89001 possibly returning to service

[Titan]

Why would they want 89001, they were offered Eurostars. Yes long in the tooth but fully operational but turned the option down and they are being sent to scrap

Eurostars were limited to 110mph on the ECML due to requiring two pans up. They were also restricted on which routes they could use. Plus the Eurostars were knackered and would require a lot of £ spent to bring them up to standard, especially on the interior. The train lengths would need addressing too. rather a long list really. I don't know who is paying for the 89's return to service, sounds like the AC locomotive group is getting on with it, so possibly only hire charge to pay?

[Zomboid]

It would be great to see 89001 back in service, but I'll believe it when I see it as far as regular use on LNER trains goes.

[chris p bacon]

Eurostars were limited to 110mph on the ECML due to requiring two pans up. They were also restricted on which routes they could use. Plus the Eurostars were knackered and would require a lot of £ spent to bring them up to standard, especially on the interior. The train lengths would need addressing too. rather a long list really. I don't know who is paying for the 89's return to service, sounds like the AC locomotive group is getting on with it, so possibly only hire charge to pay?

 

Weren't they also restricted because of their power consumption* ? I remember one sitting at Sandy awaiting several 91's to exit the section it was in, as the electrical works couldn't take the power draw (or something like that)

Since then there have been the electrical works upgrade to the ECML, in fact Sandy was a base for these and although the Down yard has now been cleared there still sit 4/6 transformers.

 

* Just thought, that might also be the reference to two pans.

[woodenhead]

Weren't they also restricted because of their power consumption* ? I remember one sitting at Sandy awaiting several 91's to exit the section it was in, as the electrical works couldn't take the power draw (or something like that)

Since then there have been the electrical works upgrade to the ECML, in fact Sandy was a base for these and although the Down yard has now been cleared there still sit 4/6 transformers.

 

* Just thought, that might also be the reference to two pans.

This is the problem with DCC and AC current, get the wiring wrong and you just don't have the juice to run all your trains at once lol

[black and decker boy]

2 pantographs in use at 125mph will soon have to be no problem given that 2*5 car IET have to run with 2 raised.

[black and decker boy]

This was posted on LinkedIn overnight by David Horne, MD at LNER

 

“Simon, there are various issues to resolve on the ECML Azuma fleet: testing of the immunisation works to the SSI system (various locations are affected on the ECML); the final development of some of the on-train systems needs to be tested, and ORR need to authorise the trains into service following the inter-car connector issue (reported in Rail https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/cover-story-azumas-on-hold-orr-suspends-approval-for-lner-ieps-yet-great-western-ieps-remain-in-use).Everyone involved is working hard to get the Azuma fleet running on the ECML as soon as possible.”

[The Stationmaster]

Weren't they also restricted because of their power consumption* ? I remember one sitting at Sandy awaiting several 91's to exit the section it was in, as the electrical works couldn't take the power draw (or something like that)

Since then there have been the electrical works upgrade to the ECML, in fact Sandy was a base for these and although the Down yard has now been cleared there still sit 4/6 transformers.

 

* Just thought, that might also be the reference to two pans.

 

The problem was the effect of the pantograph uplift force on the headspan ohle.  On tests it was found that the contact wire was moving vertically as much as 6 inches following the passage of the first pan at 125 mph - if both pans were raised it was almost inevitable that the trailing one would have dewired and brought down the catenary in the process.  The problem was solved in two ways - firstly the UK pan (fitted only on the regional sets) was modified - following testing in France - to reduce the uplift force (much to the amazement of SNCF engineers who found it difficult to understand why it needed to be reduced).  And secondly speed on the ECML was restricted.

 

In any event only the Regional Eurostar sets would be suitable for operation on UK 25kv electrified lines as they had an additional ICMU installed to cope with various electro-magnetic emissions while operating on BR (Railtrack) routes.  The three Capitals sets did not have the additional ICMu so were therefore not permitted to run in traffic on BR 25kv electrified lines (and that is another reason why the original plan to retain North Pole as the Eurostar depot was dropped after relocation to St Pancras as all the Three Capitals sets would have required modification to incorporate the additional ICMU.

 

PS. The only current consumption problem for Eurostar sets on the ECML was north of Newcastle and the work to improve power supply on that section was paid for out of Eurostar funding.

