Class 91s + Mk4s future uses and should they even have been replaced?

[tbtc]

Mod Note: Posts #1 - #22 originally in this thread.

If anything it's nice to see them going on to further use, though it's a bit of a shame it has to be abroad but better than the knacker's yard.

What work could they realistically do in the UK though?

All of the long distance high speed electrified services will be in the hands of 390/800/801/802s - what services are there out there suited to these thirty year old locos (that were designed to do one specific type of service and aren't particularly suited at other ones - see also Deltics...)

I agree 100% - it's so sad seeing so much stock being dragged for scrap. I know the 91's are old and progress moves on, but it seems that the old trend of "repair and making do" has long gone for "throw it away and replace with new"

We've tried to tart up ancient stock and look how delayed/ expensive that's turning out to be for people who were wanting their refurbished HSTs or bi-mode 769s or reliable 230s in regular operation by now... it's a false economy, when you consider how much easier/faster it seems to be to churn out a full length IET300 from Newton Aycliffe in the time it takes Wabtec to stick some modern doors onto a single Mk3 carriage...

I was all for converting the 319s or introducing the 230s, I thought that there was merit in upgrading old trains, but it's clearly too much effort, too complicated, too costly, too many unforeseen difficulties... eventually it gets to the point where it'd have been simpler and cheaper and faster to build a brand new train (with a potential forty year life span) than wait around in the hope that the engineers eventually find a way of "upgrading" an old train so that we can squeeze another five years life out of it.

When the facts change, I change my mind.

 

[hexagon789]

What work could they realistically do in the UK though?

All of the long distance high speed electrified services will be in the hands of 390/800/801/802s - what services are there out there suited to these thirty year old locos (that were designed to do one specific type of service and aren't particularly suited at other ones - see also Deltics...)

That's just my nostalgic side talking

 

[malc-c]

What work could they realistically do in the UK though?

Maybe the same job of Freightliners 50 year old 86's - hauling containers or other freight work ??

All of the long distance high speed electrified services will be in the hands of 390/800/801/802s - what services are there out there suited to these thirty year old locos (that were designed to do one specific type of service and aren't particularly suited at other ones - see also Deltics...)

Wasn't suggesting they remain hauling passenger services

eventually it gets to the point where it'd have been simpler and cheaper and faster to build a brand new train (with a potential forty year life span) than wait around in the hope that the engineers eventually find a way of "upgrading" an old train so that we can squeeze another five years life out of it.

When the facts change, I change my mind.

I would love to be able to travel ahead in time 40+ years and see if these new 800's / 700's / etc will still be running as reliable as we all think they will. I personally doubt it, but I respect your viewpoint

 

[Rhydgaled]

I applaud the imagination on the Forum but the clear difficulties in trying to upgrade ancient trains (and the relative ease of production lines for modern ones) means there seems to be good reason to scrap old sow's ears and build brand new silk purses from scratch.

There are two issues with that statement. One is that building new rolling stock requires quite a bit of energy (Ian Walmsley claimed in the Sept 2019 Modern Railways that the carbon emissions from building the SWR Aventras will be around 500,000 tonnes), which means that we should be eeking out as much life as possible from the existing stock before eventually replacing it (thus building new trains less often). The second issue is that at the moment the UK rail industry (with help from DfT) seems to largely be replacing old (often tired) silk purses with brand new sow's ears.

All of the long distance high speed electrified services will be in the hands of 390/800/801/802s - what services are there out there suited to these thirty year old locos (that were designed to do one specific type of service and aren't particularly suited at other ones - see also Deltics...)

See what I mean about "new sow's ears"? 390s with windows so small you can hardly see out and a series of AT300s were everybody has failed to insist on plug doors. ScotRail did it with the AT200, so the failure to do so on what should be premier Intercity stock is disapointing. The choice of seats on the new stock is also a problem (and ScotRail are just as bad on that point; even fitting ironing boards to the 156s on the West Highland Line).

Well that will keep the guys at Bound Green Depot busy then...

