based on the aerodynamics of the HST nose (you can actually fit a HST windscreen and wiper to the 89!)

Also had the same idea with the cab - it's quite similar to that of a HST, and certainly a world apart from the previous Desk type cabs of the 81-87.

Then there is the 125mph running, and thats about where the similarities end.

Cheers

Gaz

(P.S - nice shot Chris - could have been the outside of Bounds Green a few years ago!)

chrisiveson · Post by **chrisiveson** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:06 pm

Anonymizeruk wrote:
(P.S could have been the outside of Bounds Green a few years ago!)

Funny you should say that Gary.

Chris.

Anonymizeruk · Post by **Anonymizeruk** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:46 pm

jbilton wrote:Hi
I can't find it now...but there is an artists impression of the Class 89 when first proposed by BR....and it had HST cabs and three bogies making it a Bo-Bo-Bo.
Cheers
Jon

http://www.traintesting.com/class_89.htm

Doesnt show the Bo-Bo-Bo arrangement, but you can see the original cab design.

rwaceyw · Post by **rwaceyw** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:58 pm

jbilton wrote:Hi
My reason for the livery change was to reflect how un-helpful GNER have been
Jon

....They COULD have sold the loco direct to scrap...I hardly think they've been unhelpful.

David

Anonymizeruk · Post by **Anonymizeruk** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:04 pm

In all fairness to GNER, they have been really good with the ACLG (as far as I know).

There is a lovley framed photo in the Canteen seating area at Barrow Hill, showing the 89 with a rake of Mk.4s, which GNER gave to the group as well

jbilton · Post by **jbilton** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:05 pm

rwaceyw wrote:
jbilton wrote:Hi
My reason for the livery change was to reflect how un-helpful GNER have been
Jon
....They COULD have sold the loco direct to scrap...I hardly think they've been unhelpful.

David

What and lost some money.....I don't think so.
What they could have done was offered the loco for preservation for free.....or a nominal fee.....or taken into account the work and storage put in by the group.
Cheers
Jon

rwaceyw · Post by **rwaceyw** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 10:19 pm

Considering the amount of moolah Sea Containers are in debt, they're hardly going to give something they can sell away, are they?

Think of the bigger picture - without GNER returning the loco to mainline service - where would it be now?

David

arabiandisco · Post by **arabiandisco** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:27 am

rwaceyw wrote:Considering the amount of moolah Sea Containers are in debt, they're hardly going to give something they can sell away, are they?

Think of the bigger picture - without GNER returning the loco to mainline service - where would it be now?

David

Butterley? (That's where it was before, IIRC) Though I imagine the ACLG would have ended up looking after it had it never been returned to the main line, ultimately.

I don't think GNER have been that unhelpful about it. I certainly wouldn't expect them to just give the thing away - after all, they spent a lot of money on it. The way in which the "auction" was conducted, and the fact that it was only at 6 weeks notice might leave room for improvement, but had they wanted they could have just sold it to a scrap dealer, regardless of what the ACLG bid, since as long as it survives, it can be used to compete with them... But none of that matters, the locomotive is safe now.

Anonymizeruk · Post by **Anonymizeruk** » Thu Nov 23, 2006 8:32 am

Thinking of it from a purely business point of view, it's not suprising that GNER / SeaCo wanted to sell the 89.

When the company is desperate to raise capital, and they have a loco which is never going to earn them any revenue, the smart thing to do is sell it.

Obviously, from an enthusiasts point of view, it came as bad news. But as has been said, none of this matters now!

jbilton · Post by **jbilton** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:43 am

Hi
All gone a little quite ATM....but from the site.

Tuesday, 28th November, 2006

The total amount raised by the appeal was a staggering Â£28,042.

Other stats from the appeal:

Over Â£10,000 had been raised by the end of the first fortnight.
The estimated scrap value was reached on the eve of the original deadline (Oct 31st).
Contributors from around the world donated to the appeal, from as far away as Germany, Malta, the U.S., Canada and Australia.
Of the donations, over Â£1800 was raised online, whilst the combined efforts of the Train Sim Community raised over Â£2600 - going on for 10% of the overall total!
Our bid for the locomotive was not for the full amount raised during the appeal - we allowed for additional costs, such as recovery and transportation of spare parts from Bounds Green, plus a small reserve for other immediate costs. Thanks to the superb response there will be a bit left over after purchase to allow restoration to start, although there's a long way to go before the 89 moves again.

Cheers
Jon