Train Carriages Not Being Used

serfboard

RTE wrote:

The Public Accounts Committee has asked for a report into why 21 train carriages owned by Iarnród Éireann and worth €44m are not being used.

SNIP! PLEASE DO NOT POST FULL ARTICLES!

Link.
I can see both sides here - at the time they were bought it looked like passenger numbers were steadily increasing and if we hadn't busted, they would have been criticised for not buying enough carriages and for over-crowded trains.

On the other hand, it is not just the recession that has caused the decline in passenger numbers. The completion of the motorways and the consequent competition from bus operators has, IMO, contributed far more.

Still beats me as to why they didn't upgrade the tracks first (double-tracking in parts, more speed in others) before buying new carriages.

Thoughts?

Solair

I wonder would it make more sense to put the spare 22000s on the Cork route and maybe the Belfast Route which are run by push/pull locomotive hauled trains.

Not sure what the fuel-efficiency savings would be or the time improvements.
I don't know, but I suspect that the 22000 DMUs are more fuel efficient than locomotive hauled stuff.
I'd like to see a comparison.

I know the top speed is 160 km/h but in general those kinds of multiple-unit trains tend to have way more power when taking off so, if there are stops / slow spots en route they can accelerate away much more quickly than a train with just a big engine at one end.

It could form a couple of extra sets on the Cork route and perhaps put a pair of MK4 sets into storage / maintenance. They could do with a bit of a revamp anyway i.e. scruffy upholstery and lack of sockets at seats.

Overall, those Intercity DMUs (the rounded end ones) seem to run more smoothly, have sockets at seats and seem like a better build-quality than the MK4s.

Kristopherus

A non-event. I.E have to have spare carriages. Its not like Bus Eireann, where they can hire in private operators to cover bottlenecks. Mc Guinness & his crew would be better employed investigating why the state agencies have increased the cost of doing business with them , without warning, from last Monday.

juan.kerr

Kristopherus wrote: »

A non-event. I.E have to have spare carriages.

Not entirely true. See the comments from Iarnród Éireann:

Jane Cregan said when the carriages were purchased back in 2008 it seemed demand would increase.

She said the economic decline could not have been forecast or that passenger numbers would fall as much as they did.

SilverLiningOK

This is again a opportunity for FF=FG to push their privatisation fetish. Having a few extra carriage is a lot better than having a shortage. It allows Irish Rail to deal with contingencies.

Solair

Well, it's a better situation than we had a few years ago where even the Cork-Dublin service could end up being replaced by commuter-type DMU trains.

flyingsnail

This is such a non story, Irish rail have about 180?? ICR. Having 20 to cover extra services if required or when heavy overhauls start makes perfect sense. Realistically speaking that is only 7 3 car sets. You are never going to have 100% availability of a fleet and having no backup would just be stupid.

Jamie2k9

Of course BE and BD are using every single one of there buses.....

bikeman1

Its not really a non story in my opinion.

IE have over purchased rolling stock. I would like IE to come out and say how many 22k sets are rostered on a daily basis? I believe aroundthere are some poor diagrams as well for some sets. There is so much slack in the stock its such a waste.

Also IE have withdrawn all 2700s as well. The Mk3s have all been withdrawn far too prematurely, especially the push pull sets which after a mid life overhaul could easily have been used for another 15 years. We have 10 201s lying up in Inchicore swithched off, more waste.

The 8200s have not been used in years and when they were last it was only for a short period.

The government are going to give IE even more money to survive, yet the people who wasted all this money buying so many new trains which are not needed have not been held accountable.

Also remember they are even using the 22s on some Cork services instead of the Mk4s that can cover all Cork services. So that has to be factored into the surplus of 22s hanging around.

antoobrien

Here's a suggestion for Irish rail - put them on the Galway - Limerick run.

The earliest train gets in to Galway at 8.05, with the next one being at 11.13. This makes the service about as useful as teats on a bull. The only services where there's less than 3 hours between arrivals are the last two.

You'd swear they wanted it to fail or something.

Jamie2k9

antoobrien wrote: »

Here's a suggestion for Irish rail - put them on the Galway - Limerick run.

The earliest train gets in to Galway at 8.05, with the next one being at 11.13. This makes the service about as useful as teats on a bull. The only services where there's less than 3 hours between arrivals are the last two.

You'd swear they wanted it to fail or something.