Hopefully, with so much interest and support Europhoenix might make that a total of 21 and keep one running (geared or not) for use on the UK rail... maybe we should start a petition / campaign

Well, the 125 group has managed to aquire a number of mark 3s... I'd love to see a group formed to preserve a load of mark 4s, which would be useful for running with the class 89 and any 90s that get preserved as well as with a 91 (should be 91110 and 91111 in museums and 91131 in full working order running railtours in my view).

What work could they realistically do in the UK though?

London-Edinburgh fasts, as proposed by Virgin Trains East Coast when they won the franchise. Grand Central's Blackpool service also seemed a sensible idea, although it still makes sense whether they end up using 90s or 91s.

We've tried to tart up ancient stock and look how delayed/ expensive that's turning out to be for people who were wanting their refurbished HSTs or bi-mode 769s or reliable 230s in regular operation by now... it's a false economy, when you consider how much easier/faster it seems to be to churn out a full length IET300 from Newton Aycliffe in the time it takes Wabtec to stick some modern doors onto a single Mk3 carriage...

I was all for converting the 319s or introducing the 230s, I thought that there was merit in upgrading old trains, but it's clearly too much effort, too complicated, too costly, too many unforeseen difficulties... eventually it gets to the point where it'd have been simpler and cheaper and faster to build a brand new train (with a potential forty year life span) than wait around in the hope that the engineers eventually find a way of "upgrading" an old train so that we can squeeze another five years life out of it.

You make a fair point about the troubles with the 769s and power-door IC125s. However the mark 4s, as far as I'm aware, don't need anything like the level of work that mark 3s need. At most they need a straightforward refurbishment - I can't recall any major issues with the Arriva Trains Wales class 158 refurb a few years ago and the current class 175 refresh seems to be going well so far. You state that a new train would have a potential 40 year life-span, as the IC125s have done (and apart from the lack of anything decent to replace them with I'd agree with you that they've pretty much had their day now). However, the IC225s have not yet had that 40 years, they don't need the transformative modifications like the 769s or mark 3s. They (the IC225s) just needed supplimenting with a new fleet to allow slightly less intensive use.

 

[tbtc]

Maybe the same job of Freightliners 50 year old 86's - hauling containers or other freight work ??

Maybe, but they are designed to run high speed trains without regular stops, so not ideal for much freight... plus the FOCs aren't using much electric stock (generally preferring to run 66s under the wires).

There are two issues with that statement. One is that building new rolling stock requires quite a bit of energy (Ian Walmsley claimed in the Sept 2019 Modern Railways that the carbon emissions from building the SWR Aventras will be around 500,000 tonnes), which means that we should be eeking out as much life as possible from the existing stock before eventually replacing it (thus building new trains less often). The second issue is that at the moment the UK rail industry (with help from DfT) seems to largely be replacing old (often tired) silk purses with brand new sow's ears

That's one of those stats that sounds big when taken out of context but how does that compare to the total carbon emissions from the railway each year, the energy savings from having lighter stock, the energy benefits by attracting new passengers to quit their cars... eventually all trains need replacing eventually - whilst it's going to cost more to do it every thirty years rathe than every fifty years, it's a fairly minor cost to the railway overall.

See what I mean about "new sow's ears"? 390s with windows so small you can hardly see out and a series of AT300s were everybody has failed to insist on plug doors. ScotRail did it with the AT200, so the failure to do so on what should be premier Intercity stock is disapointing. The choice of seats on the new stock is also a problem (and ScotRail are just as bad on that point; even fitting ironing boards to the 156s on the West Highland Line)

You're letting your personal preferences for things like doors, windows and seats get in the way of the argument.

Well, the 125 group has managed to aquire a number of mark 3s... I'd love to see a group formed to preserve a load of mark 4s, which would be useful for running with the class 89 and any 90s that get preserved as well as with a 91 (should be 91110 and 91111 in museums and 91131 in full working order running railtours in my view)

"useful" seems to be the word used on the Forum for "unquantifiable thing that I'd like but can't justify" (just like the diversionary benefits of re-opening some long abandoned line)

London-Edinburgh fasts, as proposed by Virgin Trains East Coast when they won the franchise. Grand Central's Blackpool service also seemed a sensible idea, although it still makes sense whether they end up using 90s or 91s

How many is that going to use up though?

