Class 91s to 'top and tail' 7 coaches? (Update: there are no plans to do this)

[Deepgreen]

April's edition of 'The Railway Magazine' carries a short item about a proposal to use pairs of class 91s to 'top and tail' formations of seven mark 4 coaches on the ECML. With both locos powering (which is the plan), this would give a staggering 12,960hp for a seven car train! This surely must be the highest power rating for a train of this length ever to run in normal service in the UK (if it materialises)?

 

[43 302]

Why on earth would they go from one 91 with nine coaches, to two 91s with seven coaches? Doesnt seem very cost effective and the 91s acceleration will already be faster with two less coaches.

 

[Nym]

And unless they're retaining the DVT as well, there's quite a lot of stuff that will be needed to be moved into the TOE vehicle. Would be nice n quick mind.

 

[Jamesrob637]

April's edition of 'The Railway Magazine'

Doesn't that tell you everything? Even if it wasn't published or released on the 1st of April itself?

 

[Halish Railway]

And unless they're retaining the DVT as well, there's quite a lot of stuff that will be needed to be moved into the TOE vehicle. Would be nice n quick mind.

What’s stored in the DVT?

In all honesty top-and-tail with 9 coaches isn’t a bad idea (7 coaches is a bit silly) as it would probably be able to keep to Azuma timings as a stopgap until more 801s (presumably) are ordered. Mind you I don’t think that this will be cleared any time soon due to power supply issues in the ‘Northumberland gap’ - I’m not sure when that’ll be sorted.

 

[43 302]

What’s stored in the DVT?

In all honesty top-and-tail with 9 coaches isn’t a bad idea (7 coaches is a bit silly) as it would probably be able to keep to Azuma timings as a stopgap until more 801s (presumably) are ordered. Mind you I don’t think that this will be cleared any time soon due to power supply issues in the ‘Northumberland gap’ - I’m not sure when that’ll be sorted.

I'm almost certain this isn't going to happen; but if it did, I'm not sure the pantograph would even to be allowed up on the second 91. If I remember correctly the White Rose sets were only allowed to operate with one pantograph.

 

[Halish Railway]

If I remember correctly the White Rose sets were only allowed to operate with one pantograph.

That was only in certain areas with poor power supply, though I agree that perhaps only one pantograph should be used as is commonplace with continental High speed trains that use power cars when operating with 25Kv OHLE.

NoL Class 373 power restrictions:
At the following locations on the East Coast Main Line they were only allowed to run at 110 mph (177 km/h), shown by blue "TGV" signs next to the tracks, or required to only use one pantograph:
(i) The Down Fast line between 59 m 10ch and 59 m 30ch (Huntingdon North Jn)
(ii) between Grantham (105 m 77ch) and Shaftholme Jn (160 m 00ch Down/160m 20ch Up)
(iii) between Colton Jn (182 m 75ch) and York.

Source - Wikipedia

 

[D365]

That was only in certain areas with poor power supply, though I agree that perhaps only one pantograph should be used as is commonplace with continental High speed trains that use power cars when operating with 25Kv OHLE.

What would be the point in that? If the second 91 had its pan down, it wouldn’t be doing anything.

 

[gsnedders]

That was only in certain areas with poor power supply, though I agree that perhaps only one pantograph should be used as is commonplace with continental High speed trains that use power cars when operating with 25Kv OHLE.

Remember the 373s (NoL among them) had the requirement that they be able to split in service (in event of a fire in the tunnel), so a continuous 25kV wire along the roof was infeasible, thus multiple pantographs were a requirement.

 

[clagmonster]

I understand the plan is load 8, including DVT with one 91, ie 7 passenger carrying coaches. Two 91s would cause all sort of issues with 'pantograph bounce' and power draw and lack of a DVT would render it impossible to complete the door interlock circuit as well as removing the guard's and bicycle accommodation. I am quite sure than there would be other issues too.

 

[hexagon789]

April's edition of 'The Railway Magazine' carries a short item about a proposal to use pairs of class 91s to 'top and tail' formations of seven mark 4 coaches on the ECML. With both locos powering (which is the plan), this would give a staggering 12,960hp for a seven car train! This surely must be the highest power rating for a train of this length ever to run in normal service in the UK (if it materialises)?

