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

[yorksrob]

its quite a shame about the MkIVs, i think in their prime they were pretty much the face of the ECML, and now i think passengers see them as more of an inconvenience compared to IEPs. Northern aren't doing a good job of maintaining the sets and as a result the defect lists can be up to 3 pages long! number 19 had to be set swapped at kings cross on friday due to phantom TPWS activations after its 2nd(?) day back in service. On the other hand the new paint job and loco refurbs tell me theyre not going anywhere too quickly

I got one in the end and it's very comfortable. I can't imagine why normals would see them as an inconvenience ?

By "Northern" do you mean Neville Hill ? They had enough experience looking after HST's.

 

[trv100]

Whenever an LNER train is declared a failure, its most often a MkIV. Northern are the ones who look after the mark iv's now. not 100 percent sure on the ins and outs of neville hill but i know when a mark 4 set fails the driver has to get in touch with the northern maintenance controller

 

[yorksrob]

Well, when they turn up, they're a lot better than the alternative.

 

[trv100]

oh absolutely, the amount of times ive purposely delayed myself just to travel on a mark four as opposed to the squeaky, lowest bidder, ironing board monsters made out of rice paper, otherwise known as the "future" is countless. they're growing on me though.. slowly

 

[D6130]

91 130 was on 1D28, 18 35 Kings Cross-Skipton this evening.

 

[trv100]

is it a regular on d28? cant say as ive noticed it before

 

[800001]

Whenever an LNER train is declared a failure, its most often a MkIV. Northern are the ones who look after the mark iv's now. not 100 percent sure on the ins and outs of neville hill but i know when a mark 4 set fails the driver has to get in touch with the northern maintenance controller

Neville Hill have dramatically improved the performance of the Mk4s.

91119 at Kings Cross on Friday on was driver error and no fault of the loco, it was not set swapped but yes it’s working was cancelled. It went ecs to Ferme Park and came back into work 1D33 the remaining part of its diagram.

Whenever an LNER train is declared a failure, its most often a MkIV. Northern are the ones who look after the mark iv's now. not 100 percent sure on the ins and outs of neville hill but i know when a mark 4 set fails the driver has to get in touch with the northern maintenance controller

No different to if an Azuma fails they get in touch with Hitachi, so nit sure what point you are making?

And I would actually say there is more issues with Azumas compared to Mk4s, and that’s me speaking with a hell of a lot of experience of dealing with failures.

 

[DanNCL]

I was on a 2x5 set, yonks ago, which split at Leeds with only the western half going on to Skipton.

The evening Skipton service is booked to run as 5 car throughout now. Not sure how a peak departure from Kings Cross was considered suitable to put a 5 car set on, but they must have had a reason for it!

its quite a shame about the MkIVs, i think in their prime they were pretty much the face of the ECML, and now i think passengers see them as more of an inconvenience compared to IEPs. Northern aren't doing a good job of maintaining the sets and as a result the defect lists can be up to 3 pages long! number 19 had to be set swapped at kings cross on friday due to phantom TPWS activations after its 2nd(?) day back in service. On the other hand the new paint job and loco refurbs tell me theyre not going anywhere too quickly

They’re performing better than they’ve done for a long time. Bounds Green had virtually given up on them in their last years. Neville Hill are at least giving it a go. It’s a learning curve for them, they’re the first electric locos they’ve maintained, and it’s an ageing fleet, so they’re never going to get that great a level of performance out of the fleet.

Whenever an LNER train is declared a failure, its most often a MkIV. Northern are the ones who look after the mark iv's now. not 100 percent sure on the ins and outs of neville hill but i know when a mark 4 set fails the driver has to get in touch with the northern maintenance controller

80xs are declared failures at a similar rate to the Mark 4s. The difference is that it’s less noticeable with the 80xs as they can usually limp out of the way even after they’ve ‘failed’, whereas if a 91 fails it’s game over.

is it a regular on d28? cant say as ive noticed it before

Booked Mark 4s on Sundays, 80x the rest of the week.

 

[trv100]

Neville Hill have dramatically improvised the performance of the Mk4s.

91119 at Kings Cross on Friday on was driver error and no fault of the loco, it was not set swapped but yes it’s working was cancelled. It went ecs to Ferme Park and came back into work 1D33 the remaining part of its diagram.


