LNER announce CAF fleet (Class 897)

[158 fan]

Will these be registered 3xxxxx, 7xxxxx or 8xxxxx?

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Will these be registered 3xxxxx, 7xxxxx or 8xxxxx?

Not entirely sure, there's been multiple perspectives within this thread already,
Definitely not 3xx or 700-749, as that's for pure EMUs.
8xx is for High-Speed trains (including multi-modes), with 750-799 for Multi-modes, I expect an 8xx since these will be fast trains like Hitachi's.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Definitely not 3xx or 700-749, as that's for pure EMUs.

Which reliable source has confirmed that to you?
Class 398 is also an electric and battery bi-mode.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Which reliable source has confirmed that to you?

I was working from the way the numbering system works.

Class 398 is also an electric and battery bi-mode.

At least the 398 is still purely electric.
Although as another counter argument to the point of the numbering there's the Class 230, which has a battery/diesel hybrid and a pure battery unit.

 

[Thirteen]

Class 797 would be my guess.

 

[ainsworth74]

Does anyone know why the 225s currently still in service were not replaced with Azumas along with the rest of the fleet?

Working from memory I think its a combination of a hang over of VTECs original fleet plan along with the planned IEP timetable neither of which ever really came to fruition. The IEP project and timetable contained enough trains for a total fleet extinction on the ECML of the original HST and 225 fleets (though the total removal of the 225 fleet came a little later) and to operate the timetable then planned. VTECs plan was for the IEP to operate the majority of services (which they had to take on as part of their franchise bid) but to then retain a handful of 225 sets, shortened slightly (7 or 8 car I think?) to run super-fast Edinburgh - London roughly once every two hours calling at Newcastle (and I think York as well).

However, events then occurred. VTEC collapsed and became LNER. IEP was delayed and then reliability wasn't quite what was originally expected. We had the cracking issue on-top of that reducing the number of available sets. Another set bashed into the back of an HST outside Neville Hill and was out of commission for several years and, of course, there was Covid as well. So then we end up where we are which is with a handful of 225s still soldiering on until they can themselves be replaced by the new CAF order.

As I say, that's mostly from memory but is hopefully in the ballpark!

 

[TreacleMiller]

Working from memory I think its a combination of a hang over of VTECs original fleet plan along with the planned IEP timetable neither of which ever really came to fruition. The IEP project and timetable contained enough trains for a total fleet extinction on the ECML of the original HST and 225 fleets (though the total removal of the 225 fleet came a little later) and to operate the timetable then planned. VTECs plan was for the IEP to operate the majority of services (which they had to take on as part of their franchise bid) but to then retain a handful of 225 sets, shortened slightly (7 or 8 car I think?) to run super-fast Edinburgh - London roughly once every two hours calling at Newcastle (and I think York as well).

However, events then occurred. VTEC collapsed and became LNER. IEP was delayed and then reliability wasn't quite what was originally expected. We had the cracking issue on-top of that reducing the number of available sets. Another set bashed into the back of an HST outside Neville Hill and was out of commission for several years and, of course, there was Covid as well. So then we end up where we are which is with a handful of 225s still soldiering on until they can themselves be replaced by the new CAF order.

As I say, that's mostly from memory but is hopefully in the ballpark!

Pretty much.

Availability of the 80X fleet is better than most on here (including those claiming to be in the know) would have you believe. That being said the amount of times I pick a set up with a GU or TM isolated is pretty common.

91s are actively managed these days for weather events etc.

 

[800001]

Pretty much.

Availability of the 80X fleet is better than most on here (including those claiming to be in the know) would have you believe. That being said the amount of times I pick a set up with a GU or TM isolated is pretty common.

91s are actively managed these days for weather events etc.

Hopefully only a bimode with GU isolated, as the electric sets shouldn’t ensure service with a GU isolated.

 

[Snow1964]

Working from memory I think its a combination of a hang over of VTECs original fleet plan along with the planned IEP timetable neither of which ever really came to fruition. The IEP project and timetable contained enough trains for a total fleet extinction on the ECML of the original HST and 225 fleets (though the total removal of the 225 fleet came a little later) and to operate the timetable then planned. VTECs plan was for the IEP to operate the majority of services (which they had to take on as part of their franchise bid) but to then retain a handful of 225 sets, shortened slightly (7 or 8 car I think?) to run super-fast Edinburgh - London roughly once every two hours calling at Newcastle (and I think York as well).

