Jump to content
 

ECML Electrification Class 91 Fleet March 2019 Service of 30 years


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

The rather nice repaint into IC Swallow has passed you by?

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/139576527@N07/31996013908

91119 was wrapped in vinyls rather than repainted. I think the IC “Swallow” livery suited a 91 best, far, far better than the gaudy “Flying Scotsman” wraps we’ve had to endure over the years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was working on the railways, I spoke to a retired senior engineer and he said that the 91/Mk IV program was a bit of a rushed job to get a “flagship” train after the APT debacle which actually I thought was a good train but BR should have switched off the tilt and bunged it onto the East Coast instead of scrapping it. I believe a lot of APT technology went into the IC225 project to save time.

The APT worked without any need to turn off the tilt. The project was not all about the tilt anyway. This was only 1 of the 3 new features it was designed for, the others being improved wheel/rail interaction & being able to stop from higher speeds within existing braking distances.

Its problem was that being pressed into service before it was ready had given it a bad image which BR were keen to wash their hands of.

 

The APT was famous as the 'tilting train' so why not drop the tilt & re-use the good bits?

Far from being put into the IC225 to 'save time', APT power car technology was used in the class 91 because it was good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From other sources the class 91fleet is rotated to have  26 in daily service, 5 off-service and mileage aggregates to  approximately 27,000 miles per day which is approaching 10 million miles per year for the fleet of 31 locos

Did you take into the mileage difference between weekly, Saturday and Sunday mileage and requirements

My first calculation was just over 11 million miles

My final calculation then included cancellations, that alone in 30 years deducts about 0.5 million miles!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand that.

Projects in many industries often have to be falsified with cuts in order to get them passed, then to do them properly, they go over-budget. I have heard of cases where something has been approved but at a lower cost than what the proposal stated, without any consultation for this change.

The alternative of 'if we do it like this, we can save xxx' is great for getting a project done but leaves you with something sub-standard. It sounds like this was how the ECML electrification was completed.

 

I can also understand why 140mph running was dropped. Even if the signalling was upgraded, a 140mph train would catch a slower one more quickly. What is the point of maintaining a train for 140mph if it then spends half its journey times doing a reduced speed on double yellows?

I am not as familiar with the ECML, but have been on the WCML many times on a service which runs fast (100mph) to Leighton Buzzard. This takes the fast lines as far as Ledburn (just S of Leighton) because it passes about 3 slower trains on the slow lines.

Once at Leighton, 2 Pendolinos whizz past within 5 minutes. If they could move faster, they would simply catch up the 100mph service more quickly, so what would be the point of paying the extra for signalling upgrades & higher maintenance?

A senior BR Officer told me the ECML electrification team were lauded  for their performance  and  the minor add-on of  electrification  to Kings Lynn would retain  the champions for another major opus which never materialised.  Post privatisation under Railtrack , and the ECML team had disbanded,  revealed the botched WCML upgrade and  the risible  GWML electrification.  GWML is according to the spin doctors a mere  300% over budget,  a retired senior BR project engineer said disregard  300 %,  GWML is 500% over, he based his opinion  on the fact that GWML electrification has been downsized in scope and 100% vs 300% figures a spurious  comparison of pricing  of apples vs oranges   

Edited by Pandora
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A senior BR Officer told me the ECML electrification team were lauded  for their performance  and  the minor add-on of  electrification  to Kings Lynn would retain  the champions for another major opus which never materialised.  Post privatisation under Railtrack , and the ECML team had disbanded,  revealed the botched WCML upgrade and  the risible  GWML electrification.  GWML is according to the spin doctors a mere  300% over budget,  a retired senior BR project engineer said disregard  300 %,  GWML is 500% over, he based his opinion  on the fact that GWML electrification has been downsized in scope and 100% vs 300% figures a spurious  comparison of pricing  of apples vs oranges   

Interesting but it doesn't really say anything.

