LNER Class 91/Mk4 service status/withdrawals/2021 refurbishment

[jamieP]

Northallerton is self dispatch. Do they really need specific mark 4 dispatch competency? They didn’t need any extra training when XC converted their HSTs from slam door to sliding door operation, and Carlisle station didn’t need any training for the 80xs when the first diversions with them happened. Why are the Mark 4s different in that regard? Or is it like the thunderbird “issue” where really it’s just being used as an excuse for not bothering, as a 91 is no more likely to require recovery by a loco than any other train operating on the rail network.

Suspect its the same reason LNER staff are no longer allowed to dispatch slam door stock anymore.

 

[43 302]

Suspect its the same reason LNER staff are no longer allowed to dispatch slam door stock anymore.

But slam door dispatch is totally different from sliding Vs plug door. I can't imagine this is even a problem; and if it is, it's a very small one.

 

[DB]

But slam door dispatch is totally different from sliding Vs plug door. I can't imagine this is even a problem; and if it is, it's a very small one.

Who dispatches the Voyagers? They are of course plug door too.

 

[Rhydgaled]

a 91 is no more likely to require recovery by a loco than any other train operating on the rail network.

It depends on the reason recovery is required. In the event of power to the OHLE being cut off, all pure-electric stock will require recovery by a diesel loco. Bi-modes (including class 801s which are technically bi-modes despite many calling them EMUs due to them being extremely underpowered in diesel mode) and diesel trains would not require recovery. A dewirement on the other hand is likely to stop everything since you are not going to be allowed to drive any train through a tangle of potentially live wires lying across the track.

As for on-train failures, an IC125 has two power cars so if one goes down you can keep going (with reduced power) with the other. Most DMUs have an engine under each coach, so again if they lose one engine they can limp on with the other(s). Class 700s have multiple pantographs so can presumably raise the other if there is a fault with one. A class 91 however only has one pantograph and there isn't another 91 in the formation so if the pantograph breaks the IC225 needs a Thunderbird. Not sure about 387s, I think they only have a single pan but if running in multiple can one unit keep the other going if there's a fault on one unit or do they need a Thunderbird?

 

[47827]

The 91s going north of York covered extensively on the past comments. Lack of thunderbird was why regular use even out and back wasn't going to happen after the fact it could only be say a Leeds or London crew north of York (Doncaster maybe too?). I'm more of the mindset it shouldn't be 100% ruled out to prevent a cancellation, but can fully understand why it's highly unlikely to happen as rescue time near Newcastle would be over 2 hours at best by the nearest 67, assuming Network Rail was unable to commandeer a freight loco that was nearer.

 

[DanNCL]

But slam door dispatch is totally different from sliding Vs plug door. I can't imagine this is even a problem; and if it is, it's a very small one.

I agree. More than likely it’s simply a convenient excuse they can give out when challenged about it.

Who dispatches the Voyagers? They are of course plug door too.

LNER dispatches the voyagers.

It depends on the reason recovery is required. In the event of power to the OHLE being cut off, all pure-electric stock will require recovery by a diesel loco. Bi-modes (including class 801s which are technically bi-modes despite many calling them EMUs due to them being extremely underpowered in diesel mode) and diesel trains would not require recovery. A dewirement on the other hand is likely to stop everything since you are not going to be allowed to drive any train through a tangle of potentially live wires lying across the track.

As for on-train failures, an IC125 has two power cars so if one goes down you can keep going (with reduced power) with the other. Most DMUs have an engine under each coach, so again if they lose one engine they can limp on with the other(s). Class 700s have multiple pantographs so can presumably raise the other if there is a fault with one. A class 91 however only has one pantograph and there isn't another 91 in the formation so if the pantograph breaks the IC225 needs a Thunderbird. Not sure about 387s, I think they only have a single pan but if running in multiple can one unit keep the other going if there's a fault on one unit or do they need a Thunderbird?

801s definitely have ended up needing recovery by a loco in the North East, GC have a procedure in place to recover 180s with locos too, although I’m not sure if that’s ever actually been used outside of training exercises.

A 700 needs both pantographs raised, otherwise half the unit becomes unpowered. From an electrical point of view it’s two single cabbed half units coupled back to back.