I would rather see the ICR's be scrapped than run on the WRC and its shocking that some of them do.

IE have over purchased rolling stock. I would like IE to come out and say how many 22k sets are rostered on a daily basis? I believe aroundthere are some poor diagrams as well for some sets. There is so much slack in the stock its such a waste.

It happened in 2004 and what way was our ecomny between 2005-8, everythingw as booming and rail passengers numbers were growing annualy these trains would of being needed if we were not in the mess we are in.

The Idyl Race

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I would rather see the ICR's be scrapped than run on the WRC and its shocking that some of them do.

Care to explain?

markpb

Why are people defending Irish Rail and insisting its not a waste when Irish Rail have already admitted (in the link in the OP) that they're being wasted because demand did not meet expectations?

I know some people feel the need to defend Irish Rail to the hilt (just like others do the opposite) but seriously lads, if Irish Rail admit there's an issue, maybe there's an issue? Pick yer battles

Jamie2k9

The Idyl Race wrote: »

Care to explain?

What is there to explain, I think my point is clear ICR should not be operating the WRC at all.

Its fine for the taxpayer to pay for ghost trains on WRC but its not alright to pay for rolling stock which is not required at this time due to the mess that FF and the Banks left us in.

Why are people defending Irish Rail and insisting its not a waste when Irish Rail have already admitted (in the link in the OP) that they're being wasted because demand did not meet expectations?

I'm sure demand for social welfare in 2013 didn't meet expectations either estimated in 2006......so whats you point?

purplepanda

Stena Line have been advertising sail - rail connections for the Rugby internationals via Emails & their websites.

Perhaps IE could use up some of it's spare train capacity ensuring proper connections to & from Rosslare for supporters.

And how about trial summer services to attract visitors from Wales & South England via Rosslare with connections to southern coastal regions. Use the South Wexford line to connect to Waterford & beyond.

There's plenty of coastal towns & villages, sights & scenery, history & heritage all along the southern coast counties from Wexford to Kerry to attract visitors. The region shouldn't have to rely on attracting arriving tourists out of Dublin.

Relevant tourist agencies, local authorities, transport companies & even government need to get organised & serious in attracting more tourists & income into the country.

Make sure these trains are put to proper use & not under utilised :pac:

LXFlyer

There are a number of issues here.

First of all is the fact that there is a protracted lead in period between ordering rolling stock and delivery.

Secondly, there has been a significant downturn in business that was not foreseen (and most of it could not have been foreseen) at the time the new rolling stock was ordered.

Thirdly, there was a decision made to replace older stock (Mark 3) with the new ICR fleet. That is a completely separate issue to the question of newer stock being stored.

Fourthly, IE funding has been cut meaning less funds to carry out heavy overhauls.

It would be fair to say that when this stock was ordered that there was certainly no expectation that business would be significantly negatively impacted by the downturn in the economy. In a way this criticism is akin to attacking people for buying a house at the height of the boom.

The funding issue is again the critical one.

IE have in view of the current financial situation cut some services, cut capacity on others in order to save money.

They have had to also cut the maintenance budget which has an impact upon the number of trains that they can afford to have in service. While the 2700s and 8200 DARTs are in storage, I understand that the ICRs are being swapped around constantly so that all sets are remaining in service on a rotating basis.

The plain fact of the matter is that the money is not there to have every train in service, nor is the demand.

It's very easy to say that they should all in service, but that's in an ideal world. We are not in an ideal world frankly.

As it is, incidentally, ICRs do operate certain services on the WRC and have done for over a year.

LXFlyer

To add to this, this is not just an IE issue. Given LUAS frequencies have been cut back during the past year or so, in line with reduced demand, it is fair to say that there is a surplus of trams available.

DB have cut their fleet size back due to falls in demand also.

The Idyl Race

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

What is there to explain, I think my point is clear ICR should not be operating the WRC at all.

Its fine for the taxpayer to pay for ghost trains on WRC but its not alright to pay for rolling stock which is not required at this time due to the mess that FF and the Banks left us in.



I'm sure demand for social welfare in 2013 didn't meet expectations either estimated in 2006......so whats you point?

I support every possible way to maximise demand on IR's services. Staff are being paid, rolling stock and lines are there, so provide services. That's it. Maximising services on rail lines doesn't take bread out of anyone's mouth and it is ridiculous hyperbole to pretend otherwise.