Better for LNER to have a big compatible fleet of AT300s (than a micro fleet for run just one specific service), assuming they can get the paths (especially north of Newcastle)

You make a fair point about the troubles with the 769s and power-door IC125s. However the mark 4s, as far as I'm aware, don't need anything like the level of work that mark 3s need. At most they need a straightforward refurbishment

I'm not talking about getting rid of the Mk4s though; this is a thread about the 91s (which we have no proper use for now).

There'll be some use for loco hauled carriages in future but that's different from a future for thirty 140mph pure-electric locomotives (that aren't great at stop/start services)

 

[Northhighland]

Think we have to be a little more analytical here. Reusing existing stock is a good idea especially electric traction. Buying new has a significant cost in environmental and financial terms.

The reference to the Scotrail HST refurb is not really valid. The finished product is universally liked by the travelling public.

The problem is UK rail industry isn’t very good at managing these projects. The engineering is relatively straight forward it is everything around that we can’t make work efficiently.

What beds to change is the way we manage these projects.

 

[hwl]

Think we have to be a little more analytical here. Reusing existing stock is a good idea especially electric traction. Buying new has a significant cost in environmental and financial terms.

The reference to the Scotrail HST refurb is not really valid. The finished product is universally liked by the travelling public.

The problem is UK rail industry isn’t very good at managing these projects. The engineering is relatively straight forward it is everything around that we can’t make work efficiently.

What beds to change is the way we manage these projects.

1. People are too ambitious about time lines and expect everything to work perfectly first time.
2. The concept of doing a trial /prototyping with extensive testing and reassessment (go/no-go) before starting on the majority seems to have been forgotten about...

 

[hwl]

Maybe, but they are designed to run high speed trains without regular stops, so not ideal for much freight... plus the FOCs aren't using much electric stock (generally preferring to run 66s under the wires).

The ones going to Bulgaria are going to get rebuilt to they are more suitable for freight.
DB are sitting on a large pile of electric locos that they don't currently have a use for and are letting them rust away.
FL and GBRf are using all the electric locos they can get their hands on (at sensible cost) and FL are probably going to take on 13 of the soon to be ex Anglia 90s.
The main issue is that very few flows can currently be electrically hauled.

That's one of those stats that sounds big when taken out of context but how does that compare to the total carbon emissions from the railway each year, the energy savings from having lighter stock, the energy benefits by attracting new passengers to quit their cars... eventually all trains need replacing eventually - whilst it's going to cost more to do it every thirty years rather than every fifty years, it's a fairly minor cost to the railway overall.

Agreed the energy efficiency vs performance of new stock is a lot better. To put this 500k tonnes into context it is equivalent less 30% of annual UK traction electricity CO2 assuming average grid electricity sourcing (the reality is nuclear sourced)

Better for LNER to have a big compatible fleet of AT300s (than a micro fleet for run just one specific service), assuming they can get the paths (especially north of Newcastle)

Especially if it allows more stops or more trains to run than with 91/mk4s



I'm not talking about getting rid of the Mk4s though; this is a thread about the 91s (which we have no proper use for now).

There'll be some use for loco hauled carriages in future but that's different from a future for thirty 140mph pure-electric locomotives (that aren't great at stop/start services)[/QUOTE] re-gear them as per EuroPheonix

 

[87015]

The main issue is that very few flows can currently be electrically hauled.

Of course they could be if the will was there. Crewe/Rugby-Ipswich via London is similar in mileage to much of the Bulgarian freight work, say Pirdop-Burgas or Sofia-Plovdiv and they are tripped into the terminals by diesels there too.

GB are quite happy to have diesels on Dagenham-Garston whilst 3 x 86/87 presumably get sent off hire this week and the others available were also sent abroad to find work. Seems likely at least two of these three will go on the same boat as the 91s.

