What will happen to the VTEC plans for retaining some MK4s?

[Domh245]

It is also the last locomotive to have been built at Crewe

 

[ash39]

Interesting that in the 1981 BR report on expected lifespans for rolling stock, they rated the HST power cars at 25 years but hauled stock at 35-40 years.

Had privatisation not happened, I wonder if rather than just a retractioning of the existing power cars, we would have seen an entirely new 'HST2' designed to work with the existing mk3's? Maybe a single ended Class 67 variant, which I believe Virgin were looking at for Cross Country at some point - though I think that was with new stock as a Voyager alternative (if only that one had come off!)

Back on topic, the news that the new Wales franchise are going to be taking on a couple of mini sets is a good start in terms of the mk4 cascade, but there is a definite trend towards ordering new fleets. I still think there's potential for more of these mini-mk4 with a 67 on the end. I can't believe that DB wouldn't be banging on the door of anyone who will listen to try and find some work for an otherwise doomed fleet of locos. EMT would be a good fit - obviously there are rumours that they will be taking some sets to replace the mk3's in the HST sets (with the caveat that work needs to be done to either the stock or power cars to enable them to be compatible).

However, as well as the HST replacement, I'd like to see them look into some 67-mk4-DVT sets with 3-4 coaches to work on the Liverpool-Norwich runs, that'd free up a lot of useful Class 158's. Also, given the route this service takes, it would be simple enough to get the 67's to Toton or Crewe for attention.

 

[Jonny]

However, as well as the HST replacement, I'd like to see them look into some 67-mk4-DVT sets with 3-4 coaches to work on the Liverpool-Norwich runs, that'd free up a lot of useful Class 158's. Also, given the route this service takes, it would be simple enough to get the 67's to Toton or Crewe for attention.

Nice idea, but the differentials would not be applicable on many sections of the Norwich run. Another downside. It could be run on other routes to release DMU/DEMU stock though.

 

[Rail Blues]

I can't believe that DB wouldn't be banging on the door of anyone who will listen to try and find some work for an otherwise doomed fleet of locos.

I don't know, they seem quite happy to let a siding full of class 60s to moulder away despite interest in them from other freight operators.

In a way they're in a similar bind to the class 91s. Built to do a specific job and that job no longer exists. Whilst they did see subsequent use on passenger services, before getting supplanted by 68s and 73/9s, I get the sense that this was due to lack of viable alternatives to the 67s, rather them being particularly well suited to the roles they were being asked to perform, what with their high axle weight and gearing for 125mph.

 

[adrock1976]

Of course, TPE are getting a dozen 397s for Liverpool & Manchester to Scotland, and nineteen AT300s for Liverpool-Leeds-Edinburgh. Which makes 31 trains that will spend most of their time on the high speed East Coast and West Coast routes.

There are (well, were) 31 Class 91s and matching rakes of stock designed to operate at high speed on the East Coast and West Coast routes. See where I'm going with this?

Nah, you'd have to electrify a busy, steeply-graded main line connecting the second and fourth largest, and most economically significant, urban areas in the United Kingdom to make that work. That's clearly not a sensible use of public funds.

I never realised TPE had plans to serve Birmingham, England's (and the whole of the UK's) second largest city.

 

[Indigo Soup]

I never realised TPE had plans to serve Birmingham, England's (and the whole of the UK's) second largest city.

By population, the Manchester urban area is larger than the West Midlands urban area. Manchester also contributes more value - about 2.5 times as much - to the economy than Birmingham.

 

[Rail Blues]

By population, the Manchester urban area is larger than the West Midlands urban area. Manchester also contributes more value - about 2.5 times as much - to the economy than Birmingham.

It isn't that straightforward, it depends what measures you use, by only one of the four ways population size is determined does Manchester figure above Birmingham.

https://www.citymetric.com/skylines/where-are-largest-cities-britain-1404


Also the GVA figures are skewed as they include all of Manchester'' Metropolitan boroughs, FVA per calica and per worker is higher in Birmingham than in Manchester.

Hence the old adage about lies, damn lies and statistics.

