What is the future for the class 90?

[whhistle]

It's a shame they don't just order IEP for GWML, ECML, MML and GAML to replace all of them.
The 91's and the MK4 sets will probably be non DDA compliant / too old / non-environmentally friendly by then anyway, so may as well just get rid.

 

[455driver]

It's a shame they don't just order IEP for GWML, ECML, MML and GAML to replace all of them.
The 91's and the MK4 sets will probably be non DDA compliant / too old / non-environmentally friendly by then anyway, so may as well just get rid.

And what exactly would be the cost to the environment of building the replacements and scrapping the old ones?

I always find it strange how people go on about the new stuff being more 'environmentally friendly' but completely forget about the damage caused to the environment by building the new trains and scrapping of the old ones!

 

[najaB]

The 91's and the MK4 sets will probably be non DDA compliant / too old / non-environmentally friendly by then anyway, so may as well just get rid.

With power doors and wide vestibules I can't see them being non-DDA compliant.

 

[ainsworth74]

With power doors and wide vestibules I can't see them being non-DDA compliant.

And they've got a DDA compliant toilet in First and Standard class as well. I think at worst the Mk4s might need some tweaking but nothing substantial enough to warrant a withdrawal on the basis of non-compliance.

 

[Haydn1971]

With regard to the Mk4's and the refurbished Mk3's (thinking XC ones) what are they like underneath. The Mk4's and the XC Mk3's look great inside, give a nice comfy ride, have plenty of space compared to the voyager gen trains... Notwithstanding the issues with doors on the Mk3's, plus what I'd see as a relatively minor issue of installing one DDA loo and PID's, are there any insurmountable issues in using both past 2019 ?

 

[Rhydgaled]

It's a shame they don't just order IEP for GWML, ECML, MML and GAML to replace all of them.
The 91's and the MK4 sets will probably be non DDA compliant / too old / non-environmentally friendly by then anyway, so may as well just get rid.

And what exactly would be the cost to the environment of building the replacements and scrapping the old ones?

I always find it strange how people go on about the new stuff being more 'environmentally friendly' but completely forget about the damage caused to the environment by building the new trains and scrapping of the old ones!

Also, if I remember the RSSB Traction Energy Metrics report correctly (it no longer seems to be freely available online), the IC225s (91+Mrk4 sets) were so close to the Pendolinos in terms of energy efficiency that which used less power was dependant on how hard they were driven. So, the 91s aren't "non-environmentally friendly" compared to new trains at all.

Notwithstanding the issues with doors on the Mk3's, plus what I'd see as a relatively minor issue of installing one DDA loo and PID's, are there any insurmountable issues in using both past 2019 ?

The accessible toilets are an expensive item too, but I suppose compared to fitting plug doors you could call them relatively minor issues.

My 'mental yardstick' for the design-life of rolling stock is 30yrs for DMUs and diesel locos, 40yrs for loco-hauled coaches and 40yrs for EMUs and electric locos. And, as we have seen with the IC125s, major life-extension works can increase that. Thus, with refurbishment 91s and mrk4s could (and, in my opinion, should due to the finantial and environmental cost of new-build) last until 2030. Or, with major life-extension, until 2040 or maybe even later.

 

[al.currie93]

It's a shame they don't just order IEP for GWML, ECML, MML and GAML to replace all of them.
The 91's and the MK4 sets will probably be non DDA compliant / too old / non-environmentally friendly by then anyway, so may as well just get rid.

And what exactly would be the cost to the environment of building the replacements and scrapping the old ones?

I always find it strange how people go on about the new stuff being more 'environmentally friendly' but completely forget about the damage caused to the environment by building the new trains and scrapping of the old ones!

Completely agree with 455driver. 91s and Mk 4s are still running absolutely fine and providing great service; a large number of people rate them as their favourites! So why replace them? There's absolutely no need, they'd only be being replaced for the sake of having a new train. This would be both more environmentally damaging and more costly financially.

 

[captainbigun]

The pendos are highly efficient primarily because they regenerate.