The ECML electrification team could well have been appreciated because they kept to their budget in preference to building a reliable OLE system.

Anyone not directly involved with a project enquiry will never know the details.

Edited by Pete the Elaner
Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick calculation shows about 8 million miles in 30 years

That takes into account 4 weeks out of service each year

The advantage with the Class 91 is no need to refuel, so very intensive weekly use

 

The fleet total is about 9 millions miles (based on availability)

I think the figure of 9 million miles for the fleet of 31 over 30 years if  off by a factor of 30

Edited by Pandora
Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw a 225 leaving Peterborough today with a red liveried loco on rear not usual class must have been a breakdown somewhere?

Hired in 90, might have been 90028

0830 Kings Cross-Newcastle, 1225 Newcastle-Kings Cross. Currently on 1633 to Leeds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Whats the mileage of the class 91`s.

i know the Deltics all did around 3 million miles in there 20 years.

I believe that 55010 was the first UK diesel locomotive to reach two million miles in service by 1976 (I think).

Link to post
Share on other sites

This year of 2019 will mark 30 years of class 91 operation on the ECML

Except, of course, it was 1991 for the start of full ECML operation following completion of the remodelling and electrification works in the Newcastle area.

 

Unfortunately, their impact was somewhat overshadowed by all the problems we had with the Mark IV's upon entry into service, particularly door failures, aircon failures and quite a few TDM failures, that resulted in wrong-end running, and consequent lower speed running. That. together with the general opinion that Mark IV's were nowhere near as comfortable as the HSTs that they replaced, suggests some of the lack of hero worship that you may otherwise justify. To punters, it was just another train.

Not forgetting the reliability problems with the 91s themselves. Yes there’s been problems with the HSTs too, and I’ve had occasions with them when the trains had to be terminated due to set failure but, one thing I’ve never yet done with an HST is have to be hauled in. Long since lost count of the occasions I’ve had that with 91s! I remember, back in Intercity days, setting off for Kings X from Newcastle and just getting the first coach out the platform and that was as far as we got, had to get the Thunderbird out to haul us fully back in so the doors could be opened to get everyone back off....TWICE in a fortnight!!

They only lasted around 10 years before a major rebuild - the 91/1 program, and then following one of the changes of franchise (that many have lost track of which one!), anouncing another major refurbishment, it was stated the aim was to bring their reliability UP TO that of the HSTs. The ‘miles per casualty’ figures were quoted and the 91s were only achieving half that of the HST!

 

The 140mph (225kph) speed limit was dropped because the whole of the East Coast needed to be resignalled to allow it.

Although trials were done for 140mph running, with the flashing green aspects introduced on Stoke bank, it was decided that full in-cab signalling would be required for any service operation over 125 - something that even nows only just appearing on the horizon

 

I know of an individual who has logged 500,000 miles with 91009 locomotive

Hmm, wonder if I should start reckoning up, may be gone some time though. Edited by Ken.W
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Except, of course, it was 1991 for the start of full ECML operation following completion of the remodelling and electrification works in the Newcastle area.

 

 

Not forgetting the reliability problems with the 91s themselves. Yes there’s been problems with the HSTs too, and I’ve had occasions with them when the trains had to be terminated due to set failure but, one thing I’ve never yet done with an HST is have to be hauled in. Long since lost count of the occasions I’ve had that with 91s! I remember, back in Intercity days, setting off for Kings X from Newcastle and just getting the first coach out the platform and that was as far as we got, had to get the Thunderbird out to haul us fully back in so the doors could be opened to get everyone back off....TWICE in a fortnight!!

They only lasted around 10 years before a major rebuild - the 91/1 program, and then following one of the changes of franchise (that many have lost track of which one!), anouncing another major refurbishment, it was stated the aim was to bring their reliability UP TO that of the HSTs. The ‘miles per casualty’ figures were quoted and the 91s were only achieving half that of the HST!

