91s facing "backwards" in service

[fwsmVor]

I actually didn't know 91s could run blunt-end-first until recently. Did one ever do so in service? Maybe a cracked windscreen meant it was the only option?

Also, what's the blunt-end cab like? I can't imagine it's as nice as the pointy end; that would be a bit of a waste.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Many years ago (early 2000s) I was on a Southbound IC225 set that suffered a cracked windscreen on the DVT just north of Peterborough. After limping into the station at reduced speed there was a lengthy delay, presumably whilst control decided how to handle the situation. Eventually the 91 was uncoupled from the rear and attached to the front, where it ran to Kings Cross blunt-end first.

There was talk at one point (mid-life refurb under GNER, when they were renumbered from 910xx to 911xx) of decommissioning the blunt-end cabs, but in the end this didn't happen.

When the 91s were originally ordered there was an idea within BR that they'd be used on freight or sleeper services overnight, which was one of the reasons cabs were provided at both ends. This never happened in the end, but being able to swap ends did come in useful from time to time, as per the incident in my first paragraph.

 

[hexagon789]

I actually didn't know 91s could run blunt-end-first until recently. Did one ever do so in service? Maybe a cracked windscreen meant it was the only option?

Also, what's the blunt-end cab like? I can't imagine it's as nice as the pointy end; that would be a bit of a waste.

Frequently, most commonly due to a TDM (Time Division Multiplex) push-pull system fault, necessitating the loco bring run-round the stock and the set hauled conventionally.

The slab shape of the 'other' cab is to preserve the airflow when running coupled to a Mk4 set, but this same shape requires a 110mph limit when leading due to wind noise and aerodynamics.

When it happened in traffic both BR and GNER on a Newcastle/Edinburgh would try and step-up a set to cover it and swap it with a Leeds, as the Leeds workings were mostly timed at 110mph until the mid-2000s. If it happened on a Leeds turn, then it wasn't such a problem.

The inclusion of a second cab was effectively so they were more of a locomotive than a power car despite the fixed formation nature of the 225 sets - BR originally intended that they would work sleeper trains overnight as well as performing their high-speed duties during the day.

Contrast with the InterCity 125s or the proposed InterCity 250 where the power car(s) are single cab.

 

[507 001]

As built both cabs were identical, however the blunt end cab wasn’t refurbished during the midlife rebuild, and so remains in as built condition.

When first introduced they had a couple of workings on non-mk4 stock, which often saw them run blunt end first, and they often run blunt end first during periods of heavy snowfall.

 

[hexagon789]

As built both cabs were identical, however the blunt end cab wasn’t refurbished during the midlife rebuild, and so remains in as built condition.

When first introduced they had a couple of workings on non-mk4 stock, which often saw them run blunt end first, and they often run blunt end first during periods of heavy snowfall.

I understand that initially there was an instruction against propelling in snow conditions but that that was rescinded after a few years? Certainly there are photos showing 91s propelling in snow during late-BR days.

 

[route101]

I had one run blunt end from Edinburgh a few years ago. I reckon it was a problem with the DVT.

 

[xotGD]

In the early days, 91s also worked parcels trains on the odd occasion. However, I don't know which cab was leading.

 

[Intercity110]

In the early days, 91s also worked parcels trains on the odd occasion. However, I don't know which cab was leading.

I thought that was planned, but never went ahead?

 

[DanNCL]

91s still can run blunt end first in service if required. They haven’t done so since 2020 as there’s been no need to since then, but they retain the ability to do so should it be required.

On rare occasions previously a 91 could be found the wrong way round on a Mark 4 set that was the correct way round, so the blunt end leading on the 91 with the number 1 end attached to the Mark 4s, and they could propel in this configuration too. Theoretically it could still happen, but again there’s been no need to so it hasn’t.

 

[GtNortherner]

A good while ago (possibly still in Intercity days) a delayed service I caught from Newcastle to Peterborough somewhat unusually came into the station with a 91 at the front and running blunt-end first, nose-to-nose with the DVT… when I disembarked, I saw what was presumably the reason - a second “dead” 91 was still coupled to the rear of the rake, so my guess was that the 91 at the front had been sent to assist.

 

[D365]

A good while ago (possibly still in Intercity days) a delayed service I caught from Newcastle to Peterborough somewhat unusually came into the station with a 91 at the front and running blunt-end first, nose-to-nose with the DVT… when I disembarked, I saw what was presumably the reason - a second “dead” 91 was still coupled to the rear of the rake, so my guess was that the 91 at the front had been sent to assist.

Yes I understand that has happened on a number of occasions.

 

[xotGD]

I thought that was planned, but never went ahead?

As I say, it only happened on the odd occasion.

1A40, the Newcastle - King's Cross vans, produced a 91 on at least one occasion.

 

[DarloRich]

All the years using the ECML I don't think I have ever had a blunt end in service. I remember when the 91's were knew we were on a train to London which had a problem at Doncaster and the 91 ran round but the train did not go forward sadly

I only have 2 pictures in my collection of blunt end running so it doesn't happen often.

 

[D7666]

At least 2 railtours with 91s but not Mk4 stock had blunt end 91s working

Both were in connection with 25322 (Tamworth Castle) and both were Hertfordshire Railtours

Six Bells Junction

Six Bells Junction

Both cases the 91 was (obviously to avoid turning) blunt end on the Up workings towards KGX.

Mk2 pullman and Mk1 AB stock respectively.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Apr 2023 ==

In the early days, 91s also worked parcels trains on the odd occasion. However, I don't know which cab was leading.

A question - not a statement - were there really enough air brake only parcels trains around for that to have happened with 91s any way round ????

I have little knowledge of ER and ECML things, but elsewhere l/h parcels train entirely formed of air brake NPCCS stock were not exactly two a penny. On WCML 87s for example on parcels trains were about as common as snowballs in the Belgian Congo for that reason.

Most of the AB fitted NPCCS stock I can think of was for use in passenger trains rather than in complete parcels trains. But as I said, ECML was not my domain.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

With regard to the proposed decommissioning of the blunt end cabs, I believe this was not in fact related to the mid-life refurb as I stated before. It was related to TPWS (Train Protection Warning System) and OTMR ("Black Boxes") fitting, as only having to fit the equipment to the pointy end cab would have saved money. Presumably it was decided that the costs that would be incurred in the event of a failure without the ability to recover using the other cab, would quickly cancel out those savings.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Here is 91 005 blunt end first at King's Cross at 18.55 on 23rd July 1989.

Note carefully the coaching stock type that it is coupled to...

 

[D365]

With regard to the proposed decommissioning of the blunt end cabs, I believe this was not in fact related to the mid-life refurb as I stated before. It was related to TPWS (Train Protection Warning System) and OTMR ("Black Boxes") fitting, as only having to fit the equipment to the pointy end cab would have saved money. Presumably it was decided that the costs that would be incurred in the event of a failure without the ability to recover using the other cab, would quickly cancel out those savings.

For TPWS it might have saved the cost of dual cab equipment, but the cost difference between two and one Arrowvale DMIs (driver-machine interface), I would have thought, can’t be significant.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

For TPWS it might have saved the cost of dual cab equipment, but the cost difference between two and one Arrowvale DMIs (driver-machine interface), I would have thought, can’t be significant.

Presumably not, as in the end both cabs were kept active despite the blunt end ones being used approximately once a flood... but I remember reading that taking those cabs out of use was being considered in one of the railway magazines at the time. Then again it may have been Rail so perhaps should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[deltic14]

Here is one. 91 132 at York on the 14th December 2016. I don't know what service it was working. I've only ever seen them blunt end on a couple of times since they were introduced.