Solair

You could lease a fleet of 22000s to a private operator and see what happens...

CIE

antoobrien wrote: »

Here's a suggestion for Irish rail - put them on the Galway - Limerick run.

The earliest train gets in to Galway at 8.05, with the next one being at 11.13. This makes the service about as useful as teats on a bull. The only services where there's less than 3 hours between arrivals are the last two.

You'd swear they wanted it to fail or something.

That's what happens with government micromanaging. Meanwhile, the same government institutes express bus service on the parallel motorway. The government builds, owns and operates both systems. In the private sector, they would call that a "conflict of interest".

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I would rather see the ICRs be scrapped than run on the WRC

Even if they start running express trains? After all, there is demand for express buses, right? Never mind that there is enough straight track on the Galway-Limerick railway to actually run those trains at their maximum speed. If I were running that railway, that's what I would do.

Bad enough the Mark 3s were scrapped at less than half of their useful lives. Never mind the 141/181s getting scrapped when they could have been rebuilt and modernised (lots of EMDs in the US are), and most likely for a fraction of the cost of buying 22000s. But then again, Ireland somehow is magically the only country on the planet where head-end power "refuses" to work properly and IE has to waste more money buying DVTs that don't carry revenue passengers, thus forcing certain intercity trains to haul around empty space. They also cut profitable railfreight by forty percent, for no reason whatsoever other than they can do it by fiat, knowing that they can count on government support; ah sure, let the lorries take the freight and jam up all the roads since they don't want to use the motorways so they can avoid the tolls.

SilverLiningOK wrote: »

This is again a opportunity for FF=FG to push their privatisation fetish

Is this in opposition to the "nationalisation fetish", which has been proven for well over a century to be an absolute failure and disaster? Started in Ireland with the act of government that created the Great Southern Railways, which nationalised 23 separate railway companies for no good reason under a company created by government order (nominally private, but no truly private company is started by an act of government). Ultimately became the nominally semi-state (but of course, fully state) CIE, which still exists and never went away. Nobody can start up a railway under their own capital nowadays thanks to this socialistic setup.

The political parties of course won't go for actual privatisation, which would also require a degree of de-regulation to allow them to attain profits. They'll go with the fascistic in origin (look it up) "public-private partnership" distorted privatisation.

purplepanda

The Waterford -Limerick Junction line urgently needs to run a Sunday service, there's no point spending money upgrading a line when afterwards it still runs Monday - Saturday. How much work still needs to be done to achieve this? It can't be that hard as it's had Sunday services in the past!!! :mad:

I can see no valid reason why this is the only line without a Sunday service, when every other line has. :rolleyes:

And make sure trains actually connect with other services at either end of the line!!! It's that simple!!! :pac:

AlekSmart

purplepanda wrote: »

Stena Line have been advertising sail - rail connections for the Rugby internationals via Emails & their websites.

Perhaps IE could use up some of it's spare train capacity ensuring proper connections to & from Rosslare for supporters.

And how about trial summer services to attract visitors from Wales & South England via Rosslare with connections to southern coastal regions. Use the South Wexford line to connect to Waterford & beyond.

There's plenty of coastal towns & villages, sights & scenery, history & heritage all along the southern coast counties from Wexford to Kerry to attract visitors. The region shouldn't have to rely on attracting arriving tourists out of Dublin.

Relevant tourist agencies, local authorities, transport companies & even government need to get organised & serious in attracting more tourists & income into the country.

Make sure these trains are put to proper use & not under utilised :pac:

Plenty of ideas to promote Rail Travel there,particularly on non-commuter services.

However it mirrors the Bus Atha Cliath situation regarding to Nitelink.

Buses,Staff and all the necessities in place to operate a 24 service on selected routes,yet no indication that anybody in power will even TRY the idea out....It's a very good job Ireland was'nt in charge of the Apollo Programme,or we would,nt have reached Cape Canaveral yet

Hungerford

Don't worry folks, Varadkar's on the ball:

“But it doesn't make sense to sell them, as they're narrow gauge. They're rolling stock that were designed for a narrow gauge railway and would need to be adapted before they're sold. So it doesn't make sense to sell them"

It's good to see a minister on top of his brief.

AlekSmart

Hungerford wrote: »

Don't worry folks, Varadkar's on the ball:

It's good to see a minister on top of his brief.