 

Although trials were done for 140mph running, with the flashing green aspects introduced on Stoke bank, it was decided that full in-cab signalling would be required for any service operation over 125 - something that even nows only just appearing on the horizon

 

Hmm, wonder if I should start reckoning up, may be gone some time though.

 

The Class 91 problems would need a book to describe them all, but the key problems were the axle hung gearbox wear and cardan shaft alignment problems initially, which were a great idea in theory to reduce track damage, and then overheating, cab air con, pantos, "the wrong kind of snow" and then the oversensitive alarm system. Combine that with the TDM issues, and we dreaded the first several years of operation - only the heroes at Bounds Green, Craigentinny, and to a lesser extent at Heaton and Neville Hill kept a semblance of service. It was not until the GNER inspired (but mostly paid for by others which they never mentioned, to ensure their mythology still reigns) major refurb of the 91's, and then the Mark IV's, eliminated significantly reduced many of these problems, but very simple things like the installation of cameras to the pantos, initiated by Railtrack, eliminated just as many.

 

But they did settle down to a reasonable level of reliability, and there should be a recognition of their contribution to the rapid rise in ridership of the ECML from the mid-1990's up to very recently.

Edited by Mike Storey
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Class 91 problems would need a book to describe them all, but the key problems were the axle hung gearbox wear and cardan shaft alignment problems initially, which were a great idea in theory to reduce track damage, and then overheating, cab air con, pantos, "the wrong kind of snow" and then the oversensitive alarm system. Combine that with the TDM issues, and we dreaded the first several years of operation - only the heroes at Bounds Green, Craigentinny, and to a lesser extent at Heaton and Neville Hill kept a semblance of service. It was not until the GNER inspired (but mostly paid for by others which they never mentioned, to ensure their mythology still reigns) major refurb of the 91's, and then the Mark IV's, eliminated significantly reduced many of these problems, but very simple things like the installation of cameras to the pantos, initiated by Railtrack, eliminated just as many.

 

But they did settle down to a reasonable level of reliability, and there should be a recognition of their contribution to the rapid rise in ridership of the ECML from the mid-1990's up to very recently.

Yes you could write a book on all the problems, but how many volumes? lol

 

Ah yes, the gearbox problems, still a major issue there which results in a loud, high-pitched whining when cruising at speed, to such an extent that many drivers will reduce speed when affected. (Usually 10mph is sufficient)

 

The Carden shaft problems were quickly sorted, and two alarm systems fitted on the locos to warn of trouble.

A friend of mine had one such ‘problem’, fortunately southbound with the 91 on the rear, when while passing though Stevenage station at full linespeed a carden shaft decided to part company with the 91, rupturing the transformer tank as it did so thereby killing the loco, then striking the track it pole-vaulted over the road overbridge south of the station, before landing skewering a brand-new BMW to the ground in the Post Office car park.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hired in 90, might have been 90028

0830 Kings Cross-Newcastle, 1225 Newcastle-Kings Cross. Currently on 1633 to Leeds.

There’s currently one, and regularly two, class 90s hired in from DB to cover for class 91 non-availability.

Highly unusual for one on a Newcastle working though, usually kept to Kings X - Newark / Leeds workings as when re-introduced to the route a few years ago only Kings X drivers were trained on them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The original plan for the ECML was fleets of 89s with Mk3s, but the treasury baulked at the costs, likewise with the infrastructure - the mast spacing on Holme fen was at the standard spacing, which takes no account for ground movement or high winds - and until this current round of infrastructure upgrades that has been the trouble spot.

 

Regarding the 'geography' of the ECML, there is a lot of double track sections on the southern half (London - York), namely Digswell Viaduct, between Huntingdon and Peterborough, from Stoke Tunnel through Grantham, Newark, and Retford to Doncaster, and then more sections north of Doncaster.

 

:offtopic: It has just occurred to me that  the money being spent on HS2 could have been used to quadruple the ECML all the way from Huntingdon to York!!