 

[Rhydgaled]

i

Of course, TPE are getting a dozen 397s for Liverpool & Manchester to Scotland, and nineteen AT300s for Liverpool-Leeds-Edinburgh. Which makes 31 trains that will spend most of their time on the high speed East Coast and West Coast routes.

There are (well, were) 31 Class 91s and matching rakes of stock designed to operate at high speed on the East Coast and West Coast routes. See where I'm going with this?

Nah, you'd have to electrify a busy, steeply-graded main line connecting the second and fourth largest, and most economically significant, urban areas in the United Kingdom to make that work. That's clearly not a sensible use of public funds.

I think I see where you're going with it; but it's not quite what I meant. The way I see it, the 'Nova 3' (mark 5a) sets are 125mph capable but powered by a 100mph diesel class 68. If only the Transpennine wires promised a few years back could be delivered by 2020; you could then have the class 802s take over the Scarborough and Middlesbrough services, making use of the wires where they exist and firing up the diesel engines to get from Northallerton/York to Middlesbrough/Scarborough and use the mark 5s (with 91s as traction) on the Liverpool-Leeds-Edinburgh services. Wikipedia says that 14 of the class 68s are for TPE, so 14 or 15 class 91s could take over from that. If East Coast retained 10-11 IC225 sets (was it 9 diagrams VTEC were planning or 7?) and the Blackpool open access took 5-6 IC225s you would have found homes for all the class 91s and half the mark 4 sets (albeit in reduced formations).

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the significance of 91131?

Last loco (or possibly last passenger loco, not sure) built at Crewe works.

 

[D365]

... you would have found homes for all the class 91s and half the mark 4 sets (albeit in reduced formations).

We don’t need to find homes for all the Class 91s, if any. If TPE electrification is ever completed, some sort of upgraded Class 88 would be far more viable.

 

[Rhydgaled]

We don’t need to find homes for all the Class 91s, if any. If TPE electrification is ever completed, some sort of upgraded Class 88 would be far more viable.

We shouldn't need to find homes for them; the class 801 order should never have been placed (at least not in such quantity) since it was b..... obvious that there was little in the way of sensible alternative routes to cascade the IC225s too and from an energy/resource usage point of view replacing trains more often than necessary isn't sensible. I agree that by the time the wires are up, as I wrote in post 162, "TPE would probably just go straight for new locos" to replace the 68s rather than using 91s. Right now I just hope that the plan to keep some IC225s on the East Coast for Edinburgh fasts goes ahead, along with the use of IC225s on open-access Blackpool services. That'd use about half the fleet, with the other half of the 91s sadly suffering a premature death.

 

[D365]

We shouldn't need to find homes for them; the class 801 order should never have been placed (at least not in such quantity) since it was b..... obvious that there was little in the way of sensible alternative routes to cascade the IC225s too and from an energy/resource usage point of view replacing trains more often than necessary isn't sensible.

Would you make the same argument for the D Stock, which was replaced primarily for the benefit of a unified subsurface fleet.

The Class 707 saga is far more a waste of resources, yet I haven't come across half as many discussions about those as I have the 91s.

... with the other half of the 91s sadly suffering a premature death.

It's not premature, I've come across GEC documents dating from the manufacture of the locomotives which specifically set out a 30 year expected lifespan.

Other posters have pointed out that the technology is long obsolete, and that the Class 90s are vastly more versatile on any other route.

 

[swt_passenger]

Interesting that in the 1981 BR report on expected lifespans for rolling stock, they rated the HST power cars at 25 years but hauled stock at 35-40 years.

Had privatisation not happened, I wonder if rather than just a retractioning of the existing power cars, we would have seen an entirely new 'HST2' designed to work with the existing mk3's? Maybe a single ended Class 67 variant, which I believe Virgin were looking at for Cross Country at some point - though I think that was with new stock as a Voyager alternative (if only that one had come off!)

HST is the name of the whole train, so a power car update with the existing Mk3s wouldn’t be ‘entirely new’.

But wasn’t there a plan for at least a GW HST2 including new coaches at one time anyway, before DfT imposed the IEP solution?

