Why were enough Azumas not ordered to replace all the 91+MK4 sets?

[xotGD]

Why did LNER not get enough Azumas to ditch all of the 91s and Mark 4 sets?

 

[Snow1964]

The short answer is the original plan was to replace all the 91s and Mk4s, and the number ordered in 2012 plus 30 options (in 2013?) would have been enough. But when the GWR electrification was being delayed and subsequently cut back, GWR needed more bimodes and all sorts of variations came about such as bigger fuel tanks and uprated engines.

With the IET programme running late, and variations eating up some of the budget, and service enhancements needing more trains, it was decided to keep about 10 of the mk4 sets as interim temporary solution.

I am sure someone will remember all the changes and full reasons.

 

[800001]

The short answer is the original plan was to replace all the 91s and MP4's, and the number ordered in 2012 plus 30 options (in 2013?) would have been enough. But when the GWR electrification was being delayed and subsequently cut back, GWR needed more bimodes and all sorts of variations came about such as bigger fuel tanks and uprated engines.

With the IET programme running late, and variations eating up some of the budget, and service enhancements needing more trains, it was decided to keep about 10 of the mk4 sets as interim temporary solution.

I am sure someone will remember all the changes and full reasons.

I don't think GWR alterations had anything to do with the East Coast fleet what so ever.

GWR bimodes was purely a change in contract/spec to there original order, ie every unit that would have been an electric set became a bimode set.

 

[Julia]

Idly wondering if, after those decisions were made, procuring enough centre cars to expand some 5-car IETs to 9 (either on GWR or LNER) would have been a better solution than a micro-fleet to replace the remaining 91s - had that option disappeared once the production runs ended?

 

[Bletchleyite]

This seems to happen all the time. WMT keeping Class 321s/319s despite the 350s being intended as a full replacement was another example of it. Money being saved by under-ordering is the root of it, though the situation with the 80x may have been slightly more complex than that. I suspect the only reason it didn't happen with the likes of Greater Anglia's full fleet replacement was that COVID caused a reduction in demand which meant you didn't have the same issues as you did before it. Intercity demand has come back up (I think LNER say it's higher than pre-COVID now?) but commuter demand hasn't due to the number of people who now work from home at least part of the week but were office workers before.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2025 ==

Idly wondering if, after those decisions were made, procuring enough centre cars to expand some 5-car IETs to 9 (either on GWR or LNER) would have been a better solution than a micro-fleet to replace the remaining 91s - had that option disappeared once the production runs ended?

Allegedly Hitachi have whacked their prices up making the CAF order more economically sensible.

 

[D365]

I was under the impression that the retention of some IC225 sets was simply to provide additional services, as suggested by @Snow1964

None of the ’Azumas’ were ever diverted to GWR.

 

[hexagon789]

The short answer is the original plan was to replace all the 91s and Mk4s, and the number ordered in 2012 plus 30 options (in 2013?) would have been enough. But when the GWR electrification was being delayed and subsequently cut back, GWR needed more bimodes and all sorts of variations came about such as bigger fuel tanks and uprated engines.

With the IET programme running late, and variations eating up some of the budget, and service enhancements needing more trains, it was decided to keep about 10 of the mk4 sets as interim temporary solution.

I am sure someone will remember all the changes and full reasons.

I was under the impression that the retention of some IC225 sets was simply to provide additional services, as suggested by @Snow1964

None of the ’Azumas’ were ever diverted to GWR.

As far as I recall, the GWR change was to have a fully bi-mode fleet instead of the original plan to have a split electric/bi-mode fleet as per LNER.

 

[Snow1964]

I was under the impression that the retention of some IC225 sets was simply to provide additional services, as suggested by @Snow1964

None of the ’Azumas’ were ever diverted to GWR.

Sorry I didn't phrase it well, agree none switched from East Coast to GWR.

But what did happen is the GWR variations cost extra, and the overall IET budget was under pressure, and having spent money on the changes, wasn't any funds remaining to order more units, or extra coaches to lengthen some 5car units for extra services.

From memory some of the GWR fleet would have been electric with single back up engine as on Azuma, but had to buy extra diesel generator sets (and they skimped on that too, so there aren't enough spares now, resulting in some trains without all engines operational)

 

[xotGD]

I was under the impression that the retention of some IC225 sets was simply to provide additional services, as suggested by @Snow1964

None of the ’Azumas’ were ever diverted to GWR.

So they received sufficient Azumas to fulfill the timetable, then expanded the timetable before they were delivered?

Weren't there options to add an extra few sets?

Conversely, if it is OK to keep some of the Mark 4 sets running, why not all of them and order fewer Azumas?

 

[D365]

Conversely, if it is OK to keep some of the Mark 4 sets running, why not all of them and order fewer Azumas?

The remaining Mark 4 sets (both LNER and TfW) are in need of significant mechanical overhaul if they are to continue in service.

Besides - the IC225 fleet would have needed replacement sooner or later anyway.

