Could and should Class 91s be used on GN fast services?

[thatapanydude]

This is my first post, so do forgive me if this that already been talked about but I am of the view that stock such as the IC225 should not be wasted once the IEP program takes place on the ECML and they they should be used to at least replace the 365s doing the Great Northern fast to Peterborough from London.

Whilst dwell times and initial acceleration would be an issue, unlike the 365's the Class 91s would be able to take advantage of the line speeds greater than 100mph which are in abundance north of Stevenage, so overall journey times would not be worse off and possibly faster on the GN fast services. (I personally think if class 91s are not the solution at least improving line speeds on the ECML slows north of Stevenage can provide improvements to the GN and Thameslink services because of the large distances between stations.)

Furthermore this would provide an upgrade to passengers of St Neots, Huntingdon and Biggleswade with an intercity type service, comparable to other areas of a similar distance to London e.g. Swindon, Bicester, Wellingborough and Rugby. Moreover electrification could be extended to Stamford (Only 7 Miles from Helpston) better serving Stamford to Peterborough and London as well as taking passengers away from crowded LNER trains onto GN fast services.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The obvious problem is that such services will still be stopping at intermediate stations. Even if they could run faster on the fast lines they would still get in the way of the long-distance LNER services. As such it's the linespeed on the slow lines which is the limiting factor rather than necessarily the traction. How much would improving that cost and how long would it take to do? And would the eventual syphoning off of much of the long-distance demand by HS2 mean that such improvements might be superfluous in 15 years time? It's the same situation as the Trent Valley section of the WCML, ie a lower priority than the IC traffic. HS2 will surely allow for real improvements but in the meantime it's hard to justify significant expenditure. Ultimately the 2-track section between Welwyn Garden City and Woolmer Green will continue to restrict what it is possible to put in the timetable.

 

[30907]

It's an attractive idea, harking back to the days of 31s on Mk 1s and the trains run Fast line to St Neots currently. However, I think the issue would be capacity compared with a 12-car EMU (or even an 8 - a decent one, not talking 700s here). You could remove the kitchen and have only 1x 1st, but I doubt that would do it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Given that almost all stop at Biggleswade, and most at Stevenage, the amount of time they would spend above 100mph would be relatively small. Longer dwell times at stations (partly through getting the same number of people through many fewer doors, and partly through not having DOO) and lower acceleration would more than offset the higher top speed. So the journey would be slower.

They are also rather more expensive to maintain.

 

[Kite159]

A better idea would be to upgrade the wiring south of Peterborough to allow the 387s to operate at 110mph, and use those on the Peterborough semi-fast services

 

[Aictos]

A better idea would be to upgrade the wiring south of Peterborough to allow the 387s to operate at 110mph, and use those on the Peterborough semi-fast services

A even better idea would be to increase the Up and Down Slow lines between Welwyn Garden City to Peterborough to 100mph from the existing 75mph that would make more of a impact on GN services even though stopping all stations between Stevenage and Peterborough by having quicker journey times.

 

[Bald Rick]

A better idea would be to upgrade the wiring south of Peterborough to allow the 387s to operate at 110mph, and use those on the Peterborough semi-fast services

Work out how many miles the trains could actually do 110 vs 100 for, then multiply by 3 seconds, to determine the benefit of that.

 

[Aictos]

Work out how many miles the trains could actually do 110 vs 100 for, then multiply by 3 seconds, to determine the benefit of that.

Which is why I suggested 100mph on the Slow lines which I believe is what the WCML slow lines between Watford Junction and Milton Keynes were upgraded to a few years ago with the end result that if a Class 1 Express is routed onto the slow line it doesn't lose much time compared to before the upgrade if I'm right?

In any case upgrading the slow lines would mean better pathing for the GNs least north of Hitchin as they would be able to use either the Fasts or the Slows as there wouldn't be any difference in the timings plus and especially in the peaks would make it easier to path the long distance stuff though the area as the Fasts would be used mostly by them.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Best case here is with all these IEP units coming online with no work due to the fiasco with Kings Cross remodelling (etc), use 2 x 5 IEP on the peak services from KGX to Biggleswade, St Neots, Huntingdon and Posh; you could even split them in two and have one to Mowbray and one to Spalding...

