LNER Class 91 - What are the retirement plans?

[hexagon789]

Are they 10 car or 2x5?

Thanks

Fixed 10-car

 

[GoneSouth]

Fixed 10-car

Thank you.

That’s even messier than GWR as they’ll have

5 car
9 car
2x5 car
10 car

Doesn’t that just get more complicated for working it crew ?

 

[jojoseph72]

Deleted

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2025 ==

Thank you.

That’s even messier than GWR as they’ll have

5 car
9 car
2x5 car
10 car

Doesn’t that just get more complicated for working it crew ?

I guess it's no messier than their current workings, as the 897s are a direct replacement for the 91s (one fleet out, one fleet in).
It could be argued that the 897s will improve flexibility by being tri-mode electro-diesel multiple units compared with the purely electric 91s.

 

[778]

Could one of the open access operators take on the 91s?

 

[hexagon789]

I guess it's no messier than their current workings, as the 897s are a direct replacement for the 91s (one fleet out, one fleet in).
It could be argued that the 897s will improve flexibility by being tri-mode electro-diesel multiple units compared with the purely electric 91s.

I believe they also allow for a capacity/service expansion as there are ten 897s vs currently eight 225 sets, with only four to five diagrams for the latter.

 

[GoneSouth]

I guess it's no messier than their current workings, as the 897s are a direct replacement for the 91s (one fleet out, one fleet in).
It could be argued that the 897s will improve flexibility by being tri-mode electro-diesel multiple units compared with the purely electric 91s.

I guess you’re right, messy but no messier than now.

 

[FrontSideBus]

Could one of the open access operators take on the 91s?

If anybody takes on the withdrawn 225 sets, they almost certainly won't have 91's on them, for example the abortive Grand Central Blackpool-London which used 90's and TFW which use 67's.

 

[jojoseph72]

Could one of the open access operators take on the 91s?

Don't think there are any takers currently, last I remember, Grand Unions planned to use 91s on the Euston to Stirling route, but now that's been sold to First Group, that plan was dropped in favour of 222s.

 

[GoneSouth]

Don't think there are any takers currently, last I remember, Grand Unions planned to use 91s on the Euston to Stirling route, but now that's been sold to First Group, that plan was dropped in favour of 222s.

Euston to Stirling all under diesel power? Makes perfect sense

 

[Mikey C]

Are the 897 ~24m vehicles (like the 397s), rather than ~26m vehicles like the IETs?

 

[D365]

Could one of the open access operators take on the 91s?

Why, when the Class 90s have superior performance up to 110mph?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2025 ==

Are the 897 ~24m vehicles (like the 397s), rather than ~26m vehicles like the IETs?

Class 897 will be ~24m vehicles

 

[Yorkshire09876]

Well done for putting the response so politely.

Why - what would have been the point in not being polite?

Mk4 classifications are different to all previous BR LHCS classifications, despite being basically the same thing, so there isn't really a great deal of logic in it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2025 ==

There’s still a significant difference between 125mph and sub 110mph running.

Also worth pointing out that, before 30 nine car Class 801 units were ordered, Eversholt had proposed a UK version of the Bombardier TRAXX locomotive (dubbed Class 93 at the time) to replace the Class 91. Obviously this proposal wasn’t taken forward… and that is when the IC225s were 15 years younger than they are now.

Anyway, the 10 ten car Class 897 units are happening.

Eversholt also had a mock-up of a section of a Mk4 made, with various possible seating arrangements inside it. It did a tour to various places - I saw it at the NRM.

 

[Rhydgaled]

POP - Pullman Open Pantry

Don't think I've seen that designation before; how is that coach different from the POD and/or PO vehicles? I always thought the 9 coach sets (since Mallard refurb) were formed with either:

• two PO vehicles and one POD or
• one PO and two POD

There’s still a significant difference between 125mph and sub 110mph running.

Doesn't TfW get their mark 4s up to 110mph somewhere between Crewe and Manchester? Obviously still not 125mph, but not "sub 110mph" either.