Edited by Catkins
Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend of mine had one such ‘problem’, fortunately southbound with the 91 on the rear, when while passing though Stevenage station at full linespeed a carden shaft decided to part company with the 91, rupturing the transformer tank as it did so thereby killing the loco, then striking the track it pole-vaulted over the road overbridge south of the station, before landing skewering a brand-new BMW to the ground in the Post Office car park.

Ken, I thought it was Doncaster? I was working for Eversholt at the time and responsible for trying to get a vibration monitoring system installed as a short term measure following the incident pending the rebuild programme. As I recall the cardon shaft demolished a waiting shelter on the platform (much to the chagrin of a passenger who had just left it) and embedded itself in a Mercedes in the car park. Perhaps there were two...........

A few years later when working for the Taiwan High Speed Rail Project, an Alstom representative noted that the locos had been built cheaply to meet the budget. Certainly when I was with Eversholt the price of the heavy maintenance exams was about the same as the initial build price. The cost of the subsequent refurbishment must have been huge.

 

The whole of the ECML electrification was done to a low price and BR did well to achieve that. People complain about problems with the OHLE, and span wire systems certainly have drawbacks, but I think it has subsequently been established that many of the problems arose from the zero maintenance policy adopted. Overall it was a project that was delivered on time and to a limited budget: what was the alternative given the lack of cash?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

"the locos had been built cheaply to meet the budget. Certainly when I was with Eversholt the price of the heavy maintenance exams was about the same as the initial build price. The cost of the subsequent refurbishment must have been huge."

 

When the locomotives were built,  the  fixed costs of designing  developing and  tooling for production  has to included in the price of the project,  and those fixed costs  design etc.  amortised over (spread out evenly)  of a modest fleet of 31 units.  Is there a figure for the delivery price of each locomotive in the fleet of 31, and, if the fleet had been, say 62 units, e.g for a WCML and ECML fleet,    what would have been  be the marginal  cost of erecting  the additional 31 units?

Edited by Pandora
Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s currently one, and regularly two, class 90s hired in from DB to cover for class 91 non-availability.

Highly unusual for one on a Newcastle working though, usually kept to Kings X - Newark / Leeds workings as when re-introduced to the route a few years ago only Kings X drivers were trained on them.

Those class  90 hauled Leeds services depart KX 3 minutes after an Edinburgh service, the 90s contend with multiple  station stops and a 110 mph capabilty  they  keep decent time and I think of them as a good choice for the work

Edited by Pandora
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken, I thought it was Doncaster? I was working for Eversholt at the time and responsible for trying to get a vibration monitoring system installed as a short term measure following the incident pending the rebuild programme. As I recall the cardon shaft demolished a waiting shelter on the platform (much to the chagrin of a passenger who had just left it) and embedded itself in a Mercedes in the car park. Perhaps there were two...........

 

The whole of the ECML electrification was done to a low price and BR did well to achieve that. People complain about problems with the OHLE, and span wire systems certainly have drawbacks, but I think it has subsequently been established that many of the problems arose from the zero maintenance policy adopted. Overall it was a project that was delivered on time and to a limited budget: what was the alternative given the lack of cash?

 

Ah yes, Doncaster. That was another 'incident', and as I recall, that one was 'only' one of the bolts. Still, it did go straight through the waiting shelter at the south end of Platform 3 at 100 mph! There was at least one more that I recall, around Peascliffe / Barkston and that one was also the full carden shaft.

The VMS system was installed like you say in a bit of a rush. This was later followed up by also adding the Transmission Fault Detection System (TFDS), which if triggered fires protractor bolts to disconnect the drive, and dumps the brake.

Stevenage was at full linespeed...125!! The car I think was a BMW, or could have been a Merc, it was a while ago, but it was certainly something very expensive and brand new. It was said the owner was sweetend to keep quiet on being given a blank cheque to go back to the dealer with...

he was said to have come out with a top of the range model!