However, events then occurred. VTEC collapsed and became LNER. IEP was delayed and then reliability wasn't quite what was originally expected. We had the cracking issue on-top of that reducing the number of available sets. Another set bashed into the back of an HST outside Neville Hill and was out of commission for several years and, of course, there was Covid as well. So then we end up where we are which is with a handful of 225s still soldiering on until they can themselves be replaced by the new CAF order.

As I say, that's mostly from memory but is hopefully in the ballpark!

To supplement this, the 2018 franchise agreement, had requirement to procure 10 (with option for extra 5) 250m min length sets which had to be integrated by the December 2025 timetable change.

We all know things slipped, but at the time the remaining 91s plus mk4s were leased until 31 May 2023, with option to extend to 31 May 2024. As that is only few weeks away, I am guessing another extension has been agreed (does anyone know?).

Effectively the new CAF units are about 3 years later than planned 5 years ago

 

[800001]

To supplement this, the 2018 franchise agreement, had requirement to procure 10 (with option for extra 5) 250m min length sets which had to be integrated by the December 2025 timetable change.

We all know things slipped, but at the time the remaining 91s plus mk4s were leased until 31 May 2023, with option to extend to 31 May 2024. As that is only few weeks away, I am guessing another extension has been agreed (does anyone know?).

Effectively the new CAF units are about 3 years later than planned 5 years ago

The mk4s are certainly here until end 2025.
I’ve heard allowed now until 2028.

 

[Towers]

The mk4s are certainly here until end 2025.
I’ve heard allowed now until 2028.

Good For the time being at least that still allows ECML intercity travel on reasonable quality rolling stock, then.

 

[Class 170101]

Parliamentlive.tv

Transport Committee

parliamentlive.tv

From about 10:08 to about 10:10

The minister has said to the Transport Committee in the link above these units are being delayed
ASLEF are not involving themselves in the Design stages of the tri-modes ASLEF currently due to the current dispute relating to the most recent (1st March) strike.

 

[Railperf]

Pretty much.

Availability of the 80X fleet is better than most on here (including those claiming to be in the know) would have you believe. That being said the amount of times I pick a set up with a GU or TM isolated is pretty common.

91s are actively managed these days for weather events etc.

IIRC at least a third of the GWR fleet are said to be running with GU''s isolated. And I am hearing that around 40% of Greater Anglia 755/4's are running with an engine isolated. So the bi-mode concept is not proving to be that reliable.

 

[BayPaul]

IIRC at least a third of the GWR fleet are said to be running with GU''s isolated. And I am hearing that around 40% of Greater Anglia 755/4's are running with an engine isolated. So the bi-mode concept is not proving to be that reliable.

Couldn't you equally describe them as being more resilient than the equivalent pure DMUs (which would probably have to come out of service with an engine out, at least on the GWML as they wouldn't be able to keep to time), or pure EMUs (the other GUs are still available for if the wires come down)

 

[AdamWW]

Couldn't you equally describe them as being more resilient than the equivalent pure DMUs (which would probably have to come out of service with an engine out, at least on the GWML as they wouldn't be able to keep to time), or pure EMUs (the other GUs are still available for if the wires come down)

I think I'd want to know that the engine failures are directly due to them being on bimodes (e.g. because they're not running all the time) before concluding that the concept of bimodes is flawed.

And maybe see some evidence from other countries using bimodes.

Though how much time do 755s actually spend running on overhead electric power anyway?

 

[Dan G]

IIRC at least a third of the GWR fleet are said to be running with GU''s isolated. And I am hearing that around 40% of Greater Anglia 755/4's are running with an engine isolated. So the bi-mode concept is not proving to be that reliable.

I hear lots of things, but many of them aren't true.

 

[dk1]

IIRC at least a third of the GWR fleet are said to be running with GU''s isolated. And I am hearing that around 40% of Greater Anglia 755/4's are running with an engine isolated. So the bi-mode concept is not proving to be that reliable.

We don’t lose time with 3 legs and if it keeps the 755/3s running then all is well.

Though how much time do 755s actually spend running on overhead electric power anyway?

755s operate in electric mode on regional routes Colchester-Ipswich-Stowmarket & Ely-Stansted Airport. They also pan-up whenever available whilst laying over at Norwich & Ipswich stations. Obviously triple traction uses OHL throughout when operating their daily Norwich-Liverpool Street diagram.

 

[800001]

IIRC at least a third of the GWR fleet are said to be running with GU''s isolated. And I am hearing that around 40% of Greater Anglia 755/4's are running with an engine isolated. So the bi-mode concept is not proving to be that reliable.

That’s seems a very high amount for gwr GU isolations, would be very interesting to know if that is true!

 

[Railperf]

We don’t lose time with 3 legs and if it keeps the 755/3s running then all is well.