91s do not regenerate, their energy consumption is horrendous compared to the pendos to the extent that retro fit of re-gen was investigated.

Pretty clear from the latest GA RUS that units are going to be order of the day on the GE, it's the only way to get the required performance.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Completely agree with 455driver. 91s and Mk 4s are still running absolutely fine and providing great service; a large number of people rate them as their favourites! So why replace them? There's absolutely no need, they'd only be being replaced for the sake of having a new train. This would be both more environmentally damaging and more costly financially.

As well as 'the sake of having a new train' I can think of two other reasons for DfT wanting to completely replace them on the ECML:

• Capacity: a 9-car IEP will have more seats (but are they full anyway?)
• Jobs: more do-not-eat-the-soap sticker-application work for the Hitachi plant

Capacity is the only one which is a deal-breaker/maker in my opinion, and even that could perhaps be fixed (2+10 formation anyone?) at the cost of having a pile of redundant DVTs.

The pendos are highly efficient primarily because they regenerate.

91s do not regenerate, their energy consumption is horrendous compared to the pendos to the extent that retro fit of re-gen was investigated.

You statement doesn't fit the information I have read. See my post above, pendos and IC225 are broadly similar in terms of energy efficientcy. True the pendos regenerate, but I'm 99.99% sure the RSSB study showed the IC225s were in the same ballpark despite not having regen. I therefore suggest that if you remove the section I bolded your post would be correct. I think I read somewhere though that the cost of retro-fitting regen on the 91s was considered not worthwhile.

Pretty clear from the latest GA RUS that units are going to be order of the day on the GE, it's the only way to get the required performance.

Well, 90s provide the required performance today don't they? 91s may not be able to keep time due to their higher-top-speed-gearing, but keeping the 90s ought not to be a problem.

 

[455driver]

Anything built after the HSTs (which were only designed as a stopgap until widespread electrification and the APT entered squadron service anyway) were (in my mind) future proof, okay certain trains have been overtaken by events (319s on Thameslink 2000) but can anyone explain what is wrong with the design of 313s, 314, 319s, 150s, 91s etc etc (when they are used on suitable services?

 

[Class 170101]

90s will end up on freight duties simply to cover for the fact no more diesels can be built (compliant with emissions).

 

[ainsworth74]

90s will end up on freight duties simply to cover for the fact no more diesels can be built (compliant with emissions).

News to me! Have you a source for this?

 

[Rhydgaled]

90s will end up on freight duties simply to cover for the fact no more diesels can be built (compliant with emissions).

News to me! Have you a source for this?

I believe no existing UK diesel locomotive class has engines compliant with the latest EU regs for new-build. However, I think a version of the class 68 with a different (compliant) engine has been claimed to be possible.

 

[Class 170101]

I believe no existing UK diesel locomotive class has engines compliant with the latest EU regs for new-build. However, I think a version of the class 68 with a different (compliant) engine has been claimed to be possible.

I thought the Class 88 is supposed to have got around this problem.

As for 90s and Freight duties that is my thought on the matter simply because no more diesels can be built unless 3B emmissions compliant so either the freight operators use existing diesel locos (some of which are far dirtier than todays 3A emmission compliabt engines) or they use electric locos like Class 86s, 87s, 90s or 92s.

 

[ainsworth74]

I believe no existing UK diesel locomotive class has engines compliant with the latest EU regs for new-build.

That's rather different from 'no more diesels can be built' and reflects my own understanding of the situation.

 

[Boothby97]

I thought the Class 88 is supposed to have got around this problem.

The Class 88 will only have a 'last mile' diesel engine, so don't really solve the problem.

they use electric locos like Class 86s, 87s, 90s or 92s.

I would agree they should (and could) use more 90s and 92s eventually. There are only three 87s left in the UK (87001/002/035), all of which are preserved, so theres no chance of freight companies using them

 

[59CosG95]

The Class 88 will only have a 'last mile' diesel engine, so don't really solve the problem.




