Talk:British Rail Class 91

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Trains: in UK / in Scotland / Locomotives Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Transport in Scotland (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Locomotives task force.

East Coast Livery

I'm pretty sure I have seen at least one Class 91 painted in the new "Silver Link" livery along with it's Coaches and DVT. I'm afraid I don't know which one it is because I was riding a Bus through Doncaster Interchange at the time and only glanced the top of it. I just wondered if anyone else had any information on this and whether East Coast is planning to re-livery all it's 225 sets. Xeon63 (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Edit: the Loco may have been 91107 as evidenced by this http://www.flickr.com/photos/47309173@N06/4946142778/ Xeon63 (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Reply: Now there's 91103/05/06/07/08/09/10/20/27/30/32 all painted, and 91101 did carry the livery, but now it has a special one (look on youtube for more details) and 91111 is in National Express livery with an East Coast logo.

Max.D Mortimer

Naming convention

There is a discussion about the naming convention to use for articles about British locomotive and multiple unit classes at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (British railway locomotive and multiple unit classes). Your comments are more than welcome. Thryduulf 22:27, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image captioned "Incorrect numbering to a GNER Class 91"

In reference to this image, how is it incorrect? The number is on the DVT (the trailer end) which is in fact a class 82. --Dean Earley 12:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, its been picked up and corretced in other places --Dean Earley 12:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image question

In the Gallery there is an image titled "Class 91 in NXEC livery south of York". I wonder if this is not actually a DVT since I can't see any pantograph on this image.

Soarhead77 (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

91111

Has now become the first of the class to receive NXEC livery. It still has the mouse. What is the mouse? Britishrailclass91 (talk) 08:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotive Speed Record

Have adjusted the 1989 speed record from 162.8mph to 162mph. All the references I can find agree on this figure and one states that the Class 91 narrowly missed beating the APT-P record. The APT-P is widely regarded as retaining the ultimate speed record of 162.2mph from 1979 until the Eurostar run of 2003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdef123456 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Reply Confusing. Maybe someone incorrectly put in 162.8, and it was corrected to 162 mph. I wonder if the Intercity 225 is the fastest loco-hauled train in the world. If yes, YAY!!! If no, what is then?

there's something wrong with the speed units auto-converter....

It seems to think there's 1.64 kilometres to the mile, not 1.61... As stated in the text, and proved by my own calculations (using a calculator and rule-of-thumb 5sf figure of 1609.3 metres/mile), the train was CALLED (!) the "225" because it was planned to do 225km/h, or 140mph... more accurately 225.302km/h. Not "230km/h", aka 142.9mph (don't have me for pedantry over 2.9 little mph's / 4.7 km/h's, not when i'm in the midst of trainspotterville, and speed records, nay, speeding tickets have been won and lost by much smaller margins).

I opened up the editor to correct this "typo", as I've had to on a couple other pages (they seem rife - someone on wiki has some very odd rough imperial <--> metric conversions in their head), and found it's actually the output of the auto-convert thing! The strange thing is, it's got the 125 figure right (201km/h - or 201.163) even after the automatic rounding-off, so what gives?

I'm going to try and effect a seamless manual edit to that, because it's not as if the data is ever going to change. Wish me luck. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It probably rounded to 2 significant figures because that was what the input appeared to have (ie treating the trailing zero as non-significant). To specify that it is, use the round-to parameter.--QuantumEngineer (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tractive effort

I have removed the 40kN tractive effort as it is clearly too low: not enough to use their full power (40kN at 140mph is about 2.5MW) and giving much less acceleration than observed (which would suggest somewhere near 150kN).--QuantumEngineer (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible change to the title of this article

This article is currently named in accordance the Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways naming conventions for British rolling stock allocated a TOPS number. A proposal to change this convention and/or its scope is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Naming convention, where your comments would be welcome.

Original research and other issues

I've tagged parts of the article that seem possibly to be original research WP:OR - specifically the claim that the vehicles derive from the APT power cars needs some considerable further explanation as there are major differences..

There were some other issues mostly of the lack of clarity type - I've tagged those in the text too.Imgaril (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why you tagged the whole article with {{original research}}, rather than just the "History" and perhaps some other sections? I'm also not really sure why you added {{disputed}} (although that could be 'cos it's time for bed). Tim PF (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put it at the top because it's not clear how much is ... quite a few bits. I could add more "citation" tags for the bits that might be if you want.