 

[Rhydgaled]

You're letting your personal preferences for things like doors, windows and seats get in the way of the argument

My personal preferences yes, but I'm sure there are many others who share my preferences for being able to see out of the train and having comfortable seats. The latter has now been backed by an RSSB report into seat comfort, which has seat hardness/softness as one of its key measures - the seats on the 800s are quite hard. As for doors, in this case my comment was related to the aesthetics; the doors on the class 800s don't give the sleek appearance that a plug door does.

"useful" seems to be the word used on the Forum for "unquantifiable thing that I'd like but can't justify" (just like the diversionary benefits of re-opening some long abandoned line)

Well, in this case I believe it is a fact that the AC loco group are trying to get the class 89 restored to full working order. I assume this means they will want to run it and not just have it on static display somewhere - mark 4s would be a largely PRM compliant option for railtour stock working with suitable locos such as a preserved 91 and the 89 (I'm assuming a charter rake would be restored to Swallow livery so wouldn't be fully compliant due to lack of contrasting doors).

How many is that going to use up though?

Not sure, it's about 5-7 rakes each isn't it? So between 10 and 20 locos depending on how many extra locos they want as spares. Realisticlly, say 15 locos kept working in the UK and the rest exported or scrapped as long as 91110 and 91131 are kept out of the latter category.

I'm not talking about getting rid of the Mk4s though; this is a thread about the 91s (which we have no proper use for now).

There'll be some use for loco hauled carriages in future but that's different from a future for thirty 140mph pure-electric locomotives (that aren't great at stop/start services)

I agree that we don't have a proper use for the whole class 91 fleet since the DfT decided to order a large number of 801s to replace them. I just think that decision to order so many 801s was a poor one and that the IC225s should have been largely left in place until 2030 with perhaps just a couple of diagrams fewer than they had previously so they weren't quite so intensively used for the last 10 years of their life.

 

[Northhighland]

1. People are too ambitious about time lines and expect everything to work perfectly first time.
2. The concept of doing a trial /prototyping with extensive testing and reassessment (go/no-go) before starting on the majority seems to have been forgotten about...

i would agree with both points, also managing the public expectation, banding about terms like Scotlands best ever railway without having done the work to ensure delivery is at least likely in the timescales offered is really important.

Also thinking a little longer term, for example why are LNER sets more reliable, taking time to understand the scope of the works that might be required and making sure that you don't overlook the obvious, leaking roofs on 40 year old Mk3 coaches for example. If the scope is fully understood then the timescale and cost can be fully understood and good decisions can be made.

This project seems to be a tart up of the locos paintwork and then a gear change and out to work. Is that really all that is required? Rail industry seems poor at really scoping out the work fully and properly.

 

[Speed43125]

Not sure, it's about 5-7 rakes each isn't it? So between 10 and 20 locos depending on how many extra locos they want as spares. Realistically, say 15 locos kept working in the UK and the rest exported or scrapped as long as 91110 and 91131 are kept out of the latter category.

10-20 locos for 5-7 rakes? that's at least two locos per rake isn't it? or have I seriously misunderstood? Are you suggesting Top and Tailing Mk4s with 91s? I mean the work required is no doubt uneconomical, but that would sure be a sight to behold, and would no doubt improve acceleration.

 

[coppercapped]

Think we have to be a little more analytical here. Reusing existing stock is a good idea especially electric traction. Buying new has a significant cost in environmental and financial terms.

The reference to the Scotrail HST refurb is not really valid. The finished product is universally liked by the travelling public.

The problem is UK rail industry isn’t very good at managing these projects. The engineering is relatively straight forward it is everything around that we can’t make work efficiently.

What beds to change is the way we manage these projects.

On the face of it your last point would seem to be valid. I suspect that part of the problem is one of mindset and managerial expertise - the railways are a business which is essentially repetitive: hour to hour, day to day, week to week. Most of the management effort goes into ensuring that the status quo is maintained regarding reliability, time keeping and safety. Changes to these factors happens slowly - this is not meant to be derogatory but a fact of the long lead times in railway operations - civil and signal engineering, track maintenance and timetable changes are planned for months if not years in advance.

