sprinterguy
Established Member
Indeed it's probably worth breaking a couple of vehicles up for parts to keep the remaining operational fleet going for some time to come.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
LNER Class 91/Mk4 service status/withdrawals/2021 refurbishment
- Thread starter 59CosG95
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 15,268
More to the point, it would be daft of Eversholt to pay to store vehicles that they have no future use for.
What couplers do the mark 3s have (both loco+DVT and IC125 variants if different) within rakes compared to the mark 4s? And would fitting loco-compatible couplers to mark 4s be a big job?
If that's the case then isn't it even more daft for other ROSCOs to store mark 3s? I thought a huge number (of mark 3s) have been off-leased from FirstGWR but I've not heard of (m)any going for scrap. Mark 4s, being PRM compliant, have to have far more potential for future use than mark 3s particularly given that both designs of power door retrofittment for mark 3s have proved problematic. It makes sense to me to have some stock stored in reserve for future requirements and mark 4s would surely be a better choice than mark 3s.
hexagon789
Veteran Member
LHCS Mk3s are drophead buckeyes
HST Mk3s are Alliance couplers (fixed buckeyes)
Mk4s are Tightlock within the set and buckeye at the non-gangwayed end of the TOE.
cactustwirly
Established Member
That's the decision of the RosCo isn't it? At the end of the day, they're the ones footing the bill for storage
It's an economy of scale. Wabtec have a programme of modifications for Mk3s, but the works required to convert one in every five spare coaches into a TSOE and one in every five into either some sort of DBFO or TFOE is an unknown risk versus a much lower reward. The carriage scrapped is a christmas tree, and I'd expect more to go once their parts have been lost.
I think perhaps some measure of calm is required here. A couple of vehicles have been stripped and then scrapped. Rather than a mass cull that suggests to me that Eversholt are being pragmatic in the way they're managing their fleet. There are some 300 odd Mk4s the cold reality is that not all of them will find a home so it makes sense to take a few examples strip them of anything useful which can be used to keep the rest of the fleet going more cheaply and then scrap the donors as surplus to requirement.
If we were talking about dozens of vehicles on their way to Booths I'd be getting worried. A handful which have been stripped? That sounds like a ROSCO managing their fleet effectively.
If we were talking about dozens of vehicles on their way to Booths I'd be getting worried. A handful which have been stripped? That sounds like a ROSCO managing their fleet effectively.
Different ROSCOs.
Angel have been successful in finding new uses for a reasonable number of their ex HST mk3s in the short sets. Angel/Wabtec have the current door retro fit IP.
Porterbrook have stored their ex HST mk3s. No realistic future.
Eversholt have all the mk4s. the original expectation was that 6 sets (+ spares?) would be retained by LNER then TfW and the Blackpool Open Access operator are using about another 4-5 sets worth, however LNER recently said they would be tendering for new stock. So only 15% of the fleet with a new home.
Storage is in short supply at the moment with all the new stock piling up and lots of old stock stored hence the price will have gone up in places in order to get new storage on line.
Eversholt /LNER will also know which coaches are in a worse state that the rest and hence worth canabalising. Scrapping a few may actually generate enough spares to keep the rest going reliably (i.e. so parts can go away for overhauls on rolling basis). At 30 years they will know which are the worst.
Some of the coaches involved were renumbered post Hatfield but those 2 don't appear to be those.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
agreed - there seems to have been a complete head loss over this.
I think several of us are on the same page here, there isn't a future market for the equivalent of 60 short sets /30 long sets of LCHS.
The only potential big market is if the mk3 door rebuild really don't work out but everyone has signed with Angel for that. The future spare 221s & 222s provide a good alternative too.
EE Andy b1
Established Member
One things for sure and that's that the Mk4 vehicle was never as good as the Mk3. The ride quality alone says it all.
So for 1 or 2 TOCs and Open access maybe 10 shorter sets is all that's now required, so the rest might as well.be stripped for parts.
It will be 2-3 years again though before LNER get another New order for rolling stock up and running, especially if they go for more IETs, that queue is getting longer.
So for 1 or 2 TOCs and Open access maybe 10 shorter sets is all that's now required, so the rest might as well.be stripped for parts.