Don't think there are any takers currently, last I remember, Grand Unions planned to use 91s on the Euston to Stirling route, but now that's been sold to First Group, that plan was dropped in favour of 222s.

Euston to Stirling all under diesel power? Makes perfect sense

Didn't Grand Union change their fleet plan from IC225s to new-build Hitachi bi-modes to allow them to use the same fleet on both thier proposed routes (Euston to Stirling and Paddington to Llanelli or Carmarthen)? Or was it only the south Wales route that was changed to bi-modes (to allow it to be extended beyond Cardiff)?

So the only thing wrong is that they are old? As a passenger, they are probably the best on the mainline currently, IMO.

I agree, the IC225s are in a different league to most other stock in 'normal service' these days. It was a dark day when the option for 30 nine-car class 801s was green-lit to start IC225 withdrawal .

That’s even messier than GWR as they’ll have

5 car
9 car
2x5 car
10 car

It could be argued that the 897s will improve flexibility by being tri-mode electro-diesel multiple units compared with the purely electric 91s.

I'm not sure of the turning point; perhaps the day somebody failed to specify plug-type doors in the IEP, but my word does our rail network seem to be going backwards... An electric railway is a better railway, and the UK is supposed to be targeting net-zero by 2050, but every one of the 40 new trains that have so-far been ordered with the intent of replacing IC225s on the ECML have been equipped with at least one diesel engine. And as for building large numbers of high-speed train with less than 7 coaches...

 

[hexagon789]

Don't think I've seen that designation before; how is that coach different from the POD and/or PO vehicles? I always thought the 9 coach sets (since Mallard refurb) were formed with either:

• two PO vehicles and one POD or
• one PO and two POD

It's the First Class vehicle with some seats removed and a crew area/catering store added, hence P for "Pantry".

Lettered as Coach K.

 

[John R]

but every one of the 40 new trains that have so-far been ordered with the intent of replacing IC225s on the ECML have been equipped with at least one diesel engine. A

The "one diesel engine" trains enable them to be moved in the event that the wires are down in the area, and similarly provide hotel power in such a situation. I think that's a very good thing, if it means one less story of trains stranded, toilets not working, people passing out through extreme heat etc etc. Maybe if they had been built now they would have had a battery to provide those functions but at the time the technology was not developed enough.

And more generally the ECML new fleet removed the HSTs which resulted in thousands of miles of diesel haulage under the wires being removed each day.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Doesn't TfW get their mark 4s up to 110mph somewhere between Crewe and Manchester? Obviously still not 125mph, but not "sub 110mph" either.

I think that may be between Alderley Edge and Sandbach, if so not a particularly long stretch so perhaps a bit of a push for a 67 by the time it attains that speed it will only be for a few minutes - then again I’m no expert but perhaps a tfw locomotive driver could confirm if they see this?

 

[The Foghorn]

There are two extinction events facing the remaining 91s. The order for their replacement class 897s has been discussed. However the forthcoming introduction of ETCS between King's Cross and Stoke will also make them redundant. There are no plans to fit ETCS equipment on the 91s. One might assume that the replacement trains will be in service first, but this is the railway and common sense does not always prevail....

 

[tfw756rider]

How long will the TFW sets last for then? AFAIK there are currently no replacement plans on the cards?

No specific replacement plans for the Mark 4 sets announced (yet), but there's a Transport for Wales (TfW) speculative thread for any discussion of a "more new trains" order (that the higher-up Welsh Government have asked TfW to place). This would be to replace the Mark 4 sets, 153s and 230s, which would otherwise have stayed, even after the 150s and 158s left (folllowing the 398 - and 197-on-Cambrian - entries-to-service).

Anyway, the 10 ten car Class 897 units are happening.

Or at least will be happening, once the issues with one of their supplier's factories flooding have been resolved.

 

[FrontSideBus]

Pains me to say it but they would have been better off with more Hitachi's than go with CAF. If the new trains are anything like 397 and mk5a....

 

[hexagon789]

Pains me to say it but they would have been better off with more Hitachi's than go with CAF. If the new trains are anything like 397 and mk5a....