Pretty sure that's an April fool. Apart from the fact you would need a TOE at each end of the set because the intermediate coaches have tightlock couplers, don't think there's many 91s to run that many sets?

And power-wise a 373 Eurostar has more power than two 91s - 12,176.5 hp continuous output for two 91s (12,605.6 hp maximum) against 16,360.5 hp continous for a 373.

 

[James James]

I understand the plan is load 8, including DVT with one 91, ie 7 passenger carrying coaches. Two 91s would cause all sort of issues with 'pantograph bounce' and power draw and lack of a DVT would render it impossible to complete the door interlock circuit as well as removing the guard's and bicycle accommodation. I am quite sure than there would be other issues too.

Pantograph bounce? I've been on plenty of trains with a loco on each end or middle+end without issues - at 200km/h? (Not on the ECML mind you.)

(In fact, won't there be quite a few places where e.g. 2 pendolinos in Italy might operate at 250 km/h with similar 7 car spacing?, or even the German ICE 2 at 280 km/h?)

 

[Iskra]

If true, it might be to improve resilience and provide a self-rescue ability if the juice is still on. The second loco might not be powering. But it does seem to defeat the point of a 7-car set if you are going to add the weight of another loco dead on the end, unless it is actually going to provide power.

 

[hexagon789]

If true, it might be to improve resilience and provide a self-rescue ability if the juice is still on. The second loco might not be powering. But it does seem to defeat the point of a 7-car set if you are going to add the weight of another loco dead on the end, unless it is actually going to provide power.

If it is true, I will do a Paddy Ashdown and eat my hat (made of cake of course

 

[ExRes]

Pantograph bounce? I've been on plenty of trains with a loco on each end or middle+end without issues - at 200km/h? (Not on the ECML mind you.)

(In fact, won't there be quite a few places where e.g. 2 pendolinos in Italy might operate at 250 km/h with similar 7 car spacing?, or even the German ICE 2 at 280 km/h?)

It would be interesting to know where the 'plenty of trains' operate 'without issues' and whether they were designed and built for that purpose, as the 91s obviously weren't

 

[CBlue]

April edition of a magazine says it all, no?

Someone will be claiming they're to run at 140mph next

Can't see the rationale behind two locos and as other posters say, equipment and train electrical systems require the DVT to be in place.
Who is going to be spending all that money on a fleet approaching the end of its service life on the ECML?

 

[James James]

It would be interesting to know where the 'plenty of trains' operate 'without issues' and whether they were designed and built for that purpose, as the 91s obviously weren't

It would be interesting to know what "design" you need to make it possible to have 2 pantographs up? That's been going on since about forever? And those 91s were designed for freight too, which implies multiple working?

Beyond the two I mentioned (ETR 600 - which operate beyond Italy, but likely only operate at 250 km/h within Italy, and ICE 2 in DE), there's the RE 460's in Switzerland which didn't start operating at 200km/h until a long time after they were built. Those RE 460's aren't much newer than the 91s, and it's hard to imagine they were designed for their current usage.

Interestingly, the RE460 were only in recent years upgraded to Stone-Faively pantographs (before that they were restricted in terms of having trailing pantograph only allowed for 200 km/h, now they can use either pantograph at 200km/h).

 

[captainbigun]

This isn’t solely about pantographs, it’s primarily about the overhead infrastructure, and the ECML is particularly hampered.

 

[jopsuk]

The original 0-series Shinkansen were using a pantograph for every 2 carriages, on 12 car trains, at 210km/h in 1964.

Ok, so onnewly built dedicated track, but still relevant (given the entire premise of the thread is almost certainly based on bad reporting by The Railway Magazine)

 

[Nym]

What’s stored in the DVT?

In all honesty top-and-tail with 9 coaches isn’t a bad idea (7 coaches is a bit silly) as it would probably be able to keep to Azuma timings as a stopgap until more 801s (presumably) are ordered. Mind you I don’t think that this will be cleared any time soon due to power supply issues in the ‘Northumberland gap’ - I’m not sure when that’ll be sorted.