 

[hexagon789]

As far as I can see, the total Azuma fleet would still represent a fleet expansion even without the remaining 225 sets.

 

[sprinterguy]

So they received sufficient Azumas to fulfill the timetable, then expanded the timetable before they were delivered?

Essentially, yes: The DfT ordered the 30 x 9-car class 801 sets for total IC225 replacement in July 2013. The East Coast franchise (under DfT control at that time) was then retendered, and Virgin Trains' winning bid (commencing March 2015) included the retention of six IC225 sets (and seven class 91s) in shortened 7-car formations for, I believe, additional limited stop London - Edinburgh services.

Conversely, if it is OK to keep some of the Mark 4 sets running, why not all of them and order fewer Azumas?

To provide additional seating capacity over that provided by an IC225 set, and for commonality of performance for timetabling and maintenance purposes, noting that, at the time the IC225 replacement option was exercised, the intention was to have an all-Azuma fleet.

 

[coppercapped]

Some minor, but important, clarifications.

The IET contract did not require the DfT, or the TOCs involved, to order or purchase any trains at all. The requirement of the contract between the DfT and Agility Trains was for Agility Trains to procure sufficient rolling stock from the manufacturer (Hitachi) to meet the needs of the timetable as defined by the DfT, the train service provision contract.

These trains were then issued to the TOCs for them to operate.

This was the whole point of the exercise - the DfT, and by extension the public purse, did not have to buy the trains directly and so there was no capital spend on the books. The cost of the trains was covered by the payments made by the TOCs to Agility Trains, these payments cover design and development costs, manufacturing and maintenance costs and the cost of all the various risks carried by Agility/Hitachi. All these costs were to be covered by the 21-odd years of the contract. The payments from the TOCs to Agility Trains for train service provision are guaranteed by the DfT - the IET stock is not leased to the TOCs.

So, if some observers think that not enough trains were ordered by Agility Trains the reason is that the train service specification defined by the DfT at the time did not require them.

 

[Carlisle]

This seems to happen all the time. WMT keeping Class 321s/319s despite the 350s being intended as a full replacement was another example of it.

Happened with the IC 225s themselves as they were originally intended to replace the entire ECML HST fleet utilising diesel haulage where necessary but BRs Inter City sector later changed their mind.

 

[edwin_m]

The remaining Mark 4 sets (both LNER and TfW) are in need of significant mechanical overhaul if they are to continue in service.

Besides - the IC225 fleet would have needed replacement sooner or later anyway.

Also they would have had o be made ERTMS compatible before the ECML ERTMS fitment got to a stage where lineside signals could be removed. I doubt anyone wants to attempt this for a 35-year-old fleet.

Some minor, but important, clarifications.

The IET contract did not require the DfT, or the TOCs involved, to order or purchase any trains at all. The requirement of the contract between the DfT and Agility Trains was for Agility Trains to procure sufficient rolling stock from the manufacturer (Hitachi) to meet the needs of the timetable as defined by the DfT, the train service provision contract.

These trains were then issued to the TOCs for them to operate.

This was the whole point of the exercise - the DfT, and by extension the public purse, did not have to buy the trains directly and so there was no capital spend on the books. The cost of the trains was covered by the payments made by the TOCs to Agility Trains, these payments cover design and development costs, manufacturing and maintenance costs and the cost of all the various risks carried by Agility/Hitachi. All these costs were to be covered by the 21-odd years of the contract. The payments from the TOCs to Agility Trains for train service provision are guaranteed by the DfT - the IET stock is not leased to the TOCs.

So, if some observers think that not enough trains were ordered by Agility Trains the reason is that the train service specification defined by the DfT at the time did not require them.

Various writings by Roger Ford (in particular) suggest the lease payments for IET fleets are much higher than for equivalent trains procured by a more conventional route. Taking up contract options (if any) to obtain more would most likely have locked DfT and the TOC into a larger fleet at a similar unit cost. GWR's 802s and LNER's CAF units were procured outside the IET arrangement, and presumably both TOCs and DfT agreed that this was better value than taking up options.

 

[Clarence Yard]

The payments to Hitachi are more expensive than a conventional lease because it’s not a lease, it’s a daily train supply agreement. You collect the train off Hitachi in the morning and hand it back at night, or whenever the contract says.

There were no options on the original contracts - it was up to Agility to procure enough units to meet the DfT’s then diagram requirements.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

So they received sufficient Azumas to fulfill the timetable, then expanded the timetable before they were delivered?
Weren't there options to add an extra few sets?
Conversely, if it is OK to keep some of the Mark 4 sets running, why not all of them and order fewer Azumas?

You are going back more than a decade, to when DfT (not GWR or LNER) placed the IEP orders with Hitachi (three of them: for GWR, LNER bi-modes to eliminate HSTs, and LNER IC225 replacements).
That was against the then-planned timetable.
GWR and LNER did not get a choice on the size and formations of the 800/801 sets - they were just passed on to the TOCs and told to use them.
LNER later retained some IC225s for an expanded timetable, while GWR ordered (on a separate contract) some 802s (others went to TPE and HT).
DfT allowed the GWR electric sets (801) to become bi-modes after electrification to Bristol/Swansea was cancelled.

