Britain has a long and proud history of locomotives designed solely to haul passengers at high speed, from Rocket to Flying Scotsman, Coronation and Mallard in the steam days to the mighty Deltics and HSTs of the diesel era. But now the last of that long line is coming to the buffer stops – the Class 91 electrics that have pounded up and down the East Coast Main Line for over 30 years are fading away, and, after 175 years, the last Anglo-Scottish locomotive hauled express has run. That is a milestone in railway history.
The 91s are interesting engines with an interesting backstory. Developed from the remains of the Advanced Passenger Train (APT) programme, imaginatively engineered and uniquely styled, they were launched with a fanfare but struggled to deliver, before an extensive rebuild turned them in to the powerful and reliable machines they should always have been. And, surprise, surprise, over ambition perhaps played a part in that too.
By the early 1980s, it was obvious that the APT programme was running into the sand – it was over ambitious, under resourced and lacked both effective support in British Rail and friends in government. While new 110mph electric locomotives, the Class 90, would buy time on the West Coast Main Line to Scotland via Birmingham and Manchester, they would not suffice for the East Coast where long overdue electrification at 25kv was at last happening – passengers lucky enough to live in Yorkshire and the North East had fallen in love with their 125mph HSTs, so BR would have to develop a 125mph electric train that would actually work for the wires to bring any benefit.
So they decided to develop a 140mph one.
Actually, the brief was a bit more complicated than that. Alongside electrification, It was planned that sections of the ECML would be resignalled to allow 140mph running, and that speeds in other places could be increased by using the tilt capability that the APT was eventually showing could work reliably, so the new power had to be capable of hauling an express that cruised at 140mph and tilted on the corners. And, to help justify the investment, it would need to have the power to haul heavy sleeping car expresses and mail trains overnight (which, you won’t be surprised to hear, never came to pass). This requirement gave rise to the 91’s distinctive profile, with a streamlined cab at one end and a blunt one at the other, to give flexibility for the slower overnight trains. As well as being asymmetrically styled (very unusual in Europe), speed is also asymmetrical – 125mph pointy end leading, but only 100mph blunt end first, because of the aerodynamics around a trailing pointy end.
The spec settled down at 6,500 hp, powering two axle bogies with the motors mounted in the body and not on the bogies, which significantly reduces the unsprung weight, thereby reducing the impact on the track. In addition, the transformer is mounted below the body, between the bogies, lowering the centre of gravity and freeing up internal space. These features were drawn from the APT experience, as was the decision to run the 91s in a fixed formation with nine matching coaches, designated Mark 4, and a Driving Van Trailer at the rear; operation would be push-pull, with the locomotives almost always at the northern end of the train, and the coaches marshalled in a fixed set with first class at the southern end, and the train driven from the DVT when heading southwards. Both engine and coaches are designed to tilt, with equipment derived from the APT fitted and the body narrowing above the waist to allow tilting. And you must admit, done properly, it looks great – here’s York Minster, at speed near York.
The tender to build the 91s was won by GEC, descendants of the English Electric Company of Deltic fame, with the mechanical aspects subcontracted to BR Engineering at Crewe. GEC were understandably proud of the commission, as this advert shows – which features the initially planned but never used Electra branding. (And, let’s remember the first British electrified mainline had had an Electra of its own since 1951)
GEC (in full, the General Electric Company plc, and unrelated to the American GE) was a conglomerate of British industry that included some famous names, including Plessey, Marconi, Metro-Cammell and Metropolitan-Vickers as well as English Electric and many others, with significant interests in telecoms, television and domestic appliances, plus defence electronics, shipbuilding, submarines and nuclear power. At one point in the mid 1980s it was Britain’s largest company, with 250,000 staff, but then collapsed through a series of strategic missteps, and was dismembered in the early 2000s.
The first 91, numbered 91001, emerged from Crewe in February 1988; the last, 91031, completed in March 1991, was the last engine built at Crewe after almost 150 years. A period of intensive testing began while the electrification project progressed to completion by 1991, with Leeds reached in August 1988. It wasn’t just the 91s that were under the testing microscope – the new Mark 4 coaches and DVTs, from our old friends Metro-Cammell, and the integrated system formed from the locomotives and coaches together all needed to be proven.
Testing meant test and laboratory cars, like this, with sleeping cars added for weight. And that led on to a such strange sights as a Class 91 hauling an HST set, with the trailing power car acting as the DVT (and giving the train a combined 9,000 hp!)
