• 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!

Ex-LNER Mk4 sets for Grand Central (Blackpool - Euston)

Status
Not open for further replies.

HSP 2

Member
Joined
4 Dec 2019
Messages
640
Location
11B
Do we know the 90s selected to run these services yet or still to be chosen

Please have a look at the link in post #28 it will give a clue.

It also gives information on most if not all loco hauled trains.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Murray J

Member
Joined
10 Aug 2019
Messages
709
Location
East Grinstead
apparently the locos to be allocated are 90020, 021, 026, 029 and 039, with 90026 at toton for repainting, according to wikipedia it's already in the base grand central black.
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
1,979
Location
Northampton
As noted above that's a historical nickname. Greater Anglia's class 90s and mark 3 rakes were achieving 58323 miles between technical incidents in the year to October 2018, more reliable than any other inter-city fleet in the country, and streets ahead of 17009 miles per technical incident being achieved by LNER's class 91s and mark 4s during the same period.

RfD control certainly recorded them on their logs as 'Skodas' but, as you say, this may be unfair.

Although I gave the impression that Inter City let them go because of unreliability this was not the real reason. The 90's were a slightly dated design, being based on the 87s; possibly they were originally to be 87/2 (or even /1, can't remember the timescale re 'Stephenson'). Inter City therefore realised that, within a few years, they might be obsolescent but still have a high book value, which would make replacement with a new generation of train (whatever form that might take) more difficult to justify/ produce a good BCE and that's why they offered them to RfD.

It seems that IC did think highly of them because, although they were obviously RfD underwritten assets, IC seemed very happy for them to be commandeered for their trains under the then-rules, leaving RfD short. The answer was - altering them to 90/1 making them theoretically less attractive. Speed limitations didn't always work - I was on a Northampton 'Cobbler' once behind an 86/5, for instance, and fitting the 47s with composition brake blocks didn't stop them being 'stolen' either....
 

CDM

Member
Joined
18 Apr 2012
Messages
72
RfD control certainly recorded them on their logs as 'Skodas' but, as you say, this may be unfair.

Although I gave the impression that Inter City let them go because of unreliability this was not the real reason.

They certainly did have a couple of particular reliability problems on WC in comparison to the 86's - ones that weren't solved until after they had all been transferred to the GE and decimated IC reliability there.

Both of the biggest problems were only evident when in 'push' mode.
Firstly de-configuring (TDM control system crashing) at neutral sections, bringing the train to a stand with emergency stop. This was an absolute Achilles heel of them, affecting reliability all day, every day, all year round (something the 87's and 86's didn't suffer from).
Secondly thyristor flashovers in snow.

TDM de-configuring was never understood in IC/VT days but was eventually completely solved during NXEA (and I do mean completely eradicated) after a lot of electrical engineering study.
Durability was also significantly improved to a point where it wasn't a real problem.

Why were these not fixed before? Well, it's pretty easy to explain really - neither of the above problems are a problem to a freight operator (since they never use them in push mode) and the 90's were a very small fleet in IC/VT, so it's not too surprising that they didn't get the in-depth investigation needed to get to the bottom. Much easier to just to use the well known and more reliable 86/87's instead.
Once they became a small, dedicated stand-alone fleet on GE, there was no-where to hide AND they could get the dedicated the time and effort really put into understanding them.
In the end, the GE 90's have been an absolutely brilliantly reliable loco (despite also being absolutely hammered, day-in-day-out) and for many, it will be a shame to see them go.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,165
Why were these not fixed before? Well, it's pretty easy to explain really - neither of the above problems are a problem to a freight operator (since they never use them in push mode) and the 90's were a very small fleet in IC/VT, so it's not too surprising that they didn't get the in-depth investigation needed to get to the bottom. Much easier to just to use the well known and more reliable 86/87's instead.
Once they became a small, dedicated stand-alone fleet on GE, there was no-where to hide AND they could get the dedicated the time and effort really put into understanding them.
In the end, the GE 90's have been an absolutely brilliantly reliable loco (despite also being absolutely hammered, day-in-day-out) and for many, it will be a shame to see them go.
I would also suggest that the IC/VT 90s were seen as being a stop-gap (to IC250 in BR days, to Pendolinos under VT and their "run it into the ground" maintenance policy) and that meant no-one had any real incentive to sort them out properly.
 