Yes, you're lucky that the schedules can cope with a 755/3 on just 2 'legs' and the 755/4's are almost overspecced for what they do. So yes an engine out is no issue at all.
Similarly a 221/222 on 4 of 5 engines can more or less keep time. But we've seen how the 80x fleet really do suffer - especcially the 5-car units when one of the three engines is isolated. Or two of five Isolated on the nine-car units.

 

[D365]

The mk4s are certainly here until end 2025.
I’ve heard allowed now until 2028.

The IC225s are certainly not on a critical path anymore when it comes to ETCS rollout… assuming the CAF units are introduced in good time.

 

[Railperf]

That’s seems a very high amount for gwr GU isolations, would be very interesting to know if that is true!

From a GWR Driver: "
At least 70 or 80% of IETs I drive have at least one engine locked out for various reasons, some weeks it is literally every one of them, its got to the point where its a bonus if you get a 9 car with only one isolated, they are now turning out 10 cars (2x5 cars) with 3 engines out, yep one of them has only 1 engine working.

Bearing in mind I will only drive a maximum of 2 or 3 a day then I might just be unlucky!"

And from another good source the situation in February was: "About an eighth of the engines underneath the GWR sets are not working at the moment."
comparing that to my travels - these statements sound about right. And this is 5 to 7 years after introduction when you would have expected the maintenance teams to have sorted most of the issues by now!

 

[Snow1964]

From a GWR Driver: "
At least 70 or 80% of IETs I drive have at least one engine locked out for various reasons, some weeks it is literally every one of them, its got to the point where its a bonus if you get a 9 car with only one isolated, they are now turning out 10 cars (2x5 cars) with 3 engines out, yep one of them has only 1 engine working.

Bearing in mind I will only drive a maximum of 2 or 3 a day then I might just be unlucky!"

And from another good source the situation in February was: "About an eighth of the engines underneath the GWR sets are not working at the moment."
comparing that to my travels - these statements sound about right. And this is 5 to 7 years after introduction when you would have expected the maintenance teams to have sorted most of the issues by now!

Just out of interest, how does a train leaving the maintenance depot with 2 engines isolated qualify for service, without being fixed. Unless contract allows it at reduced rent due to being available for EMU journeys only (or similar)

 

[dk1]

Just out of interest, how does a train leaving the maintenance depot with 2 engines isolated qualify for service, without being fixed. Unless contract allows it at reduced rent due to being available for EMU journeys only (or similar)

It would depend on what is agreed but if only 3 diesel engines then 2 would sound acceptable but probably confined to a suitable diagram. With class 755s we can accept a 755/4 with 3 engines but no less but 755/3 must have both working.

 

[Carntyne]

Hitachi's maintenance quality seems to be dropping like a stone.

 

[Carlisle]

Hitachi's maintenance quality seems to be dropping like a stone.

Maybe but the Voyager family had similar problems for quite some time with 1 or 2 engines isolated per unit when .entering daily service.

 

[dk1]

Maybe but the Voyager family had similar problems for quite some time with 1 or 2 engines isolated per unit when .entering daily service.

Was always quite weirded sitting in the silence of an engineless Voyager vehicle.

 

[AdamWW]

Was always quite weirded sitting in the silence of an engineless Voyager vehicle.

Yes. Having not been on one for a while, I was very impressed once at how well sound proofed they were. Then I realised...

 

[TreacleMiller]

From a GWR Driver: "
At least 70 or 80% of IETs I drive have at least one engine locked out for various reasons, some weeks it is literally every one of them, its got to the point where its a bonus if you get a 9 car with only one isolated, they are now turning out 10 cars (2x5 cars) with 3 engines out, yep one of them has only 1 engine working.

Bearing in mind I will only drive a maximum of 2 or 3 a day then I might just be unlucky!"

And from another good source the situation in February was: "About an eighth of the engines underneath the GWR sets are not working at the moment."
comparing that to my travels - these statements sound about right. And this is 5 to 7 years after introduction when you would have expected the maintenance teams to have sorted most of the issues by now!

Isn't anywhere near that bad in my experience.

I'd say it's maybe 1/5 that has a smallish issue.

I have however been given sets that are fine only for them to have known to have faults.

 

[jamiearmley]

So they’ve ordered trains from a different manufacturer than the current fleet because they’re hacked off with Hitachi. But have gone to a manufacturer that is at least as bad.

Frankly, they’ll deserve everything they get from having two fleets of steaming manure.

Absolutely.

 

[Railperf]

Was always quite weirded sitting in the silence of an engineless Voyager vehicle.

Same in a Class 180 with shut down engine underneath.