Once the Mark 4s were available, they needed testing too, including, on route sections not yet electrified. Here, two HST power cars get ready to haul a 91 and Mark 4 set from Edinburgh to Newcastle two years before the wires went up.
And that revealed a problem – one BR had had before, with the Blue Pullman – the fancy Swiss SIG bogies under the passenger coaches gave a terrible ride. Much reengineering was required to get anything remotely acceptable – the bogies were even turned by 180 degrees! – but the ride of the Mark 4s never matched the smoothness and quietness of the HST’s Mark 3s. On the plus side, they were the first InterCity coaches with power operated, centrally locked doors – no more risk of opening the door unsafely, at last – and have exceptionally good crashworthiness – much better than the Mark 3 of the HST sets. And, apart from the ride and the cramped space (resulting from the never used tilting profile), they’re a decent way to travel still, although I still prefer a well maintained Mark 3 over a Mark 4 any day.
Fleet service finally began in March 1989, marketed as InterCity225 rather than Electra, with electric trains reaching Edinburgh and then Glasgow from 1991, with a fleet of 31 locomotives – a typically British Treasury pared back number.
Before full service began, 91010 had already entered the record books. The 91s and Mark 4s were designed to be capable of 140mph, which translates as 225km/h (hence the InetrCity225 brand), and although the necessary cab signalling wasn’t yet installed (and in fact never would be), BR needed to test to that speed and beyond. A temporary approach of using a flashing green aspect for signals to allow 140mph was tried, but never fully adopted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiDQkZzOevI
And, in September 1989, 91010 with a shortened set of five Mark 4s was unleashed on the southbound descent from Stoke to Peterborough, where Mallard had set the steam record of 126 mph 51 years before. A top speed of 162 mph was achieved, and is now recorded on a plaque on the engine which deliberately matches the style of Mallard’s. Apart from Eurostar trains that cheat by going to abroad, that remains a British speed record still.
Fleet service to Edinburgh began in May 1991, with some pretty good advertising. Soon, the fastest Edinburgh expresses were scheduled at 4 hours to and from King’s Cross, an average of 100mph, but that was only possible for one or two trains per day because of the volume of traffic on the ECML; the normal journey time is around 4½ hours.
But there were problems – the ride of the Mark 4s never got any better for a start. But it got worse. The Class 91 proved to be unreliable, with problems concentrated in the control electronics. Privatised operator GNER found the resources (or finally lost patience, perhaps) and in 2001-03 all 31 underwent such significant modifications that they were renumbered from 910xx to 911xx – in effect, recognising the rebuilt engines as a new sub-class. This solved the reliability issues.
And in 2005-07, GNER completed an interior refit programme which transformed the interiors – compare the original and refurbished first class accommodation (but note how the curving sides cut down shoulder room!).
The exterior of the 91 has gone through even more transformations than the interior. The original livery was this classy and dramatic InterCity scheme. The livery seems, to me, to work with the styling – emphasising the length of the train and the sharp nose angle.
Then, with privatisation, we had the classy and understated GNER blue.
And after that, the standard went a bit meh, with National Express and East Coast giving us successive designs in what looks like undercoat – not helped by the former’s financial difficulties leading to delayed repainting and reduced maintenance spending.
Replacement private operator Virgin perhaps overdid it with this red and white scheme, but can’t be criticised for trying, and new state owned operator LNER has had to adopt it (to save the cost of fully rebranding trains with only two years left). And, yes, the succession of operator name changes does suggest that the privatisation of British Rail has not been an unqualified success.
The livery story is however redeemed by the succession of special liveries (ok, vinyl wraps) that have been used over the last years. I’ll spare you the ones adverting TV channels and James Bond (91007, of course), and show you the ones that matter, starting with 91114 Durham Cathedral promoting the long overdue and far too short return of the Lindisfarne Gospels (perhaps the most spectacular survivor of Anglo-Saxon English literature) to the North East.
There are three liveries that really command attention however; firstly, record breaker 91110, now named Battle of Britain Memorial Flight in honour of the RAF’s memorial squadron, and liveried with images of the Spitfire, Hurricane and Lancaster in tribute and remembrance.
91111 was named For The Fallen in 2014, and is now earmarked for preservation at the NRM in that condition. She carries images of the trenches of the Western Front and references to regiments based along the ECML, with a dramatic poppy design to serve as a mobile war memorial.