Edited December 31, 2018 by The Stationmaster

[chris p bacon]

Thanks Mike, that would figure as the Southern part of the ECML uses a somewhat lighter overhead than elsewhere, it has in the past come down in this area, when tangled up in the pan's on 365's running in multiple.

[TravisM]

From what I remember from when I was on the railways, when the NoL Eurostar sets were leased to GNER, they had to be carefully diagramed to make sure they didn’t pass each other while under full power because of the power drain and that’s why you never saw a pair of them at Kings Cross.

 

I believe that LNER was offered three or four surplus Three Capitals sets but the cost of reducing the sets to fit the platforms, refresh the interior and do repairs plus upgrading the systems to run on the ECML was uneconomical.

[nightstar.train]

If LNER are desperate for 125mph trains surely the obvious solution is to get some ex FGW HSTs. As long as it’s only for 12 months, before PRMI rears it’s head.

[jim.snowdon]

If LNER are desperate for 125mph trains surely the obvious solution is to get some ex FGW HSTs. As long as it’s only for 12 months, before PRMI rears it’s head.

Whilst 2020 may be a drop-dead date for anything to which the RVAR applies, the situation is not as clear cut for rolling stock that falls under the EU interoperability directive and the PRM requirements, which cover the main line rolling stock. There, 2020 is a target, not an obligation and the UK's National Implementation Plan for compliance with the PRM directive is worth reading. (On the whole, the PRM directive was more pragmatically drafted than the UK's RVAR.)

 

Jim

[great central]

If LNER are desperate for 125mph trains surely the obvious solution is to get some ex FGW HSTs. As long as it’s only for 12 months, before PRMI rears it’s head.

There's plenty of trains with other operators won't be PRM compliant by the end of 2019, although nothing has been said about what happens,..............yet!

[TravisM]

If LNER are desperate for 125mph trains surely the obvious solution is to get some ex FGW HSTs. As long as it’s only for 12 months, before PRMI rears it’s head.

I thought that the surplus ex FGW/GWR HST’s had already allocated, most going to ScotRail. The only things that probably have no future is the buffets and restaurant Mk III’s that are in storage.

[Bomag]

If LNER are desperate for 125mph trains surely the obvious solution is to get some ex FGW HSTs. As long as it’s only for 12 months, before PRMI rears it’s head.

 

LNER want something which will maintain Cl91 timings. This will exclude 2+9 HSTs as they only have 4,500HP vs 6100HP for a 91, 5800HP for the 89 and 5000HP for the 90s . The lower continuous rating of the 89 is balanced by the higher maximum rating.

[black and decker boy]

When do the 3 sets of MK4s have to handed to TfW for upgrade for the WAG? There will be 3 spare 91s at that point.

[TravisM]

When do the 3 sets of MK4s have to handed to TfW for upgrade for the WAG? There will be 3 spare 91s at that point.

Probably when Hitachi release the Azuma’s to LNER to start revenue service but with the ongoing issues, this might be some time away. I think LNER are seriously optimistic about a London - Leeds service with them starting in January, but it waits to be seen.

[nightstar.train]

I thought that the surplus ex FGW/GWR HST’s had already allocated, most going to ScotRail. The only things that probably have no future is the buffets and restaurant Mk III’s that are in storage.

No, not by a long way. I’m terms of power cars FGW had 119, they’re retaining 24 and 54 are coming up here to the frozen north. So that leaves 41 spare. Call it 19 sets plus 3 spare PCs. And bear in mind that the Scotrail and GWR sets are shorties, so there’s a lot of extra TSOs knocking around (as well as all the buffets). You could easily make another 10 sets from left over bits, if you have anything to pull (and more importantly, power) them along.

[nightstar.train]

Probably when Hitachi release the Azuma’s to LNER to start revenue service but with the ongoing issues, this might be some time away. I think LNER are seriously optimistic about a London - Leeds service with them starting in January, but it waits to be seen.

January has begun, so the clock is ticking. As far as I know (and I’m just an enthusiast, so no special knowledge) there are still the following problems with the IETs on the ECML:

 

*The ORR (?) won’t certify them for use due to the end cables making a ladder. No fix has been announced for this, and any fix has to be manufactured and installed. Even if this only takes an hour or two per vehicle, that’s a lot of hours needed to get the fleet sorted.

 

*NR won’t certify them for use north of York on electric power due to the massive amount of EM killing the signals. They all need chokes installed on the transformers (at a weight penalty of 1.5 tonnes per train). Again these have to be manufactured and installed, and this must be a lot more difficult than covering up the end wires. A couple of days per train at least.

