Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Enterprise refurbishment comes closer?

Options
12467…15

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users Posts: 10,706 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    They should probably order a fleet of 200km/h capable DMUs built as a version of the same family for Cork-Dublin and Enterprise.

    It would make sense long term but they'd have a hard job justifying scrapping the MK4 and Enterprise stock after having just ditched the 1980s era MK3s

    Perhaps actually get the network to 100 in the first place. Preparing for 125 or more would more less require a complete rebuild of the Cork line.
    They need new power cars the 201s won't last indefinitely.
    Never say never, IE have reduced the MkIVs in service and replaced many services with ICRs, you could possibly see them all taken out of service and replaced with ICRs, with the 201s still hauling freights!

    GM228

    If they have any brains any improvement to rolling stock on Cork route will be new stock. The Mark IVs are a lost cause unless they can be drastically improved bogies. Not sure I would of accepted what was served up by CAF 4 or 5 years ago when they rebuilt them.

    Rotem would do a fine job on rebuilding them if they were in that business.


  • Options
    #93
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,701 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    GM228 wrote: »
    Never say never, IE have reduced the MkIVs in service and replaced many services with ICRs, you could possibly see them all taken out of service and replaced with ICRs, with the 201s still hauling freights!

    GM228
    Captain Chaos wrote: »
    At this stage I think it's too tight on the ICRs to phase out the Mk4s all together. They would need a about 4-5 5ICR sets to do away with the Mk4s. If they had some money I'd say they would take up those options with Rotem. Put another 10 201s in storage and that would be that. Just keep a few for Enterprise and heavy liners while keeping the 071s going till they can't get parts for them anymore.

    Just to point out that an extra Mark 4 set was released back into service in October, so there are currently four sets in use daily, and one maintenance spare (which is also brought into use at busy times). Bear in mind also that the entire ICR fleet is now back in daily use.

    There is therefore no way that the timetable can be operated without Mark 4 sets being in service.

    There is not a snowball's chance in hell of any new Intercity rolling stock being ordered for the significant future, and I think people need to realise this. Irish Rail is in a financial crisis, and can barely manage to operate the services as is, so I think any talk of new rolling stock is pie in the sky.

    The best we can hope for is that more Mark 4 sets are brought back into use as demand increases next year.


  • Options
    #94
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    GM228 wrote: »
    Never say never, IE have reduced the MkIVs in service and replaced many services with ICRs, you could possibly see them all taken out of service and replaced with ICRs, with the 201s still hauling freights!

    GM228
    i can't see how when we don't have enough ICRS to operate certain routes as it is, unless we buy more. infact we could do with buying more anyway even with the mark 4s in service

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #95
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    They should probably order a fleet of 200km/h capable DMUs built as a version of the same family for Cork-Dublin and Enterprise.

    It would make sense long term but they'd have a hard job justifying scrapping the MK4 and Enterprise stock after having just ditched the 1980s era MK3s
    while i agree with you in theory, the reality for me is they're would be no justification for scrapping the mk4s and enterprize stock until life expirey. they're was no justification for the mk3 nonsense either to be blunt but irish rail don't care because nobody tells them "you bought so you will use"

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #96
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »
    Perhaps actually get the network to 100 in the first place. Preparing for 125 or more would more less require a complete rebuild of the Cork line.





    If they have any brains any improvement to rolling stock on Cork route will be new stock. The Mark IVs are a lost cause unless they can be drastically improved bogies. Not sure I would of accepted what was served up by CAF 4 or 5 years ago when they rebuilt them.

    Rotem would do a fine job on rebuilding them if they were in that business.
    but is all that cafs fault or did IE decide all the specifications down to the letter and caf just built as told?