 

[CosherB]

If only the Transpennine wires promised a few years back could be delivered by 2020; you could then have the class 802s take over the Scarborough and Middlesbrough services, making use of the wires where they exist and firing up the diesel engines to get from Northallerton/York to Middlesbrough/Scarborough and use the mark 5s (with 91s as traction) on the Liverpool-Leeds-Edinburgh services. Wikipedia says that 14 of the class 68s are for TPE, so 14 or 15 class 91s could take over from that.

Class 91s in Huddersfield? Just where do you get this rubbish from pal?

 

[DenmarkRail]

HST is the name of the whole train, so a power car update with the existing Mk3s wouldn’t be ‘entirely new’.

But wasn’t there a plan for at least a GW HST2 including new coaches at one time anyway, before DfT imposed the IEP solution?

To some extent, the IC225 sets are HST2, in my opinion..

 

[AnonymousUser1]

To some extent, the IC225 sets are HST2, in my opinion..

more like a none tilting APT-S

 

[Rhydgaled]

Class 91s in Huddersfield? Just where do you get this rubbish from pal?

Again:

as I wrote in post 162, "TPE would probably just go straight for new locos" to replace the 68s rather than using 91s.

I am perfectly aware that particular suggestion is not a realistic proposal given that TPE electrification won't happen in the necessary timeframe. I can't see there being any problem with using class 91s on the TPE services if the wires were there, but they aren't. So back to the topic; can we keep some IC225s on the East Coast for fast Kings Cross - Edinburgh services please.

 

[Rail Blues]

We shouldn't need to find homes for them; the class 801 order should never have been placed (at least not in such quantity) since it was b..... obvious that there was little in the way of sensible alternative routes to cascade the IC225s too and from an energy/resource usage point of view replacing trains more often than necessary isn't sensible. I agree that by the time the wires are up, as I wrote in post 162, "TPE would probably just go straight for new locos" to replace the 68s rather than using 91s. Right now I just hope that the plan to keep some IC225s on the East Coast for Edinburgh fasts goes ahead, along with the use of IC225s on open-access Blackpool services. That'd use about half the fleet, with the other half of the 91s sadly suffering a premature death.

They are 30 years old with questionable reliability and have had a hard life. They need replacing, the 'celebrity' loco will be preserved, but the rest should and almost certainly will be scrapped.

The whole tenor of this conversation is arse about face. The question is (or should) be what rolling stock does Y route need, not how can we try and crowbar our favourite pieces of rolling stock onto the network regardless of whether it is fit for purpose? On a broader level it really rips my knitting that there seems to be a view that to be an 'enthusiast' you have to want to slavishly preserve dated rolling stock and treat the network like a massive preservation project. I am far more interested in the railway as it is today and how it will be in the future and how it can serve as many people as possible as efficiently as possible.

 

[yorksrob]

I am far more interested in the railway as it is today and how it will be in the future and how it can serve as many people as possible as efficiently as possible.

As a passenger, if they come up with anything as comfortable as the HST, I will agree with you.

 

[BMIFlyer]

We don’t need to find homes for all the Class 91s, if any. If TPE electrification is ever completed, some sort of upgraded Class 88 would be far more viable.

We shouldn't need to find homes for them; the class 801 order should never have been placed (at least not in such quantity) since it was b..... obvious that there was little in the way of sensible alternative routes to cascade the IC225s too and from an energy/resource usage point of view replacing trains more often than necessary isn't sensible. I agree that by the time the wires are up, as I wrote in post 162, "TPE would probably just go straight for new locos" to replace the 68s rather than using 91s. Right now I just hope that the plan to keep some IC225s on the East Coast for Edinburgh fasts goes ahead, along with the use of IC225s on open-access Blackpool services. That'd use about half the fleet, with the other half of the 91s sadly suffering a premature death.

Class 91s in Huddersfield? Just where do you get this rubbish from pal?

The plan is that if the Transpennine route is ever wired, Transpennine will swap the 68's for 88's or a similar design of stadler locomotive. The 88s can easily be fitted with the class 68 software and cab desk modifications to allow them to work with the Mk5 fleet - class 91's won't be able to receive those mods as they aren't anywhere near compatible.

 

[Rail Blues]

As a passenger, if they come up with anything as comfortable as the HST, I will agree with you.

