Class 91 hauling 'wrong way round' 225 set nr Leeds

[alexl92]

I was driving through Leeds Centre this evening and as I passed under the viaduct by the parish church/bus station, a VTEC 225 set was travelling over towards Neville Hill. I think it was this:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y71872/2016/09/21/advanced

The odd thing is that although the train was travelling towards Neville Hill, there was a Class 91 power car leading the DVT, but with the nose facing the same way as the DVT's - ie the power car was the wrong way round.

I wasn't able to see whether there was also a locomotive on the other end of the train, but I can't imagine why and how the power car would be facing that way. I know they sometimes run the power car around the train if there's a problem with the connections or anything but that normally means the train travelling blunt-end first.

Does anyone know how this came about, and what circumstances would have led to the 91 facing the way it was?

EDIT: Altered thread title to reflect the fact that it was the set facing the wrong way, not the loco.

 

[yorkie]

There are plenty of places where a train (or loco) could go in a loop, causing it to be the 'wrong' way round, such as at Newcastle, Edinburgh and there's two ways into Leeds/Neville Hill from either direction (though approaching from the east would not be possible for an electric without an assistance). This could be done intentionally or otherwise.

There could have been a fault with the DVT, and if they want to run the train at full speed then I believe that would require the loco to be facing the 'normal' way.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

So the loco was reversed and hauling the set coupled to the DVT? Sounds like the train set and not the loco was facing the wrong way as DVTs normally lead london bound.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As Durham Cathedral was dragged ECS with stock from Heaton to Bounds Green earlier aswell I can only suggest the fleet is in a bit of flux at the mo with the chaos the OHLE has caused over the last 3 weeks....

 

[yorkie]

Yes, from the description the Mk4 DVT (and, presumably coaches) was the wrong way round...

Does anyone know how this came about, and what circumstances would have led to the 91 facing the way it was?

...so I think the question should why the rest of the train was facing the way it was

 

[alexl92]

Yes, from the description the Mk4 DVT (and, presumably coaches) was the wrong way round...

...so I think the question should why the rest of the train was facing the way it was

Yeah you guys are absolutely right - I got mixed up! Okay, anyone know that?

 

[yorkie]

I have asked my contacts at VTEC...

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Im guessing its been turned somewhere (Newcastle?) due to a fault with the controls in the DVT or its ability to talk to the 91, putting the 91 at the front heading towards London. Then with the original 91 now blunt end facing Edinburgh and trapped at the buffer stops a different 91 has hauled the set from KGX for attention at Neville Hill. Somewhere there will be a 91 facing the wrong way!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

A common reason for turning a set is a fault at one end, such as damaged windscreen. To keep the unit in service, it can be expedient to turn it and then run the return service 'the wrong way round'. The consequence of this is that after completeing the return journey, and detaching the defective vehicle for repair and replacing it with another, then the replacement will be the 'right way round' but the rest of the set will not be, creating the situation you observed.

It's not uncommon for the turning to be done by using the High Level Bridge at Newcastle, though sometimes on the triangle in Leeds.

Knowing how frantically VTEC has been trying to run a service despite all the adversity over the last couple of weeks, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there had been damage to a loco or DVT and that sets were turned to keep them running. But it is all just conjecture as to whether these circumstances apply to the set you saw in Leeds.

 

[yorkie]

Agreed.

It could also have been 'dragged' via Carlisle by a diesel locomotive (there are diversions at weekends currently). Normally they're very good at planning to get them back in the correct formation as soon as possible but something unplanned may have occured that prevented the correction happening, e.g. the set was swapped onto a different service, or a route along the relevant bridge at Newcastle may have been unavailable.

 

[alexl92]

Interesting, thank you. If you hear back from your sources Yorkie, I'd be interested to know, but otherwise thanks all for providing interesting & plausible responses. Makes much more sense now.

As an aside, could they ever operate a MKIV set using a Cl 67 instead of a 91 if they were short of stock?

 

[sprinterguy]

As an aside, could they ever operate a MKIV set using a Cl 67 instead of a 91 if they were short of stock?

Not in push-pull mode: A class 67 could haul and provide train supply buffered up to a mark 4 rake, but would not be able to propel a set due to different control systems being in use (TDM versus AAR; the same reason why class 67s can only work with modified mark 3B DVTs in the 823xx series with Chiltern and ATW (as well as, for the pedants, similarly modified 82146 with the DB Company Train)).

 

[route:oxford]

Not in push-pull mode: A class 67 could haul and provide train supply buffered up to a mark 4 rake, but would not be able to propel a set due to different control systems being in use (TDM versus AAR; the same reason why class 67s can only work with modified mark 3B DVTs in the 823xx series with Chiltern and ATW (as well as, for the pedants, similarly modified 82146 with the DB Company Train)).

Surely that should be "Not *yet* in push-pull mode".

