New trains not being commissioned?

dowlingm

22048 & 22057 now in traffic (as of 4 and 5 April respectively) according to IRN.

etchyed

Can anyone tell me what the difference is between the 17 new 3-car sets and the earlier 3-car sets (22001-22030). I read on Wikipedia that they have more seating, but how? Less toilets?

monument

etchyed wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the difference is between the 17 new 3-car sets and the earlier 3-car sets (22001-22030). I read on Wikipedia that they have more seating, but how? Less toilets?

I don't know the answer, but less or smaller fixed tables or less luggage space would be the likely answer. I could be wrong, but I'd say amount of toilets is unlikely to change given there are not a massive amount of them now and it would be quite a large redesign to remove any of them.

foggy_lad

etchyed wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what the difference is between the 17 new 3-car sets and the earlier 3-car sets (22001-22030). I read on Wikipedia that they have more seating, but how? Less toilets?

Commuter oriented seating with seats all facing one way and less tables and less luggage racks and no catering facilities on board?

highlydebased

foggy_lad wrote: »

Commuter oriented seating with seats all facing one way and less tables and less luggage racks and no catering facilities on board?

None of the 3 car sets had any catering facilities in the first place

etchyed

Actually, I've just realised my reading of the Wikipedia page may have been wrong. It says:

The first 30 units are all three cars, and are all intended for use on InterCity routes, as are ten of the 15 six car units. The remaining five 6-car sets, plus the 17 three car sets ordered in 2008 are configured for long-range Commuter services from Dublin.

According to the table in the article, 5 of the 15 six-car sets (22041-22045) have more seating than the other 10 (22031-22040). I'm guessing that's probably due to having no catering facilities.

The article says that the newer 17 three-car sets are also "configured for long-range Commuter services". So it was wrong of me to assume that this necessarily means extra seating. But if not extra seating, then what does it mean? Is there any difference between the 17 new three-car sets and the first 30? Or is it just bad wording by the author of the article, where what is meant is that they are intended for, rather than configured for, Commuter services.

I'm sure I could find this info if I delved deep enough on IRN, but I don't have the patience.

bazza1

17 new sets plus TS10 + 11 are identical to the original 3-piece sets.

dowlingm

the big question is when the extra money spent on gizmos for 22001-06 will finally bring a return... :rolleyes:

foggy_lad

dowlingm wrote: »

the big question is when the extra money spent on gizmos for 22001-06 will finally bring a return... :rolleyes:

and also when will the socket issue finally be sorted out? I was on three different trains the other day and none of them had power at the sockets and as usual nobody from Irish Rail to ask about it!

bazza1

Socket problem is caused by the circuits being tripped by passengers pressing the reset buttons. The breaker can be reset only by the driver at a convenient stop. A solution is being rolled out at the moment.

dowlingm

Plus they never Awarded the SDO tender so if 22Ks are sent to Rosslare line, 3 car consists only.

sdanseo

Utter lunacy that it is considered normal for a coach delivered in May to be commissioned "in good time for Christmas". Should take a few days of testing and no more, once they've already done trials on the same type of carriages. They all roll out of the factory identical after all.

PC gone wrong, yet bloody again in this country. Red tape, beaurocracy and probably unions all getting in the way of common sense and progress. NOTHING makes my blood boil more.

Losty Dublin

sdeire wrote: »

Utter lunacy that it is considered normal for a coach delivered in May to be commissioned "in good time for Christmas". Should take a few days of testing and no more, once they've already done trials on the same type of carriages. They all roll out of the factory identical after all.

PC gone wrong, yet bloody again in this country. Red tape, beaurocracy and probably unions all getting in the way of common sense and progress. NOTHING makes my blood boil more.

Given that some of the 22000's arrived unfit for use from the factory, a lot more than a few days of tests is needed before Rotem, the RSC and Irish Rail can be happy for them to enter service.

Captain Chaos

sdeire wrote: »

Utter lunacy that it is considered normal for a coach delivered in May to be commissioned "in good time for Christmas". Should take a few days of testing and no more, once they've already done trials on the same type of carriages. They all roll out of the factory identical after all.

PC gone wrong, yet bloody again in this country. Red tape, beaurocracy and probably unions all getting in the way of common sense and progress. NOTHING makes my blood boil more.

Every new piece of passenger stock has to clock up 10,000 miles I think it is before it can enter service regardless. It is way over the top though. Sure look how long the re-furb DARTs took to get through testing. I think it was almost a year for the first few units.

I reckon all system tests could be completed in a month of testing tops. Afew days though, no way. There are far to many systems to check to see if a unit is a lemon in such a short time.

Victor

sdeire wrote: »

PC gone wrong,

Go on, explain that.

yet bloody again in this country. Red tape, beaurocracy and probably unions all getting in the way of common sense and progress. NOTHING makes my blood boil more.

No, it's about a contract - all to often we bemoan the acceptance of things that aren't good enough - look at the complaints that Leap doesn't have all the bells and whistles yet. The flipside, is that sometimes there is an utter lack of communications as to why something hasn't reached initial operational capability status.

etchyed

sdeire wrote: »

PC gone wrong, yet bloody again in this country.

