801/1 5 car: convert to 9 car 801/2

[adamedwards]

LNER needs more trains to avoid keeping some of the 91s and MK4s. So given the 5 car units appear to be a not very useful DfT idea, why not extend them to 9 cars? Cheaper than new units as the driving cars exist and it needs extra intermediate vehicles.

Note these are the electric only trains. The 800 binodes are needed for the former HST routes.

 

[hexagon789]

LNER needs more trains to avoid keeping some of the 91s and MK4s. So given the 5 car units appear to be a not very useful DfT idea, why not extend them to 9 cars? Cheaper than new units as the driving cars exist and it needs extra intermediate vehicles.

Note these are the electric only trains. The 800 binodes are needed for the former HST routes.

They don't need any more to avoid keeping the 225s, which they aren't retaining any of. They will have a larger fleet of Azumas than they had 125s & 225s.

 

[krus_aragon]

They don't need any more to avoid keeping the 225s, which they aren't retaining any of. They will have a larger fleet of Azumas than they had 125s & 225s.

Is it the case that since being brought back into public ownership, they're no longer going to run the extra services that would have required keeping some of the old fleets? I have dim recollections along those lines.

 

[class26]

Is it the case that since being brought back into public ownership, they're no longer going to run the extra services that would have required keeping some of the old fleets? I have dim recollections along those lines.

They are going to order new trains for these services.

 

[class26]

LNER needs more trains to avoid keeping some of the 91s and MK4s. So given the 5 car units appear to be a not very useful DfT idea, why not extend them to 9 cars? Cheaper than new units as the driving cars exist and it needs extra intermediate vehicles.

Note these are the electric only trains. The 800 binodes are needed for the former HST routes.

They will need to keep some 5 cars as only yesterday the 07.30 Lincoln - Kings X started from Newark due to it being a 9 car and presumably couldn`t fit onto Lincoln`s platform although the HST managed by locking out of use until Newark severtal carriages. Not sure why they couldn`t have done this yesterday

 

[greatvoyager]

They are going to order new trains for these services.

As seen here...
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/more-new-trains-on-lner-wish-list

 

[hexagon789]

Is it the case that since being brought back into public ownership, they're no longer going to run the extra services that would have required keeping some of the old fleets? I have dim recollections along those lines.

They are ordering additional 80x trains for the improved Edinburgh fasts. I believe the accelerated timetable though won't happen until 2021.

 

[class26]

They are ordering additional 80x trains for the improved Edinburgh fasts. I believe the accelerated timetable though won't happen until 2021.

Most sensible idea, David Horne is on record as having said the 91`s had 300 separate points of failure so retaining them wasn`t the most sensible option

 

[class26]

As seen here...
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/more-new-trains-on-lner-wish-list

The article says it would likely be 10 cars trains. Hope that is really 10 cars rather than 2 x 5.

 

[JonathanH]

So given the 5 car units appear to be a not very useful DfT idea, why not extend them to 9 cars? Cheaper than new units as the driving cars exist and it needs extra intermediate vehicles.

How do you know it is cheaper to add coaches to the 5-car? It may seem obvious that building four intermediate cars is cheaper than a corresponding number of full sets but what is the cost of a contract variation? Agility Trains East could possibly charge a very high price for changing their existing trains.

 

[hexagon789]

Most sensible idea, David Horne is on record as having said the 91`s had 300 separate points of failure so retaining them wasn`t the most sensible option

It also means a more homogeneous maintenance regime, much easier maintaining an all Hitachi fleet than Azumas and a sub-fleet of some 91s etc

 

[transmanche]

They will need to keep some 5 cars as only yesterday the 07.30 Lincoln - Kings X started from Newark due to it being a 9 car and presumably couldn`t fit onto Lincoln`s platform although the HST managed by locking out of use until Newark severtal carriages. Not sure why they couldn`t have done this yesterday

@ZL exile reported that it was an (electric) 801, which is why it had to start from Newark Northgate and not from Lincoln.

 

[markymark2000]

The article says it would likely be 10 cars trains. Hope that is really 10 cars rather than 2 x 5.

A 2x 5 would offer more operational benefits but would lose a fair few standard class seats.

