Is the class 91 fleet going through a bad patch ?

[HLE]

Cheaper to build new

 

[Railperf]

These locos are 30 years old now so unless a serious offer comes in to take them on lease following their standing down from LNER, I cannot see Eversholt or anyone else spending huge sums of money on these other than to maintain their reliability with LNER.

 

[superkev]

I suspect with the new Azumas looming maintenance may be cut back a bit.
Shame there likely heading for scrap after never having used there 140mph capability except on test.
K

 

[Railperf]

Cheaper to build new

Operators seem to want multiple units over loco hauled stock. TransPennine Express excepted.

 

[nat67]

I've never known it be anything other than Leeds.

And Newark North Gate!

 

[Railperf]

I suspect with the new Azumas looming maintenance may be cut back a bit.
Shame there likely heading for scrap after never having used there 140mph capability except on test.
K

Back in the day there were not so many intermediate stops and fewer trains competing for paths so 140 mph running would have been feasible.. if they had invested in in cab signalling . Now there are so many services with intermediate stops it is hard enough to get a clean 125 mph path never mind a 140 mph one.

And potentially the 91's would have been even more unreliable running day in and day out at 140mph.

 

[yorkie]

And Newark North Gate!

Ok I will rephrase that; it's only normally on the Leeds to London route (on which Newark is an intermediate station en route). Now I think about it I did once see* it on the York route.

* Even then I didn't actually see it; I was on the train and just before departure someone mentioned that it was 90 hauled.

Of course unusual events are possible given exceptional circumstances, but the controllers will know what workings are best to allocate them to, wherever possible.

 

[Railperf]

Yes the Newark stopping services seems to be the favourites for substituting a class 90 in place of the booked 91. Checking real-time trains suggest it is only the Stevenage to Peterborough section where the 90s lose time over the 91's or HST due to their 110mph limit. But there is some standing time at Peterborough on the down service. And unless it's really wet the average time loss seems to be between 3 to 5 minutes.

 

[greyman42]

Yes the Newark stopping services seems to be the favourites for substituting a class 90 in place of the booked 91. Checking real-time trains suggest it is only the Stevenage to Peterborough section where the 90s lose time over the 91's or HST due to their 110mph limit. But there is some standing time at Peterborough on the down service. And unless it's really wet the average time loss seems to be between 3 to 5 minutes.

The 90s have better acceleration than the 91s so can just about keep to time on the Newark and leeds services.

 

[Marton]

I must be lucky as in all my years of traveling the ECML I've never had a 225 set breakdown on me.

I will miss them awfully when they go.

Same here.

 

[Railperf]

The 90s have better acceleration than the 91s so can just about keep to time on the Newark and leeds services.

A Class 90 hauled consist can accelerate to 4 miles in around 3.5 minutes around 20 to 30 seconds quicker than a 91, which is itself 5 to 10 seconds quicker than a 2+8 HST. A Class 350 or 360 EMU could better the Class 90's timing by a further 20 to 30 seconds! On the ECML, this is only a benefit on shorter station to station sections.
The problem with 90's as mentioned before - is that they struggle with wheelslip in damp conditions - which means drivers cannot apply full power as readily as an HST. Most ECML drivers that sign all 3 types of traction seem to prefer driving HST's followed by 91's and 90's in that order.

Kings Cross to Stevenage in 19.5 minutes requires no more than 110mph running, but HST's and 91's usually run up to 115mph. Any gain in acceleration would be lost by the slightly slower running at only 110 vs 115mph
Stevenage to peterborough is timed for 125mph running - a Class 90 or any other traction limited to only 110mph will lose at least 3 minutes here compared to 125mph running.
Peterborough to Grantham is only 25 miles with the last 5 miles only allowing between 100 and 115mph. I reckon a small time loss would apply here.

Grantham to Newark is even shorter at only 15 miles and the first 4 to 5 miles out of Grantham are again limited to 100 and 115mph.

Services to Leeds would likely lose a bit of time as the majority of the 35 miles from Newark to Doncaster are mainly 125mph - with only a few miles of 110 and 115mph running.

The Doncaster to Leeds line has a speed limit of no more than 100mph - so it is likely a 90 could be slightly quicker along that section.

 

[jopsuk]

5 to 10 seconds quicker than a 2+8 HST.

How much difference does it make compared to a 2+9, that being the East Coast formation since the early 2000s?

 

[greyman42]

A Class 90 hauled consist can accelerate to 4 miles in around 3.5 minutes around 20 to 30 seconds quicker than a 91, ...

Thanks for that breakdown, very informative and easy to understand.

 

[whhistle]

Cheaper to build new

Someone should tell that to Porterbrook and the 769s.

 

[nicolaboo]

I've caught these services from Wakefield Westgate a number of times recently and they are usually late going on to Leeds.
91s - minutes late
9, 14, 12, 1, 0, 16, 2, 3, 0, 17, 5, 2, 2, 19, 3, 41.
HSTs - minutes late
20, 10, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 0, 10.
90s - minutes late
26, 0, 14.

So all three can keep to time.

 

[Railperf]

I've caught these services from Wakefield Westgate a number of times recently and they are usually late going on to Leeds.
91s - minutes late
9, 14, 12, 1, 0, 16, 2, 3, 0, 17, 5, 2, 2, 19, 3, 41.
HSTs - minutes late
20, 10, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 0, 10.
90s - minutes late
26, 0, 14.

So all three can keep to time.

So much for a 'right time' railway!!