The 91s going north of York covered extensively on the past comments. Lack of thunderbird was why regular use even out and back wasn't going to happen after the fact it could only be say a Leeds or London crew north of York (Doncaster maybe too?). I'm more of the mindset it shouldn't be 100% ruled out to prevent a cancellation, but can fully understand why it's highly unlikely to happen as rescue time near Newcastle would be over 2 hours at best by the nearest 67, assuming Network Rail was unable to commandeer a freight loco that was nearer.

In my opinion the best option would have been to keep them signed by Newcastle crews, allowing use north of York without too much hassle during disruption or if needed for extra capacity, whilst allowing it to lapse on Edinburgh crews. Considering the well documented 80x issues if I were in LNER’s shoes I’d be doing traction refreshers on the 91s for Newcastle crews, then perhaps booking one trip a week north of York to keep up crew knowledge so that it’s there in the event of disruption, under the same principle as diversionary route knowledge is kept up.

Regarding locos, there’s no shortage of them in Tyne Yard. That’s where the loco usually comes from should an 800 or 801 require loco recovery in the North East.

 

[jamieP]

A 700 can self rescue though and be driven with only one pan raised but will only have traction power to the good half of the set.

 

[47827]

In my opinion the best option would have been to keep them signed by Newcastle crews, allowing use north of York without too much hassle during disruption or if needed for extra capacity, whilst allowing it to lapse on Edinburgh crews. Considering the well documented 80x issues if I were in LNER’s shoes I’d be doing traction refreshers on the 91s for Newcastle crews, then perhaps booking one trip a week north of York to keep up crew knowledge so that it’s there in the event of disruption, under the same principle as diversionary route knowledge is kept up.

Regarding locos, there’s no shortage of them in Tyne Yard. That’s where the loco usually comes from should an 800 or 801 require loco recovery in the North East.

Definitely, in light of recent months, even if I understand their logic for not doing so at the time decisions were taken to allow knowledge to lapse. There is sometimes a 67 at Newcastle when road learning runs for drivers are required, so essentially that would have just needed to "stay on" as a daily thing at a not insignificant cost. It would have been cheaper than the 80x disruption/cancellations though. Obviously not quite as many sets would have gone to scrap too if a crystal ball had been on hand as perhaps a few Edinburgh services terminating Newcastle with mk4s would have been useful, keeping the remaining Edinburgh trains full length although you could have run to Edinburgh still in an emergency on a returning diagram in emergencies where Newcastle staff were available in the event they hadn't lost knowledge.

 

[hexagon789]

Not many but likely enough of the correct types to form at least one full 9 car set. The only vehicles actually required as such are the DVTs and the TSOEs, plus for PRM at least one coach with an accessible toilet, so as a last resort sets could be made up with (say) the catering coach missing.

I suppose if you are only looking at one if two full sets, then yes.

including class 801s which are technically bi-modes despite many calling them EMUs due to them being extremely underpowered in diesel mode

They are allowed to 'self-recover' on the single engine then? Another thread suggested the 801s, while designed and capable of self-recovery on their one engine (albeit at very low speed), were only being permitted to run hotel supplies off it in the event of an OLE/Electric failure and not traction movement.

 

[DanNCL]

They are allowed to 'self-recover' on the single engine then? Another thread suggested the 801s, while designed and capable of self-recovery on their one engine (albeit at very low speed), were only being permitted to run hotel supplies off it in the event of an OLE/Electric failure and not traction movement.

A 5 car 801 has self recovered before. Not sure about a 9 car 801, but they have made trips on the single Diesel engine between Newton Aycliffe and Darlington, and the Diesel engines have been used on the 801s during an OHLE outage at Kings Cross to keep the service running too, which left only the 91s required to turn back short.

 

[800001]

They

I suppose if you are only looking at one if two full sets, then yes.

They are allowed to 'self-recover' on the single engine then? Another thread suggested the 801s, while designed and capable of self-recovery on their one engine (albeit at very low speed), were only being permitted to run hotel supplies off it in the event of an OLE/Electric failure and not traction movement.

They are allowed to power up the single engine if stationary to provide limited hotel power, in the event of OHL failure, also if a train fails it can use the single engine to move forward at reduced speed to nearest station to terminate, or to section of live OHL and put pantograph back up.

They are not allowed to run on the single engine to move past areas of OHL damage or past an area if there is a trip out, as Hitachi will not allow this without there authorisation, due to the stresses and wear it places on the engine.

Previous disruption where the 801s used diesel engines to keep service running ie between Darlington and Northallertom should not of happened (well from Hitachis point of view anyway, from a customer point of view, it was 100% the right decision) and each case of wanting to do so now has to be authorised by Hitachi engineering department.