 

[class26]

@ZL exile reported that it was an (electric) 801, which is why it had to start from Newark Northgate and not from Lincoln.

I stand corrected, assumed it was the fact it was 9 carriages that prevented it from starting in Lincoln.

 

[Failed Unit]

@ZL exile reported that it was an (electric) 801, which is why it had to start from Newark Northgate and not from Lincoln.

Correct. The 0730 Lincoln - London and 1906 London - Lincoln are both allocated 9 with only 5 platformed.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Most sensible idea, David Horne is on record as having said the 91`s had 300 separate points of failure so retaining them wasn`t the most sensible option

300??? Yeah, that's a lot of failures. I get the sense these virtually always eat the overhead wires.

 

[HSTEd]

300??? Yeah, that's a lot of failures. I get the sense these virtually always eat the overhead wires.

Honestly it's just a statement that trains are complex machines.

 

[adamedwards]

As seen here...
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/more-new-trains-on-lner-wish-list

This is what prompted my speculative idea. Rather than buying new extra units, extend the less useful 5 car electric only units. The 5 car bimodes stay for Lincoln and Harrogate.

 

[Mag_seven]

So given the 5 car units appear to be a not very useful DfT idea, why not extend them to 9 cars?

Same for GWR as well please.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Given that 80x trains are being widely bought, and it seems to be the case that neither GWR nor LNER seem to actually have what they need, would it make sense to
- work out what the total demand for the things is
- acquire whatever the difference is between the current fleet and the identified need
- swap trains between TOCs so that everyone has the fleet they actually need

 

[JonathanH]

Given that 80x trains are being widely bought, and it seems to be the case that neither GWR nor LNER seem to actually have what they need, would it make sense to
- work out what the total demand for the things is
- acquire whatever the difference is between the current fleet and the identified need
- swap trains between TOCs so that everyone has the fleet they actually need

This isn't going to happen. There is a detailed contract about the trains that would need to be rewritten to start fiddling around with the fleets. Is there a provision in those contracts which allows them to be renegotiated to change the fleets to give GWR or LNER "what they need"? GWR and LNER just operate the trains which have been procured by the DfT and are provided by Agility Trains.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ogramme-technical-specification-and-contracts

 

[Bletchleyite]

This isn't going to happen. There is a detailed contract about the trains that would need to be rewritten to start fiddling around with the fleets

Surely it's less complex than rejigging fleets on traditional lease agreements, which can and does happen?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

This isn't going to happen. There is a detailed contract about the trains that would need to be rewritten to start fiddling around with the fleets. Is there a provision in those contracts which allows them to be renegotiated to change the fleets to give GWR or LNER "what they need"? GWR and LNER just operate the trains which have been procured by the DfT and are provided by Agility Trains.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ogramme-technical-specification-and-contracts

Is there anything to stop (say) GWR subletting 'their' small trains to (say) TPE, while letting some new big trains from Agility or whoever? If so, that doesn't mean rewriting the whole contract: instead it means varying it a bit.

 

[JonathanH]

Surely it's less complex than rejigging fleets on traditional lease agreements, which can and does happen?

From what has been written on these forums I don't think that is right. Comments are made such as 'you need to pass the trains back in the form you started with at the end of the contract' which implies that there is some freedom to rejig fleets on traditional lease agreements so long as you don't mess anything up. With the IET contracts, we have been told things like 'Hitachi do the allocations' and it is a 27.5 year contract to supply the trains to the DfT. There is loads of stuff in the contracts about the process of passing them from maintainer to operator and back again each day. It is not up to GWR or LNER how the units are formed.

Is there anything to stop (say) GWR subletting 'their' small trains to (say) TPE, while letting some new big trains from Agility or whoever? If so, that doesn't mean rewriting the whole contract: instead it means varying it a bit.

It would appear that the 800s aren't GWR's trains to sublet to TPE and it would be a bit difficult to get them from the relevant Hitachi depots each day so GWR are stuck with operating them in the form they have been procured. Clearly the 802 fleet is something different and it would presumably be easier for GWR to sublet them to TPE if the need arose in the future but, for the time being, as explained many times in other threads, the 5-car units are how the relevant services are to be provided.