That's the thing though, are you talking about them as they were or as they are? Great piece of engineering in their day, but that day is drawing to a close. The last few mk3 carriages I've been on were very rough riding and squeaky as hell. I know that those for Scotrail and Gwr are being worked on, but in their present state they're not fantastic.

 

[James James]

They are 30 years old with questionable reliability and have had a hard life. They need replacing, the 'celebrity' loco will be preserved, but the rest should and almost certainly will be scrapped.

The whole tenor of this conversation is arse about face. The question is (or should) be what rolling stock does Y route need, not how can we try and crowbar our favourite pieces of rolling stock onto the network regardless of whether it is fit for purpose? On a broader level it really rips my knitting that there seems to be a view that to be an 'enthusiast' you have to want to slavishly preserve dated rolling stock and treat the network like a massive preservation project. I am far more interested in the railway as it is today and how it will be in the future and how it can serve as many people as possible as efficiently as possible.

I don't see why the age should be a factor. Reliability perhaps, but that can be improved by replacing the unreliable components (and reliability is surely largely a product of maintenance). Age? Switzerland seem happy enough with a bunch of 60 year old locomotives for LHCS. And the main backbone of the Swiss network is the 30 year old Re 460, which is being lightly refurbed for another 20-30 years of service. Age has nothing to do with it.

And don't get me started on the actual coaches -they have tons of single-deck coaches from the 80s (older coaches are being removed ASAP due to lack of air conditioning, but they're otherwise perfectly usable). They're likely to disappear in the next 10-20 years just because it's easier to standardise on double-deck trains for domestic trains, but they have plenty of life left in them.

Doing proper maintenance in the country (such that you can keep using stock that long) also has economic benefits for the country - more local jobs (with good pay usually), and seemingly lower costs.

 

[Rail Blues]

I don't see why the age should be a factor. Reliability perhaps, but that can be improved by replacing the unreliable components (and reliability is surely largely a product of maintenance). Age? Switzerland seem happy enough with a bunch of 60 year old locomotives for LHCS. And the main backbone of the Swiss network is the 30 year old Re 460, which is being lightly refurbed for another 20-30 years of service. Age has nothing to do with it.

And don't get me started on the actual coaches -they have tons of single-deck coaches from the 80s (older coaches are being removed ASAP due to lack of air conditioning, but they're otherwise perfectly usable). They're likely to disappear in the next 10-20 years just because it's easier to standardise on double-deck trains for domestic trains, but they have plenty of life left in them.

Doing proper maintenance in the country (such that you can keep using stock that long) also has economic benefits for the country - more local jobs (with good pay usually), and seemingly lower costs.

In the case of the 91s there are a multitude of factors against them as well as mere 'Calender years'. It may include .

Lack of suitable alternative routes or roles when taken off the East Coast mainline

Poor reliability (which has been a problem from the off)

Parts availability

Lack of compatibility with other carriage types (without expensive remedial work)

Poor acceleration.

Lack of passenger accommodation in the loco or dvt (a problem if you're going to use them short form)

So age of the stock needs to be contextualised.


Take the 158s for example they are nearly exactly the same age as the 91s but their future is seemingly assured on the network. There were more of them, parts availability is better and they are more flexible units, plus there's actually a crying need for regional DMUs in the way there isn't for an electric loco geared for 140mph running.

 

[yorksrob]

That's the thing though, are you talking about them as they were or as they are? Great piece of engineering in their day, but that day is drawing to a close. The last few mk3 carriages I've been on were very rough riding and squeaky as hell. I know that those for Scotrail and Gwr are being worked on, but in their present state they're not fantastic.

As they are. The MML is for me by far the most comfortable way to get from London to Yorkshire, due to the design of the carriage interiors.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The question is (or should) be what rolling stock does Y route need, not how can we try and crowbar our favourite pieces of rolling stock onto the network regardless of whether it is fit for purpose? On a broader level it really rips my knitting that there seems to be a view that to be an 'enthusiast' you have to want to slavishly preserve dated rolling stock and treat the network like a massive preservation project. I am far more interested in the railway as it is today and how it will be in the future and how it can serve as many people as possible as efficiently as possible.

