LNER Class 91/Mk4 service status/withdrawals/2021 refurbishment

[Monkeyhead]

Ha, serves me right for trolling, now sat in the office in London wanting to get back to York. Might leave it a couple of hours!

Was it 108 that pulled the wires down? Proper revenge for being withdrawn!

 

[43094]

0Z91 is a light engine move, yes.

 

[Peter C]

Yes...

Thanks. I looked at RTT and it said that after I posted. Sorry.

-Peter

0Z91 is a light engine move, yes.

Thanks.

Sorry.

-Peter

 

[DarloRich]

Was it 108 that pulled the wires down? Proper revenge for being withdrawn!

Was it really? Haha Haha!

 

[43096]

Was it really? Haha Haha!

No, it wasn’t.....

91109 the more likely culprit on 1S19.

 

[Monkeyhead]

Having seen the pictures of people stuck on Mk4 sets with no openings and no aircon, I decided to risk a longer trip back via Manchester, touch wood ok so far apart from a speed restriction near Rugby to come.....

 

[aljon]

This has probably been covered many times but as a semi-regular user of the east coast line why exactly are they being replaced? As a user of trains across the UK they seemed absolutely fine every time I was on one. Better than 90% of stock. Were they clapped out mechanically? I get that HSTs were removed as diesel and 10 years older but can't work out why the replacement program now for Class 91 and Mk4 carriages? They seemed to have another decade in them as a passenger.

Totally agree,What a Waist.

 

[Crossover]

Last planned fling under its own power for 91108 today:

0Z91 11//55 Bounds Green - Doncaster
5Z91 17+09 Doncaster - Bounds Green (with BN22)

5Z91 now showing cancelled

 

[apinnard]

This has probably been covered many times but as a semi-regular user of the east coast line why exactly are they being replaced? As a user of trains across the UK they seemed absolutely fine every time I was on one. Better than 90% of stock. Were they clapped out mechanically? I get that HSTs were removed as diesel and 10 years older but can't work out why the replacement program now for Class 91 and Mk4 carriages? They seemed to have another decade in them as a passenger.

They are "clapped out" as you put it. The class 91 build, Project Electra as it was known, was dogged by political and technical issues. In hindsight the whole of the East Coast electrification was.

The locos designed by GEC and built by BREL were originally pretty failure prone. It wasn't unheard of for members of the class to randomly eject their cardan shaft into the 4 foot or pack up altogether when it snowed. Wiring was also rubbish.

Project Delta, the rebuilt/refit in the early 2000s did see many improvements. However these machines were only ever going to be of any use on the East Coast. Their acceleration and tractive effort being worse than that of a 90 really has excluded their options for use on freight or more challenging gradients such as those on the west coast.

What may look like a good unit on the outside, I can assure you is a knackered, cheaply designed and worn out workhorse on the inside. Even the ROSCO (Eversholt) were planning for the inevitable regarding the 91s as much as 7 years ago, although they did see life left in the MK4 coaches post ECML duties.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Project Delta, the rebuilt/refit in the early 2000s did see many improvements. However these machines were only ever going to be of any use on the East Coast. Their acceleration and tractive effort being worse than that of a 90 really has excluded their options for use on freight or more challenging gradients such as those on the west coast.

What may look like a good unit on the outside, I can assure you is a knackered, cheaply designed and worn out workhorse on the inside. Even the ROSCO (Eversholt) were planning for the inevitable regarding the 91s as much as 7 years ago, although they did see life left in the MK4 coaches post ECML duties.

Eversholt did come up with a second reliabilty modification programme though didn't they? When the DfT were threatening the replacement of IC225 with IEP, I seem to recall a mock-up was done of refurbished mark 4s with options for either TRAXX locos or class 91s for haulage; and I think a number of improvements to the 91s were planned had that option been chosen. I still think it's a waste to cut new metal for bodyshells etc. given that those parts can last a fair bit longer than the internals (eg. MTU-engined IC125s living on well beyond their 40th birthdays) though in hindsight given the class 90s covering for 91s recently reducing the number of IC225 diagrams (to give more time for maintainance) would have been a sensible move.

 

[Pep and co]

Has yesterday's cancelled 5Z91 from Doncaster to Bounds Green rescheduled for today?

 

[ohgoditsjames]

Since I frequently visit York the 91’s are familiar sight and before Grayling canned the electrification of the MML I had always hoped we’d get to see the 91’s in Sheffield but obviously that isn’t to be sadly. Every now and then I’d choose to not get the direct XC service back to Sheffield from York and would instead catch a 91 to Doncaster then transfer there back to Sheffield. I’ve lived in Shipley since November 2018 and travel via Leeds so I’ve at least had chance to ride them a few times now.

