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

[Fuzzytop]

The locos are mechanically knackered. They spent 30 years as flagship workhorses, often running in excess of 1000 miles a day, even some of the current diagrams still exceed that if I recall correctly. Eversholt had the right idea around a decade ago when they suggested replacing the 91s with new locos but keeping the Mark 4s.

All except one of the Monday-Friday diagrams run well in excess of 1000 miles:
NL401 1A02 etc - 1120 miles
NL402 1A04 etc - 764 miles
NL403 1A13 etc - 1172 miles
NL404 1A09 etc - 1119 miles
NL405 1Y00 etc - 1120 miles

The fleet gets considerably more downtime now though, with the twelve remaining locomotives sharing just five diagrams (or usually four).

It's been a tough few weeks but I don't think the 91s are so knackered that they need pulling this year. If the will was there, they could surely continue for a bit longer yet. The Mark 4 coaches certainly could.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

It's been a tough few weeks but I don't think the 91s are so knackered that they need pulling this year. If the will was there, they could surely continue for a bit longer yet. The Mark 4 coaches certainly could.

Any change to future use of cl91 sets is more likely to be a funding issue than a maintenance issue.

 

[Jozhua]

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.

The crazy thing is that they were built by BR anyway and sold off for a temporary cash boost.

If you rent a 40-year-old house, do you expect to pay very little because it's "already been paid for"?

This is the point - if capital is limited, then these trains should be financed in the way people mortgage their homes. This means that if you plan to stay somewhere a while, you don't pay multiple times it's value to use it...

Trains in many ways are a lot less flexible than houses, so there is no way for ROSOCOs to effectively compete with each other. Basically all of them are built for specific services on specific routes, with complex weight, gauging, signalling, electrical, maintenance, performance, etc characteristics.

You could probably compare to an extent with the Airline industry, with which leasing is widespread, but even then the assets are a lot more 'fungible' than rail rolling stock. (E.g. fairly standardised types 737-800, A320-200, etc)

 

[E27007]

Any change to future use of cl91 sets is more likely to be a funding issue than a maintenance issue.

LNER saw a +5% figure for passenger numbers for the recent quarter, compared to pre-Covid, but also a -8% figure for the distances passengers travelled, (passengers are making shorter journeys by 8%), how that is affecting revenue received by ticket sales to LNER, i cannot find any information.
The +5% and -8% figures came from the report and is attached. I may have misinterpreted parts of the report, and I acknowledge those who offer re interpretation

 

[HamworthyGoods]

LNER saw a +5% figure for passenger numbers for the recent quarter, compared to pre-Covid, but also a -8% figure for the distances passengers travelled, (passengers are making shorter journeys by 8%), how that is affecting revenue received by ticket sales to LNER, i cannot find any information.
The +5% and -8% figures came from the report and is attached. I may have misinterpreted parts of the report, and I acknowledge those who offer re interpretation

What you have to remember is the cost of inflation means unless revenue is 10% up you will in real terms get a 10% cut in available funds.

 

[Rhydgaled]

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.

I would agree about the lack of interest in running a decent service for passengers, but it's not nearly as simple as there being plenty of money available to keep "train leasing limping on". The fact is, once the BR fleet was sold off to the ROSCOs, it became rather difficult to return to the previous model of the rolling stock being owned by the state. The Government would either have to find (borrow) a vast sum of money to buy out the ROSCOs or somehow force them to hand over their assets to the Government (which I guess might be possible with legislation, but wouldn't be at all quick or easy).

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.

The IC225s aren't 40 years old yet - though I guess your point is somewhat valid as there is stock which is 40+ years old out there. There is a very strong argument for any new stock (to replace the stuff that is 40 years old) being owned by the Government (or whatever emerges from the whole GBR idea), but the only realistic alternative to continuing to lease the passenger fleet in the short term is to largely shut down passenger services. Yes, if they were that concerned about a lack of money they shouldn't have sold the BR stock off in the first place but that was a long time ago now - are many of the people responsible for the sell-off still in a position of influence?

In these modern times you can't simply have a 5-car set sat sitting at KX, waiting to be coupled up to the inbound service.

Why not? I thought that was the whole point of the 5-car sets, run a half-train off-peak to save fuel/electricity and then couple them up to form full-length trains for the peaks. If they really can't do it at Kings Cross, couldn't they have one waiting at somewhere like Grantham or Peterborough on the way into London to make it up to 10 coaches ready for the peak service which follows?

 

[YorksLad12]

Why not? I thought that was the whole point of the 5-car sets, run a half-train off-peak to save fuel/electricity and then couple them up to form full-length trains for the peaks. If they really can't do it at Kings Cross, couldn't they have one waiting at somewhere like Grantham or Peterborough on the way into London to make it up to 10 coaches ready for the peak service which follows?

My point was slightly arch. It makes perfect sense to do this, but: there might not be a spare unit; they have to return to base every 36 hours, so not easy to do the diagramming; spliting/joining seems to be frowned upon now. But if the will was there to split/join more, the other two could be overcome.

 

[800001]

My point was slightly arch. It makes perfect sense to do this, but: there might not be a spare unit; they have to return to base every 36 hours, so not easy to do the diagramming; spliting/joining seems to be frowned upon now. But if the will was there to split/join more, the other two could be overcome.