I'm all for trains being fit for purpose. See all the topics where I have complained at class 170s, 185s etc. being used on long-distance limited-stop services such as Cardiff-Nottingham. The 170s are not, in my opinion, fit-for-purpose on such services.

A push-pull set with a 125-140mph electric locomotive on one end, a driving trailer at the other and a good number of trailer coaches in between seems to me to be perfectly suited to London-Edinburgh services that call only at York and Newcastle. They would not be fit-for-purpose on a route like Paddington-Oxford with a relatively short distances between stops, thus I haven't suggested 'crowbarring' them onto such routes. I seem to recall that in the past, probably shortly before the IEP order was placed, pepole on this forum suggested that the IC225s be moved to the London-Norwich route and that I responded to that saying that if the mark 4s were to move there it would be better to retain class 90s rather than bring in the 91s. Class 91s would not be fit-for-purpose on the London-Norwich route; but, in my opinion, are fit-for-purpose on the ECML fast services. I completely accept that there will come a time that maintaining the fleet to an acceptable standard for day-to-day operation is no longer sensible, at which point they will no longer be fit-for-purpose and must be withdrawn; where we disagree is when that date will come.

I'm a huge fan of the class 91s yes, but in preservation terms I would be content with two locos and (if one of them is kept operational for railtours) one set of mark 4s (as long as those two locos are numbers 10 (speed record holder) and 31 (last loco built at Crewe)). Part of me would like six locos preserved (the other four being selected due to names they once carried), but I know that is completely unrealistic so will try only to worry about those two.

They are 30 years old with questionable reliability and have had a hard life. They need replacing

The 'Golden Spanner' results presented in the Jan 2017 and Jan 2018 issues of 'Modern Railways' both show the IC225s in green, meaning improved reliability (albeit by a fair bit less than some of the other intercity fleets). While they are behind the other electric fleets, the fact reliability is improving suggests they haven't reached the end of the bathtub curve yet, and they are more reliable than several diesel fleets including GWR's IC125s and (this year) all the class 180s.

I don't see why the age should be a factor. Reliability perhaps, but that can be improved by replacing the unreliable components (and reliability is surely largely a product of maintenance). Age? Switzerland seem happy enough with a bunch of 60 year old locomotives for LHCS. And the main backbone of the Swiss network is the 30 year old Re 460, which is being lightly refurbed for another 20-30 years of service. Age has nothing to do with it.

Those Modern Railways 'Golden Spanner' results present a good example of this; the most reliable intercity fleet (and still improving) in both years was Greater Anglia's class 90 + mark 3 sets on the London-Norwich route. The class 90s I believe are a similar age to the class 91s and the mark 3 DVTs are at least as old as the mark 4s. See also the Ex-BR DMU table, where class 158s are in both the top three and the bottom three fleets, with a much bigger difference between them than there is between class 390s and IC225s.

Doing proper maintenance in the country (such that you can keep using stock that long) also has economic benefits for the country - more local jobs (with good pay usually), and seemingly lower costs.

I agree, particularly in respect of the lower overall costs of replacing less often (in terms of energy use and resources as well as financially). I think the only rolling stock I would consider scrapping before getting a full 30-40 years out of them would be Voyager driving vehicles. This would be to make the intermediate coaches available for lengthening other sets given that, in their current short formations, there are not many routes where they would be fit-for-purpose. The alternatives are building more intermediate vehicles for them or running them in pairs.

 

[pt_mad]

Not sure if this has been mentioned on the thread but it was announced during the week that the ORR have approved GNWR (Alliance Rail/Arriva)'s plans for 12 open access workings (6 returns)(5 returns firm, one return reliant on NWR approval AFAIK) between Euston and Blackpool North starting as early as next year.

The application stated they plan to use 225 sets. 6 Mk4s + 2 (presumably DVT and 91). Timings were based on using 225s.

Anyway its being discussed on its own thread but I thought it relevant to mention here as the future of the 225s is being discussed.

 

[Rail Blues]

As they are. The MML is for me by far the most comfortable way to get from London to Yorkshire, due to the design of the carriage interiors.