And 91119, which we saw before, has been restored to the classic InterCity grey for her final years, which still looks the best of the standard schemes.
And let’s not forget 91101 in her Flying Scotsman purple scheme.
But now the East Coast 91 is gone, replaced by the Azumas. A few will remain, relegated to London – Leeds semi-fasts, but the bulk of the fleet is being dispersed, some to secondary services in north Wales, some to a continental provider of chartered power, and some to oblivion. No more locomotive hauled expresses between our capital cities, alas. (Can anyone name two other national capitals linked by half hourly trains cruising at 125mph?)
This was the last one, the 1330 from Edinburgh to London on 4 September, pausing at York with a proud driver, powered by 91109 Sir Bobby Robson, named for the football legend and north east England hero – which, as 91009, hauled the first electric East Coast express to Edinburgh in 1991. Not a coincidence.
This is railway history and railways love their history, as this specially printed window sticker shows.
Feature picture is 91106 crossing the King Edward Bridge over the Tyne at Newcastle
Had to look up what an Azuma was (a bit interesting too, with some being hybrids for non-electrified bits). Do they also tilt?
Bit hard to think of the UK, with THE train industry heritage, having to import trains all the way from Japan, which has an industry really only dating from after the war.
But then again, some of the many debacles (and typically English flashes of engineering excellence, like the HST) that you’ve chronicled over time on CC provide at least some of the answer to that, i suppose.
Azumas don’t tilt, so are full size inside, but the hybrids are not a brilliant concept – lugging heavy diesel engines around for use at the margins doesn’t seem the brightest idea. Hitachi are now working on replacing the diesels with batteries, which may make more sense given our government is too mean to electrify properly.
To be fair to Hitachi, they have built a cracking new factory in County Durham to manufacture Azumas and similar. But some have argued that the Dept of Transport (who specify these things) are convinced that the quality of a product is directly proportionate to the distance of its manufacturer from London
Bit hard to think of the UK, with THE train industry heritage, having to import trains all the way from Japan, which has an industry really only dating from after the war.
What’s that got to do with it? Japan pioneered bullet trains in the early 1960s. Heritage only gets you so far.
That was my point.
The UK was an industrial giant for rail before the war, its industry having a 50-year headstart over locked-away Japan (and having invented the device!), the place was carpeted in railways longer than Japans despite being nearly half the size and a third less people. The Japanese railways were hugely damaged in the war, Britain’s not so badly. THAT heritage alone should have meant it was the UK building Shinkansen by 1964 and still a world leader in 2020.
Your missing the key factors:
Japan’s population was 83 million in 1950 and rising very rapidly, to 123 million in 1990.
UK’s population was 49 million in 1950 and barely rose to 56 million in 1990.
Therein is all the difference in the world. Japan needed to build infrastructure for a rapidly rising population, the overwhelming majority of which lived in a handful of giant cities. Automobile transportation was never going to be the primary way for Japanese to travel between cities, and it still isn’t.
The UK built its railroads back when it’s population and economy was growing very quickly (mid-late 1800’s). There was never a good reason to invest massively in new railroads after 1950, (or 1920, for that matter) as automobile travel became more common (and practical) and then flying too.
One could argue that British trains had peaked by WW2, and were destined to decline thereafter. As to track mileage, the overwhelming majority of it was to little towns and hamlets that were never going to be able to support a railroad after cars became widely available after WW2. The UK only has a handful of larger cities that justify railroad service.
It’s the same reason why China explosively built its high speed train system in the past 20 some years. You think they’ll still be building them in 50 or 100 years, when their population is in massive decline?
You think the US will be building lots of new new interstates in 50 or 100 years? They can barely maintain the ones they have.
These things are based on demography as well as related economic growth spurts. They’re commonly one-time events.
Sure, France invested more in better high speed trains, but that’s France. Socialism has deeper roots there.
British railroads were all built with private capital, and stayed private for as long as absolutely possible. And are back to being privatized. It’s simply a reflection of the British preference for less socialism.
Railroads on the continent were generally socialized quite early on, and expanded and electrified under socialistic ownership.
You could argue that the US should be the world leader in building advanced passenger trains, as it was once upon a time…but you see where that has gone.
There was a very good TV documentary on the IC225 shortly before it entered service on Channel 4’s ‘Equinox’ – Running to Time. It’s available on youtube.