I would agree they should (and could) use more 90s and 92s eventually. There are only three 87s left in the UK (87001/002/035), all of which are preserved, so theres no chance of freight companies using them

87002 is still used by charter trains now and then; but I don't think it can pull freight on a regular basis.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Could a new build happen of electric freight locos? Probably the only suitable existing design would be a 92 as afaik 73s and 92s are the only electric freight locos that can run on 3rd rail

 

[captainbigun]

As well as 'the sake of having a new train' I can think of two other reasons for DfT wanting to completely replace them on the ECML:

• Capacity: a 9-car IEP will have more seats (but are they full anyway?)
• Jobs: more do-not-eat-the-soap sticker-application work for the Hitachi plant

Capacity is the only one which is a deal-breaker/maker in my opinion, and even that could perhaps be fixed (2+10 formation anyone?) at the cost of having a pile of redundant DVTs.

You statement doesn't fit the information I have read. See my post above, pendos and IC225 are broadly similar in terms of energy efficientcy. True the pendos regenerate, but I'm 99.99% sure the RSSB study showed the IC225s were in the same ballpark despite not having regen. I therefore suggest that if you remove the section I bolded your post would be correct. I think I read somewhere though that the cost of retro-fitting regen on the 91s was considered not worthwhile.

Well, 90s provide the required performance today don't they? 91s may not be able to keep time due to their higher-top-speed-gearing, but keeping the 90s ought not to be a problem.

My statement on the 91s was fact, they are horrendous on electricity, not comparable to pendo.

Re the 90s, the timetable is constrained by them, not the other way around. If the route goes 110 the 90s are of no use due to their poor acceleration profile. Like it or not, the Mk3s will have to go as will the 90s, it's the one of the few ways to get more capacity out of the route.

 

[Rhydgaled]

My statement on the 91s was fact, they are horrendous on electricity, not comparable to pendo.

And your source for that claim is? I gave my source for the IC225s being comparable, and would think the RSSB is a reputable source.

Re the 90s, the timetable is constrained by them, not the other way around. If the route goes 110 the 90s are of no use due to their poor acceleration profile. Like it or not, the Mk3s will have to go as will the 90s, it's the one of the few ways to get more capacity out of the route.

Wikipedia says 90s can do 110mph. Also, according to hearsay on this fourm their acceleration profile is supposedly good enough that they were almost able to keep to 125mph timings on services with a fair number of stops when the covered for 91s during the refurbishment of the latter. As for capacity, replacing the DVTs with a DBSO (perhaps a 442 driving vehicle, would be a more sensible use of them than the proposed convertion to IC125 trailers mentioned in Modern Railways) would boost that wouldn't it? A 8-10-car EMU design based on the 442 or 175 would presumably do the job, but why ditch 90s before they are life expired?

 

[59CosG95]

And your source for that claim is? I gave my source for the IC225s being comparable, and would think the RSSB is a reputable source.

Wikipedia says 90s can do 110mph. Also, according to hearsay on this fourm their acceleration profile is supposedly good enough that they were almost able to keep to 125mph timings on services with a fair number of stops when the covered for 91s during the refurbishment of the latter. As for capacity, replacing the DVTs with a DBSO (perhaps a 442 driving vehicle, would be a more sensible use of them than the proposed convertion to IC125 trailers mentioned in Modern Railways) would boost that wouldn't it? A 8-10-car EMU design based on the 442 or 175 would presumably do the job, but why ditch 90s before they are life expired?

Just give the 220s some pan cars, take out the engines, and give XC sone proper intercity trains! That or a 444-esque Desiro City. Give the 90s to Freightliner.

 

[Photohunter71]

Could a new build happen of electric freight locos? Probably the only suitable existing design would be a 92 as afaik 73s and 92s are the only electric freight locos that can run on 3rd rail

I'm pretty sure it's possible although I read somewhere that the regs regarding the emissions have been relaxed,so new build diesels with current engine designs are still possible.

 

[D6975]

My statement on the 91s was fact, they are horrendous on electricity, not comparable to pendo.

Re the 90s, the timetable is constrained by them, not the other way around. If the route goes 110 the 90s are of no use due to their poor acceleration profile. Like it or not, the Mk3s will have to go as will the 90s, it's the one of the few ways to get more capacity out of the route.

