• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

route101

Established Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
10,612
59CosG95 said:
For the Glasgow diagram. This is obviously the final time it's booked for a 225 set, but I'm sure there's an outside chance that a set may end up on 1S23/1E06 in the event of an Azuma failure and a set swap.
Click to expand...

I wonder if that will happen .
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

4

43094

Member
Joined
19 May 2010
Messages
893
91117 planned last day in traffic Wednesday:

Planned for 1Y03, 1S09 & 1E18.
 
A

alistairlees

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2016
Messages
3,737
Anyone know which services from Edinburgh to kings cross today between about 0940 and 1340 will be HST (ie definitely not Azuma)? Thanks
 
Last edited:
F

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,881
Location
Central Belt
alistairlees said:
Anyone know which services from Edinburgh to kings cross today between about 0940 and 1340 will be HST (ie definitely not Azuma)? Thanks
Click to expand...
On a normal Saturday they didn’t use that many. You were normally on the older trains but the ones coming from North of Edinburgh will be HST until at least the end of November.
 
AlistairCowell

AlistairCowell

Member
Joined
10 Jan 2018
Messages
279
Rumours spread that 91109 'Bobby Robson' and 91111 'For The Fallen' are will be withdrawn from service after today.
 
ash39

ash39

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2012
Messages
1,503
AlistairCowell said:
Rumours spread that 91109 'Bobby Robson' and 91111 'For The Fallen' are will be withdrawn from service after today.
Click to expand...

No more 91's until next year after 117 and 120 went this week was the last word from LNER.

Where's the rumour from?
 
DanNCL

DanNCL

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2017
Messages
4,266
Location
County Durham
AlistairCowell said:
Rumours spread that 91109 'Bobby Robson' and 91111 'For The Fallen' are will be withdrawn from service after today.
Click to expand...
Pretty certain this is not the case for two reasons. Firstly, if that was the case, I'm pretty certain that as with the 4 91s that have already gone, someone would have mentioned it on here before now (and LNER would probably have mentioned it on their Twitter page too as they've done with all the previous withdrawals). The other one is that neither 109 not 111 end up at Bounds Green tonight (109 ends at Heaton, 111 ends at Ferme Park) and the previous withdrawals have all been at Bounds Green. Then there's also the fact it's been mentioned a few times before by reliable people that no more 91s are being withdrawn until 2020.
 
J

James James

Member
Joined
29 Jan 2018
Messages
426
Just curious, with spare 91s kicking around (partly failing though), could they start double-heading, or double-ending? I know it's never going to happen, but I'm curious as to feasibility? [Could get the advantages of the 90s acceleration but with the 91s top speed, at the cost of yet more maintenance...]
 
H

heedfan

Member
Joined
4 Oct 2017
Messages
277
James James said:
Just curious, with spare 91s kicking around (partly failing though), could they start double-heading, or double-ending? I know it's never going to happen, but I'm curious as to feasibility? [Could get the advantages of the 90s acceleration but with the 91s top speed, at the cost of yet more maintenance...]
Click to expand...

If you mean double-heading, eg 2 x 91s at the same end, this happens semi regularly when light 91s are required at Wabtec. My understanding is that there is no performance benefit as the enclosed 91 is dragged.

Regarding double-ending, which I presume to mean a 91 at each end and removing the DVT entirely, this won't happen for many reasons. Lack of storage space within the 91s, no TM compartment, first class coaches being open ended, etc. I'd doubt whether you can even run 2 x 91s within the same set without one of them being dragged due to TDM issues, though I'm happy to be corrected if that is indeed possible.

Plus, why would LNER even bother with the hassle. An interesting idea nonetheless.
 
43096

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,266
heedfan said:
If you mean double-heading, eg 2 x 91s at the same end, this happens semi regularly when light 91s are required at Wabtec. My understanding is that there is no performance benefit as the enclosed 91 is dragged.

Regarding double-ending, which I presume to mean a 91 at each end and removing the DVT entirely, this won't happen for many reasons. Lack of storage space within the 91s, no TM compartment, first class coaches being open ended, etc. I'd doubt whether you can even run 2 x 91s within the same set without one of them being dragged due to TDM issues, though I'm happy to be corrected if that is indeed possible.

Plus, why would LNER even bother with the hassle. An interesting idea nonetheless.
Click to expand...
You cannot couple a 91 to the Mark 4 FO anyway as the FO has Tightlock couplers and the 91s have drop-head buckeyes.
 