I reckon he's identified a market for the carriages on the Snowdonia Mountain Railway or perhaps the Offaly Bog Railways....The mark of genius for sure !!!

corktina

Hungerford wrote: »

Don't worry folks, Varadkar's on the ball:



It's good to see a minister on top of his brief.

speechless....

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0125/364417-train-carriages/

The Public Accounts Committee has asked for a report into why 21 train carriages owned by Iarnród Éireann and worth €44m are not being used.

Poxyshamrock

Then stick em on the Limerick to Galway route instead of the 2800s. Add seat reservations and a trolley service.
Might help add a dozen or two more passengers.
Might not be a lot but it sure cant do any damage!

Victor

Threads merged

Moderator

The Idyl Race

AlekSmart wrote: »

Plenty of ideas to promote Rail Travel there,particularly on non-commuter services.

However it mirrors the Bus Atha Cliath situation regarding to Nitelink.

Buses,Staff and all the necessities in place to operate a 24 service on selected routes,yet no indication that anybody in power will even TRY the idea out....It's a very good job Ireland was'nt in charge of the Apollo Programme,or we would,nt have reached Cape Canaveral yet

No, we'd still be talking about it fifty years later and a site wouldn't be chosen for Cape Canaveral because Mickey Jo has a site and needs a favour, and the boys in Nesbitts would be saying that spending that money was a disgrace, Joe.

steamengine

Leo is not totally incorrect, there is a pic of the narrow gauge Malaysian electrified version of the 22k on the train porn thread !

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74303898&postcount=34

kc56

Hungerford wrote: »

Don't worry folks, Varadkar's on the ball:



It's good to see a minister on top of his brief.

Actually he might not be all that incorrect.

If you think of gauge as the distance between the wheels on an axle, then the Irish trains have a 'broad gauge'. However gauge is also used for 'loading gauge' which is the size of the carriages, width, height, length, sweep, platform height and gap etc. The Irish loading gauge is quite similar to the UK but different from most other networks and is considered to be 'narrow'. Most European carriages are longer, wider and higher, sufficient for double-deckers, than ours. Take just one area, platform height; we have high platforms while Europe uses low platforms. To use our trains in Europe, assuming the wheel gauge is modified, would require steps on every platform - a non runner. Most European stock either has steps build into the carriage or low floors.

Trains, unlike coaches, are custom built to suit the railways they run on and are not easily interchangable.

CIE

kc56 wrote: »

Actually he might not be all that incorrect.

If you think of gauge as the distance between the wheels on an axle, then the Irish trains have a 'broad gauge'. However gauge is also used for 'loading gauge' which is the size of the carriages, width, height, length, sweep, platform height and gap etc. The Irish loading gauge is quite similar to the UK but different from most other networks and is considered to be 'narrow'. Most European carriages are longer, wider and higher, sufficient for double-deckers, than ours. Take just one area, platform height; we have high platforms while Europe uses low platforms. To use our trains in Europe, assuming the wheel gauge is modified, would require steps on every platform - a non runner. Most European stock either has steps build into the carriage or low floors.

Trains, unlike coaches, are custom built to suit the railways they run on and are not easily interchangable.

I think most people here, even on the commuting forum, know the difference between track gauge and loading gauge. Britain already accommodates trains that can operate not only there but on the continent, and Britain's loading gauge is considerably narrower horizontally than Ireland's.

Solair

I think we can safely assume the Minister simply knew the gauge was different and jumped to the conclusion Ireland must use narrow gauge.

His brief is more about the big picture stuff, not necessarily the finer details but even so, its a fairly fundamental quirk to be aware of when it comes to IE buying trains.

I'd be a bit nuts to sell them as there's unlikely to be any market for them and they'd also be unlikely to raise enough money to justify the sale. You'd be writing off tens of millions of capital investment.

The network could become busier I'm future years if the economy picks up, so having a bit of surplus totally standardised stock is not a bad thing.

Rotating them into the fleet means the fleet lasts longer and maintenance and even cleaning can be carried out without fuss.

corktina

I would suggest noone will buy secondhand stock as in this age it will be practically impossible to get permission to run them elsewhere. Just look at the hoops new-stock manufacturers have to jump through!

If they weren't a success here, who else will try their hand at them? Not likely is it?

Solair

There's nothing unsuccessful about them. They are excellent DMUs.

