What is the future for the class 90?

[JonathanH]

At the present time would I be right in saying 100 mph is only permitted east of Chelmsford? That being the case how many minutes would be saved by the extra 10 mph? Also wouldn't class 360s or 379s provide more seats and a faster service than the class 90 sets do now ?

One way to replace the Norwich sets would be to transfer the 30 379s to the route, run 12 car to Norwich where demand requires it but otherwise detach units at Ipswich - 27 diagrammed 379s would give 5 12-car and 6 8-car formations. Backfill Stansted with refurbished 317s and then backfill the 317s on Hertford / Bishop Stortford slows with revamped 315s released by the Crossrail units. Maybe 315s could also do Harwich / Walton / Southminster shuttles

Easy option all dealt with using the existing fleets.

 

[D6975]

In what way is it rubbish? We're not talking about the ECML. If you're trying to tell me that a Mk3/90 set is comparable to a Desiro or Electrostar you're mad.

You're the one who's mad, or at least can't read.
I made no mention whatsoever of Desiros or electrostars.
I commented that 90s are quicker off the mark than 91s, which is incontravertably true.

 

[Kettledrum]

In a loose sense of the word, it is crimimal that the DfT are planning to replace the IC225 fleet with no plan of what they will do afterwards, and that they are planning to replace some of the 540+ seat 8-carriage IC125 trains on the GWML with a fleet of mainly 315 seat 5-car units. I have an idea which could solve both problems, but how to get the DfT to listen to me?

Cascading the IC225 fleet to the MML would in theroy solve the problem of what to do with them, but:
Thus, the obvious thing to do was look for places where the 91's gearing would not let them down. I guess that is routes with potential for 140mph (without tilt) and long distances between stops. The first of these criteria (top speed) narrows the choice down to the ECML and GWML. The second (distance between stops) probably rules out the GWML, although they could be helpful for the London Pembroke Dock services which IEPs will not be capable of.

Basically though, the best place for 91s is probably the ECML expresses to Scotland (potential for 140mph, and first stop York(!) on some services). Not nearlly as much accelerating to do than the MML which would find the IEPs ordered to replace the IC225s useful. But, with the longest EMT 222s being 7-car, they probably only need 7/8-car IEPs, which saves the carriages needed to lengthen most of the GWML bi-modes to 9-car. EMT isn't all 222s though, they also have IC125 rakes which could be replaced by IC225s, leaving some 9-car electric IEPs on the ECML for the services for more stops than the Scottish expresses.

Was that before or after DfT decided to replace the IC225s? If there are IC225s off lease, do they still have their options open?

The CP5 Delivery Plan update for September has now been published:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/cp5-del...ivery-plan.pdf

On page 123 It states Network Rail's assumptions for rolling stock on the MML once electrification is complete as being:

 "The following rolling stock is being assumed; Class 377 up to 12 cars, multiple pantographs (London to Corby); 10 x 26m vehicles, multiple pantographs; and electric locomotive, single pantograph and 23m coaches (1 dvt & 9 cars)."

Isn't that the plan for class 91's

 

[Rhydgaled]

The CP5 Delivery Plan update for September has now been published:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/cp5-del...ivery-plan.pdf

On page 123 It states Network Rail's assumptions for rolling stock on the MML once electrification is complete as being:

 "The following rolling stock is being assumed; Class 377 up to 12 cars, multiple pantographs (London to Corby); 10 x 26m vehicles, multiple pantographs; and electric locomotive, single pantograph and 23m coaches (1 dvt & 9 cars)."

Isn't that the plan for class 91's

The link doesn't work. Also, the mention of 10x26m vehicles suggests IEP, while electric locomotive could be 90, 91 or maybe even 86/87/88. In other words, it doesn't sound like they know what would be used.

 

[cjmillsnun]

The link doesn't work. Also, the mention of 10x26m vehicles suggests IEP, while electric locomotive could be 90, 91 or maybe even 86/87/88. In other words, it doesn't sound like they know what would be used.

No, but it does fit quite conveniently with a fleet of trains that will be retired from front line service on the ECML. It is a reasonable assumption to make, especially as there aren't many Mk3s and the Mk3 DVTs that are left are in a poor state.

Loco wise, there are probably only 2 existing electric fleets potentially around that will have enough locos to supply the need, and that's likely to be 90 or 91. As 90s are 110MPH locos and parts of MML are now 125MPH, it's a reasonable bet it'll be 91s.