Wasn't it due to the massively increased prices Hitachi were now asking for more of their 800 series trains when the tender was placed?

The CAF option being considerably cheaper.

 

[FrontSideBus]

The CAF option being considerably cheaper.

Remind me what the industry reckon CAF stands for?

 

[GoneSouth]

Remind me what the industry reckon CAF stands for?

It all seems to be a race to the bottom.

To me all new trains feel a bit fragile. They don’t feel solidly engineered like the old BR built units. I travel on GWRs old 158/165/166s around Bristol a fair bit and although the seating configuration is all wrong on the 165/166s, they travel smoothly and feel solid and well engineered. I compare that with cheap as flippin chips CAF units up north which rattle, creek, bump and grind their way around the north. Just feels cheap. Don’t get me wrong, they’re no pacer and we should be grateful for that, but I’d mark them as B-, could do better.

Applying the same to intercity/long distance trains, the Mk3 and Mk4 coaches all feel smoother than Hitachi or the Mk5.

The only exception is Voyagers which glide around really nicely (I get they’re not to everyone’s comfort preference).

I’m not looking forward to the CAF units replacing the Mk4s so hope it will take a long time before that happens.

 

[Mikey C]

It all seems to be a race to the bottom.

To me all new trains feel a bit fragile. They don’t feel solidly engineered like the old BR built units. I travel on GWRs old 158/165/166s around Bristol a fair bit and although the seating configuration is all wrong on the 165/166s, they travel smoothly and feel solid and well engineered. I compare that with cheap as flippin chips CAF units up north which rattle, creek, bump and grind their way around the north. Just feels cheap. Don’t get me wrong, they’re no pacer and we should be grateful for that, but I’d mark them as B-, could do better.

Applying the same to intercity/long distance trains, the Mk3 and Mk4 coaches all feel smoother than Hitachi or the Mk5.

The only exception is Voyagers which glide around really nicely (I get they’re not to everyone’s comfort preference).

I’m not looking forward to the CAF units replacing the Mk4s so hope it will take a long time before that happens.

The Voyagers aren't new trains though. They and the Pendolinos feel pretty solid. Ditto the Desiros.

It's more recent trains which are lighter to be more efficient, but don't ride anywhere near as well.

 

[FrontSideBus]

Why does nobody look at options on the continent like New Pendolino or Zefiro? They look like fantastic high speed units!

 

[swt_passenger]

Why does nobody look at options on the continent like New Pendolino or Zefiro? They look like fantastic high speed units!

Well typically they just don’t fit the infrastructure here, as you’re probably already aware.

 

[BillStampy]

But they are not exactly thrashing up and down the East Coast Main Line at 125mph every day are they?

I'd argue they spend more time sat in the trees of Abergavenny for a bit of landscape viewing.

Oh wait no, that's the Class 67s traction motors having given up on a high grade, whoops!

In all seriousness the TfW MK4s will last a lot longer considering they're trailing up and down at relatively low speeds in comparison as to what the ECML sets face daily. They're quite nicely done inside and out, I would know!

 

[FrontSideBus]

Well typically they just don’t fit the infrastructure here, as you’re probably already aware.

I'm sure they could build one that fits, à la Class 390.

 

[JKF]

If it's the class 91 that is causing all of the maintenance issues, could they not have just put a different loco on it? Surely you'd think it would be cheaper than whole new trains.
I mean we've seen Mk4's with 90's and 67's hauling them.

My vote would go for the class 89 which has done the job before. I think it might be nearly fixed? If LSL fancy some spot hire income and LNER fancy filling a few extra seats with cranks then why not…

 

[Rhydgaled]

but every one of the 40 new trains that have so-far been ordered with the intent of replacing IC225s on the ECML have been equipped with at least one diesel engine

The "one diesel engine" trains enable them to be moved in the event that the wires are down in the area, and similarly provide hotel power in such a situation. I think that's a very good thing, if it means one less story of trains stranded, toilets not working, people passing out through extreme heat etc etc. Maybe if they had been built now they would have had a battery to provide those functions but at the time the technology was not developed enough.