The bit about the 90s is absolute rubbish. A 90 can out-accelerate a 91. That's the reason why, when ECML hired in a 90, it was put on a diagram that had lots of station stops. The lack of top speed was compensated for by being quick off the mark after station stops.

 

[apk55]

A class 90 has 258KN tractive effort against 190KN for the class 91. At speeds below about 60mph tractive effort limits the power output of the locomotive so a class 90 will be much quicker accelerating to this speed. It is only at higher speeds will a 91 be able to exert more tractive effort and accelerate quicker.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Could a new build happen of electric freight locos? Probably the only suitable existing design would be a 92 as afaik 73s and 92s are the only electric freight locos that can run on 3rd rail

If the DRS order of 88s is a success, I'd imagine that Freightliner or DBS might consider ordering a batch... if the sums add up!

 

[Monty]

Not sure of if DBS would order any, they have enough 90s they own outright they could use of the demand for electric traction ever drastically increased. Who knows if the money is there they could perhaps even be retrofitted with a 'last mile' engine like the 88s.

 

[Class 170101]

A
Wikipedia says 90s can do 110mph.

Class 90s are indeed permitted to 110mph. However on the GE NR are not (yet) to provide the infrastructure to operate them at that speed.

 

[notadriver]

At the present time would I be right in saying 100 mph is only permitted east of Chelmsford? That being the case how many minutes would be saved by the extra 10 mph? Also wouldn't class 360s or 379s provide more seats and a faster service than the class 90 sets do now ?

 

[captainbigun]

The bit about the 90s is absolute rubbish. A 90 can out-accelerate a 91. That's the reason why, when ECML hired in a 90, it was put on a diagram that had lots of station stops. The lack of top speed was compensated for by being quick off the mark after station stops.

In what way is it rubbish? We're not talking about the ECML. If you're trying to tell me that a Mk3/90 set is comparable to a Desiro or Electrostar you're mad.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

At the present time would I be right in saying 100 mph is only permitted east of Chelmsford? That being the case how many minutes would be saved by the extra 10 mph? Also wouldn't class 360s or 379s provide more seats and a faster service than the class 90 sets do now ?

Correct on both fronts, and the answer is in the RUS. Several minutes would be saved to Norwich purely by replacing the hauled stock by units.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Class 90s are indeed permitted to 110mph. However on the GE NR are not (yet) to provide the infrastructure to operate them at that speed.

And never will. The route may well get raised line speed, but that will come with something to utilise it, and that isn't a 90.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And your source for that claim is? I gave my source for the IC225s being comparable, and would think the RSSB is a reputable source.

Wikipedia says 90s can do 110mph. Also, according to hearsay on this fourm their acceleration profile is supposedly good enough that they were almost able to keep to 125mph timings on services with a fair number of stops when the covered for 91s during the refurbishment of the latter. As for capacity, replacing the DVTs with a DBSO (perhaps a 442 driving vehicle, would be a more sensible use of them than the proposed convertion to IC125 trailers mentioned in Modern Railways) would boost that wouldn't it? A 8-10-car EMU design based on the 442 or 175 would presumably do the job, but why ditch 90s before they are life expired?

Engineering staff at EC and Alstom.

As for the future of the 90s, read the RUS.

 

[Class 170101]

At the present time would I be right in saying 100 mph is only permitted east of Chelmsford? That being the case how many minutes would be saved by the extra 10 mph? Also wouldn't class 360s or 379s provide more seats and a faster service than the class 90 sets do now ?

Correct but they are permitted to do 90mph between London and Shenfield these days since pantograph modifications.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just because the RUS says 90s might / might not be the future as the case may be doesn't mean the operators or the DfT will take notice.

For my two penny worth and in my personal opinion I think the 90s will go to freight duties and be replaced with (new) Class 88s or Traxx locos. The Mark IIIs will be refurbished similar to Chiltern and carry on for a while yet as this will almost certainly be cheaper than buying new trains.