New product introduction happens comparatively rarely, but when it does it happens quickly. The skill sets needed are very different to those required for day-to-day operation. In view of the litany of delayed, poorly planned and executed introductions of new infrastructure, rolling stock and timetables over the past few years (with one or two notable exceptions) it would seem to an outside observer that such changes need much more management attention during the early phases. Judging by the public utterances of the principal players there often seems to be an unspoken hope that 'it will be all right on the night'.

I am not sure that I agree with your first point. The financial point is certainly not clear as one should distinguish between the costs of buying new and the costs on on-going operation of existing stock. Older rolling stock may well need more intensive, and therefore costly, maintenance than a new train. An obvious example is the use of dynamic braking on new stock which considerably extends the interval between brake pad changes. If one wants to get a browny point for saving the environment then the quantity of brake dust deposited over the countryside - and the passengers waiting on the platforms - is also reduced.

Older trains need mid-life updates because the product offering no longer meets current commercial requirements and/or the body shells and running gear need attention because of corrosion, cracks or parts going out of tolerance. Such work also incurs a cost - both in the work itself and the need to source alternative rolling stock to cover the services run by the stock being worked on. Mid-life updates, done at current prices rather than at the costs valid when the stock was built, then have only a limited period to recover the money spent. What is affordable is defined by the expected remaining life.

Typically over the years of operation the only parts of a passenger coach or locomotive which will last the life of the stock are the body and bogie frames. Most other components will be rebuilt or replaced - diesel locomotives are fitted with new engines (Classes 43, 47/57, 73, etc.), electric trains are repowered or thoroughly rebuilt (Class 455, dc Networkers, Central line tube stock, Class 230, Class 92, etc.), wheelsets, bearings, seats, lighting, carpets and so on will be replaced. An empty coach body weighs about eight to ten tonnes and a bogie frame between about two and five tonnes depending on the type. At the end of life these materials, aluminium or steel, can be recycled easily so the major components do have a small environmental 'footprint'.

Neither the environmental argument nor the financial argument against new build are clear cut.

 

[43096]

On the face of it your last point would seem to be valid. I suspect that part of the problem is one of mindset and managerial expertise - the railways are a business which is essentially repetitive: hour to hour, day to day, week to week. Most of the management effort goes into ensuring that the status quo is maintained regarding reliability, time keeping and safety. Changes to these factors happens slowly - this is not meant to be derogatory but a fact of the long lead times in railway operations - civil and signal engineering, track maintenance and timetable changes are planned for months if not years in advance.

New product introduction happens comparatively rarely, but when it does it happens quickly. The skill sets needed are very different to those required for day-to-day operation. In view of the litany of delayed, poorly planned and executed introductions of new infrastructure, rolling stock and timetables over the past few years (with one or two notable exceptions) it would seem to an outside observer that such changes need much more management attention during the early phases. Judging by the public utterances of the principal players there often seems to be an unspoken hope that 'it will be all right on the night'.

I think it was Gerard Fiennes who lamented that passengers measure their delays in minutes, whereas suppliers to the railway measure their delays in weeks and months.

 

[Rhydgaled]

10-20 locos for 5-7 rakes? that's at least two locos per rake isn't it? or have I seriously misunderstood? Are you suggesting Top and Tailing Mk4s with 91s? I mean the work required is no doubt uneconomical, but that would sure be a sight to behold, and would no doubt improve acceleration.

5-7 rakes each. Ie. 5-7 for LNER fast Edinburgh services and 5-7 for Grand Central's Blackpool-Euston runs. Total up to 14 rakes, 20 locos would give each TOC 3 spares which is perhaps a bit on the high side, 10 locos would be 3 spares if only one TOC went ahead, or both TOCs if no spares (other than a spare rake including loco) were required.