The disputed tag is specifically about the bit marked "improper synthesis" - the other stuff just needs to be confirmed true or not - it might be original research, or it might not.Imgaril (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in which case, I've moved the {{disputed}} tag down to "History" section (as {{disputed-section}} with this talk section name).
As for {{citation required}} tags, it would probably be better to add a global {{refimprove}}, which would also cover the {{Speculation-inline}} and {{Who}} tags.

On a slightly different matter, you tagged the flikr photo(s) with {{failed verification}}; was that because it could have been propelling (pushing)? Even if so, it would still be fairly unusual. Tim PF (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The photos were added in reference form - it doesn't confirm anything of the sentence This led to a second cab being incorporated into the unstreamlined 'blunt end'; operating with the blunt end first limits the maximum speed of the locomotive to 110 mph (180 km/h) due to aerodynamic stability

Also this is confusing http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=paPKsOXn5FMC&lpg=PA318&ots=LmBpRpxQ6g&dq=class%2091%20transformer&pg=PA318#v=onepage&q&f=false says tranformer ... would sit upright in the locomotive whereas "Aspects of the design, construction and testing of BRB's Class 90 and 91 locomotive transformers" (Bennett, P.C. , GEC Transformers Ltd.) says the transformer was to be mounted external to the body and slung between the bogies with the core and winding axis horizontal - completely the opposite/ Imgaril (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, those photos shouldn't be there as a reference, so I removed them, and would have replaced it with a {{citation needed}}, but there were already 2 others in the section, so I swapped them all for a {{refimprove}}.
I also move the blunt-end photo up to illustrate the "asymmetric body style", and added one with an older livery to the Livery section (I would like to have had both a BR livery and GNER, but that looks like the limit without crowding the tables).
I don't know the answer about the transformers. Tim PF (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Can somebody please cleanup this article - specifically sort out the sources, and remove the per locomotive trivia about when the last exam was.Mddkpp (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency In Drive Bogie Classification

I note that these units are classified UIC Bo'Bo' however my own inspection at Kings Cross in 2003 indicates that the locomotive is a monomotor design. (one motor per bogie geared to both axles plus) The content of the main article also confirms that it is driven by Cardan shafts and gearboxes to the axles. This makes the configuration B'B' in the UIC classification. I suggest that B'B' replace Bo'Bo'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brimacl (talk • contribs) 01:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No - as you noted you can see the motors from the platform - however there are two (with one roughly behind the other 'side to side') - connected via helical gears and "quill drive" to axle

This is covered in

Broom, M. L.; Smart, G. W. (1990). "The design, manufacture and assembly of the wheelset for the British Rail Class 91, 25 kV, 225 km/h locomotive". Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit 1989-1996 (vols 203-210). 204 (26): 141. doi:10.1243/PIME_PROC_1990_204_200_02.

unfortunately this is not currently a free resource.

The paper describes the transmission in short "Right angle drive bevel gearbox driving a quill type final drive which is coupled to the wheel"

In long form (page 142) "Traction and braking torques are transmitted from the body-mounted motor through a cardan shaft to the bogie-mounted gearbox. The final drive coupling, which connects the gearbox to the wheel and axle consists of a hollow quill tube with five flexibly mounted links attached at either end."

The exact number of traction motors is not explicit in that source, they are simply referred to in the plural - for that see :

R. Dettmer (12 May 1998), "The Class 91 locomotive. Learning from the APT", IEE Review, 34 (5): 188–189, ISSN 0953-5683

unfortunately this is also not currently a free resource.

In fact each motor is located above and opposite the axle it drives, and is connected by an inclined drive shaft - the two motors per bogie are 'staggered', with one on the right side, the other the left.

Luckily Equinox (TV series) produced a program in the late 80s on this design which makes this explicit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvsIYaRmRAM the relevant section starts at 13 1/2 minutes in which the relevant part is at 14min49sec - 15min40sec.

In my experience only 1 motor per bogie is visible from a plaftorm, which is likely what you saw

Prof.Haddock (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

With the exception of test units and special runs, is the Class 91 ever used with anything else than an InterCity 225? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping car trains. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting thought - when the 225 is superseded by the 800 or 801, will the Class 91s be used as an electric locomotive for other applications (i.e. on the Great Eastern Mainline), or will they be withdrawn with the MKIV stock? Bob talk 18:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on British Rail Class 91. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

GNWR Class 91.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Lok (Overspeed)", qu'est-que c'est?