 

[hexagon789]

A 5 car 801 has self recovered before. Not sure about a 9 car 801, but they have made trips on the single Diesel engine between Newton Aycliffe and Darlington, and the Diesel engines have been used on the 801s during an OHLE outage at Kings Cross to keep the service running too, which left only the 91s required to turn back short.

I knew they'd run from Newton Aycliffe on the single engine, but 'mainline' use is another matter.

They are allowed to power up the single engine if stationary to provide limited hotel power, in the event of OHL failure, also if a train fails it can use the single engine to move forward at reduced speed to nearest station to terminate, or to section of live OHL and put pantograph back up.

They are not allowed to run on the single engine to move past areas of OHL damage or past an area if there is a trip out, as Hitachi will not allow this without there authorisation, due to the stresses and wear it places on the engine.

That'll be the distinction then - very limited use for movement only to clear the line.

 

[800001]

I knew they'd run from Newton Aycliffe on the single engine, but 'mainline' use is another matter.



That'll be the distinction then - very limited use for movement only to clear the line.

Yes, however when lines blocked with damage for a mile or 2, I would of thought keep service running, use the one engine, but no, let's cancel services etc

 

[Rhydgaled]

They are allowed to 'self-recover' on the single engine then? Another thread suggested the 801s, while designed and capable of self-recovery on their one engine (albeit at very low speed), were only being permitted to run hotel supplies off it in the event of an OLE/Electric failure and not traction movement.

I had no idea whether they were allowed to do so, but assumed they would be since that is why the DaFT specified diesel engine(s) on every single unit. If they are not allowed to self-recover, that just supports an argument I've probably made all along; that the diesel engine on the class 801s is useless extra weight, cost and complication. All they really needed was a battery capable; they would have kept the Thunderbirds on then and IC225s would be able to run fast Edinburghs and 801s on Leeds workings instead of the other way round which given the acceleration characteristics of the two types isn't ideal.

Hitachi will not allow this without there authorisation, due to the stresses and wear it places on the engine.

Daft, install a diesel engine and not be allowed to use it... Should have stuck with IC225s.

 

[XAM2175]

Daft, install a diesel engine and not be allowed to use it... Should have stuck with IC225s.

They would allow its use if they were paid for it. Blame the DfT's contractual arrangements.

 

[Fuzzytop]

There is another set coming, from the stored coaches that lner still lease. Will be hauled by a 91.

Is this one of the seven sets (NL06/08/12/13/15/17/26) down at Belmont waiting for HSTs to get out of Neville Hill, or do LNER still lease other vehicles beyond these?

 

[800001]

Is this one of the seven sets (NL06/08/12/13/15/17/26) down at Belmont waiting for HSTs to get out of Neville Hill, or do LNER still lease other vehicles beyond these?

The sets you mention above are all currently used by Lner. As for what others they still lease at Worksop I do not know.

 

[43096]

The sets you mention above are all currently used by Lner. As for what others they still lease at Worksop I do not know.

Everything at Worksop is off lease from LNER, either sold on to TfW or stored for Eversholt.

 

[DanNCL]

They

They are allowed to power up the single engine if stationary to provide limited hotel power, in the event of OHL failure, also if a train fails it can use the single engine to move forward at reduced speed to nearest station to terminate, or to section of live OHL and put pantograph back up.

They are not allowed to run on the single engine to move past areas of OHL damage or past an area if there is a trip out, as Hitachi will not allow this without there authorisation, due to the stresses and wear it places on the engine.

Previous disruption where the 801s used diesel engines to keep service running ie between Darlington and Northallertom should not of happened (well from Hitachis point of view anyway, from a customer point of view, it was 100% the right decision) and each case of wanting to do so now has to be authorised by Hitachi engineering department.

Mad. There is zero point having the Diesel engines with those restrictions. Is this also why use of 801s in multiple with 800s to Harrogate ended?

Hitachi seemingly needing to approve every single decision made over the slightest bit of operation of all the units they maintain must be a nightmare for all of the operators involved. I’m glad the 91+mark 4 fleet is out of Hitachi’s care. There was a noticeable deterioration in presentation and reliability of the sets after Bounds Green was taken over by Hitachi, though reliability isn’t as good as it could be at least they’re now appearing in a presentable condition.

Yes, however when lines blocked with damage for a mile or 2, I would of thought keep service running, use the one engine, but no, let's cancel services etc

As I mentioned on another thread over a completely different issue with LNER, the customers would be raging if they knew all this.