From the sound of it, there will be 20 odd rakes left of the Mk4s, I'm guessing that they'll be going to the GEML.

 

[captainbigun]

You're the one who's mad, or at least can't read.
I made no mention whatsoever of Desiros or electrostars.
I commented that 90s are quicker off the mark than 91s, which is incontravertably true.

Right, and that's relevant how? GE not EC!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Correct but they are permitted to do 90mph between London and Shenfield these days since pantograph modifications.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Just because the RUS says 90s might / might not be the future as the case may be doesn't mean the operators or the DfT will take notice.

For my two penny worth and in my personal opinion I think the 90s will go to freight duties and be replaced with (new) Class 88s or Traxx locos. The Mark IIIs will be refurbished similar to Chiltern and carry on for a while yet as this will almost certainly be cheaper than buying new trains.

Chiltern mods are not on the cards, nor are plug doors. The Mk3s are too problematic now, they will be patched up until 2020ish and that will be that. It'll be units like everything else.

 

[Harbon 1]

Right, and that's relevant how? GE not EC!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Chiltern mods are not on the cards, nor are plug doors. The Mk3s are too problematic now, they will be patched up until 2020ish and that will be that. It'll be units like everything else.

All railway track is the same, a class 90 will out accellerate a 91 on any track no matter whether it's on the ECML or GEML.

Isn't it true the 91s can accelerate faster from 100-125 than a voyager or HST?

Why use units on the outer extremities of the route though? Why split them when a long distance service can help out in the busier commuter areas between the bigger stations, then just get out of the way on the onager stretches of line. Aren't LHCS cheaper to lease anyway?

 

[Rhydgaled]

No, but it does fit quite conveniently with a fleet of trains that will be retired from front line service on the ECML. It is a reasonable assumption to make, especially as there aren't many Mk3s and the Mk3 DVTs that are left are in a poor state.

Loco wise, there are probably only 2 existing electric fleets potentially around that will have enough locos to supply the need, and that's likely to be 90 or 91. As 90s are 110MPH locos and parts of MML are now 125MPH, it's a reasonable bet it'll be 91s.

It does sound a reasonable assumption, but there isn't all that much 125mph is there? And the stations are much closer together than on the ECML, which is why I'd be concerned for the future of the 91s (with their poor starting acceleration) if the mark4s are going to the MML.

From the sound of it, there will be 20 odd rakes left of the Mk4s, I'm guessing that they'll be going to the GEML.

???? I believe there are currently 32 EMT Intercity diagrams, which at a guess could be reduced to 27 if they stop running units in multiple (which, I would think, if the 9-coach mark 4 rakes replace the 222s is a perfectly reasonable assumption). East Coast I think have 26 IC225 sets diagramed, so the MML would take the lot, with nothing left to cascade to the GEML. Even if the MML only needs 8-coach IC225s rather than the full 9-coach rakes, you would only have 30 coaches (6x 5-coach rakes) left over. Enough to replace the odd LHCS mark3 rakes used by ATW and the like but not nearlly enough for the GEML.

Unless of course they have decided to use the IC225s to replace EMT's IC125s and 800s/801s to replace the 222s, in which case there would be spare IC225s.

 

[Kettledrum]

The link doesn't work. Also, the mention of 10x26m vehicles suggests IEP, while electric locomotive could be 90, 91 or maybe even 86/87/88. In other words, it doesn't sound like they know what would be used.

Sorry about the dodgy hyperlink. Try this one instead

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/cp5-delivery-plan/cp5-enhancements-delivery-plan.pdf

I've tested this one and it has just worked for me.

 

[ainsworth74]

I once, on the back of a fag packet, worked out that there should be enough IC225s to replace HSTs on EMT and the existing 90+Mk3 sets on the GEML with basically nothing left over.

 

[Kettledrum]

It does sound a reasonable assumption, but there isn't all that much 125mph is there? And the stations are much closer together than on the ECML, which is why I'd be concerned for the future of the 91s (with their poor starting acceleration) if the mark4s are going to the MML.