This appears on the sidebar and claims to be equal to 240km/h or 149mph, cited from a very ratty PDF of a (xeroxed? mimeographed?) photocopy of a French-language spec sheet for the loco, which simply has that speed listed as "Vitesse maximale" (and also shows that the tractive force is stepped down considerably after 200km/h up to 240). It doesn't include, much less explain that same term, or show any sign that the speed claim is anything other than a historic typo, maybe a confusion between 140mph and 240km/h. Can anyone clarify this bit of weirdness? 46.208.118.147 (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why it lists 149 rather than 161 mph, since that's the speed the locomotive can potentially achieve. Bob talk 16:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main infobox image

Is there a better image of a Class 91 that we can use for the main infobox available? The current one looks terrible! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 23:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced it with one that also can be found further down the article, it'll do for now I guess but if anyone can replace it with a better image then feel free. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 23:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

91131 Railway Heritage Committee nomination

For the benefit of the editor who insists the cite on 91131 being nominated for preservation by the Railway Heritage Committee is invalid, sometimes you actually need to read the article to gain a proper understanding rather than relying on a seven-word heading. To quote the relevant paragraph from the cite provided:

The RHC has also designated other locomotives that are still in service, including 58050 (also owned by DB and currently in use in Spain hauling construction trains for new high speed trains) and 91131 (in use with East Coast). Jaraween22 (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jaraween22 thank you for providing this. This wasn't a web based source for a start so I couldn't check that the information was mentioned in there. In addition to this there's been numerous amounts of speculation doing the rounds about which, if any Class 91's are going to preservation. I must remind you however to assume good faith when referring to other editors, even when you disagree with them. Thank you Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 21:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotive speed record

"Although Class 370s, Class 373s and Class 374s have run faster, all are EMUs which means that the Electra is officially the fastest locomotive in Britain."

I was under the impression that the 373 has a power car at each end - and passenger coaches in-between, like the TGV. Sure, "it always runs as one combined EMU", but, if that's the case, then the InterCity 225 also fails this test, given that the 91's have pulled Mark 4 carriages throughout their life. Thoughts?Turini2 (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turini2, the difference is in classification - the class 91 is classified as an electric locomotive, and runs as such (you detach the loco from one rake of carriages and put it on another). The 373/374s are classified as EMUs (though yes the 373 is technically a top and tailed train, they work as fixed-formation units). However, this is not really our distinction to make, we are not making judgments about it, we report what other people say, and if they say it is the fastest electric loco then it's the fastest electric loco. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh

in the page it says "The British Rail Class 91 is a class of high-speed, 4,830 kW (6,480 hp) electric locomotive ordered as a component of the East Coast Main Line modernisation and electrification programme of the late 1980s" i have never heard anyone say is a British train referred as a class in the the class 801 page that im going to use as a example it says "The British Rail Class 801 Azuma is a type of electric multiple unit (EMU) built by Hitachi for London North Eastern Railway." which is better as to appose saying its a class its a emu but you might say that comparing to a page about a train built in 2017 so i may ask why is the Class 314 page say this "The British Rail Class 314 was a class of alternating current electric multiple unit (EMU) trains built by British Rail Engineering Limited's Holgate Road carriage works in 1979. They were the third class of units derived from British Rail's 1971 prototype suburban EMU design, which as the BREL 1972 family eventually encompassed 755 vehicles over five production classes (313, 314, 315, 507, and 508)." its built around the same time so i will edit the page until the criteria is matched TheScottish801 (talk) 11:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New LNER Livery

LNER recently unveiled a new livery for their nine sets remaining in service, as seen in this promotional video released by the operator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGRVdq5BOBA How should the livery described in the relevant table? Intercity Swallow with LNER oxblood red? And when would it be appropriate to make this change in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.246.30 (talk) 16:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that would be it since the entire fleet (except the special livery’s not including TFSM) is getting repainted TheScottish801 (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Electra name

Did the Electra name ever catch on or was it abandoned at project stage? I only remember promotional materials with the Intercity 225 name. 92.192.209.0 (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RHDAB designations

The current version of the article states that 91110 and 91111 are designated for preservation, but the citation given is still the original one referring to 91131. The current version of RHDAB's designations list appears to indicate that whilst their nameplates, plaques, numbers, and artwork are designated, the complete locomotives themselves are not. In both cases, the second column (Asset Type) states "Nameplates", not "Rail Vehicles".

Admittedly, the wordings in the fifth column (Description) are poor, and I can see why they might have been taken ambiguously; but there is no apparent reason why RHDAB would nominate further complete locos of the same class, when the one they originally nominated has already been preserved.

Any views? Quackdave (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]