R

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
heedfan said:
Regarding double-ending, which I presume to mean a 91 at each end and removing the DVT entirely, this won't happen for many reasons. Lack of storage space within the 91s, no TM compartment, first class coaches being open ended, etc. I'd doubt whether you can even run 2 x 91s within the same set without one of them being dragged due to TDM issues, though I'm happy to be corrected if that is indeed possible.

Plus, why would LNER even bother with the hassle. An interesting idea nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the TDM system able to control a class 43 at the other end of the train when the 43s were acting as stand-ins for the mark 4 DVTs which hadn't yet arrived? Doesn't prove that it'd work with a second 91 there instead, but does suggest that it might be feesible. I'm not sure if it actually happened, but there was a rumour that in the run up to IEP two class 91s were to top & tail a test train overnight on the ECML with both powering. The idea was to test the effect having two pantographs raised (one at each of the the train) would have on the OHLE. As I say I'm not sure if it actually happened, but if it did I'd be interested to see evidence if anyone has a link to a video.
 
C

cjmillsnun

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
3,254
Rhydgaled said:
Wasn't the TDM system able to control a class 43 at the other end of the train when the 43s were acting as stand-ins for the mark 4 DVTs which hadn't yet arrived? Doesn't prove that it'd work with a second 91 there instead, but does suggest that it might be feesible. I'm not sure if it actually happened, but there was a rumour that in the run up to IEP two class 91s were to top & tail a test train overnight on the ECML with both powering. The idea was to test the effect having two pantographs raised (one at each of the the train) would have on the OHLE. As I say I'm not sure if it actually happened, but if it did I'd be interested to see evidence if anyone has a link to a video.
Click to expand...

The HST power car had to be specially modified. They weren't just acting as Mk4 DVTs, they were originally acting as the ETS for a rake of Mk3 coaches and in time were modified to work with the 91. The TDM isn't the problem.. The problems with no DVT on Mk4s have already been discussed.
 
I

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Rhydgaled said:
Wasn't the TDM system able to control a class 43 at the other end of the train when the 43s were acting as stand-ins for the mark 4 DVTs which hadn't yet arrived? Doesn't prove that it'd work with a second 91 there instead, but does suggest that it might be feesible. I'm not sure if it actually happened, but there was a rumour that in the run up to IEP two class 91s were to top & tail a test train overnight on the ECML with both powering. The idea was to test the effect having two pantographs raised (one at each of the the train) would have on the OHLE. As I say I'm not sure if it actually happened, but if it did I'd be interested to see evidence if anyone has a link to a video.
Click to expand...

Yes, a double 91 (back to back) test was done, maybe in about 2013/14. Can't point to any evidence off hand, I'm afraid, but sure it was in a magazine around the time.
 
D

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
916
There was a pic of the T&T 91s in the railway press at the time. I think the DVT was replaced by the spare TSOE. I don't know if both locos were under power but it did hit 125mph.
 
Last edited:
Peter Mugridge

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,816
Location
Epsom
dubscottie said:
There was a pic of the T&T 91s in the railway press at the time. I think the DVT was replaced by the spare TSOE. I don't know if both locos were under power but it did hit 125mph.
Click to expand...

I think that was to test the overheads with two pantographs at speed wasn't it?
 
43096

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,266
Peter Mugridge said:
I think that was to test the overheads with two pantographs at speed wasn't it?
Click to expand...
Connected with Azuma introduction and the need for two pans to be raised when a pair of 5-car sets are running coupled, as I recall it.
 
Entertexthere

Entertexthere

Member
Joined
15 Sep 2018
Messages
189
Location
WIthin L&Y territory
Ianno87 said:
Yes, a double 91 (back to back) test was done, maybe in about 2013/14. Can't point to any evidence off hand, I'm afraid, but sure it was in a magazine around the time.
Click to expand...
Why did they do that when 91114 had the 2 duplex pantographs that they could have easily done it with? or was it just testing having 2 pantographs up at either end of the train? I can only presume it's the latter.
 
43096

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,266
Entertexthere said:
Why did they do that when 91114 had the 2 duplex pantographs that they could have easily done it with? or was it just testing having 2 pantographs up at either end of the train? I can only presume it's the latter.
Click to expand...
The latter. The aim was to test contact wire forces and “wave” and pantograph uplift running at 125mph with a pan raised at each end of the train to mimic Azuma 5-car sets running as a pair.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top