 

[Speed43125]

5-7 rakes each. Ie. 5-7 for LNER fast Edinburgh services and 5-7 for Grand Central's Blackpool-Euston runs. Total up to 14 rakes, 20 locos would give each TOC 3 spares which is perhaps a bit on the high side, 10 locos would be 3 spares if only one TOC went ahead, or both TOCs if no spares (other than a spare rake including loco) were required.

AH. I did seriously misunderstand then. I take it neither are going to happen now though? at least not with 91s.

 

[hwl]

AH. I did seriously misunderstand then. I take it neither are going to happen now though? at least not with 91s.

LNER are going for more Azumas instead. "Apparently" the new extra units will be 10 car IET which would be useful to throw on to the busiest services (Not just KGX-Edinburgh with limited stopps) to add an extra 70+ seats over a 9 car which should be a nice little earner.
The Blackpool - Euston are going to use some 90s due to significant 110mph max running and better acceleration.

 

[Failed Unit]

LNER are going for more Azumas instead. "Apparently" the new extra units will be 10 car IET which would be useful to throw on to the busiest services (Not just KGX-Edinburgh with limited stopps) to add an extra 70+ seats over a 9 car which should be a nice little earner.
The Blackpool - Euston are going to use some 90s due to significant 110mph max running and better acceleration.

I did wonder if 9 car would be enough when existing services such as 1100 London - Edinburgh are often full. So not much room for growth. (Although the extra services will add many extra seats)

 

[hwl]

I did wonder if 9 car would be enough when existing services such as 1100 London - Edinburgh are often full. So not much room for growth. (Although the extra services will add many extra seats)

The interesting bit is that post rebuild P0-8 and KGX could all take 11car IEP if they existed, (most could at the moment, 5+8 being the biggest issues). Hence a medium term thought is extending all electric only 9 or 10car units to 11car.

 

[tbtc]

Think we have to be a little more analytical here. Reusing existing stock is a good idea especially electric traction. Buying new has a significant cost in environmental and financial terms

It's not always that simple though.

There are clear financial and environmental costs associated with a mid-life refurb to squeeze another five/ten years out of thirty year old trains, which need to be considered in assessing the cost of building brand new (energy efficient, lighter) trains.

The reference to the Scotrail HST refurb is not really valid. The finished product is universally liked by the travelling public

It's valid, in that this is a thread where people have all sorts of well meaning suggestions for how we could upgrade/convert/change the 91s to find a new task they could potentially do (to bring up the failure of other projects to refurbish mid-life trains).

It might be an uncomfortable truth, but it needs pointing out.

GB are quite happy to have diesels on Dagenham-Garston whilst 3 x 86/87 presumably get sent off hire this week and the others available were also sent abroad to find work. Seems likely at least two of these three will go on the same boat as the 91s.

Frustrating stuff.

My personal preferences yes, but I'm sure there are many others who share my preferences for being able to see out of the train and having comfortable seats. The latter has now been backed by an RSSB report into seat comfort, which has seat hardness/softness as one of its key measures - the seats on the 800s are quite hard. As for doors, in this case my comment was related to the aesthetics; the doors on the class 800s don't give the sleek appearance that a plug door does

There are never going to be seats or door positions or window positions that suit everyone - however strong views some may have - but there are requirements for the crashworthy nature of new seats, like it or not

Well, in this case I believe it is a fact that the AC loco group are trying to get the class 89 restored to full working order. I assume this means they will want to run it and not just have it on static display somewhere - mark 4s would be a largely PRM compliant option for railtour stock working with suitable locos such as a preserved 91 and the 89 (I'm assuming a charter rake would be restored to Swallow livery so wouldn't be fully compliant due to lack of contrasting doors)

Sure, let them play trainsets and everything, but this is an irrelevance to the main working railway, a distraction, sideshow

Not sure, it's about 5-7 rakes each isn't it? So between 10 and 20 locos depending on how many extra locos they want as spares. Realisticlly, say 15 locos kept working in the UK and the rest exported or scrapped as long as 91110 and 91131 are kept out of the latter category.

It's a three hour trip from Blackpool to London - just how many services a day do you think Open Access will be running (to justify seven rakes of carriages)?