Irish Rail just over estimated how many they need and now has a rather large fleet.

I'd suggest getting rid of the Enterprise or storing some MK4s before doing anything like selling these!

If they've say 20 spare 22000 units, that's sufficient to replace the whole Enterprise fleet entirely and possibly radically improve journey times as the 22000s would handle the stop/start patterns much better than a heavy loco-hauled train and it would take the speed up from 145 to 160 km/h

They could also replace some longer distance commuter DMUs and cascading better commuter trains down to other routes while ditching older DMU / putting them into storage.

CIE

CIE wrote: »

But then again, Ireland somehow is magically the only country on the planet where head-end power "refuses" to work properly and IE has to waste more money buying DVTs that don't carry revenue passengers, thus forcing certain intercity trains to haul around empty space.

Will you ever let this go? You've been told numerous times why HEP doesn't work on the CIE electrical system and it's a logical reason. It comes down to AC vs DC if you need reminding.

CIE wrote: »

Is this in opposition to the "nationalisation fetish", which has been proven for well over a century to be an absolute failure and disaster? Started in Ireland with the act of government that created the Great Southern Railways, which nationalised 23 separate railway companies for no good reason under a company created by government order (nominally private, but no truly private company is started by an act of government). Ultimately became the nominally semi-state (but of course, fully state) CIE, which still exists and never went away. Nobody can start up a railway under their own capital nowadays thanks to this socialistic setup.

The political parties of course won't go for actual privatisation, which would also require a degree of de-regulation to allow them to attain profits. They'll go with the fascistic in origin (look it up) "public-private partnership" distorted privatisation.

So are you suggesting that we privatise the lot? Infrastructure too? Look at the UK and come back to me.

CIE

Karsini wrote: »

Will you ever let this go? You've been told numerous times why HEP doesn't work on the CIE electrical system and it's a logical reason. It comes down to AC vs DC if you need reminding

No, I've been told IE's excuses numerous times. I don't put a red cent (since Ireland uses them now) of stock into anything the government and/or the unions have to say. The fact that Ireland is the sole country in the developed world where HEP magically will not work means that either the Irish are too incompetent to make it work (which I don't believe) or that government micromanagers are too stubborn to buy the pre-existing technology which has existed for decades. After all, it works fine on the EMUs and DMUs. And (as I seem to recall) it worked when the Hunslet 101 class of NIR were hauling Class 2B push-pull cars on the Enterprise—which makes the present-day Enterprise a step backwards in time.

Karsini wrote: »

So are you suggesting that we privatise the lot? Infrastructure too? Look at the UK and come back to me

Statist rot. The UK never engaged in full privatisation never mind deregulation, which was part of the initial failure. Besides that, full nationalisation has not come roaring back, and that eventually proved to be an advantage versus bringing back BR.

It makes perfect sense. We use 380V three phase AC on our stock. AC requires a constant field rate which couldn't easily be achieved via a variable speed engine. Even going down to 48-49Hz can cause problems. That's why the 201s have to run at full bore with HEP on, and why they've taken a hammering on the Enterprise over the last 15 years. Other countries use DC which can be generated by a variable speed prime mover, but they require AC inverters under each coach which is wasteful (as DC-AC or AC-DC conversions consume energy in the process) and is also more of a maintenance load.

Maybe I'm a socialist/communist, but I don't approve of any of these services being in private hands. I just look at what happened with British Rail and Eircom and say no to privatisation.

ardmacha

There is rolling stick lying up, yet there is no train to Belfast from Dublin that would allow a person with business there arrive before 9am. When there is a big event there is no great availability of special trains, perhaps these would not be busy, but by and large they are not tried.

Jamie2k9

There's nothing unsuccessful about them. They are excellent DMUs.

Irish Rail just over estimated how many they need and now has a rather large fleet.

Irish Rail didn't over estimate the number require and I beleave that if the ecomny wasn't in this current mess they would be ordering more sets anytime around now to cater for demand.

There is rolling stick lying up, yet there is no train to Belfast from Dublin that would allow a person with business there arrive before 9am. When there is a big event there is no great availability of special trains, perhaps these would not be busy, but by and large they are not tried.

Demand tends to be towords Dublin in the mornings and if the 7.35 to Belfast was moved to 6.30 I think it would do more harm and good for passenger numbers.