 

[Esker-pades]

Using the IEP idea, I'd run 1tph all day from Kings Cross to Newark North Gate, calling at Stevenage, Biggleswade, St Neots, Huntingdon, Peterborough and Grantham. One could then use the current 6 express paths to add a fast Edinburgh service (York & Newcastle only), curtail the slower service to Newcastle and add other destinations to Kings Cross.

 

[Aictos]

Best case here is with all these IEP units coming online with no work due to the fiasco with Kings Cross remodelling (etc), use 2 x 5 IEP on the peak services from KGX to Biggleswade, St Neots, Huntingdon and Posh; you could even split them in two and have one to Mowbray and one to Spalding...

Umm what fiasco with the Kings Cross remodelling? If there was a such a event it would have been discussed here in full as well in other areas and there's been nothing to indicate this at all.

Indeed, the last I heard was Network Rail saying that they had saved over £100 Million in a good way and intended to have the work completed between January and March 2020.

That said, I don't see how or why the IEPs would be coming with no work as LNER driving training will be happening indeed Edinburgh has a course in late November/early December so bearing in mind you also have Kings Cross, Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh depots to train up on them, I can't see any issues.

So there's no requirement at all to run such services, just improve the existing GN services to a standard that they can be relied on again.

Using the IEP idea, I'd run 1tph all day from Kings Cross to Newark North Gate, calling at Stevenage, Biggleswade, St Neots, Huntingdon, Peterborough and Grantham. One could then use the current 6 express paths to add a fast Edinburgh service (York & Newcastle only), curtail the slower service to Newcastle and add other destinations to Kings Cross.

Why? A better idea would be to run the existing Newark Northgate LNER terminators using the existing HSTs to Lincoln as you only have 4 such services a day unless you can run them to York which would give Lincoln the long promised expansion to London services.

 

[Bald Rick]

Best case here is with all these IEP units coming online with no work due to the fiasco with Kings Cross remodelling (etc), use 2 x 5 IEP on the peak services from KGX to Biggleswade, St Neots, Huntingdon and Posh; you could even split them in two and have one to Mowbray and one to Spalding...

And what would happen when the IEPs do have their work to do, in relatively short order?

 

[Esker-pades]

Why? A better idea would be to run the existing Newark Northgate LNER terminators using the existing HSTs to Lincoln as you only have 4 such services a day unless you can run them to York which would give Lincoln the long promised expansion to London services.

Because Edinburgh/Newcastle to London is more important than Lincoln. It'll all change again after HS2 is finally built.

 

[Aictos]

Because Edinburgh/Newcastle to London is more important than Lincoln. It'll all change again after HS2 is finally built.

If that's the case then Lincoln is more important then Biggleswade, St Neots and Huntingdon as it's not only a City but has a university as well, these three can and should be served by improved GN services not InterCity services.

The only station of the three that ought to be served by InterCity services and only during disruption or engineering works is St Neots as InterCity can use the fast line platforms without any time penalties as they wouldn't need to slow down to cross over to use the platforms at Huntingdon which are only on the slow lines.

I suggested making the proposed Kings Cross to Lincoln services a reality as:

1. It's using existing rolling stock
2. It's using existing paths on the ECML
3. It gives Lincoln a improved London service
4. It gives Lincoln a greater railhead role for the area
5. It has economical benefits for the area

I think that's enough valid reasons for LNER to consider making this happen.

 

[A0]

There's no way the additional speed of the 91s will off-set the acceleration deficit they have.

You only have to travel on a 365 from KX to FP which leaves at the same time as the 91 - the only time the 91 is catching up is when the 365 is slowing down.

 

[thatapanydude]

There's no way the additional speed of the 91s will off-set the acceleration deficit they have.

You only have to travel on a 365 from KX to FP which leaves at the same time as the 91 - the only time the 91 is catching up is when the 365 is slowing down.