And, if you want a 91 on the WCML then it'll be limited to 110mph, and if you're going to run 110mph loco hauled trains then surely you'd just use a 90 (rather than crowbarring 91s)?

I agree that we don't have a proper use for the whole class 91 fleet since the DfT decided to order a large number of 801s to replace them. I just think that decision to order so many 801s was a poor one and that the IC225s should have been largely left in place until 2030 with perhaps just a couple of diagrams fewer than they had previously so they weren't quite so intensively used for the last 10 years of their life.

I'm guessing you've not ridden a 91-hauled train in recent times? The sets are tired.

In older days, they'd have been cascaded away to secondary routes (like was tried with the Deltic on TransPennine, or the WCNML 86s on the GEML), but there are no suitable secondary routes. Time to face facts.

 

[Rhydgaled]

It's a three hour trip from Blackpool to London - just how many services a day do you think Open Access will be running (to justify seven rakes of carriages)?

And, if you want a 91 on the WCML then it'll be limited to 110mph, and if you're going to run 110mph loco hauled trains then surely you'd just use a 90 (rather than crowbarring 91s)?

Appologies, the details of the Grand Central WCML open access proposal obviously haven't sunk into my memory banks. I thought I'd read 5-7 sets (to cover 4-6 diagrams) but perhaps my memory has let me down on that. The application to ORR proposed using 91s if I recall correctly so as sensible as using 90s appears using 91s is not totally outlandish either. Similarly with the use of IC225s on Kings Cross - Edinburgh fast services, it was proposed by a real-life TOC and thus is/was a credible option.

I'm guessing you've not ridden a 91-hauled train in recent times? The sets are tired.

Last time would have been just under a year ago, when I rode on one from Edinburgh to Glasgow. I'm not sure a passenger would notice whether a train is mechanically tired, I don't remember the interior looking tired but as I understand it that's not what you mean.

In older days, they'd have been cascaded away to secondary routes (like was tried with the Deltic on TransPennine, or the WCNML 86s on the GEML), but there are no suitable secondary routes. Time to face facts.

In the post you quoted I agreed that "we don't have a proper use for the whole class 91 fleet", that is a fact I've had to face since the DfT decided on the 801 order. There were other suitable routes for the mark 4s (GEML and possibly MML) but not for the 91s. That is why I feel that ordering so many 801s for the ECML was a poor choice but we are where we are and most of the 91s have no useful purpose anymore in the UK as a result.

 

[hooverboy]

Appologies, the details of the Grand Central WCML open access proposal obviously haven't sunk into my memory banks. I thought I'd read 5-7 sets (to cover 4-6 diagrams) but perhaps my memory has let me down on that. The application to ORR proposed using 91s if I recall correctly so as sensible as using 90s appears using 91s is not totally outlandish either. Similarly with the use of IC225s on Kings Cross - Edinburgh fast services, it was proposed by a real-life TOC and thus is/was a credible option.

Last time would have been just under a year ago, when I rode on one from Edinburgh to Glasgow. I'm not sure a passenger would notice whether a train is mechanically tired, I don't remember the interior looking tired but as I understand it that's not what you mean.

In the post you quoted I agreed that "we don't have a proper use for the whole class 91 fleet", that is a fact I've had to face since the DfT decided on the 801 order. There were other suitable routes for the mark 4s (GEML and possibly MML) but not for the 91s. That is why I feel that ordering so many 801s for the ECML was a poor choice but we are where we are and most of the 91s have no useful purpose anymore in the UK as a result.

given that everything is running behind schedule (aventra etc), what's the betting that GA can't release+upgrade the 360's in time,and EMR will be looking for an alternative interim solution for their electrics- cl90/91+mk4 set+dvt may yet have a future in UK!!

90's are being poached for freight,but the 91's will command a fairly cheap lease rate...good for the extra year or two MML would have need of them.
8x 8 car sets would probably suffice for the corby's.not exactly being flogged either at 110mph running.