???? I believe there are currently 32 EMT Intercity diagrams, which at a guess could be reduced to 27 if they stop running units in multiple (which, I would think, if the 9-coach mark 4 rakes replace the 222s is a perfectly reasonable assumption). East Coast I think have 26 IC225 sets diagramed, so the MML would take the lot, with nothing left to cascade to the GEML. Even if the MML only needs 8-coach IC225s rather than the full 9-coach rakes, you would only have 30 coaches (6x 5-coach rakes) left over. Enough to replace the odd LHCS mark3 rakes used by ATW and the like but not nearlly enough for the GEML.

Unless of course they have decided to use the IC225s to replace EMT's IC125s and 800s/801s to replace the 222s, in which case there would be spare IC225s.

Neither the 90s or the 91s are really suitable for the MML for a whole host of reasons, and that's why the preference of the TOC and the many others is for new EMUs. If you excuse the puns, the DfT appear to have an Ostrich mentality and are burying their heads in the sand if they think the 90s and 91s would be suitable.

Perhaps they are worried about putting all their eggs in one basket with the IEP programme.

On a more sensible note, class 90s are surely too slow, and some of the reasons why the 91s are unsuitable are:

(1) poor acceleration, not really suited to the MML where stations are much closer together - although I accept the IC225s could probably replace the HSTs that do some of the diagrams that normally have fewer stops. EMT only have 12 HST rakes, and the xx15 departure from St Pancras to Nottingham is always an HST, as most of the other routes are routinely operated by class 222 units.

2) platform space at St Pancras when two trains depart from the same platform minutes apart - this currently works for services run by 5 car 222 units, but you can't do it with IC225 sets.

3) Some trains run as two 5 car 222 units coupled together giving 484 seats.
The IC225 units currently run with 535 seats as class 91, 9 coaches and a DVT which is too long for the MML platforms, so you'd have to lose a coach and could end up with fewer seats, but still enough weight to slow the IC225 unit down, so you might not be able to keep to the timetable that the class 222 units are able to make with their frequent stops.

It would be good to hear from the DfT what the plan really is and how it will work.

 

[notadriver]

Surely a class 91 with 8 coaches and a DVT outperforms a standard 2+8 HST?

 

[bigdelboy]

Surely a class 91 with 8 coaches and a DVT outperforms a standard 2+8 HST?

I wonder if the limiting factor for a 91 (or 90) for that matter is wheelslip.

HST has 8 powered axles, a 91 has 4. For all I know though the '91 might have better traction control.

I believe the MML also has a few more gradients relative to ECML.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Sorry about the dodgy hyperlink. Try this one instead

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/cp5-delivery-plan/cp5-enhancements-delivery-plan.pdf

I've tested this one and it has just worked for me.

It worked. Definiately sounds like Network Rail really don't have a clue what will be used though, but are guessing either IEP or IC225 will be used, or a mixture of both.

the DfT appear to have an Ostrich mentality and are burying their heads in the sand if they think the 90s and 91s would be suitable.

Wouldn't be supprised if they are plotting IEP for MML actually, it is certainly one of the types Network Rail seem to be assuming as possibilities. I personally think IC225s (91s + mrk4s) ought to be suitable for replacing the IC125s but have my doubts about them being capable of replacing 222s. Mix of IEP and IC225 on both MML and ECML would probably be the most sensible option in my opinion.

 

[dosxuk]

Definiately sounds like Network Rail really don't have a clue what will be used though, but are guessing either IEP or IC225 will be used, or a mixture of both.

To be fair, they can hardly wait around until the orders / leases have been signed to get on with the design work for the electrification. They'll have to make assumptions now on what the possibilities are going to be in order to set the design specifications. I wouldn't read too much into that statement as being a concrete plan.

 

[59CosG95]

I once, on the back of a fag packet, worked out that there should be enough IC225s to replace HSTs on EMT and the existing 90+Mk3 sets on the GEML with basically nothing left over.

Not too sure what the fag packet livery would've looked like after the calculation!

 

[Jonny]

87002 is still used by charter trains now and then; but I don't think it can pull freight on a regular basis.

It probably could, but I suspect that the FOC would have to cover all the wear and tear costs in the hire package - which might be an economic/financial can't.

Then there's the slight matter of traction knowledge on tap-changer locomotives, which Class 87s (well Class 87/0s) are but Class 90s are not.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Is there any new regs since the 92s were built that a new build to the same design would fall foul of? If the 90s are still usable they could do fast passenger trains and lighter freight trains and a new build of 92s do the heavy freight runs and slow passenger trains