RMweb Gold 4630 Posted February 9, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 9, 2020 13 hours ago, Northmoor said: I've been scanning some of my "B&W back catalogue" and found this one from Kings Cross taken on ........... I'd need to check the date. If it's of any help to narrow down the date, Wikipedia (Yes, I know - not always the most accurate of sources) suggests that 89001 was returned to service with GNER between 'March 1997' until it suffered a major failure in '2001'. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
'CHARD Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 Perhaps it's just me, but the sheer blandness of the 91 reminds me of..... 1 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold russ p Posted February 9, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 9, 2020 3 minutes ago, 'CHARD said: Perhaps it's just me, but the sheer blandness of the 91 reminds me of..... Nothing wrong with that especially in HLS trim that that one is in ! Got a hire car for work at the moment bloody awful overly complicated Vauxhall thing would much prefer a montego, Sierra or Cav SRi anyday Getting back to 91s they are so much more stylish than those Japanese commuter EMUs with noses stuck on them 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted February 9, 2020 Share Posted February 9, 2020 (edited) My parents had a Montego. Awful thing, it needed WD40 spraying on something or other under the bonnet if it was (or had been since the last time it was driven) raining or we were going nowhere. And it broke down several other times in various ways over the 2 or so years we had it before they lost patience with it and bought a Peugeot 405. Edited February 29, 2020 by Zomboid Wrong Peugeot 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium uax6 Posted February 9, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 9, 2020 Whereas my dads 2L petrol Monty-no-go estate was a great motor. Ok it needed new wheel arches after a few years, but it was powerful and comfortable.... Andy G 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Northmoor Posted February 9, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 9, 2020 Just now, uax6 said: Whereas my dads 2L petrol Monty-no-go estate was a great motor. Ok it needed new wheel arches after a few years, but it was powerful and comfortable.... Andy G We had two and the second, a 2.0 EFi Vanden Plas with cloth seats (my parents never got on with leather seats in cars) was one of the nicest cars we ever had, a glorious long-distance car and also great for towing. Both cars suffered from wheel bearing problems - a known fault - which our local garage dealt with by breaking open the "sealed-for-life" bearings, packing them with a sensible amount of grease and then re-fitted. I agree they were quite bland looking but very nice to be in. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 4630 Posted February 9, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 9, 2020 2 hours ago, russ p said: Nothing wrong with that especially in HLS trim that that one is in ! Got a hire car for work at the moment bloody awful overly complicated Vauxhall thing would much prefer a montego, Sierra or Cav SRi anyday The Cavalier and the follow on Vectra SRi that my employer saw fit to provide me with at the time were the most satisfying company cars that I experienced in the late 1980s/early 1990s. Fast, comfortable, good level of trim, capacious and 100% reliable. Ticked all the boxes for me at the time in my early 30s. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken.W Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 Was talking with one of my (former) colleagues on Thursday He was saying LNER are now planning on keeping 9 or 10 91/Mk4s for another three years 2 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Boar Fell Posted February 29, 2020 Share Posted February 29, 2020 On 09/02/2020 at 12:11, 'CHARD said: Perhaps it's just me, but the sheer blandness of the 91 reminds me of..... Whilst I can't take credit for making the connection, surely the title of 91 in car form... Some yellow paint, a Swallow sticker and a coat-hanger, job done! Wild Boar Fell 3 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TravisM Posted March 1, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 1, 2020 3 hours ago, Ken.W said: Was talking with one of my (former) colleagues on Thursday He was saying LNER are now planning on keeping 9 or 10 91/Mk4s for another three years I think that was announced by LNER late last year, for what reason I don’t know why. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted March 1, 2020 Share Posted March 1, 2020 10 hours ago, jools1959 said: I think that was announced by LNER late last year, for what reason I don’t know why. Extra services, taking the threat of open access seriously - but then it does call into question all those older messages that there weren't many additional paths into KX - and now we have both LNER and GC adding trains! https://www.railmagazine.com/news/fleet/lner-to-retain-class-91s-to-supplement-azuma-fleet 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmrspaul Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 Flying Scotswoman livery photos https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/18286108.flying-scotswoman-launched-york-mark-international-womens-day/#comments-anchor Paul 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmrspaul Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 On 01/03/2020 at 11:20, woodenhead said: Extra services, taking the threat of open access seriously - but then it does call into question all those older messages that there weren't many additional paths into KX - and now we have both LNER and GC adding trains! https://www.railmagazine.com/news/fleet/lner-to-retain-class-91s-to-supplement-azuma-fleet Didn't they close the line from KX to Peterborough last weekend to introduce another line through the tunnels into KX? So more capacity. Paul Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted March 6, 2020 Share Posted March 6, 2020 7 minutes ago, hmrspaul said: Didn't they close the line from KX to Peterborough last weekend to introduce another line through the tunnels into KX? So more capacity. Paul I always thought the bottleneck was on the Welwyn viaduct not actually at the KX end Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owd Bob Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 A few at York 11-3-20. 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMS_LNER_SR_GWR_fan2004 Posted March 14, 2020 Share Posted March 14, 2020 Here’s a few shots of 91119 at Peterborough 29/02/20: 12 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora Posted March 14, 2020 Share Posted March 14, 2020 THe Azuma shortages, short formations of trains, what are the problems with Azumas pleae ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted March 15, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 15, 2020 On 06/03/2020 at 23:27, woodenhead said: I always thought the bottleneck was on the Welwyn viaduct not actually at the KX end The Welwyn bottleneck might be the most famous - but its far from the only thing that throttles the ECML potential. that's why we saw the Allington Curve built a decade or so ago to remove Grantham - Sleaford services off the main line while the current work to grade separate Wrenington Junction sorts another. At Kings Cross the key isues are:- (1) The slow approces to the platforms due to the proximity of the Copenhagen tunnels which limits the number of trains which can be pathed into / out of the platforms. (2) The fact that to make the layout work it is necessary to use lots of double slips which are a maintance nightmare and carry a massive performance risk (i.e. the chaos that ensues if they go wrong) (3) the platforms cannot be extended to accommodate longer trains . Remodelling the throat and bringing the 3rd bore back into use (thus sorting out trains into the East trainshed and the west Trainshed) further out will remove a key constraint and allow Kings Cross to handle more trains than it can today, even with the two track section at Welwyn (and the flat crossing at Newark) still in existence. 2 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted March 15, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 15, 2020 (edited) 10 hours ago, Pandora said: THe Azuma shortages, short formations of trains, what are the problems with Azumas pleae ? The Azumas 'shortage' (baring the usual teathing troubles we get with all new rolling stock these days) is simply down to not enough having been ordered in the first place! Under the previous plans for the ECML (drawn up as part of the stagecoach / Virgin franchise that subsequently collapsed) it was always envisaged that a small fleet of 91s would retained alongside the Azumas, primarily for use on the Leeds corridor - whats changed is that LNER have announced they wish to operate even more services and thus even more 91s will need to be retained. Long term, LNER want to replace ALL the 91s and have a standard fleet, but as LNER is now effectively part of the Government following the failure of the Stagecoach / Virgin franchise, the agreement to lease more trains needs to be signed off by HM Treasury - and they have had more pressing matters to worry about in recent moths / years. As such any extra Azumas will take time to appear as those being built for the MML and other 'Open Access' operators who have already placed orders will take priority. Edited March 15, 2020 by phil-b259 1 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 (edited) 7 hours ago, phil-b259 said: The Azumas 'shortage' (baring the usual teathing troubles we get with all new rolling stock these days) is simply down to not enough having been ordered in the first