 

[Speed43125]

given that everything is running behind schedule (aventra etc), what's the betting that GA can't release+upgrade the 360's in time,and EMR will be looking for an alternative interim solution for their electrics- cl90/91+mk4 set+dvt may yet have a future in UK!!

90's are being poached for freight,but the 91's will command a fairly cheap lease rate...good for the extra year or two MML would have need of them.
8x 8 car sets would probably suffice for the corby's.not exactly being flogged either at 110mph running.

So, are a 90 and 91 controls virtually the same, and can they be operated with a 'common type certificate' as it were, or would additional training be needed?

 

[JonathanH]

I'm guessing you've not ridden a 91-hauled train in recent times? The sets are tired.

In older days, they'd have been cascaded away to secondary routes (like was tried with the Deltic on TransPennine, or the WCNML 86s on the GEML), but there are no suitable secondary routes. Time to face facts.

Last time would have been just under a year ago, when I rode on one from Edinburgh to Glasgow. I'm not sure a passenger would notice whether a train is mechanically tired, I don't remember the interior looking tired but as I understand it that's not what you mean.

I think the interiors of the Mk4s are still good despite their intensive use. The thing which annoys me about travelling on 91+Mk4 rakes is the slow acceleration from each station and that should be improved with their replacements.

 

[Jonny]

Are the Mk4s in better condition than the locos that hauled them? Just that I've only heard of them having interior refurbishments.

 

[The Ham]

Agreed the energy efficiency vs performance of new stock is a lot better. To put this 500k tonnes into context it is equivalent less 30% of annual UK traction electricity CO2 assuming average grid electricity sourcing (the reality is nuclear sourced)

According to ORR total passenger train emissions was 2,765 KTonnes, which means that 500KTonnes would be 18% not 30%.

Now whilst they make up 4% to 5% of the fleet it would suggest that even to double the amount of emissions due to construction of new trains would require the replacement of trains every 5 years, given that generally trains last 25 years then new trains probably account (on average) for an uplift of 20% over traction emissions. Even allowing for increasing the number of trains running.

However it should be noted that due to ongoing reduction in traction emissions this is likely to increase over time.

Compare this to cars which produce 5x the emissions per mile per user and tend to have much shorter lifespans and it's clear which mode of travel is better to use.

 

[hwl]

According to ORR total passenger train emissions was 2,765 KTonnes, which means that 500KTonnes would be 18% not 30%.

Now whilst they make up 4% to 5% of the fleet it would suggest that even to double the amount of emissions due to construction of new trains would require the replacement of trains every 5 years, given that generally trains last 25 years then new trains probably account (on average) for an uplift of 20% over traction emissions. Even allowing for increasing the number of trains running.

However it should be noted that due to ongoing reduction in traction emissions this is likely to increase over time.

Compare this to cars which produce 5x the emissions per mile per user and tend to have much shorter lifespans and it's clear which mode of travel is better to use.

I was using on some older on-train only total data (no CP5 e.g. GW or Scottish) rather than total system including losses for my quick estimate.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

To myself if looks like Mk4s could be going to go towards extra TfW sets to work as many long distance routes as possible to release 175s to work diagrams which other stock that is PRM compliant currently operate to work Pacer diagrams.

With regards to the 91s, is the fact that none were ordered for the WCML the nail in the coffin? They're too much of a micro fleet to be able to slot into the existing system and there isn't enough electric only freight to give them a lease of life there.

 

[GrimShady]

For those stating that the MkIVs are knackered, can you please explain in more detail? They are 10 years younger than MkIII after all, shouldn't they be good for another 10?

IMO We should have ordered a UK gauge Railjet along with suitable electric traction (TRAXX) and diesel locos for beyond Edinburgh.

 

[hexagon789]

For those stating that the MkIVs are knackered, can you please explain in more detail? They are 10 years younger than MkIII after all, shouldn't they be good for another 10?

They are in a much better state than the equivalent Mk3s, LNER's and GA for example.

The "knackered-ness" is mostly superficial, a deep clean and interior refresh would solve that.