21 set stored now but is that figure the same for July/August when nearly all Waterford, Galway and Westport services are all 6 peice sets.

Then stick em on the Limerick to Galway route instead of the 2800s. Add seat reservations and a trolley service.
Might help add a dozen or two more passengers.
Might not be a lot but it sure cant do any damage!

Might add one or two pass holders but increase operating costs and catering staff don't come free.

ardmacha

Demand tends to be towords Dublin in the mornings and if the 7.35 to Belfast was moved to 6.30 I think it would do more harm and good for passenger numbers.

How do you know what the demand is? Do you interview on the M1?

I'm not suggesting moving the 7:35 to 6:30. Make it 8:00 and run an earlier train, this could also collect some commuters at Dundalk and Newry. Now I imagine some of this has to do with track capacity at the Belfast end, but imagination is needed.

Jamie2k9

ardmacha wrote: »

How do you know what the demand is? Do you interview on the M1?

I'm not suggesting moving the 7:35 to 6:30. Make it 8:00 and run an earlier train, this could also collect some commuters at Dundalk and Newry. Now I imagine some of this has to do with track capacity at the Belfast end, but imagination is needed.

That will likely result in two trains running half empty and costing both operators money. Best compromise would be 07.00 departure from Connolly and into Belfast 09.15.

CIE

Karsini wrote: »

It makes perfect sense. We use 380V three phase AC on our stock. AC requires a constant field rate which couldn't easily be achieved via a variable speed engine. Even going down to 48-49Hz can cause problems. That's why the 201s have to run at full bore with HEP on, and why they've taken a hammering on the Enterprise over the last 15 years. Other countries use DC which can be generated by a variable speed prime mover, but they require AC inverters under each coach which is wasteful (as DC-AC or AC-DC conversions consume energy in the process) and is also more of a maintenance load.

Maybe I'm a socialist/communist, but I don't approve of any of these services being in private hands. I just look at what happened with British Rail and Eircom and say no to privatisation.

Meanwhile, Ireland's railway network shrinks while Britain's does not and even grows in some respects. That speaks for itself.

No, none of those excuses make a bit of sense at all. There are no corresponding examples elsewhere, where any other rail operator was forced to exchange HEP for DVTs. I have to conclude that IE went with an unproven system that obviously does not work and is too stubborn to admit that they made a grave error.

corktina

CIE wrote: »

Meanwhile, Ireland's railway network shrinks while Britain's does not and even grows in some respects. That speaks for itself.

No, none of those excuses make a bit of sense at all. There are no corresponding examples elsewhere, where any other rail operator was forced to exchange HEP for DVTs. I have to conclude that IE went with an unproven system that obviously does not work and is too stubborn to admit that they made a grave error.

i tend to agree with CIE here (shock horror!) on both counts here. Not that you can compare the railways in the UK to here in any meaningful way but the services there seem to be booming whilst ours are in decline and as to the HEP, it seems to me that someone made a wrong decision somewhere along the line, with the result that an extra empty and totally unnecessary (apart from the genny) vehicle is being dragged down to Cork and back on every service, a maintenance and capital cost that could have been avoided with ACinverters on the train (to look at it from the other direction)...

Park Royal

serfboard wrote: »

Link.
I can see both sides here - at the time they were bought it looked like passenger numbers were steadily increasing and if we hadn't busted, they would have been criticised for not buying enough carriages and for over-crowded trains.

On the other hand, it is not just the recession that has caused the decline in passenger numbers. The completion of the motorways and the consequent competition from bus operators has, IMO, contributed far more.

Still beats me as to why they didn't upgrade the tracks first (double-tracking in parts, more speed in others) before buying new carriages.

Thoughts?

I think tracks were upgraded and signalling and platforms and many level crossings......before the big orders for carriages were placed.......as for double tracking ...great idea ....wheres the money.....there is always a shortage of money........always was...always will be......no shortage of things to do.....and improve......but there are always budget restrictions.......perhaps the country is too small and poor for a proper railway?. always was always will be?.

Solair

Park Royal wrote: »

I think tracks were upgraded and signalling and platforms and many level crossings......before the big orders for carriages were placed.......as for double tracking ...great idea ....wheres the money.....there is always a shortage of money........always was...always will be......no shortage of things to do.....and improve......but there are always budget restrictions.......perhaps the country is too small and poor for a proper railway?. always was always will be?.