And more generally the ECML new fleet removed the HSTs which resulted in thousands of miles of diesel haulage under the wires being removed each day.

I'm aware of the IC125s (ie. class 43s with mark 3 coaches) being replaced with bi-modes and saving miles of diesel running under the wires - I picked the figure of 40 new trains carefully to avoid including that. Only two fleet replacement orders with the intention of removing IC225s (ie. class 91 with mark 4s) from the ECML have made it to the stage of being 'signed' as far as I'm aware, namely:

• the 30x nine-car class 801s delivered as a later phase of the Intercity Express Programme (IEP), which ultimately only replaced some of the IC225s and
• the 10x ten-car class 897 tri-mode fleet currently on-order

In the case of the latter, batteries are certainly an option since presumably they are one of the three modes (unless by tri-mode they mean diesel, 25kV AC and some form of DC power for sharing with light rail vehicles somewhere?) Aren't there also now trials of replacing one of the diesel engines on a Hitachi bi-mode unit with batteries? As for stranded trains, I can think of very few suituations when it would be possible to proceed using the one engine on an 801 on a electrified route. Yes, batteries for 'hotel power' would be useful, but I think the specification should be based on the number of hours said 'hotel power' functions would remain available, not ability to move the train.

There are two extinction events facing the remaining 91s. The order for their replacement class 897s has been discussed. However the forthcoming introduction of ETCS between King's Cross and Stoke will also make them redundant. There are no plans to fit ETCS equipment on the 91s. One might assume that the replacement trains will be in service first, but this is the railway and common sense does not always prevail....

Here's hoping the moves to fit freight and charter stock with ETCS will eventually see an IC225 set fitted (along with things like the class 89 and LSL's mark 3 rake). It would be a shame to see that kind of operation blocked from accessing the ECML.

That said, isn't the ETCS on the ECML supposed to be an overlay with the existing lineside signalling for the first five or ten years before 'signals away', so no need for everything to be fitted right away.

Pains me to say it but they would have been better off with more Hitachi's than go with CAF. If the new trains are anything like 397 and mk5a....

I actually think the class 397s are a slightly better product than TPE's class 802s, for the two simple reasons that the 397s have plug-type exterior doors and a better provision of table bays aligned with the windows. Both are shorter than a 125mph unit has any right to be and both have the dreadful rock-hard Fainsa Sophia seats, but the 397 has the edge on those two features.

To me all new trains feel a bit fragile. They don’t feel solidly engineered like the old BR built units. I travel on GWRs old 158/165/166s around Bristol a fair bit and although the seating configuration is all wrong on the 165/166s, they travel smoothly and feel solid and well engineered. I compare that with cheap as flippin chips CAF units up north which rattle, creek, bump and grind their way around the north. Just feels cheap. Don’t get me wrong, they’re no pacer and we should be grateful for that, but I’d mark them as B-, could do better.

Applying the same to intercity/long distance trains, the Mk3 and Mk4 coaches all feel smoother than Hitachi or the Mk5.

The only exception is Voyagers which glide around really nicely (I get they’re not to everyone’s comfort preference).

If Virgin had ordered a 9-car EMU version of the Voyagers instead of class 390s I'd probably be saying that was the way forward. Not perfect but nearer the mark than most recent stuff.

 

[John R]

As for stranded trains, I can think of very few suituations when it would be possible to proceed using the one engine on an 801 on a electrified route. Yes, batteries for 'hotel power' would be useful, but I think the specification should be based on the number of hours said 'hotel power' functions would remain available, not ability to move the train.

I seem to recall at least one incident on the ECML north of Finsbury Park where power was off for a substantial time but 801s were able to crawl through at slow speed to continue their journey.

And the comment

but every one of the 40 new trains that have so-far been ordered with the intent of replacing IC225s on the ECML have been equipped with at least one diesel engine

seems to imply that the presence of a rescue/hotel power engine on the new fleet is a backward step given the fleet being replaced had no such facility. That to my mind is putting a dogmatic "electric is best" approach before a more practical approach that mitigates one of the primary drawbacks of overhead line power - that of a total failure of power supply stranding trains.