What will happen to the VTEC plans for retaining some MK4s?

[James James]

Certainly not. Since other Scottish Inter-City services are getting HSTs, which some consider to be loco-hauled services, why should Edinburgh - Glasgow be stuck with an inferior EMU service?

Because the loco and DVT will eat up precious platform space at the Glasgow end.

I don't really see the issue with refurbing the locos though. We've got some perfectly usable 50-year old locos where I live, and other locos that are the same age as the 91 are being refurbed for another 30 years of service. UK loading gauge probably makes the refurb investment even more worthwhile than on the continent (given that locos are probably more expensive for the UK).

 

[D365]

I don't really see the issue with refurbing the locos though.

1) What electric services would the Class 91 be suitable for?
2) Why would a Class 90, 92 or 88 not be suitable?

 

[43096]

What is inferior about the Class 385 (from a passenger perspective) compared to an IC225?

We don't know yet, as we can't travel on a 385!

 

[James James]

1) What electric services would the Class 91 be suitable for?
2) Why would a Class 90, 92 or 88 not be suitable?

1) Any service.
2) All 3 of those can't achieve 200km/h, and you'd want to retain that capability if partly operating on the ECML (with the 92 being the slowest of the bunch - although it would at least permit operating south of London). And how many of each are there?

 

[D365]

1) Any service.

For anything other than 125mph a Class 90 is mechanically superior.

2) All 3 of those can't achieve 200km/h, and you'd want to retain that capability if partly operating on the ECML (with the 92 being the slowest of the bunch - although it would at least permit operating south of London). And how many of each are there?

Assuming you've not ordered something from Hitachi or CAF for your new service. Away from the ECML, where will a Class 91 prove suitable?

 

[CosherB]

Export the whole 91 and Mk4 fleet. Just to stop the daft ideas on here!

 

[hexagon789]

Export the whole 91 and Mk4 fleet. Just to stop the daft ideas on here!

Reguage them to 5ft 3in, electrify Dublin-Cork and then IÉ can use them?

 

[Bornin1980s]

I suspect the locos could be exported, but not the mk4 carriages, as their high floors and small bodies are specifically built for uk infrastructure.

 

[hexagon789]

I suspect the locos could be exported, but not the mk4 carriages, as their high floors and small bodies are specifically built for uk infrastructure.

Trouble is where would you send them, really they are only suitable for long-distance InterCity routes.

 

[physics34]

Push pull the class 91 with a class 442

 

[James James]

Trouble is where would you send them, really they are only suitable for long-distance InterCity routes.

Plenty of countries use Intercity stock like that for routes with stops every 10-15 minutes. Like E-G which was suggested above (I commute on a similar route).

And Cambridge is non-stop for 45 minutes.

Now the disjointed UK rolling stock system setup means that things like this aren't likely to happen (especially in combination with refurbs), long-term usage does seem a lot easier when one company controls the stock itself, and both its old and new routes... But hey, we can dream of sensible UK rail management, right?

 

[James James]

For anything other than 125mph a Class 90 is mechanically superior.

Assuming you've not ordered something from Hitachi or CAF for your new service. Away from the ECML, where will a Class 91 prove suitable?

You still haven't explained where we can find 30 class 90s doing nothing.

 

[D365]

You still haven't explained where we can find 30 class 90s doing nothing.

Greater Anglia’s Class 90s will be coming spare shortly. DB have a number sitting about.

You also haven’t explained who could possibly be interested in 30 “well-used” electric locomotives.

 

[D2007wsm]

I know the MK4s at present are used by DVTs where it is impractical to use them for portion working as 2 DVTs or a DVT and a logo in the middle of the platform would eat up two much space. Couldn't the end carriages which have no gangways on one end, be converted to a DBSO similar to the MK2s? Using recycled components from a DVT? This would allow portion working with a lot less wasted space.

 

[The Ham]

I know the MK4s at present are used by DVTs where it is impractical to use them for portion working as 2 DVTs or a DVT and a logo in the middle of the platform would eat up two much space. Couldn't the end carriages which have no gangways on one end, be converted to a DBSO similar to the MK2s? Using recycled components from a DVT? This would allow portion working with a lot less wasted space.

This could work (people even suggested it with the 442 cab vehicles when the was discussions about what use they could have) however any split would then be limited to 100mph and you'd run the risk of two halves joing back together either in the wrong order or with two fronts or two backs. This would then also limit then to 115mph.

As such could be useful where the line speed isn't higher than this or only had short sections where it's higher.

By having two locos on a long rake it would be fairly quick off the mark, however track access charges would be fairly significant and so lease costs would have to be very low to make it better than a new build.

 

[D365]

100mph coaches that can split and join... where have I heard that before!

I think Eversholt will be more concerned with offering the Renatus units to future franchises rather than pushing the Mk4s.

 

[The Ham]

100mph coaches that can split and join... where have I heard that before!

I think Eversholt will be more concerned with offering the Renatus units to future franchises rather than pushing the Mk4s.

I think that TOC's would be more concerned about taking them when offered.

Unless they are in the market for diesel trains, then they could be of interest. However I would suggest that new build would likely still to be cheaper, unless it was only required for a short time. Given the stall in more electrification that can't be guaranteed and so new build could be safer.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You still haven't explained where we can find 30 class 90s doing nothing.

There are a number dumped a Crewe in various stages of decay, and the Norwich ones will be surplus in the same timescale as the Mk4s.

 

[hexagon789]

Plenty of countries use Intercity stock like that for routes with stops every 10-15 minutes. Like E-G which was suggested above (I commute on a similar route).