The FDM master computer for all coach control functions is in the DVT, as is the correct coupler for attaching to the Locomotive.

That was only in certain areas with poor power supply, though I agree that perhaps only one pantograph should be used as is commonplace with continental High speed trains that use power cars when operating with 25Kv OHLE.

The 373s might not have had the same pantographs. Those designed for the TGV network are usually Faiverley type, where as in the UK they're almost exclusively Brecknall Willis HSA units, (New trains are now HSX, which is a rather different design)

Pantograph bounce? I've been on plenty of trains with a loco on each end or middle+end without issues - at 200km/h? (Not on the ECML mind you.)

(In fact, won't there be quite a few places where e.g. 2 pendolinos in Italy might operate at 250 km/h with similar 7 car spacing?, or even the German ICE 2 at 280 km/h?)

I know for a fact for example, that 2 HSX pantographs have been tested with 232m spacing at up to 125mph and possibly beyond, since thats what a pair of IETs run with. Provided the dynamic (head and aero) performance of the HSA is not too dissimilar (it actually isn't at that kind of speed) then why not?

 

[Helvellyn]

If a coach is removed from the sets I expect it to be the former smoking accommodation FO (114x series) given that the first to standard class ratio is lower in an Azuma.

I could see these shorter sets then being used on the Lincoln and York stopping services given the suggestion for the 2021 timetable seems to be about using the Azumas in 9-car or 10-car formations - 5-cars only being used for some of the extensions (e.g. splits at Leeds for the likes of Braford, Huddersfiled, Skipton or Harrogate).

 

[D365]

I could see these shorter sets then being used on the Lincoln and York stopping services given the suggestion for the 2021 timetable seems to be about using the Azumas in 9-car or 10-car formations - 5-cars only being used for some of the extensions (e.g. splits at Leeds for the likes of Braford, Huddersfiled, Skipton or Harrogate).

Class 91s to Lincoln? Or am I misunderstanding your post.

 

[Darandio]

Class 91s to Lincoln? Or am I misunderstanding your post.

Maybe the two locos on this service are to give it a much quicker start out of Newark then coast to Lincoln?

 

[O L Leigh]

I find it amusing that two people have already pointed out that it’s an April Fool joke and both got totally ignored.

Oh well. Carry on.

 

[Deepgreen]

I did consider the 'April Fool' possibility but it was a small piece tucked away and didn't have any obvious clues. The claim was that the two 91s would be needed to match Azumas' acceleration. The article claims there are issues between 91s and 82s (DVTs) which two 91s would eliminate. It also claims that 10-15 sets of Mk4s would be retained.
I'm happy to concede 'April Fool' if it's the case, but very few publications have done them this year for obvious reasons and this just didn't have the right tone for one.

 

[Deepgreen]

Maybe the two locos on this service are to give it a much quicker start out of Newark then coast to Lincoln?

Giving new meaning to 'East Coast'!

 

[6026KingJohn]

Regarding April Fool. It might be worth noting that Railway Magazine is published on the first Wednesday of every month and that this year that was the first. (the last time it happened was 2015)

 

[Deepgreen]

Regarding April Fool. It might be worth noting that Railway Magazine is published on the first Wednesday of every month and that this year that was the first. (the last time it happened was 2015)

I'm warming to the possibility, but it just didn't seem far-fetched, dramatic or funny enough. I might have gone with LNER's 'celebrity' HST to be used as parcels unit in BR livery, or similar. Anyway, it's stimulated more discussion than I expected!

 

[Deepgreen]

Pretty sure that's an April fool. Apart from the fact you would need a TOE at each end of the set because the intermediate coaches have tightlock couplers, don't think there's many 91s to run that many sets?

And power-wise a 373 Eurostar has more power than two 91s - 12,176.5 hp continuous output for two 91s (12,605.6 hp maximum) against 16,360.5 hp continous for a 373.

Regarding the power - yes, but 373s are not 7 car sets. Thanks for the accuracy to one decimal place by the way!

 

[hexagon789]

Regarding the power - yes, but 373s are not 7 car sets. Thanks for the accuracy to one decimal place by the way!

I'll do power-to-weight calculations too if you like!