Merle Haggard

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2019
Messages
1,979
Location
Northampton
Thank you for the insight CDM.
The TDM crashing in push mode did have a big knock-on effect on the freight businesses. The IC solution was for the loco to run round and be attached to the front. With one line already blocked by the failed train this ensured complete chaos; between Birmingham and Hanslope both tracks were blocked in the process and, because the loco was at the North end, on the 4 tracks south of Hanslope both slow lines were blocked as the loco crossed the down slow onto the up slow and repeated the process to regain the up fast. Our colleagues in control reserved any opportunities to run trains past the block for other Inter City trains. Meanwhile, freight trains carrying, for instance, inter-factory components planned on a 'just in time' basis were subjected to inordinate delay.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
I note that the bodyside band on repainted 90026 looks much closer to the colour of the warning yellow panel than the orange band on Grand Central's 180s and formerly on their HSTs. A means of brand differentiation I wonder?

I was also initially surprised to see that Pullman rubbing plates and buckeye couplers hadn't been refitted, but then realised that this isn't an issue as DB Cargo class 90s have been using screw link couplings to work with mark 4 rakes for some years now.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,269
Isn't the point that a 91 will go to 125mph, vice a 90 only to 110, thereby slotting into the main 125mph flow?
You must have missed all the discussions over many years about the WCML being limited to 110 mph for non-tilt stock? I’ll accept there may be change afoot, but not quickly enough for GC...
 

Deepgreen

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
6,340
Location
Betchworth, Surrey
You must have missed all the discussions over many years about the WCML being limited to 110 mph for non-tilt stock? I’ll accept there may be change afoot, but not quickly enough for GC...
I must admit I assumed a GC-allocated life that would include 125mph non-tilt permission, but you're right, it probably needs to be sooner to suit GC.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,269
I must admit I assumed a GC-allocated life that would include 125mph non-tilt permission, but you're right, it probably needs to be sooner to suit GC.
Lack of imminent change does seem to be the most likely reason for 90s. Of course in a few years there may be no 91s left anyway, even if speed limits increase.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,716
Location
Glasgow
Isn't the point that a 91 will go to 125mph, vice a 90 only to 110, thereby slotting into the main 125mph flow?

Technically a 91 is passed for 140, but the southern end of the WCML isn't more than 110 non-tilt where these services will run. So might as well use faster accelerating 90s.
 

apinnard

Member
Joined
2 Aug 2017
Messages
260
Location
Kettering
I must admit I assumed a GC-allocated life that would include 125mph non-tilt permission, but you're right, it probably needs to be sooner to suit GC.

It isnt safe to run non-tilt stock on the WCML curves at 125. Unfortunately the laws of physics get in the way.

The 90s dont have tilt ability. The 91's and MK4, whilst designed with tilt in mind in the late 80s, were never actually fitted out with the required mechanisms for this nor the TASS kit to detect when / when not to tilt.

It's a no go.
 

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,716
Location
Glasgow
It isnt safe to run non-tilt stock on the WCML curves at 125. Unfortunately the laws of physics get in the way.

The 90s dont have tilt ability. The 91's and MK4, whilst designed with tilt in mind in the late 80s, were never actually fitted out with the required mechanisms for this nor the TASS kit to detect when / when not to tilt.

It's a no go.

It's perfectly safe, all that happens is you increase the forces on passengers within the train, it might be slightly less comfortable, but it certainly isn't unsafe.

Otherwise everytime a Pendolino's tilt de-configured at 125mph it would derail then?
 

apinnard

Member
Joined
2 Aug 2017
Messages
260
Location
Kettering
It isnt really safe to be throwing mk4s around those curves at 125. Just look at their envelope, they'd be seriously out of gauge.
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,845
Location
St Neots
It isnt really safe to be throwing mk4s around those curves at 125. Just look at their envelope, they'd be seriously out of gauge.

Why would they? Tilt is for passenger comfort, not loading gauge.

Not totally.

Would you want to take a 91 and a consist of mk4's around Weedon curves at 125?

Yes, totally.

The line speeds on the curves (and the track spacing!) are exhaustively tested to be 100% absolutely safe even when a Pendolino is tilted the wrong way — never mind a Mk4 being rigidly upright.

Tilting stock has only one, single, unwavering purpose: passenger comfort.
 

samuelmorris

Established Member
Joined
18 Jul 2013
Messages
5,121
Location
Brentwood, Essex
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top