They don’t have to return to a depot every 36 hours, and have not had to for several months.

 

[DanNCL]

Seen reported that 91131 will move by road to Bo’ness on Monday.

 

[D6130]

Seen reported that 91131 will move by road to Bo’ness on Monday.

Why is it being taken there? For preservation or modifications?

 

[DanNCL]

Why is it being taken there? For preservation or modifications?

Preservation. 84001 is also leaving Bo’ness, which I believe is connected but I’m not 100% certain.

 

[43102EMR]

Seen reported that 91131 will move by road to Bo’ness on Monday.

Apparently it will move to Bo’ness at some point, but not Monday. Happy to be corrected though!

 

[DanNCL]

Apparently it will move to Bo’ness at some point, but not Monday. Happy to be corrected though!

Date I've got is 9th January which is this Monday. Guess we'll have to wait and see what happens!

 

[43102EMR]

Date I've got is 9th January which is this Monday. Guess we'll have to wait and see what happens!

Indeed!

 

[Retorus]

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.

Why so defensive about it?

 

[800001]

Why so defensive about it?

Nothing defensive at all about stating facts about a situation.

 

[35B]

Of course the two don’t have to be mutually exclusive.

Indeed. And given LNER’s performance relative to the industry over the last couple of years, some might suggest that being run as part of a national infrastructure network is a surefire way to see service quality minimised.

 

[Fuzzytop]

Apparently it will move to Bo’ness at some point, but not Monday. Happy to be corrected though!

Date I've got is 9th January which is this Monday. Guess we'll have to wait and see what happens!

Monday was posted in a railway magazine but I’m pretty certain it’s incorrect.

I imagine it will go when some or all of the remaining locomotives in storage at Belmont are sent for scrap.

 

[DanNCL]

I imagine it will go when some or all of the remaining locomotives in storage at Belmont are sent for scrap.

I don't see how the removal of the other 91s from Belmont makes any difference. It's up to the Scottish Railway Preservation Society (SRPS) to arrange movement of 91131, whereas the rest of them, unless any others have been sold, remain the responsibility of Eversholt, and in any case would likely make the one way trip to Newport or Rotherham by rail not road.

 

[Richard Scott]

I don't see how the removal of the other 91s from Belmont makes any difference. It's up to the Scottish Railway Preservation Society (SRPS) to arrange movement of 91131.

Thought 91131 was designated to become part of National Collection so up to NRM to arrange or am I behind the times and that is no longer the case?

 

[MickeyN]

Thought 91131 was designated to become part of National Collection so up to NRM to arrange or am I behind the times and that is no longer the case?

I thought 91110 was going to NRM & 91131 to Crewe Heritage Centre being last built BREL Crewe loco!!!

 

[Rhydgaled]

Thought 91131 was designated to become part of National Collection so up to NRM to arrange or am I behind the times and that is no longer the case?

There is a Railway Heritage Designation Advisory Board who produce a list of items that are designated for preservation. It is sometimes assumed that all items on said list are to go to the National Railway Museum when no longer required by the rail industry; my understanding is that this is a misconception and the items could be preserved anywhere, not necessarily the NRM. The latest version of the list I can find is the 2021 edition which includes both 91031 and 91110.

 

[DanNCL]

91131's move to Bo'ness is dependent on 84001 moving from Bo'ness to the NRM as planned. 84001 had a running brake test at Bo'ness on Wednesday in preparation for this swap.

It's not clear from the info available who actually owns 91131, whether it's owned by SRPS or if it's NRM owned and being loaned out to SRPS like 84001.

Crewe Heritage Centre did bid for 91131 but lost to the bid to display it at Bo'ness. 91120 remains at Crewe Heritage Centre on long term loan from Europhoenix.

 

[800001]

Wnxx stating movement of 91131 to take place by the end of the month, subject to loco being extracted from Belmont Yard to Wabtec.

 

[DanNCL]

Wnxx stating movement of 91131 to take place by the end of the month, subject to loco being extracted from Belmont Yard to Wabtec.

Also subject to 84001 arriving at the NRM as planned, which itself is subject to a UID Class 20 moving to the Caledonian Railway.

Not sure why the need to move 91131 to Wabtec as Belmont Yard has road access.

 

[50002Superb]

Is the 84 being moved by road?

 

[Ashxmufcx]

May I have missed this earlier in the thread but any inside info on mark 4's becoming extinct on the ECML with LNER?

 

[JonathanH]

May I have missed this earlier in the thread but any inside info on mark 4's becoming extinct on the ECML with LNER?

No, you haven't missed anything. There is only unsubstantiated speculation at present.

'Inside info' remains speculation until there are announcements, either to the staff, public or railway press.

 

[Ashxmufcx]

Interesting. Good riddance to them. Them traction motors whining don't half give me the ear ache when I'm bombing up Stoke Bank.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Interesting. Good riddance to them. Them traction motors whining don't half give me the ear ache when I'm bombing up Stoke Bank.

If you don’t like the traction sound of the 91, just sit elsewhere of Coach B… the Azuma’s traction motors are far more noticeable.