place! Under the previous plans for the ECML (drawn up as part of the stagecoach / Virgin franchise that subsequently collapsed) it was always envisaged that a small fleet of 91s would retained alongside the Azumas, primarily for use on the Leeds corridor - whats changed is that LNER have announced they wish to operate even more services and thus even more 91s will need to be retained. Long term, LNER want to replace ALL the 91s and have a standard fleet, but as LNER is now effectively part of the Government following the failure of the Stagecoach / Virgin franchise, the agreement to lease more trains needs to be signed off by HM Treasury - and they have had more pressing matters to worry about in recent moths / years. As such any extra Azumas will take time to appear as those being built for the MML and other 'Open Access' operators who have already placed orders will take priority. Turning up at Kings Cross and seeing passengers boarding 5-car Azuma sets which until recently would be an HST125 or 91 plus full complement of stock, I'm puzzled, why are LNER withdrawing class 91 locos when there is work for them? Those additional services you describe. Is it a Catch22 U-turn? policy of withdrawal of 91s agreed/signed off and active, but no-one can sign for them back into service to cover the shortages? Edited March 15, 2020 by Pandora Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium phil-b259 Posted March 15, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 15, 2020 16 minutes ago, Pandora said: Turning up at Kings Cross and seeing passengers boarding 5-car Azuma sets which until recently would be an HST125 or 91 plus full complement of stock, I'm puzzled, why are LNER withdrawing class 91 locos when there is work for them? Those additional services you describe. Is it a Catch22 U-turn? policy of withdrawal of 91s agreed/signed off and active, but no-one can sign for them back into service to cover the shortages? Welcome to the wonderful world of train leasing! In short, if the lease on a train expires, then the TOC must pay the leasing company extra cash to continue using the stock. However doing this upsets the carefully laid out financal plan that is a 'franchise agreement' and exposes HM Treasuary to extra expenses or a lower returns - neither of which they are normally prepared to accept. Thus changes to rolling stock leasing plans normally need to be co-oredinated with franchise changes. Just because LNER is run by consulatants on behalf of the DfT doesn't change this.... Thats without getting onto the problems that can occur where the leasing company has struck a deal with someoned else to reuse the stock meaning an extension to the lease is a non starter anyway as occured wth the 172 DMUs formerly used by London Overground - though that is unlikely to be an issue in this case. Now, it may be that LNER are experencing trouble reliability issues with their Azumas - or that the build rate has fallen behind what was expected and thus there is a lot of subsituting 5 car units for 9 car units going on a temporary basis, and the bean counters judge its not worth altering the finacial arangements in the short term..... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Phil Mc Posted March 15, 2020 RMweb Premium Share Posted March 15, 2020 And they're already missing a 9-car set, that kissed a HST in Leeds !! Cheers, Phil. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
black and decker boy Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 A few reasons: IET costs significantly more to lease per train set than the 91s & HSTs being replaced HM Treasury still want their premium you cannot keep paying for the old stock once the new stock is accepted for service so the 9-s & HSTs go off lease the ROSCOs have re-leased quite a lot of the old stock, few gave so far gone for scrap: HSTs are joining EMR, MK4 a going to Grand Ventral (London-Blackpool) and TfW (Holyhead & Manchester-Cardiff), 91s have been sold for use in Europe etc Hitachi are struggling to keep up so IETs are not being provided at right time or in right formation on regular basis (applies across all fleets apparently) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
black and decker boy Posted March 15, 2020 Share Posted March 15, 2020 Mind you, with passengers numbers reportedly down 20% last week and likely to keep dropping, it remains to be seen if LNER need to keep any 91s in service this year. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TravisM Posted March 16, 2020 RMweb Gold Share Posted March 16, 2020 21 hours ago, black and decker boy said: Mind you, with passengers numbers reportedly down 20% last week and likely to keep dropping, it remains to be seen if LNER need to keep any 91s in service this year. I’m sure they will just go into warm storage until the numbers pick up again which hopefully, won’t be too long. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now