No different to if an Azuma fails they get in touch with Hitachi, so nit sure what point you are making?

driver told me it was phantom, was the driver error from the inbound service im assuming?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

80xs are declared failures at a similar rate to the Mark 4s. The difference is that it’s less noticeable with the 80xs as they can usually limp out of the way even after they’ve ‘failed’, whereas if a 91 fails it’s game over.

Which is why many operators worldwide are going down the distributed traction route as opposed to loco and stock as it reduces the single point of failure.

 

[800001]

driver told me it was phantom, was the driver error from the inbound service im assuming?

Let’s just say, there was no fault at all with the loco. And it continued in traffic with no issues at all (after it returned from Ferme Park).

 

[trv100]

in that case i wonder what the power fault was this morning that caused it to be swapped with hot set 801210

 

[800001]

in that case i wonder what the power fault was this morning that caused it to be swapped with hot set 801210

Driver error again! There is no issue with the set. But it was swapped to get a train into service.

People make mistakes, yes it’s unlucky the same set has had 2 ‘faults’ in 3 days.

But today, after interrogation of the OTMR there is no fault with the loco.

Ps it’s not a Hot Spare. It’s a unit sat available. No driver sat with it, still needs prepping etc.

 

[trv100]

driver error being at neville hill im guessing? do you know what happened?

 

[DanNCL]

Let’s just say, there was no fault at all with the loco. And it continued in traffic with no issues at all (after it returned from Ferme Park).

I don’t know the full ins and outs of this incident but it reminds me of a story I heard of a 91 being reported as unable to reach 125 when being driven from the DVT, only it turned out when a fitter attended that it was a 90 on the rear and the driver didn’t have a clue! No idea if it’s true or not, but whenever I hear ‘driver error’ and ‘no fault with the loco’ at the same time it reminds me of that story.

driver error being at neville hill im guessing? do you know what happened?

Such information is usually only released on a need to know basis, so as not to risk wrongly incriminating anyone.

 

[800001]

driver error being at neville hill im guessing? do you know what happened?

Why the need to know? The mk4 didn’t enter traffic, an Azuma did instead, a passenger service operated with no impact to customers. The mk4 could have re-entered traffic during the day, but the Azuma stayed out instead.

 

[trv100]

simply curious, especially with the reason for the set swap being a "power fault".

 

[DanNCL]

simply curious, especially with the reason for the set swap being a "power fault".

At a guess it wasn’t known to be driver error at that point, but even if it was I can’t see ‘driver error’ going down too well with the average passenger. Probably wisest just to say it was a fault.

 

[800001]

simply curious, especially with the reason for the set swap being a "power fault".

It didn’t say ‘Power Fault’, it said ‘power issues’!

Doesn’t imply fault with the loco, and for those in the know can mean a multitude of issue.

To the customers it was a train fault as that what best described the reason for the swap at that time.

 

[trv100]

what i mean to say the service delivery update has the reason for the set swap down as a power fault

 

[800001]

what i mean to say the service delivery update has the reason for the set swap down as a power fault

As mentioned above because that the reason best fitting the swap at the time it happened.

Do you work for LNER? You could always contact the Service Delivery Team and ask them personally, rather than here on a public group.

 

[whale]

Driver error again! There is no issue with the set. But it was swapped to get a train into service.

People make mistakes, yes it’s unlucky the same set has had 2 ‘faults’ in 3 days.

But today, after interrogation of the OTMR there is no fault with the loco.

Ps it’s not a Hot Spare. It’s a unit sat available. No driver sat with it, still needs prepping etc.

Well that’s a rotten bit of luck, the train crew were stood on Leeds platform waiting for 3A26 out to Bradford, which never turned up!

 

[E27007]

its quite a shame about the MkIVs, i think in their prime they were pretty much the face of the ECML, and now i think passengers see them as more of an inconvenience compared to IEPs. Northern aren't doing a good job of maintaining the sets and as a result the defect lists can be up to 3 pages long! number 19 had to be set swapped at kings cross on friday due to phantom TPWS activations after its 2nd(?) day back in service. On the other hand the new paint job and loco refurbs tell me theyre not going anywhere too quickly

We do not want a fault with TPWS, if a 91 is running at linespeed and if a rogue TPWS activates a full emergency braking stop, will the wheelslide anti-lock system (if any) be good enough to prevent wheelflats and a therefore a costly session on the wheel lathe.
Is tyre life left on the wheels a factor in continued service of the 91?
Would LNER pay for new wheelsets when down to no further turnings possible (scrap tyres), or would a 91 be condemned?