What about on sections from Peterborough to Huntington and St Neots to Biggleswade, surely a class 91's would be faster than a 365 even with the slower acceleration.

 

[thatapanydude]

Ignore the duplicate thread, as I wasn't able to access this one, but whilst I can see your points that a class 91 maybe would not work.
I do like the idea of a peak time (replacing GN fasts) IEP Bi Mode 2x5 car calling at KGX, Biggleswade, St Neots, Huntingdon and splitting Peterborough to Melton and Spalding.
Surely this could be viable, considering no extra paths would be taken.

 

[A0]

What about on sections from Peterborough to Huntington and St Neots to Biggleswade, surely a class 91's would be faster than a 365 even with the slower acceleration.

Huntingdon - Peterborough is 17 miles - so you're looking at 10m 12s to cover it at 100 mph and 8m 10s at 125mph - but that's assuming you are going at those speeds not having to accelerate and decelerate - both of which for the 91 & mk 4s will take longer and I suspect that will wipe out the advantage that the higher speed would offer.

St Neots - Biggleswade is shorter at circa 10 miles.

 

[Aictos]

As to running extra services to Spalding and Melton Mowbray, I would rather the East Midlands and Cross Country franchises use any spare paths between Peterborough and these destinations to increase their own services rather then introduce more London services.

For example just extending the XC Leicester stoppers to Peterborough would give a much better connectivity for London, Yorkshire, Anglia and Scottish services as would improving the Lincoln services to a more clockface timetable and extending all though to Lincoln.

 

[xotGD]

The 89 used to be used on a peak KX - Peterborough calling at Huntingdon only. No reason why a 91 and Mark 4 set couldn't do the same today.

 

[Ianno87]

The 89 used to be used on a peak KX - Peterborough calling at Huntingdon only. No reason why a 91 and Mark 4 set couldn't do the same today.

The 91 and MK IV sets being fully employed on ECML proper duties, and Huntingdon having decent fast peak GN services formed of higher capacity 12 car EMUs?

 

[Bald Rick]

The 89 used to be used on a peak KX - Peterborough calling at Huntingdon only. No reason why a 91 and Mark 4 set couldn't do the same today.

Back in the days when the ECML had 3 or 4 InterCity services an hour. Not so now.

 

[A0]

The 89 used to be used on a peak KX - Peterborough calling at Huntingdon only. No reason why a 91 and Mark 4 set couldn't do the same today.

Even if the slots were available (BaldRick explains they aren't) why on earth should such a working tie up a 91 + Mk4s ? An 8 or 12 car EMU would do the job just as well and probably offer more capacity.

 

[Bald Rick]

Even if the slots were available (BaldRick explains they aren't) why on earth should such a working tie up a 91 + Mk4s ? An 8 or 12 car EMU would do the job just as well and probably offer more capacity.

Back in the 80s when HSTs were relatively new on the ECML, and commuting from Peterborough had become a ‘thing’, but before electrification, there was a procession of HSTs north out of Bounds Green in the morning to form Peterborough starters heading south. These were marginal trips for stock that would otherwise have sat at Bounds Green until their first northbound duty, often not till the 1000 or 1100 off the Cross. It also helpfully built up the commuter market ready for electrification which reached Peterborough by 1987 IIRC. Getting everyone home in the evening was a different story, and I guess required lots of stops at Huntingdon and Peterborough in regular services from 1600-1900.

 

[xotGD]

Even if the slots were available (BaldRick explains they aren't) why on earth should such a working tie up a 91 + Mk4s ? An 8 or 12 car EMU would do the job just as well and probably offer more capacity.

When I said 'today' I didn't literally mean today. I of course meant when the 91/Mk4 combos become spare.

 

[A0]

When I said 'today' I didn't literally mean today. I of course meant when the 91/Mk4 combos become spare.

Even if the stock becomes available, where do you propose to magic up the paths from? That was the point I was making - and Bald Rick also made the point there are more services running to / from KX than there were 30 years ago.

The ECML has a huge capacity issue particularly between Stevenage and Welwyn.