 

[xotGD]

Since I frequently visit York the 91’s are familiar sight and before Grayling canned the electrification of the MML I had always hoped we’d get to see the 91’s in Sheffield but obviously that isn’t to be sadly. Every now and then I’d choose to not get the direct XC service back to Sheffield from York and would instead catch a 91 to Doncaster then transfer there back to Sheffield. I’ve lived in Shipley since November 2018 and travel via Leeds so I’ve at least had chance to ride them a few times now.

You could always go for the last one out of Shipley before the Skipton - KX switches to plastic. I might be tempted myself.

 

[ohgoditsjames]

You could always go for the last one out of Shipley before the Skipton - KX switches to plastic. I might be tempted myself.

Any idea when the switch happens?

 

[sjpowermac]

They are "clapped out" as you put it. The class 91 build, Project Electra as it was known, was dogged by political and technical issues. In hindsight the whole of the East Coast electrification was.

The locos designed by GEC and built by BREL were originally pretty failure prone. It wasn't unheard of for members of the class to randomly eject their cardan shaft into the 4 foot or pack up altogether when it snowed. Wiring was also rubbish.

Project Delta, the rebuilt/refit in the early 2000s did see many improvements. However these machines were only ever going to be of any use on the East Coast. Their acceleration and tractive effort being worse than that of a 90 really has excluded their options for use on freight or more challenging gradients such as those on the west coast.

What may look like a good unit on the outside, I can assure you is a knackered, cheaply designed and worn out workhorse on the inside. Even the ROSCO (Eversholt) were planning for the inevitable regarding the 91s as much as 7 years ago, although they did see life left in the MK4 coaches post ECML duties.

What particular aspect of the Class 91 do you feel was ‘cheaply designed’? I’m not contradicting you, I’m just genuinely interested to know.

I got the impression from the railway press at the time the Class 91s featured quite a number of innovations, particularly the bogie design and having the traction motors hung from the body. I think I’m right in saying they were also quite advanced for the time in their use of microprocessor control.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Not a huge development as such as many of the APT features and developments are in the 91 (whereas a 90 is essentially an updated 87) however the ,91 is also the limits of DC electrical traction and transmission technology and is very highly stressed as a result.

 

[sjpowermac]

Not a huge development as such as many of the APT features and developments are in the 91 (whereas a 90 is essentially an updated 87) however the ,91 is also the limits of DC electrical traction and transmission technology and is very highly stressed as a result.

I completely agree with you about the transfer of some of the technology from APT to the Class 91. I was more asking the poster for an example of why they thought the Class 91 was a cheap design.

A fleet of Class 90s re-geared for 125mph would have been a cheaper option, though I’m not sure the civil engineers would have enjoyed that option with the hammering to the track

 

[xotGD]

Any idea when the switch happens?

I don't think it has been announced yet.

 

[danielnez1]

What particular aspect of the Class 91 do you feel was ‘cheaply designed’? I’m not contradicting you, I’m just genuinely interested to know.

I got the impression from the railway press at the time the Class 91s featured quite a number of innovations, particularly the bogie design and having the traction motors hung from the body. I think I’m right in saying they were also quite advanced for the time in their use of microprocessor control.

Not a huge development as such as many of the APT features and developments are in the 91 (whereas a 90 is essentially an updated 87) however the ,91 is also the limits of DC electrical traction and transmission technology and is very highly stressed as a result.

Like the 1992 tube stock, the 91s were designed on the cusp of technological overhaul/innovation such as the move to AC motors and the extensive use of computerised systems. I remember a very old Rail article on the 91s at the time of their refurbishment stating that they were the first British production locomotive class to make extensive use of computerised control systems (powered by the Intel 8086/88 CPUs, the grandfather of modern Intel and AMD CPUs).

 

[Tynwald]

They wern't the first, but was certainly amongst the first, along with DLR phase 1 & 2, class 319, class 456, class 90, metrolink T68. They used Thyrister power control, and agate 1 control systems. Class 465 was the move to AC traction motors.

 

[apinnard]

What particular aspect of the Class 91 do you feel was ‘cheaply designed’? I’m not contradicting you, I’m just genuinely interested to know.

I got the impression from the railway press at the time the Class 91s featured quite a number of innovations, particularly the bogie design and having the traction motors hung from the body. I think I’m right in saying they were also quite advanced for the time in their use of microprocessor control.