 

*As the above won’t be done in time will NR allow them to run on electric up to near York, then switch to diseasel for the rest? Some sort of part certification, or type restriction? Or will they require full compliance before letting the IETs loose in squadron service?

 

*If they are allowed to run in diseasel north of York, what impact will that have on the timings? We know they’re not exactly spritley off the juice, and the ECML is very busy. You can see delays and knock on delays mounting everywhere.

 

*What about the services north of Edinburgh? Several reports have said that performance on the HML to Inverness is appalling. Trains have to keep well to time on the HML due to the long single track sections, so NR won’t allow the IETs on the HML as they’ll completely screw up the timetable for everyone else.

 

And as reported up the page LNER have postponed introduction of the IETs ‘indefinitely’. So I’m willing to bet 50p that there’ll be no IETs in use by LNER until at least after my birthday (end of April), and possibly a lot longer.

[Revolution Ben]

*The ORR (?) won’t certify them for use due to the end cables making a ladder. No fix has been announced for this, and any fix has to be manufactured and installed. Even if this only takes an hour or two per vehicle, that’s a lot of hours needed to get the fleet sorted.

 

 

What does this mean?  That people might literally use the cables to clamber up, or is it some kind of engineering reference that I don't understand?

 

cheers

 

Ben A.

[mdvle]

What does this mean?  That people might literally use the cables to clamber up, or is it some kind of engineering reference that I don't understand?

 

 

Exactly.  Think it was covered in the Class 800 thread a month or so ago.

 

Look at a side shot and the cables between cars make a nice ladder to access the roof, and given the number of cases of idiots posting videos to YouTube of them riding train roofs...

 

[edit]

 

More than a month ago, this is the link posted by a contributor around the time of the discussion showing the offending cables http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/94506-class-800-updates/page-177&do=findComment&comment=3337105

 

Also in the discussion was an incident in Manchester with a Pendolino a year or so ago where details don't seem to be public but seemed to involve someone on the roof with predictable results, and perhaps as a result a re-evalution of the risks of people trying to get onto the roofs of electric trains.

Edited January 1, 2019 by mdvle

[njee20]

Interesting. Obviously though the GWR ones are deemed acceptable, or are they now being modified? Seems a little hypocritical of the ORR otherwise

[black and decker boy]

Interesting. Obviously though the GWR ones are deemed acceptable, or are they now being modified? Seems a little hypocritical of the ORR otherwise

GWR ones are running on a “qualified acceptance” certificate, in other words they are running with known defects (designwise).

 

It’s been said that the hard line being taken on ECML is a civil service reaction to how Hitachi / Agility West have failed to rectify those defects. It is said that for ECML it has to be a full acceptance only, no defects acceptable.

[jim.snowdon]

Interesting. Obviously though the GWR ones are deemed acceptable, or are they now being modified? Seems a little hypocritical of the ORR otherwise

As a body, maybe, but there is more than one side to the ORR. That the units for GWR are still very much in service would suggest that the part that is responsible for safety enforcement, ie HM Railway Inspectorate, is not that perturbed, or it would have issued a Prohibition Notice. (It might still have issued an improvement notice, but there hasn't been any mention of one.)

The units for the ECML are being delivered to the DfT, in lieu of a commercial TOC, which potentially leaves the regulatory side of the ORR acting as the client's agents in the procurement process.

 

Jim

[ess1uk]

I heard something interesting yesterday from a LNER driver who claimed that LNER had approached the owners of 89001 with a proposal to return it to service. He claimed that due the constant issues with the Class 91’s it possibly cheaper to get the badger back into service than constantly hiring in DBC Class 90’s with their 110mph top speed.

I’m somewhat sceptical about this but stranger things have happened. Anyone able to confirm or deny this?

Can’t see it happening in time myself, but who knows with the current status of the IEP

[Zomboid]

Interesting. Obviously though the GWR ones are deemed acceptable, or are they now being modified? Seems a little hypocritical of the ORR otherwise

I think it comes down to making risks "As Low As Reasonably Practicable". Is the issue serious enough that it's reasonable to withdraw the GWR trains when they don't have an alternative? Probably not. But LNER are in a different situation where they have trains to run their services and so there's no immediate need to bring the new ones into service with the issue unresolved.