1. Learn what PC means.
2. This country? I'd be quite willing to bet that the testing requirements of the Irish Railway Safety Commission are no more stringent than those of most other western European nations
3. Learn the cause of something before going on a rant. From skimming these forums in the last few months I've heard that Iarnród Éireann had identified issues in the first batch of trains that were supposed to be resolved in the latest batch of 17 before they rolled off the production line. That had not happened and modifications had to be made upon their arrival in Ireland. Whether that was the manufacturer's fault for breaching a contract or Iarnród Éireann's fault for not monitoring production closely enough is not clear. What is clear is that the target for your ire (some vague health and safety bureacracy/red tape/whatever) is misplaced.

sdeire wrote: »

...and probably unions

lol

Thanks from: foggy_lad

Of course.

I'd rather that they took their time testing and working on the ICRs than for it to end up like another Alstom DART fiasco.

goingnowhere

sdeire wrote: »

Utter lunacy that it is considered normal for a coach delivered in May to be commissioned "in good time for Christmas". Should take a few days of testing and no more, once they've already done trials on the same type of carriages. They all roll out of the factory identical after all.

PC gone wrong, yet bloody again in this country. Red tape, beaurocracy and probably unions all getting in the way of common sense and progress. NOTHING makes my blood boil more.

The trains up until start of March were still owned by the manufacturer. Irish Rail refused to accept them until a technical issue with the batch was resolved. Irish Rail are on public record as saying they had discovered a problem during commissioning. You wouldn't pay for a new car if you knew it had a dodgy gearbox or would you?

The contract would have a cause for late delivery and failure to meet targets so compensation cheque is on the way to Dublin. Once the issue was fixed the 2-3 sets a week entered service.

People underestimate how complex a modern train is and the mountain of certification required

Run_to_da_hills

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Every new piece of passenger stock has to clock up 10,000 miles I think it is before it can enter service regardless. It is way over the top though. Sure look how long the re-furb DARTs took to get through testing. I think it was almost a year for the first few units.

I reckon all system tests could be completed in a month of testing tops. Afew days though, no way. There are far to many systems to check to see if a unit is a lemon in such a short time.

If Ryanair can get a Brand new Boeing 738 delivered from across the pond and can have it up and running for pax service the following day why can't they do the same with trains? Surely this isn't rocket science.

kc56

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If Ryanair can get a Brand new Boeing 738 delivered from across the pond and can have it up and running for pax service the following day why can't they do the same with trains? Surely this isn't rocket science.

All the commissioning, including flight tests, for aircraft is done before delivery. Also there are very little variations between B737 types so there are few items that need rigorous testing as all major parts have been certified already. By the time the plane leaves the factory, it has been accepted by the customer. I'm sure the transport pilots would prefer it that way.

As for trains, they are custom builds. No two deliveries are the same; each order has a different mix of components. It's also not possible to run on-track tests as there is no 5' 3" gauge track in Korea. Even if the trains used the Korean gauge, the train might not be compatible with bridges, tunnels, platforms etc; every country is different. Result, most of the testing has to be done after delivery. If issues are found, it is only reasonable that they are fixed before the trains are accepted.

bazza1

There were several issues that delayed the commissioning of the new sets. None of the sets were accepted from Rotem for service until they were overcome. There are about two sets per week entering service at the moment as the commissioning programme catches up. The delays are not the fault of IE as they are correct in not accepting vehicles that are not 100% as per contract. IE would be slated if they accepted less than perfect vehicles.

dowlingm

Hopefully this weekend will be the last time IE can't run a Special from Belfast to Limerick to bring people to a Munster-Ulster rugby match.

All going well in the near future the 22s will undergo clearance and crew familiarisation and from then on, it will be simply that IE can't be bothered :rolleyes:

dowlingm

dowlingm wrote: »

Hopefully this weekend will be the last time IE can't run a Special from Belfast to Limerick to bring people to a Munster-Ulster rugby match.

All going well in the near future the 22s will undergo clearance and crew familiarisation and from then on, it will be simply that IE can't be bothered :rolleyes:

Is it NIR's problem?

corktina

Karsini wrote: »

Is it NIR's problem?

yes surely this isnt IE failing, rather its a NIR failure.

foggy_lad

bazza1 wrote: »

There were several issues that delayed the commissioning of the new sets. None of the sets were accepted from Rotem for service until they were overcome. There are about two sets per week entering service at the moment as the commissioning programme catches up. The delays are not the fault of IE as they are correct in not accepting vehicles that are not 100% as per contract. IE would be slated if they accepted less than perfect vehicles.

So will the power sockets issue ever be fully resolved? most of the trains in service have the older faulty power sockets while some have been replaced with different sockets most trains still have this fault which appears to be ignored?

bazza1

Sockets are a warranty issue being sorted in Portlaoise Depot by Rotem. I heard that all sockets are to be replaced.

sdanseo

I'm very surprised I'm being met with so much stick here.