I had no idea whether they were allowed to do so, but assumed they would be since that is why the DaFT specified diesel engine(s) on every single unit. If they are not allowed to self-recover, that just supports an argument I've probably made all along; that the diesel engine on the class 801s is useless extra weight, cost and complication. All they really needed was a battery capable; they would have kept the Thunderbirds on then and IC225s would be able to run fast Edinburghs and 801s on Leeds workings instead of the other way round which given the acceleration characteristics of the two types isn't ideal.

I fully agree the best option by far would have been to keep the 91s working Edinburgh fasts. I sort of understand it with the Neville Hill move, but even then that could have been made to work with using them on the Edinburgh route, or alternatively Heaton had the capacity to have taken them on instead of Neville Hill (although that option will firmly be gone now).

Daft, install a diesel engine and not be allowed to use it... Should have stuck with IC225s.

I agree, the 801/2s were a waste of money. The 91s were never the most reliable fleet, but they didn’t cause anywhere near as many problems as the 80xs cause.

The sets you mention above are all currently used by Lner. As for what others they still lease at Worksop I do not know.

I’m not sure there are any full sets left at Worksop as such, just various coaches from various different sets, with enough TSOEs and DVTs to make up at least two sets if required.

 

[Fuzzytop]

Traction characteristics and passenger accommodation aside, using older retained sets on flagship Edinburgh fasts might have been a PR problem waiting to happen... A booked 91/Mk4 service I took a couple of weeks ago came with an apology over the tannoy about the "heritage" set being used.

I’m not sure there are any full sets left at Worksop as such, just various coaches from various different sets, with enough TSOEs and DVTs to make up at least two sets if required.

Wow, in that case there are even more coaches scrapped than I thought. I reckoned about 5 or 6 TSOEs and DVTs were still there, although I think there is only one surviving spare FO/PO Coach K (with first class and the staff area). All leftovers from various sets though, as you say.

 

[DB]

Is this one of the seven sets (NL06/08/12/13/15/17/26) down at Belmont waiting for HSTs to get out of Neville Hill, or do LNER still lease other vehicles beyond these?

The HSTs are effectivelt out of Neville Hill - so far as I'm aware the only HST stock left is one set (43307/17 plus trailers), which is currently on one of the depot sidings beside the mainline.

 

[nw1]

Traction characteristics and passenger accommodation aside, using older retained sets on flagship Edinburgh fasts might have been a PR problem waiting to happen... A booked 91/Mk4 service I took a couple of weeks ago came with an apology over the tannoy about the "heritage" set being used.

1990s stock being labelled 'heritage'... you know you're getting seriously old when you hear that

 

[DB]

1990s stock being labelled 'heritage'... you know you're getting seriously old when you hear that

It's pretty ridiculous though really - most passengers would have no idea how old Mk4s are (or the HSTs left in service, come to that). If it doesn't have slam doors, and has a reasonably recent interior, most passengers won't regard it as 'old'.

 

[800001]

Mad. There is zero point having the Diesel engines with those restrictions. Is this also why use of 801s in multiple with 800s to Harrogate ended?

Hitachi seemingly needing to approve every single decision made over the slightest bit of operation of all the units they maintain must be a nightmare for all of the operators involved. I’m glad the 91+mark 4 fleet is out of Hitachi’s care. There was a noticeable deterioration in presentation and reliability of the sets after Bounds Green was taken over by Hitachi, though reliability isn’t as good as it could be at least they’re now appearing in a presentable condition.


As I mentioned on another thread over a completely different issue with LNER, the customers would be raging if they knew all this.


I fully agree the best option by far would have been to keep the 91s working Edinburgh fasts. I sort of understand it with the Neville Hill move, but even then that could have been made to work with using them on the Edinburgh route, or alternatively Heaton had the capacity to have taken them on instead of Neville Hill (although that option will firmly be gone now).


I agree, the 801/2s were a waste of money. The 91s were never the most reliable fleet, but they didn’t cause anywhere near as many problems as the 80xs cause.


I’m not sure there are any full sets left at Worksop as such, just various coaches from various different sets, with enough TSOEs and DVTs to make up at least two sets if required.

The 800/801 combo is still allowed, excluding leaf fall season, as the line is apparently one of the worst on country, add on a large hill and the combo struggles.