Given that the only modern or relatively modern alternatives locos to the 91s that are suitable to haul the the rakes are AAR enabled - it can only be a matter of time.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

The 68's use AAR aswell. Expect TPE's DVTs will use the same kit

 

[yorkie]

We think it was actually this (5D30 rather than 5D31):

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/trai...09/21/advanced

In actual fact, the MK4 set and 'normal' 91 on 1D30 were all the right way round. However, the set additionally had 91132 placed on top of it, this was leading the set and was attached to the 'normal' 91.

It was to get 91132 to NL so it could replace another one which needed to run to Wabtec for works attention, which we think may be this path this morning:

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/trai...09/22/advanced

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Heres a question.

You got a "normal" complete 225 rake with an additional 91 hauling coupled to the DVT and sloped cab leading. Whats the linespeed?

Blunt end first I know its 110. Woukd the same apply here?

Also could (not would) both 91's provide traction or would that overload the delicate OHLE

 

[JN114]

Heres a question.

You got a "normal" complete 225 rake with an additional 91 hauling coupled to the DVT and sloped cab leading. Whats the linespeed?

Blunt end first I know its 110. Woukd the same apply here?

Also could (not would) both 91's provide traction or would that overload the delicate OHLE

Max Speed would be 125 (the 110 is only when blunt end first, no other restrictions)

If my understanding is correct, I don't think the TDM system support Loco - DVT - Train - Loco with both locos powering, the signal will terminate at the DVT with no means of forwarding on.

2 locos won't overload the OLE alone, although I wouldn't send them in that configuration to Skipton or Bradford as I wouldn't be as confident!

 

[sprinterguy]

If my understanding is correct, I don't think the TDM system support Loco - DVT - Train - Loco with both locos powering, the signal will terminate at the DVT with no means of forwarding on.

Is that definitely the case? There were some strange formations seen during TDM testing and driver training with the mark 3B DVTs. Some formations were formed DVT - Train - DVT - Loco for testing purposes (Such as that seen here http://www.traintesting.com/images/Mk3 DVTs Stafford 1989.jpg), and one photo I have seen online shows a formation of 2 x North Facing DVTs - 2 x South Facing DVTs - Loco on a driver training run, so TDM signals across multiple DVTs doesn't seem to be a problem, unless the interface with a loco is somehow different?

 

[cjmillsnun]

Heres a question.

You got a "normal" complete 225 rake with an additional 91 hauling coupled to the DVT and sloped cab leading. Whats the linespeed?

Blunt end first I know its 110. Woukd the same apply here?

Also could (not would) both 91's provide traction or would that overload the delicate OHLE

Max speed would be 125 as sharp end is leading. As for both 91s providing traction I don't know.

 

[Rob F]

Heres a question.

You got a "normal" complete 225 rake with an additional 91 hauling coupled to the DVT and sloped cab leading. Whats the linespeed?

Blunt end first I know its 110. Woukd the same apply here?

Also could (not would) both 91's provide traction or would that overload the delicate OHLE

I have never really understood the asymmetry in speed of a 91. There seems to be no physical reason why it shouldn't run at 125mph blunt end first. There will be a bit more drag which will eat into the available power a little more, but so what?

I once heard it was due to the notch shaped gap between the loco and the first coach when running this way round but the same issue didn't seem to hinder the class 89 running at 125mph, both hauling and propelling.

Anyone know the definitive reason behind it and what dire consequences may ensue if it was actually done?

ROB

 

[E&W Lucas]

Lots of half undersanding and people tying themselves in knots here!
Will let it rumble along for a while!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have never really understood the asymmetry in speed of a 91. There seems to be no physical reason why it shouldn't run at 125mph blunt end first. There will be a bit more drag which will eat into the available power a little more, but so what?

I once heard it was due to the notch shaped gap between the loco and the first coach when running this way round but the same issue didn't seem to hinder the class 89 running at 125mph, both hauling and propelling.

Anyone know the definitive reason behind it and what dire consequences may ensue if it was actually done?

ROB

Ha ha ha ha ha!
That's the best platform end nonsense for a while!
Reason was the extra energy consumption to run them blunt end frst at 125. As with many things on the railway, the answer is so very simple.

 

[alexl92]

We think it was actually this (5D30 rather than 5D31):

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/trai...09/21/advanced

In actual fact, the MK4 set and 'normal' 91 on 1D30 were all the right way round. However, the set additionally had 91132 placed on top of it, this was leading the set and was attached to the 'normal' 91.

It was to get 91132 to NL so it could replace another one which needed to run to Wabtec for works attention, which we think may be this path this morning:

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/trai...09/22/advanced

Timing adds up, but from what I could see, the second vehicle looked more like a DVT. I might well be wrong though.

Thanks!

EDIT: Yorkie, would the 91 inside have had its panto down? Maybe that's what threw me from that angle, although I remember noticing the shape of the back of 91132.

 

[jopsuk]

In France they happily run "broken nose" style BB22000 locos with Corail coaches at 200km/h. If you're not fussy about energy consumption then sheer power overcomes aerodynamics. To some extent.nso going by E & W Lucas a 91 is perfectly technically capable of 125mph blunt end first as long as the power supply is up to the job. It's just an operational restriction