Future of Class 91s after introduction of SETs?

[aylesbury]

They had a massive rebuild and that should keep them going for a while plus Bounds Green do a very good job maintaining them.

 

[captainbigun]

I doubt they are geared for 140mph today.
Since the early tests on the ECML there has never been any requirement to run at that speed.

Gearing never changed, approval has, hence 125 max. Complex right angle drive gearbox, not really viable to alter gearing. Add to that near end of life, obsolescence and pretty average reliability they'll end up getting the chop.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Gearing never changed, approval has, hence 125 max. Complex right angle drive gearbox, not really viable to alter gearing. Add to that near end of life, obsolescence and pretty average reliability they'll end up getting the chop.

David Brown (of tractors and Aston Martin fame) were involved with the gearboxes, don't remember if they just submitted a prototype or if they won the contract. Were ASEA also involved ?

 

[captainbigun]

David Brown (of tractors and Aston Martin fame) were involved with the gearboxes, don't remember if they just submitted a prototype or if they won the contract. Were ASEA also involved ?

DB then Voith. I suspect DB were working with GEC at the time.

 

[BestWestern]

What became of the project to double pantograph the 91s for added reliability? I seem to remember reading that one was so fitted, with a view to doing the whole fleet. Did it happen?

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes one was fitted (can't remember the locomotive off the top of my head) as I saw it in service but it wasn't rolled out fleet wide so presumably either wasn't successful or wasn't cost effective to deploy to the rest of the 91s.

 

[DarloRich]

91114?

 

[D365]

They had a massive rebuild...

Which took place about 15 years ago. My main concern towards the end of this decade will be reliability, which is still not 'outstanding'.

91114?

That's the one; with the Durham Cathedral vinyl.

 

[Dave1987]

Enthusiasts can't seem to accept that the IC225s are in fact ageing, and that there is far less Mk4 coaching stock to cannibalise post-IEP.

What the hell has is got to do with "enthusiasts". Its the fact we are talking about scrapping stock that is DDA compliant or very easy to make DDA compliant post 2020 in a country that suffers mass overcrowding on a lot of lines and lack of rolling stock is blamed for a lot of it. Yet instead of concentrating their efforts on combating the shortage of trains and solving the overcrowding the DFT focus on the ECML :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh here we go the everything must last forever syndrome, and HST's were due for replacement clearly the Dft looked at the overall business case regarding the IC225 sets and decided that replacement by IEP was the better option, added to which that to match the IEP performance levels you need to knock a couple of carriages out of 225 sets, and the biggest issue regarding rolling stock at the moment is not electric stock.

Right so why was this whole project not dedicated to solving the issues with mass overcrowding on lines with mass rolling stock shortages rather than spending vast sums of money solving a problem that didn't need solving yet? I'm referring the ECML here not GW.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A large factor in the IEP decision was the need to have a viable production run at Newton Aycliffe, and for the efficiencies of a largely single fleet type for ICEC.
The extra IEP capacity will also deliver a big premium increase.
Where to cascade 225s would be a secondary factor.

"Other lines" (eg XC) don't have the business case, and MML isn't ready to replace its fleet.
We'll see what the TPE franchise award turns up.

So people who use those services have to put up with the overcrowding because the DFT decided the ECML was more important. You gotta love this country at times!

 

[Haydn1971]

So people who use those services have to put up with the overcrowding because the DFT decided the ECML was more important. You gotta love this country at times!

Oh come on Dave, the ECML services London - rolls eyes

 

[Philip Phlopp]

So people who use those services have to put up with the overcrowding because the DFT decided the ECML was more important. You gotta love this country at times!

The MML fleet will be expanded considerably when electrification of the route is complete, but expect more Hitachi AT300 units to feature strongly in the proposals.

XC is a complicated problem to solve - the franchise is a basket case because of the rolling stock they operate and the geography simply doesn't help - the longer North East to South West services tend to hit two peaks during their journeys, which adds to the overcrowding issues.

The extra capacity on the GWML and ECML in the shape of IEP and AT300 units will take some passengers off XC trains, and the XC franchise is likely to inherit at least some of the Class 222 units when they come off-lease with the MML franchisee post MML electrification, but XC is always going to be stuck with fundamentally crap stock.

 

[The Ham]

XC is a complicated problem to solve - the franchise is a basket case because of the rolling stock they operate and the geography simply doesn't help - the longer North East to South West services tend to hit two peaks during their journeys, which adds to the overcrowding issues.