 

[Jozhua]

Unless a business case can be made for extending the lease, it’ll be ‘Summer 2023’ they go off lease, most likely meaning a May withdrawal from service.

Given the busyness of LNER I’m sure if enough time and resources were put into it that the business case for a lease extension could be made. Whether the time, resources or willpower to make such a business case are available is another matter entirely.

Of course the DFT and LNER have already tried getting rid of the retained Mark 4 sets once, in early 2021, and we saw how that ended!

This exposes the insanity of the leasing system...

If those MK4 sets are withdrawn early, they will just be scrapped, despite being perfectly capable of running a proper service. Why the rolling stock was ever sold off in the first place is beyond insane...

Being cautiously optimistic, DfT may be playing hardball on this, leaving the decision to the last possible moment to scare the lessor into providing a low price.

Btw, 10% figure is probably overblown for a number of reasons - likely most "savings" will fall on the infrastructure side of things at Network Rail for those big capital projects, especially in the South East. There is also the possibility of reductions in road projects. We also don't know what inflation will be like next year and not every expense will be affected in the same way. The big increases in expense is likely labour, but we will have to see how negotiations pan out regarding strike action...

Worth noting DfT is pushing for more drivers to be trained up to reduce the reliance on expensive overtime working.

 

[yorksrob]

This exposes the insanity of the leasing system...

If those MK4 sets are withdrawn early, they will just be scrapped, despite being perfectly capable of running a proper service. Why the rolling stock was ever sold off in the first place is beyond insane...

Being cautiously optimistic, DfT may be playing hardball on this, leaving the decision to the last possible moment to scare the lessor into providing a low price.

Btw, 10% figure is probably overblown for a number of reasons - likely most "savings" will fall on the infrastructure side of things at Network Rail for those big capital projects, especially in the South East. There is also the possibility of reductions in road projects. We also don't know what inflation will be like next year and not every expense will be affected in the same way. The big increases in expense is likely labour, but we will have to see how negotiations pan out regarding strike action...

Worth noting DfT is pushing for more drivers to be trained up to reduce the reliance on expensive overtime working.

I wouldn't put it past the DfT/Treasury/Government to try it on again and try and withdraw them.

There's money no object to keep the trappings of privatisation such as train leasing limping on, but less interest in running a decent service for passengers.

 

[Richard Scott]

I wouldn't put it past the DfT/Treasury/Government to try it on again and try and withdraw them.

There's money no object to keep the trappings of privatisation such as train leasing limping on, but less interest in running a decent service for passengers.

There is a lack of money and guessing we all know why that is. I remember services pre privatisation and they weren't great so think carefully when making those comments.

 

[yorksrob]

There is a lack of money and guessing we all know why that is. I remember services pre privatisation and they weren't great so think carefully when making those comments.

It's an excuse. If they were that concerned about a lack of money, they wouldn't have a system that forces the taxpayer to lease forty year old trains.

I remember services pre-privatisation as well, and they weren't as bad as people like to make out.

 

[Richard Scott]

It's an excuse. If they were that concerned about a lack of money, they wouldn't have a system that forces the taxpayer to lease forty year old trains.

I remember services pre-privatisation as well, and they weren't as bad as people like to make out.

Services pre privatisation weren't great especially in late 80s, early 90s. Sunday services were extremely sparse and often next to nothing ran in the morning. Most services were not clock face as had to plan carefully when travelling.

 

[yorksrob]

Services pre privatisation weren't great especially in late 80s, early 90s. Sunday services were extremely sparse and often next to nothing ran in the morning. Most services were not clock face as had to plan carefully when travelling.

They were pretty decent round my way - anyway, none of this explains why we are still paying leasing costs on forty year old trains which have already been paid for.

 

[CBlue]

They were pretty decent round my way - anyway, none of this explains why we are still paying leasing costs on forty year old trains which have already been paid for.

May I ask what does "pretty decent" mean in this context? It reads as if you're presenting an opinion as some sort of fact.