The IEP contract was very tightly specified and delivers a fixed number of daily diagrams - the trains themselves remain controlled by Hitachi/Agility, not the TOCs

 

[35B]

Why did LNER not get enough Azumas to ditch all of the 91s and Mark 4 sets?

Interesting to note that the LNER fleet of Azumas is 30 x 9 car and 14 x 5 car electric units, plus 13 x 9 car and 10 x 5 car bi-mode units. That's an increase in fleet size against the 91+Mk4/HST fleet.

 

[John R]

As far as I recall, the GWR change was to have a fully bi-mode fleet instead of the original plan to have a split electric/bi-mode fleet as per LNER.

That’s not correct. The original plan envisaged a significant number of all electric units, as the core services to Bristol and South Wales would be completely under the wires.

I’m sure I read that the cost of varying the contract was more than the cost of completing the electrification, but that might just be a rumour. Though given the eye watering high price Hitachi negotiated on the original contract, maybe not…

 

[hexagon789]

significant number of all electric units, as the core services to Bristol and South Wales would be completely under the wires.

That's what I said though - that they changed it.

That the original plan was to have a split electric and bi-mode fleet like LNER, but they changed it to an all bi-mode fleet.

 

[DannyMich2018]

Interesting to note that the LNER fleet of Azumas is 30 x 9 car and 14 x 5 car electric units, plus 13 x 9 car and 10 x 5 car bi-mode units. That's an increase in fleet size against the 91+Mk4/HST fleet.

That's what I was thinking too (12 × 5 car electric units though), 65 trains in total, of course many 5 car ones run in pair but still much larger fleet than before so you think LNER could manage without the 91s.

 

[800001]

That's what I was thinking too (12 × 5 car electric units though), 65 trains in total, of course many 5 car ones run in pair but still much larger fleet than before so you think LNER could manage without the 91s.

Look at how many extra services these additional Azumas operates

Previously 1 x Harrogate a day, now roughly every 2 hours.

Previously 1 x Lincoln a day, now also roughly every 2 hours.

More trains per day than with the previous fleet.

 

[xotGD]

Look at how many extra services these additional Azumas operates

Previously 1 x Harrogate a day, now roughly every 2 hours.

Previously 1 x Lincoln a day, now also roughly every 2 hours.

More trains per day than with the previous fleet.

Or, put another way, stock being wasted faffing about on unnecessary add-on routes, while passengers are subjected to 5-car sets on the trunk routes in and out of King's Cross.

 

[800001]

Or, put another way, stock being wasted faffing about on unnecessary add-on routes, while passengers are subjected to 5-car sets on the trunk routes in and out of King's Cross.

Obviously never boarded a Harrogate or Lincoln service and seen how busy they are?

 

[GoneSouth]

Or, put another way, stock being wasted faffing about on unnecessary add-on routes, while passengers are subjected to 5-car sets on the trunk routes in and out of King's Cross.

Bit rude to anyone in Lincoln, Harrogate, Skipton, Keighley and Bradford or anyone beyond Edinburgh don’t you think. They might take issue with their reasons for using rail services being called unnecessary.

 

[xotGD]

Obviously never boarded a Harrogate or Lincoln service and seen how busy they are?

The services beyond Leeds are lightly loaded. Sufficient capacity exists on the Northern services.

Also, I used to commute on the ex-Skipton every morning. Hardly anyone didn't alight at Leeds.

 

[800001]

The services beyond Leeds are lightly loaded. Sufficient capacity exists on the Northern services.

Also, I used to commute on the ex-Skipton every morning. Hardly anyone didn't alight at Leeds.

When ever I have travelled on the extensions, they are always well loaded to/from, with people travelling beyond Leeds.
Just looking at the reservations indicates very well how many people travel through on them.

Trains where people do not have to change at large stations eg Leeds attract people to travel.

Without direct train they may travel by car or bus.

 

[Ballyheigue]

Well, a recent lunch time LNER beyond Leeds to Bradford only had 5 on board the carriage I was in, and I boarded alone in Leeds. I was sad enough to board it just to see for myself if LNER made the right decision

 

[DannyMich2018]

Look at how many extra services these additional Azumas operates

Previously 1 x Harrogate a day, now roughly every 2 hours.

Previously 1 x Lincoln a day, now also roughly every 2 hours.

More trains per day than with the previous fleet.

Looking at the latest Today's Railways UK magazine it states only 49 are diagrammed daily (out of 65) so fleet is not as hard worked as the previous fleet although of course there were more power cars than sets so plenty of spares.

 

[Richard123]

Why did LNER not get enough Azumas to ditch all of the 91s and Mark 4 sets?

Hitachi were unable to deliver their committed number of diagrams for service. Availability led to daily problems even without the extra routes planned… the retention of the class 91s solved it.