Its about low densities of population ,scattered development and lack of any sense of planning.

Similar reason to why rail doesn't work well in many parts of the united states.

We built Ireland to be totally car dependent.

We actually have a much better motorway network than most equivalent sized/population countries eg NZ.

steamengine

Karsini wrote: »

It makes perfect sense. We use 380V three phase AC on our stock. AC requires a constant field rate which couldn't easily be achieved via a variable speed engine. Even going down to 48-49Hz can cause problems. That's why the 201s have to run at full bore with HEP on, and why they've taken a hammering on the Enterprise over the last 15 years. Other countries use DC which can be generated by a variable speed prime mover, but they require AC inverters under each coach which is wasteful (as DC-AC or AC-DC conversions consume energy in the process) and is also more of a maintenance load.

Maybe I'm a socialist/communist, but I don't approve of any of these services being in private hands. I just look at what happened with British Rail and Eircom and say no to privatisation.

+1............ great explanation Karsini on HEP and its implications in comparison to the relative simplicity of a generator van. Surprise surprise, even though an effective solution has been found, now more criticism of an extra non-revenue coaches/generator vans being pulled from A to B.

You're right about privatisation, why have profits repatriated abroad, which would be the most likely scenario ?

Nice to see that someone agrees with me. :pac:

You also need to consider that this system was introduced with the Mark 2s. In 1972 when these coaches were built, none of the CIE locos had ETH or HEP. They would have had two options:

A - Retrofit some locos with HEP from a secondary engine
B - Build generator vans and allow any loco to haul them

None of the CIE locos would have been powerful enough to accommodate prime mover HEP. Especially with the GMs and Cs of the day; you'd be pretty much dedicating a loco to provide HEP to the Mark 2s, meaning you'd have a non-revenue generating vehicle anyway. I'm not even sure about the A class at only 1,325hp, I'd suspect not. So it would have to be a secondary engine. NIR also tried 1000V DC ETH on 111 and 112 yet still reverted to generator vans. I'd be curious to know what their experience was.

We're not alone here either. I'm sure that dowlingm can tell you about the situation in North America with the F40PH locos. These are being converted to use secondary engines for HEP, after years of running AC HEP off the prime mover. These are also 16-cylinder engines rather than the 12-cylinder engines used in the 201s, so they would have been better able to handle the strain.

Solair

It's irrelevant on the DMUs anyway. Every coach carries passengers.

I would really like to see a fuel efficiency comparison between the three intercity train types : 22000, MK4 & Enterprise.
Fuel per passenger per km

They really should let some couriers use the luggage space in the generator vans though. FastTrack parcels just between Cork, Belfast and Dublin wouldn't be bad.

Losty Dublin

Karsini wrote: »

It makes perfect sense. We use 380V three phase AC on our stock. AC requires a constant field rate which couldn't easily be achieved via a variable speed engine. Even going down to 48-49Hz can cause problems. That's why the 201s have to run at full bore with HEP on, and why they've taken a hammering on the Enterprise over the last 15 years. Other countries use DC which can be generated by a variable speed prime mover, but they require AC inverters under each coach which is wasteful (as DC-AC or AC-DC conversions consume energy in the process) and is also more of a maintenance load.

Add to this the fact that HEP as supplied was intended to run with shorter train sets and far fewer stops than the service actually now runs. This has served to add stress on the engines, which any engine fitted with a HEP has to cope with. It's worth pointing out that the hilly climbs on the Dublin-Belfast line is hard on engines at the best of times; this too plays it's part.

Referring back to the HEP settings on the 111 class, the end result was that 111 and 112 had serious engine wear and regular failures in service due to overrunning and over stressing so HEP was decommissioned on them by NIR.

Solair

It's a pity waste heat from the loco can't be used to heat / supplement the heat on the trains too. Seems daft blowing all that energy onto the sky through the cooling fans.

That's the problem with locomotive hauled trains though. They're not really a tightly integrated system. It's more like a tractor and trailer than a car.

I'm sure DMUs can so things better because the power packs are tightly integrated into the design of the coaches.

Also, I can't see how diesel electric can be as efficient as hydraulic drives. There must be huge losses in converting the diesel engine's rotational energy output into electrical energy then back to rotational energy via traction motors.

Hydraulic drives can't be as lossy as all that stuff!