We will have to agree to disagree on that. Obviously I appreciate the HST is an iconic design and was superbly well marketed by BR and on balance I'm glad that they'll be revitalised by Scotrail, but I've never found the mk3 to be the be all and end all in terms of comfort and ambiance, especially once fgw set about the interiors. On the MML I don't find them appreciably better than the Meridians.

A push-pull set with a 125-140mph electric locomotive on one end, a driving trailer at the other and a good number of trailer coaches in between seems to me to be perfectly suited to London-Edinburgh services that call only at York and Newcastle. They would not be fit-for-purpose on a route like Paddington-Oxford with a relatively short distances between stops, thus I haven't suggested 'crowbarring' them onto such routes. I seem to recall that in the past, probably shortly before the IEP order was placed, pepole on this forum suggested that the IC225s be moved to the London-Norwich route and that I responded to that saying that if the mark 4s

Those comments weren't aimed specifically at you. Apologies if it came across that way. it really isn't. I could see the logic of them being used in reduced formations for limited stop services, but wasn't that dependent upon the cancelled NR upgrades? If these services are eventually revived I can also see there is probably a lot more logic in ordering a few more 80xs and enjoying the benefits of a unified modern and more reliable fleet rather than maintaining a handful of temperamental and superannuated 91s alongside the 80xs.

I haven't seen the latest reliability figures for the 91s but it is worth noting that they're starting from a rather low base and it has never been where it needs to be in terms of reliability for most of its working life.

I think the only rolling stock I would consider scrapping before getting a full 30-40 years out of them would be Voyager driving vehicles.

I think this is a bit too dogmatic and there needs to be a fleet by fleet approach. Historically locos on the East and West Coast mainlines have had shorter lives. The 91s are now at the same age as the 87s were when they were withdrawn from the West Coast and have a decade on the Deltics on the same routes. The HSTs on the east coast are the exception not the rule for their longevity.

The Deltics are probably an interesting parallel to the 91s in that they were similarly small and difficult to cascade fleet and no real role could be found for them once they'd been supplanted by the HSTs.

As I said up thread things like the 158 will have a brighter future thanks to their versatility, size of fleet, spares availability and a number of depots and crews who know how to operate and maintain them. The same is probably true of the 90s to a lesser extent.

I'm a huge fan of the class 91s yes, but in preservation terms I would be content with two locos and (if one of them is kept operational for railtours) one set of mark 4s (as long as those two locos are numbers 10 (speed record holder) and 31 (last loco built at Crewe)). Part of me would like six locos preserved (the other four being selected due to names they once carried), but I know that is completely unrealistic so will try only to worry about those two.

I think your idea of a set being preserved for rail tours is unrealistic who on earth is going to meet the sizeable ongoing cost of that? I suspect it will be a case of one static exhibit only.
I understand how people get emotionally attached to certain classes or individual locos, but I really don't share that view, I hugely enjoy the aesthetics of certain classes and the experience of travelling train or the feeling of standing on a platform and an express racing by, but can't get emotionally attached to an inanimate lump of metal. Ditto any car I've ever owned, I've never felt a moment's sadness when it comes times to scrap or sell a car.

 

[The Ham]

To save the issue of needing to preserve two locos, couldn't the last loco built in Crewe just run a few high speed attempts so as to try and get that accolade?

 

[Rail Blues]

To save the issue of needing to preserve two locos, couldn't the last loco built in Crewe just run a few high speed attempts so as to try and get that accolade?

Without a warp drive I can't see it hitting the 208mph recorded by the Eurostar. So the 91 only holds the UK locomotive speed record, not the overall rail speed record, which is rather a niche record and not something of such vast historical importance that it deserves preserving on those grounds.

 

[yorksrob]

We will have to agree to disagree on that. Obviously I appreciate the HST is an iconic design and was superbly well marketed by BR and on balance I'm glad that they'll be revitalised by Scotrail, but I've never found the mk3 to be the be all and end all in terms of comfort and ambiance, especially once fgw set about the interiors. On the MML I don't find them appreciably better than the Meridians.

I admit that some people find the seats in steerage a bit confining, however there is nothing like the feeling of gently swaying along at speed in first, in the comfort of your favourite armchair (actually, that's not strictly true, as I've yet to experience an armchair as comfortable as the original HST seats in first).