The extra capacity on the GWML and ECML in the shape of IEP and AT300 units will take some passengers off XC trains, and the XC franchise is likely to inherit at least some of the Class 222 units when they come off-lease with the MML franchisee post MML electrification, but XC is always going to be stuck with fundamentally crap stock.

Although given that last year XC paid the government more than it got in subsidies, new rolling stock could be potentially on the table for the next franchise. The obvious routes would be those that run from the South Coast to Manchester as these could be potentially run by dual voltage stock from fairly early on in the franchise (depending on whether enough electrification has been done). In doing so it would mean that they could get some new trains for a dedicated service which as they would be cheaper to lease and run could mean that they could be longer (even just 6 coaches long would bring benefits).

That would then free up existing units to strengthen other services. As I have pointed out before even just one new unit can bring much wider benefits.

For those that missed it, one new 5 coach set can replace a 4 coach set on route A. That 4 coach set is paired with another 4 coach set to replace a second 5 coach set on route B. The 5 second coach set is then used in place of the second 4 coach set on route C.

Route A 250 seats vs 200 (25% more seats)
Route B 400 seats vs 250 (60% more seats)
Route C 250 seats vs 200 (25% more seats)

Even if the trains on Route B are reconfigured so that they are 6 coaches long (i.e. storing/scrapping one pair of end coaches and inserting the middle coaches to another set it would likely see an increase of about 30% (from 250 to circa 325 depending on seating layouts).

Although it it is likely that the route are of different lengths so the number of services over the day which are lengthened on some routes may not be as many as on other routes which could reduce the overall increase over the day. Although there are ways to lessen the impact of this, especially on routes like route B if pairs of units are used.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of the problems of XC is it taking local passengers within conurbations (Birmingham specifically, but also others) without whom it might well actually have adequate capacity. Do we need to consider options in the fares system for reducing or removing this traffic, such as the services being excluded from PTE season tickets, as well as having cheaper LM-Only point to point seasons?

It's almost like the Reading commuter problem (were it to all be removed onto commuter EMUs the HSTs would be perfectly long enough and some), but unlike Reading it would not be prohibitive to provide the capacity required on other services.

It doesn't make sense to cart 10x23m the length of the country (say) if you only fill it between Cov and Wolves.

Is it also worth considering compulsory reservation on some XC services where there are other non-reserved options; that would also put commuters off?

 

[AnonymousUser1]

I doubt they are geared for 140mph today.
Since the early tests on the ECML there has never been any requirement to run at that speed.
.

at what point was the physical work undertaken on the traction package to remove this capability then ?

 

[Iskra]

One of the problems of XC is it taking local passengers within conurbations (Birmingham specifically, but also others) without whom it might well actually have adequate capacity. Do we need to consider options in the fares system for reducing or removing this traffic, such as the services being excluded from PTE season tickets, as well as having cheaper LM-Only point to point seasons?

It's almost like the Reading commuter problem (were it to all be removed onto commuter EMUs the HSTs would be perfectly long enough and some), but unlike Reading it would not be prohibitive to provide the capacity required on other services.

It doesn't make sense to cart 10x23m the length of the country (say) if you only fill it between Cov and Wolves.

Is it also worth considering compulsory reservation on some XC services where there are other non-reserved options; that would also put commuters off?

To me, it is XC's stopping pattern that is to blame. The fact that they call at so many stations, often close together means they're as much commuter trains as they are intercity services. XC is essentially a compromise between a commuter, regional and intercity service without actually satisfying any of those groups.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

To me, it is XC's stopping pattern that is to blame. The fact that they call at so many stations, often close together means they're as much commuter trains as they are intercity services. XC is essentially a compromise between a commuter, regional and intercity service without actually satisfying any of those groups.

It's not much of a regional or intercity service if it doesn't stop at stations people want to get on and off at though, and with the routing guide as it sort of stands, you really don't want to get into the realms of against direction of travel use of local services to get to a major station for an XC service either.

The stops are effectively 'free of charge' anyway, as most XC services will be pathed in and around the regional TOC's services, which will stop at most stations.

Running non-stop will have the XC units (which will out accelerate most stock on the network) sitting at red light after red light. I'm sure we all know what it's like being stuck behind a LM service on the approach to Birmingham New Street.