It will be 2-3 years again though before LNER get another New order for rolling stock up and running, especially if they go for more IETs, that queue is getting longer.
NoMorePacers
Established Member
DRS could get some to replace their Mk2s perhaps.
Would also be interested to know. Some were repaired from both sets though, I believe? Someone will be able to clarify.
57Tonic
Member
- Joined
- 20 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 84
Further back in this thread the three sets (BN23/24/25?) sent to away Worksop were maybe for TfW, And as they require only 3 Short Sets of a DVT, RSB, TSOD & TSOE, this will leave 6 FOs 3 FODs & 9 TSOs with 12455/6 being two off them. So 18 for parts or storage or swaps.
EE Andy b1
Established Member
Why don't TfW get them Mk4 sets into service now before there other new rolling stock arrives?
There going to have a full refit and a repaint i presume?
krus_aragon
Established Member
I was of the impression that they were taking three rakes of four carriages, plus the DVTs. (The current MkIII rakes are 4+DVT.) That'd be 15 spare, rather than 18.
bramling
Veteran Member
Depends on one's viewpoint. From my point of view (as a user, not an enthusiast), simple reality is:
IC225 - pleasant and comfortable to travel on
Azuma - unpleasant and uncomfortable to travel on
... which simply greatly increases the likelihood that I will use the car instead.
It's frustrating to see the industry scrapping trains which are nice to travel in, and instead deploying ones which aren't.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
no disagreement at all - however if one or two of the vehicles have been stripped bare why hang on to them
bramling
Veteran Member
Fair point, just that I'd rather the entire fleet was kept in service - preferably doing what it was originally built for. To me they still feel "new"!
It's one thing scrapping Mk3s, which although again personally I find them pleasant to use, I can understand they have issues like the slam doors which make them increasingly unviable to use. Mk4s don't have such issues, indeed to me their interior ambience still feels fresh and modern.
xotGD
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 6,080
Spare Mark 4s: Form up into short sets with a 67 on one end, a 90 on the other. Instant bi-mode.
59CosG95
Established Member
Can you control a 67 from the cab of a 90 off the juice?
Can you control a 90 from the cab of a 67?
krus_aragon
Established Member
Entertexthere
Member
So where is 91 108 located now? has it been dumped in the sidings next to Doncaster, or is it within the ex-works now?
Helvellyn
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Aug 2009
- Messages
- 2,012
Given the discussion on the SWR Class 442 thread about gauge clearance issues, where even though the units operated on the South Western for nearly twenty years they are being treated as new units, the same will appply if Mk 4 stock is used anywhere other than the WCML. Now TfW and Arriva are happy to get the necessary work done with Network Rail for their Welsh and WCML services. But realistically is anyone else going to be interested in taking on Mk 4 stock? The only potential operator would be Chiltern to replace their Mk 3 stock, but I could only see them doing that if someone else wanted a small fleet of plug door fitted Mk3 LHCS.
EE Andy b1
Established Member
Small fleet of plug door Mk3s with Class 68s for Liverpool - Nottingham via CLC TPE services.
If it is indeed just these two going for scrap and there are reasons why those particular two vehicles were in bad nick then that is understandable. However, if they are scrapping all the vehicles that haven't already got a future used lined up that's madness in my view as it would leave any TOC wanting LHCS with new-build or slam-door stock as their options. If Eversholt hang on to some mark 4s I assume they'd be the first choice for any TOC wanting LHCS (cheaper than new-build and less modification required compared to mark 3s).
I agree, but until your post nobody had answered my question of whether these were just odd ones in poor condition or a wholesale scrappage of all the currently 'surplus' vehicles from the TfW's sets.
Have you a link to an announcement?My sentiments (almost) exactly. Living in the west of Britian (Wales to be precise) I've not had many chances to ride the mark 4s so I'm not an expert on their interiors but (messy joins in the current vinyl livery, and perhaps the hatches on the DVT nose, aside) externally they do look modern and DfT should have specified that all or most should have been kept on the ECML.
59CosG95
Established Member
11292 has now made its way by road from Doncaster to Booths too.
- Status