 

[Aictos]

Even if the stock becomes available, where do you propose to magic up the paths from? That was the point I was making - and Bald Rick also made the point there are more services running to / from KX than there were 30 years ago.

The ECML has a huge capacity issue particularly between Stevenage and Welwyn.

And four tracking the Hertford Loop ain't happening anytime soon plus it's busy enough with freight and stopping services so that's not a option.

The point made by @A0wen stands regardless as the ECML is a lot more busier then 30 years ago so yes where are the spare paths going to come from?

Bearing in mind any spare paths have already been spoken for when you consider that in 2019/2020ish you will have Hull Trains, Thameslink, Grand Central, LNER, East Coast Trains, Freight etc all competing for paths so good luck finding spare paths!

If any spare paths WERE found I rather they be used for GN services

 

[thatapanydude]

If any spare paths WERE found I rather they be used for GN services

I think this has got rather lost but with my suggestion, no extra paths would be taken. What I proposed was using the 91/Mk4 or 800s to replace the current 365s on the GN fast KX to P'boro using ECML existing paths with an possible extension to Melton or Spalding (where paths are available).

 

[Ianno87]

I think this has got rather lost but with my suggestion, no extra paths would be taken. What I proposed was using the 91/Mk4 or 800s to replace the current 365s on the GN fast KX to P'boro using ECML existing paths with an possible extension to Melton or Spalding (where paths are available).

Why wouldn't you just extend to Melton*/Spalding with 365/387s? Heck, you could split the train and serve both! Assuming electrification of course, which won't be on those routes any time soon, certainly not in the life span of current EMUs...

Up Melton-ECML would be a job to path, mind...

 

[Aictos]

I think this has got rather lost but with my suggestion, no extra paths would be taken. What I proposed was using the 91/Mk4 or 800s to replace the current 365s on the GN fast KX to P'boro using ECML existing paths with an possible extension to Melton or Spalding (where paths are available).

1. EMUs have more seats and better acceleration then 91/Mk4 or 800s which is why they're used at the moment.

2. Class 800s are unlikely to be free to run such services as they will be used on more suitable services such as to Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness, Skipton, Harrogate, Bradford Foster Square etc...

3. May I point you to this post by @Bald Rick which states why 91/Mk4 are unsuitable for GN Fast services:

Given that almost all stop at Biggleswade, and most at Stevenage, the amount of time they would spend above 100mph would be relatively small. Longer dwell times at stations (partly through getting the same number of people through many fewer doors, and partly through not having DOO) and lower acceleration would more than offset the higher top speed. So the journey would be slower.

They are also rather more expensive to maintain.

4. You say paths are available to Melton Mowbray and Spalding, however how do you know?

5. As I posted earlier, IF any spare paths can be found between Peterborough and Melton Mowbray/Spalding I would rather Cross Country/East Midlands Trains look at expanding their own services rather then extend the GN Fasts to these destinations especially as Peterborough and Leicester are already suitable railheads for InterCity services.

As to running extra services to Spalding and Melton Mowbray, I would rather the East Midlands and Cross Country franchises use any spare paths between Peterborough and these destinations to increase their own services rather then introduce more London services.

For example just extending the XC Leicester stoppers to Peterborough would give a much better connectivity for London, Yorkshire, Anglia and Scottish services as would improving the Lincoln services to a more clockface timetable and extending all though to Lincoln.

Why wouldn't you just extend to Melton*/Spalding with 365/387s? Heck, you could split the train and serve both! Assuming electrification of course, which won't be on those routes any time soon, certainly not in the life span of current EMUs...

Up Melton-ECML would be a job to path, mind...

A side note here but the Class 313s do have Spalding on the destination rolls along with Stansted Airport neither are likely to see the class

Up Melton to ECML would be difficult but not impossible, the main issue is crossing the ECML and fitting it in with all the current services.

The Spalding service would be easier as it can use the bi-directional Up Slow between Peterborough and Werrington Junction with no conflicts with ECML services however if you're going to wire up to Spalding then why not continue to Lincoln and onto Doncaster/Newark Northgate which would allow electric services to use the Joint line when the route via Grantham is unavailable.