And Cambridge is non-stop for 45 minutes.

Now the disjointed UK rolling stock system setup means that things like this aren't likely to happen (especially in combination with refurbs), long-term usage does seem a lot easier when one company controls the stock itself, and both its old and new routes... But hey, we can dream of sensible UK rail management, right?

Often such InterCity stock accelerates like an EMU though, 91s being geared for 140+ mph are a bit sluggish to accelerate, slower than an HST to about 60 mph.

I will say I don't want to scrap them if possible, I like them (see my avatar!). Personally use on an electrified MML is one of the more sensible options in my view, if it becomes possible soon enough which I don' think it will.

 

[USRailFan]

There are a number dumped a Crewe in various stages of decay, and the Norwich ones will be surplus in the same timescale as the Mk4s.

Wouldn't Freightliner want them, Class 86s don't live forever... Or is it all diesel now?

 

[bastien]

I know. How about using them for open access services on the GWML? Nine carriages, double headed 91s to keep time, running Cardiff, Newport, Parkway, Didcot, Reading and terminating
at Maidenhead. Everyone gets off there and changes to Crossrail.

 

[USRailFan]

I know. How about using them for open access services on the GWML? Nine carriages, double headed 91s to keep time, running Cardiff, Newport, Parkway, Didcot, Reading and terminating
at Maidenhead. Everyone gets off there and changes to Crossrail.

Wasn't there actual plans to use them in open-access services on the WCML? I think it still says so on the IC225 page on Wikipedia...

 

[hexagon789]

Wasn't there actual plans to use them in open-access services on the WCML? I think it still says so on the IC225 page on Wikipedia...

Alliance Rail have an open access plan for using shortened 225s on services to Blackpool.

 

[gingertom]

I know. How about using them for open access services on the GWML? Nine carriages, double headed 91s to keep time, running Cardiff, Newport, Parkway, Didcot, Reading and terminating
at Maidenhead. Everyone gets off there and changes to Crossrail.

Use the pair of 91s top and tail and get rid of the DVT and its associated weight. GWML has heavy duty OLE to allow for 2x pantographs at 125mph with pairs of 5-car 800s. How you'd turn it back at Maidenhead could be a challenge though so terminating at Reading and change to Crossrail there might be easier?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Wouldn't Freightliner want them, Class 86s don't live forever... Or is it all diesel now?

Nobody seems to want them, they've been there for years.
Must be at least 6 visible from the Chester line in the International (sic) depot.

 

[bastien]

Use the pair of 91s top and tail and get rid of the DVT and its associated weight. GWML has heavy duty OLE to allow for 2x pantographs at 125mph with pairs of 5-car 800s. How you'd turn it back at Maidenhead could be a challenge though so terminating at Reading and change to Crossrail there might be easier?

Or terminate at Hayes and Harrington! Direct change to Heathrow, and the empty stock can go off to Old Oak Common.

 

[Grumpy]

I don't understand what the problems are with the 91's/mk4's. The coaches are now much more pleasant than when first introduced. I prefer travelling in one of these to a Voyager/Meridian. Why not simply leave the 91/MK4's on the ECML and use the 800's currently lined up for the East Coast on Cross Country and MML where they can use their Bi-mode capabilities? I realise you would have to keep a small number of 800's on the ECML for the likes of Harrogate and Inverness but surely this is a good opportunity to offload/reform the Voyagers

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I don't understand what the problems are with the 91's/mk4's. The coaches are now much more pleasant than when first introduced. I prefer travelling in one of these to a Voyager/Meridian. Why not simply leave the 91/MK4's on the ECML and use the 800's currently lined up for the East Coast on Cross Country and MML where they can use their Bi-mode capabilities? I realise you would have to keep a small number of 800's on the ECML for the likes of Harrogate and Inverness but surely this is a good opportunity to offload/reform the Voyagers

The simple answer is there is no business case for new trains on XC, and contracts are already in place for IEPs on the ECML.
XC's turn will come next year in the bids for a new franchise, unless it gets a direct award extension.
There is no Fat Controller to direct what happens, just commercial decisions by TOCs and ROSCOs.

 

[sprinterguy]

I don't understand what the problems are with the 91's/mk4's. The coaches are now much more pleasant than when first introduced. I prefer travelling in one of these to a Voyager/Meridian. Why not simply leave the 91/MK4's on the ECML and use the 800's currently lined up for the East Coast on Cross Country and MML where they can use their Bi-mode capabilities? I realise you would have to keep a small number of 800's on the ECML for the likes of Harrogate and Inverness but surely this is a good opportunity to offload/reform the Voyagers

The fleet of thirty IEP trains that have been ordered to replace the class 91s and mark 4s are not bi-mode units, they are electric only class 801 units with a single diesel powerpack for emergency recovery purposes.

Having an all-IEP train fleet allows consistent pathing and scheduling when all trains have comparable performance characteristics and simplifies maintenance requirements. Replacing the 225 sets with IETs also increases seating capacity per train. The class 91s are also far from the most reliable form of electric traction, and their performance will only deterioriate without further work as time goes on: They're already quite long in the tooth for high performance passenger locomotives subject to intensive diagramming day in, day out.

As LNW-GW Joint quite rightly points out the contract for IETs on the ECML has also already been signed and agreed, making all other considerations moot.

 

[Grumpy]

The fleet of thirty IEP trains that have been ordered to replace the class 91s and mark 4s are not bi-mode units, they are electric only class 801 units with a single diesel powerpack for emergency recovery purposes.
t.

Ah that's the answer. For some reason I thought they were BImodes. I must stay awake and pay attention.