The livery is interesting. The colour scheme adopted by the InterCity (express passenger) sector of British Rail was basically that of the ill-fated APT, but they wanted a new version of the scheme that didn’t look the same, especially at the ends, hence the large areas of white. Here’s a large scale model shown at the InterCity21 event back in 1987 of the then forthcoming ‘Electra’:
And, to help justify the investment, it would need to have the power to haul heavy sleeping car expresses and mail trains overnight (which, you won’t be surprised to hear, never came to pass). This requirement gave rise to the 91’s distinctive profile, with a streamlined cab at one end and a blunt one at the other, to give flexibility for the slower overnight trains. As well as being asymmetrically styled (very unusual in Europe), speed is also asymmetrical – 125mph pointy end leading, but only 100mph blunt end first, because of the aerodynamics around a trailing pointy end.
I’m a bit confused by all of this. Are you suggesting it had two different ends, so as to specifically be used with the blunt end first for certain situations, like pulling the slower sleepers? And you’re suggesting that it could only do 100mph vs. 125mph because of the blunt end? I find that extremely hard to believe. Aerodynamics on trains at that speed are not that critical. Consider how fast electric locomotives were back even in the ’50s. The SNCF Class CC 7100 hit 151 mph back in 1954. It was totally blunt.
I decided to check Wikipedia. What they say makes much more sense:
This led to a second cab being incorporated into the unstreamlined ‘blunt end’. Operating with the blunt end first limits the maximum speed of the locomotive to 110 mph (180 km/h), due to the aerodynamics of the pantograph’s knuckle creating excessive uplift force on the OLE.
So it’s the aerodynamics on the pantograph’s knuckle, and not anything to do with the actual aerodynamics of the locomotive’s blunter end. Since the Class 91 actually hit 161 mph (with the pointy end), there’s no doubt in my mind that it could easily hit 150 or so with the blunt end, except for the pantograph issue.
I have to assume that the only reason they added a cab to the other end was for flexibility, to be able to operate in push-pull, or some other situations where turning the locomotive around wasn’t feasible. Why would they want to put the pointy end facing the coaches when hauling sleepers? That would look kind of dumb, no?
Thanks, that answered the question I was about to pose. Didn’t really make sense to just always run blunt end first when not needing to go fast. More odd that it wasn’t just pointy at both ends, really.
Boy though, it all looks fairly modern and sleek and kind of fast…until the picture with the Azuma next to it!
Great history though, thanks, I’m sure I’ve ridden in these at some point on one vacation or another over there, just can’t pinpoint when or what route…
Privatisation has totally screwed the east coat main line. They can’t even manage an electrification program. Now it’s half electric, half diesel with those ridiculous bi-powered engines being the ‘solution’.
Interesting tale, and they were a good ride, better than the Azuma where the seats are a bit close coupled to say the least.
The decline of the express loco could be seen as a measure of its increased reliability, usability and therefore availability and efficiency. There’s now no reason to have more locos than you have strings of coaches. The loco can run 16-20 hours a day (if you refuel it), a coach can as well (if you sweep it out a couple of times), so why ever separate them?
Actually if you wished to run services north of Edinburgh a train of coaches hauled up the electrified main line by an electric loco where it is replaced by a diesel loco makes more sense than bi-mode. Speeds on those lines are never going to need 125 or 140mph capability so something around 3500 to 4000hp would do. Single unit 4000hp diesel locos were being built in the 1960s so its hardly unattainable technology.
For over 20 years they used to change from electric (3rd rail) to diesel at Bournemouth for services to Weymouth. It was a pretty quick change-over too. The locos would need the same kind of multiple/remote working systems so the whole ensemble could be driven from powered or unpowered end, as they are in the IC225.
Maybe. But more pertinent is the multiple unit model, with power (diesel or electric) dispersed throughout the train – redundancy, plays maximum seating space without losing 20m plus (40 on an HST or 225) of limited length to loco or power car – hence voyager, pendolino, Azuma and the rest.
And when did you travel on an azuma?
I haven’t yet and sadly never got to try a 225. The multiple unit model does loose some space where two of those long noses are joined together as they are on some Azuma. I hope the window/seating arrangement is better than a Pendolino though. They can be dire with do called ‘window’ seats giving you nothing but a blank wall.
Kings Cross to Stevenage in 20 mins