A little background - I'm halfway through a degree in Transport Operations and Technology. I'm very well acquainted with the transport industry and its safety regulations and so forth - moreso, I would like to think, than some of the contirbutors here.

My point is with time and effort wasted. Why must a train run 10,000 miles or 16,000km before it's allowed into service? OK so no two orders are the same, but why order 53 trains in one go and have all of them sitting in Inchicore going rusty? Why not instead order one 3-car and one 6-car set, trial them as per requirements and then if they suit the task, order more to the exact same specification. If the 200 subsequent coaches are built to identical standards as those tested, then the testing should not need to be anywhere near as stringent.

Someone drew a comparison to aircraft delivery - take an A380. They effectivey crippled the prototype in testing - they melted the brakes, blew up an engine, scraped the tail along the runway for nearly a kilometre, landed twice as hard on the wheels as is ever possible in normal landing and bent the wings till they almost broke - all to prove the TYPE was up to scratch. All subsequently built aircraft are, like rolling stock, built and configured slightly differently to suit different operators - but they don't all need to go through the same long-drawn out testing.

Perhaps I was brash with my initial comment but I don't see why every single coach delivered needs to go through the same testing as ones which are identical and have already rolled out of the same factory, built to the same standards by the same people using the same machines. It makes no sense.

As for the coaches being owned by Rotem until proven to be railworthy - proper order. But above a certain (very small) number of silly errors in this regard and the manufacturer should quite simply never be used again. What was wrong with a European manufacturer such as CAF/Alstom - at least if stock needs to go back to them it can be there in 48 hours rather than 48 days.

flyingsnail

The first batch will have gone through the full testing and trials for type approval. The rest clock up the mileage before acceptance to see if they are up to the standard and everything is working. The 10,000 might seem like a lot you could easily do 1000 in a day (3 return trips Dublin – Cork). I would be very surprised if the A380 was delivered without ever being flown.

Most likely CAF/ Alstom put in bids for the contract but at the end of they day Rotem won. If a company half way around the word can put in a competitive bid and deliver on time I don’t see why you shouldn’t use them, most of the faults have been fixed here rather than sending the units back. I don’t see that being any different if we used a European based builder.

Victor

sdeire wrote: »

My point is with time and effort wasted. Why must a train run 10,000 miles or 16,000km before it's allowed into service? OK so no two orders are the same, but why order 53 trains in one go and have all of them sitting in Inchicore going rusty? Why not instead order one 3-car and one 6-car set, trial them as per requirements and then if they suit the task, order more to the exact same specification.

I had thought it was 10,000 miles per type and 1,000 miles per unit. There will be type, batch and individual testing. Note that there are also sub-types, e.g. driving v intermediate car, units with TPWS/AWS, sanding units, etc.

If the 200 subsequent coaches are built to identical standards as those tested, then the testing should not need to be anywhere near as stringent.

Perhaps I was brash with my initial comment but I don't see why every single coach delivered needs to go through the same testing as ones which are identical and have already rolled out of the same factory, built to the same standards by the same people using the same machines. It makes no sense.

But they won't have been built identically - years have passed (2006-2011), different workers, possibly different part / assembly design, different suppliers, etc.

Someone drew a comparison to aircraft delivery - take an A380. They effectivey crippled the prototype in testing - they melted the brakes, blew up an engine, scraped the tail along the runway for nearly a kilometre, landed twice as hard on the wheels as is ever possible in normal landing and bent the wings till they almost broke - all to prove the TYPE was up to scratch. All subsequently built aircraft are, like rolling stock, built and configured slightly differently to suit different operators - but they don't all need to go through the same long-drawn out testing.

Every A380 will still be tested and I imagine every component and sub-component will also be tested. Customers won't take delivery until they have Y hours running on the ground and X hours in the air. Note that the price tag on a plane is 5-10 times that of a train to account for that. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/ Compared to about €6m for a 3-car train.

Perhaps I was brash with my initial comment but I don't see why every single coach delivered needs to go through the same testing as ones which are identical and have already rolled out of the same factory, built to the same standards by the same people using the same machines. It makes no sense.

As for the coaches being owned by Rotem until proven to be railworthy - proper order. But above a certain (very small) number of silly errors in this regard and the manufacturer should quite simply never be used again. What was wrong with a European manufacturer such as CAF/Alstom - at least if stock needs to go back to them it can be there in 48 hours rather than 48 days.

Relatively moot - Rotem have a base in Dublin and most of the moving parts are European anyway.

kc56

flyingsnail wrote: »

Most likely CAF/ Alstom put in bids for the contract but at the end of they day Rotem won. If a company half way around the word can put in a competitive bid and deliver on time I don’t see why you shouldn’t use them, most of the faults have been fixed here rather than sending the units back. I don’t see that being any different if we used a European based builder.

And if the issues were track or running related, e.g something like automatic announcements or CAWS or engine performance, the only place they can verify any fixes is here in Ireland. So it doesn't matter where the trains are built, they can only be tested here unlike a plane which can be flown anywhere.