The bogies themselves were bought by BREL from SIG as they didn't have the time or budget to develop their own T4 when the 91s were built. They were renown for being rubbish and offering a poor ride. Subsequent refurbs and tweaks probably did rectify some of that though.

The TDM kit has always been fragile.

The rosco and operator have to make sure they can still source the various electronic components for the 80s microprocessor control. I bet that's a bit of a dark art these days.

 

[sjpowermac]

The bogies themselves were bought by BREL from SIG as they didn't have the time or budget to develop their own T4 when the 91s were built. They were renown for being rubbish and offering a poor ride. Subsequent refurbs and tweaks probably did rectify some of that though.

The TDM kit has always been fragile.

The rosco and operator have to make sure they can still source the various electronic components for the 80s microprocessor control. I bet that's a bit of a dark art these days.

I always thought that the Class 91 bogie was designed by GEC (John Dowling?), but I’m happy to be corrected on that.

Have the microprocessors not been upgraded during the various refurbishments?

Again I’m not contradicting, just genuinely interested.

I don’t think the SIG bogie for the MK4 was selected on price:

‘fter a period of evaluation in 1988, Swiss SIG type BT41 bogies were selected rather than the BREL type T4 bogies when BREL could not provide commercial guarantees on the demanding lateral ride comfort required for 140 mile/h running.’

quote from

http://www.traintesting.com/ic225_5.htm

 

[43096]

The bogies themselves were bought by BREL from SIG as they didn't have the time or budget to develop their own T4 when the 91s were built. They were renown for being rubbish and offering a poor ride. Subsequent refurbs and tweaks probably did rectify some of that though.

I think you are confused. The T4 was intended for the Mark 4s, but not used as BREL wouldn’t warranty their performance at the 140mph design speed. It was never a contender for the Class 91, which used (and was always intended to use) GEC designed bogies.

 

[Class455]

BN28 went off lease earlier today (DVT 82217 at the rear)
How many MK4's are now at Worksop?

 

[dubscottie]

The bogies themselves were bought by BREL from SIG as they didn't have the time or budget to develop their own T4 when the 91s were built. They were renown for being rubbish and offering a poor ride. Subsequent refurbs and tweaks probably did rectify some of that though.
.

Not 100% true. The SiG bogies were superior to the T4 while under test (on MK3 12140).

This myth about the SIG bogies being poor riders comes from the early days of the MK4. The ride was awful and nobody could workout why considering its good performance under the MK3.

Then they realised that they had forgot about the different gangways/couplings (which limited sideways movement).

All the MK4s were then fitted with a big damper between the coupler and bufferbeam which solved the ride issue.

 

[scotrail170407]

Does anyone know how long 108 will be in the Doncaster bay platform for. Thanks

 

[trainmania100]

There's some 0Z91s and things on Tuesday between Doncaster and Bounds Green but looks like it might be one going up to collect 108 or something?
https://live.rail-record.co.uk/rail/liverail/stpf/BNDSGRN/30/7/19

 

[scotrail170407]

108 is back in service today with set BN12 & 82212, working the following diagrams

3Z38 14:34 DON - YRK
1Y38 1523 YRK - KGX (caped ex NCL)
1N29 18:27 KGX - NCL

 

[hexagon789]

108 is back in service today with set BN12 & 82212, working the following diagrams

3Z38 14:34 DON - YRK
1Y38 1523 YRK - KGX (caped ex NCL)
1N29 18:27 KGX - NCL

Well, doesn't look like this withdrawals list is much good then:

July 2019 - 91108, 20, 32

August 2019 - 91103

January 2020 - 91104, 17

February 2020 - 91111, 16

March 2020 - 91110, 22, 28

April 2020 - 91102, 07, 15, 25, 29, 31

May 2020 - 91106, 26, 27

June 2020 - 91105, 09

Any idea why it's been re-instated, poor availability of other 91s?

 

[NoMorePacers]

Well, doesn't look like this withdrawals list is much good then:

July 2019 - 91108, 20, 32

August 2019 - 91103

January 2020 - 91104, 17

February 2020 - 91111, 16

March 2020 - 91110, 22, 28

April 2020 - 91102, 07, 15, 25, 29, 31

May 2020 - 91106, 26, 27

June 2020 - 91105, 09

Any idea why it's been re-instated, poor availability of other 91s?

I don't seem to spot 91119 on that list. Is LNER keeping it then?