 

The ECML electrification project, whilst a certain government of the day loved to claim credit for it (and their successors still do!), all they actually did was to tell BR 'yes, you can go ahead and do it, if you can find the money yourselves'. There wasn't a penny investment put into it!!

Edited by Ken.W
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When BR Intercity started using the 90's on the ECML, they were diagrammed on the Leeds services because the timetable did not require the full 125mph capability.

it also had the bonus of limiting the traction knowledge required to one or two depots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When BR Intercity started using the 90's on the ECML, they were diagrammed on the Leeds services because the timetable did not require the full 125mph capability.

it also had the bonus of limiting the traction knowledge required to one or two depots.

 

I am not sure about this. They were certainly used a few times (borrowed from RfD) by BR on ECML services, but only in extremis IIRC. They did not work, and were not diagrammed, on Leeds services regularly until I was in GNER (when we had given up pumping yet more money into the Class 89, and the Class 91's availability was reduced due to the major refurb underway), and Virgin subsequently kept this arrangement up for a while. BR only required 28 then 29 of the 31 locos to be available for their diagrams, whereas GNER pumped that up to 30, upon the intro of the extra Leeds services. But you are right that 110 mph was adequate in those services until the later accelerations.

 

The xx03 and xx23 departures from KGX were usually covered by Class 47's, if nothing else was available, in BR days. They were popular commuter services for Peterborough, Grantham, and Retford/Newark, because you could get a seat, but so long as you did not mind too much on what time you might get home....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure now when the 90s first came into regular ECML operation to deputise for the 91s, but it was either late BR Intercity or early GNER as I remember a couple of incidents when we were still double-manned for high-speed running, which narrows it down to then. They weren't restricted then to just the Leeds workings and operated throughout the route, all EC depots were trained on them. Their used ceased as they were no longer required some time later, again not sure when, but probably either following the 91/1 refurbishment, or when GNER aquired the 'White Rose' hired-in Eurostar sets.

More recently, roundabout late 'East Coast' or early VTEC, they've been re-introduced to the ECML services, this time though they are restricted to Kings X - Newark / Yorkshire services as only Kings X were re-trained on them. It is possible very ocationally for them to work to Newcastle but this would require them being worked out and back by Kings X drivers, and the lay-over time doesn't allow for the same crew to do so allowing for their break.

 

They are well suited to the EC stopping services, as they have much quicker acceleration from a standing start than the 91s which with frequent stops largely compensates for the lower speed. When we did work the 90s if, from the DVT end, you forgot what was on the back, it soon reminded you when you just 'opened up' and it promptly gave you a kick up the backside and you were doing 20 out the platform in the time a 91 would be still sitting there thinking about what to do!!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why were the foreign SIG bogies so rough riding here initially? is our track particularly different to what those bogies would normally run on abroad? or were we using them faster?

 

From what I recall at the time, the dampers had been set very stiffly, and I was led to believe that it was because they had been ordered to be capable of 140 mph running. I am not certain that was the reason, but I know it took a considerable time to improve the ride. But of course perception is key here - the seats of the Mark IV's were considerably less padded than those of the HST's (even after their refurbs), and that was a source of adverse comment too. So add the two together and you don't quite know which was the primary reason for the perception of "rough riding" as opposed to the reality that the bogies were indeed harder-riding than those of the HST, but that tended to be more noticeable at lower speeds, especially across pointwork or jointed sections. At higher speeds, on CWR, you tended not to notice their ride, until you hit a wet spot or some other defect, and then, boy, did you feel it.

 

After the first few years, and the adjustments to the bogies and linkages (and maybe a mod, I am not sure), you tended not to notice it so much, but that could be because we had become more used to it.

 

I believe there was a difference to the way higher speed track was laid, in France and Switzerland anyway, compared to the UK, in terms of depth particularly and in weight of FB rail, but I am no expert on that, or on what difference that might have made to the use of SIG bogies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...