However Networkrail have undertaken a lot of vegetation clearance on the line, and I have heard rumours of an addition RHTT train on the Harrogate line as well, that should, in theory, allow more regular diagramming of combos.

At the minute, I thing the fleet availability is that poor, that they can't supply an 800 and an 801, as the 801/1s are often covering for 9 car services.

 

[APT618S]

A booked 91/Mk4 service I took a couple of weeks ago came with an apology over the tannoy about the "heritage" set being used.

I had a tannoy announcement in the last month or so on a Mk4 set that "we have a more comfortable train today"

 

[35B]

Mad. There is zero point having the Diesel engines with those restrictions. Is this also why use of 801s in multiple with 800s to Harrogate ended?

Hitachi seemingly needing to approve every single decision made over the slightest bit of operation of all the units they maintain must be a nightmare for all of the operators involved. I’m glad the 91+mark 4 fleet is out of Hitachi’s care. There was a noticeable deterioration in presentation and reliability of the sets after Bounds Green was taken over by Hitachi, though reliability isn’t as good as it could be at least they’re now appearing in a presentable condition.


As I mentioned on another thread over a completely different issue with LNER, the customers would be raging if they knew all this.


I fully agree the best option by far would have been to keep the 91s working Edinburgh fasts. I sort of understand it with the Neville Hill move, but even then that could have been made to work with using them on the Edinburgh route, or alternatively Heaton had the capacity to have taken them on instead of Neville Hill (although that option will firmly be gone now).


I agree, the 801/2s were a waste of money. The 91s were never the most reliable fleet, but they didn’t cause anywhere near as many problems as the 80xs cause.


I’m not sure there are any full sets left at Worksop as such, just various coaches from various different sets, with enough TSOEs and DVTs to make up at least two sets if required.

Two thoughts:
1. Why blame LNER for a decision taken by DfT?
2. If the 225s were to work to Edinburgh, how many more crews would have needed their competency maintained?

 

[DanNCL]

The 800/801 combo is still allowed, excluding leaf fall season, as the line is apparently one of the worst on country, add on a large hill and the combo struggles.

That’s them screwed for the Tyne Valley diversions this autumn then!

At the minute, I thing the fleet availability is that poor, that they can't supply an 800 and an 801, as the 801/1s are often covering for 9 car services.

It doesn’t surprise me, although questions do have to be asked as to why availability is so poor. Almost all of the units with cracks (I think all bar 801228, certainly all of the 800/1s are back) have operated in service since the cracks were discovered. General software issues should really have been sorted out by now.

I had a tannoy announcement in the last month or so on a Mk4 set that "we have a more comfortable train today"

I love it

Two thoughts:
1. Why blame LNER for a decision taken by DfT?
2. If the 225s were to work to Edinburgh, how many more crews would have needed their competency maintained?

1. For as long as LNER say nothing publicly about the reasons for the poor service they are providing, they can expect to take the blame from the public. How are the general public supposed to know these issues are down to external parties (which is only partly the case, as LNER could have handled their side of this better too) if LNER doesn’t tell them?
2. Newcastle as a minimum, ideally Edinburgh too though not essential. If competency had been retained to start with it wouldn’t have been much extra hassle at all, though obviously crew refreshers which now would be required if Edinburgh were ever to get 91s back would be some hassle, but in my opinion and likely the opinions of quite a few others that would be worth it for the improvement in customer service.

 

[DB]

The 800/801 combo is still allowed, excluding leaf fall season, as the line is apparently one of the worst on country, add on a large hill and the combo struggles.

I would guess that the cuttings at either end of Crimple Viaduct are probably the worst bits - especially the one at the Leeds end which has a sharp curve so a low speed restriction - the Pacers used to really screech on this bit!

 

[47827]

Personally I'd regard 91s + mk4s as relatively modern, albeit not brand new trains and would have preferred to see another decade of use as trains built in that era mostly had a good 40+ years in the build quality. BUT I understand the modern day logic and they are obsolete and that replacing them at the same time as older hst fleets gave some benefits on the economy of order a new fleet.

 

[bramling]

It's pretty ridiculous though really - most passengers would have no idea how old Mk4s are (or the HSTs left in service, come to that). If it doesn't have slam doors, and has a reasonably recent interior, most passengers won't regard it as 'old'.

Yes the only thing “old” is the box-like front, which does look very slightly dated compared to the current designs.

However from an interior point of view there is absolutely nothing wrong with a Mk4. I for one would pick one over an IEP.