 

[Dave1987]

My point is is that the ECML could have easily stuck with the current stock for the next decade. Then this IEP project could have been focused on GW and other lines like XC which suffer massively with lack of rolling stock.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

My point is is that the ECML could have easily stuck with the current stock for the next decade. Then this IEP project could have been focused on GW and other lines like XC which suffer massively with lack of rolling stock.

ECML is as short of capacity as the GWML.

 

[JamesRowden]

ECML is as short of capacity as the GWML.

The statistics from 2010 seem to question your statement (with regards to rolling stock anyway):

London Paddington Main line + other fast trains 99%

London King’s Cross Great Northern 73%
London King’s Cross ECML Long Distance 65%

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The statistics from 2010 seem to question your statement (with regards to rolling stock anyway):

That's 5 years out of date, and we're working forward, not back. It has been possible to deal with current and future ECML capacity problems at the same time as we've dealt with the GWML capacity problems, and as we move forward with electrification projects, the base IEP/AT300 unit (or other units) will allow capacity problems elsewhere to be directly or indirectly resolved.

That means, when MML electrification completes, Class 222 units will be available to relieve capacity problems, either within the EM franchise, externally or a combination of the two. The new TP franchise will require the procurement of additional stock which will, in turn, release rolling stock which will also relieve capacity problems.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

at what point was the physical work undertaken on the traction package to remove this capability then ?

As post #65 says, it seems nothing physical was done (or possible) to change the gearing on class 91s.
So for 25 years, they and the 225 sets (with tilt profile) have been over-specified for the job they do.

On the EC IEP orders, the first one was to replace HSTs and was inevitable as was the initial GWR order.
The second EC IEP order, to replace the 225s, was neither essential nor required to be IEPs - cheaper EMUs were available.
But the DfT decided to exercise the (expensive) Hitachi option essentially to ensure the future of Newton Aycliffe and keep other suppliers out.
Although as it turned out, further ATxxx orders were forthcoming anyway (Scotrail, GWR 2nd order).

 

[ainsworth74]

But the DfT decided to exercise the (expensive) Hitachi option essentially to ensure the future of Newton Aycliffe and keep other suppliers out.

Actually the IC225 tranche of SETs I seem to recall coming at quite a reasonable price. It's the way that the DfT went about specifying the first tranches that drove up the price rather than the units themselves.

Although as it turned out, further ATxxx orders were forthcoming anyway (Scotrail, GWR 2nd order).

Follow on order for AT300s (the SET family) from Hull Trains and GWR suggest that perhaps they aren't too expensive.

 

[captainbigun]

What became of the project to double pantograph the 91s for added reliability? I seem to remember reading that one was so fitted, with a view to doing the whole fleet. Did it happen?

It was an ill conceived waste of time from the moment the idea was born.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

at what point was the physical work undertaken on the traction package to remove this capability then ?

Software and associated approvals.

 

[Starmill]

Enthusiasts can't seem to accept that the IC225s are in fact ageing, and that there is far less Mk4 coaching stock to cannibalise post-IEP.

Some of us can. Now can I please have a train that's actually being maintained for my IC journey!?

 

[Stats]

ECML is as short of capacity as the GWML.

Indeed. According to VTEC they are only retaining the 6 IC225 sets to increase capacity. They say they can run their full franchise timetable with the ordered 800/801s but only with overcrowding.

 

[CockneySparrow]

What are the plans for the Class 91s locos (and Mk4 coaches) currently used on the ECML after they are replaced by Class 800s? I saw that there was a possibility of cascading them to the MML once electrification was complete but with that pushed back significantly I guess that is no longer an option.

Probably go to the GEML

 

[E&W Lucas]

That obviously applies to the 91s but does it also apply to the Mk4s?


.

The issue with the coaches may turn out to be corrosion. Don't forget that BR had a lot of them built in Italy.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If a class 91 was gutted of all traction equipment how much would it weigh relative to a DVT? Would they be in a good enough state structurally to be converted to DVTs once their life as a loco is over?

 

[DarloRich]

If a class 91 was gutted of all traction equipment how much would it weigh relative to a DVT? Would they be in a good enough state structurally to be converted to DVTs once their life as a loco is over?

:roll: really............

 

[D365]

If a class 91 was gutted of all traction equipment how much would it weigh relative to a DVT? Would they be in a good enough state structurally to be converted to DVTs once their life as a loco is over?

You do realise that you've made yourself look a fool with the last Class 91 'conversion' question...