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    lxflyer wrote: »
    Just to point out that an extra Mark 4 set was released back into service in October, so there are currently four sets in use daily, and one maintenance spare (which is also brought into use at busy times). Bear in mind also that the entire ICR fleet is now back in daily use.

    it should have all been in daily use all the time. dispite the downturn and lower passengers, the demand for them was still there. and IE could have done things to encourage people onto the cork route to keep the mark 4s in service and fill seats.
    lxflyer wrote: »
    There is not a snowball's chance in hell of any new Intercity rolling stock being ordered for the significant future, and I think people need to realise this.

    well we need it so they better start ordering when funds allow. we need to realize that more of such stock is needed as
    1. people are crammed into short formed trains, and when capacity is needed other routes lose out. or on certain routes they only get such stock some of the time.
    2. the fact that IE wish to use ICRS on the commuter services out of heuston because they didn't think to buy proper higher speed suburban stock for such services.
    lxflyer wrote: »
    Irish Rail is in a financial crisis, and can barely manage to operate the services as is

    as maybe. but who's fault is that? not mine but both the government and irish rails, yet the customer is suffering.
    lxflyer wrote: »
    The best we can hope for is that more Mark 4 sets are brought back into use as demand increases next year.

    or bring them back now and try grow custom on the cork route. you know, like any normal business would do. yes times are still tough but that doesn't stop businesses looking for custom

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #98
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users Posts: 10,706 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    The best we can hope for is that more Mark 4 sets are brought back into use as demand increases next year.

    IE were forced to bring the fourth set back into use and not because of the 22s going North. The only reason its in daily use is probably to cut double maintenance costs.

    Demand is there now for more of them in service but its not happening.
    but is all that cafs fault or did IE decide all the specifications down to the letter and caf just built as told?

    Both but suspect more heavily CAF.


  • Options
    #99
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    I've been on CAF intercity trains in Spain and the ride quality was similar to the MK4 on normal lines there too.


  • Options
    #100
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    lxflyer wrote: »
    Just to point out that an extra Mark 4 set was released back into service in October, so there are currently four sets in use daily, and one maintenance spare (which is also brought into use at busy times). Bear in mind also that the entire ICR fleet is now back in daily use.

    There is therefore no way that the timetable can be operated without Mark 4 sets being in service.

    There is not a snowball's chance in hell of any new Intercity rolling stock being ordered for the significant future, and I think people need to realise this. Irish Rail is in a financial crisis, and can barely manage to operate the services as is, so I think any talk of new rolling stock is pie in the sky.

    The best we can hope for is that more Mark 4 sets are brought back into use as demand increases next year.

    The extra MkIV was brought into service to release a 29000 to a special project and also for an ICR to Belfast, another MkIV will be back soon apparently to release an ICR for the project.

    IE can actually work the current timetable with no MkIVs if they bring the 2700s back into service, I've heard this was discussed but subsequently the idea was droped!

    GM228


  • Options
    #101
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Bring 29000 and 2700 into service on the Cork-Dublin route?
    Would that not be commercial suicide?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Bring 29000 and 2700 into service on the Cork-Dublin route?
    Would that not be commercial suicide?

    No, the 2700s would replace ICRs currently in some Commuter workings freeing up more ICRs for the Cork line!

    I didn't mean put 2700s on the Cork line, indeed that would be commercial suicide!

    GM228


  • Options
    #103
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,678 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    I'd be delighted to have a 2x2700 - actual commuter stock built for standees, no vestibules and double leaf doors - over the 22k sets on the M3 line


  • Options
    #104
    csd
    Registered Users Posts: 260 ✭✭csd


    GM228 wrote: »
    The extra MkIV was brought into service to release a 29000 to a special project and also for an ICR to Belfast, another MkIV will be back soon apparently to release an ICR for the project.

    Ok I'll bite! What special project? Any hints? :)

    /csd


  • Options
    #105
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,701 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Renewal of the CAWS system.


  • Options
    #106
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Bring 29000 and 2700 into service on the Cork-Dublin route?
    Would that not be commercial suicide?
    they would put the 2700s probably on limerick local services, the 2800s would come back to dublin and be probably banished to the rosslare line in turn freeing up ICRS for the cork line and the 2900s for all commuter workings. shur tis been that way for 10 years now so why change.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #107
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    L1011 wrote: »
    I'd be delighted to have a 2x2700 - actual commuter stock built for standees, no vestibules and double leaf doors - over the 22k sets on the M3 line
    they would certainly be suited to that line as 2 cars would be enough?

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #108
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,678 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    end of the road wrote: »
    they would certainly be suited to that line as 2 cars would be enough?

    2 permanently coupled would be fine. I know the auto-couplers are useless on them


  • Options
    #109
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    L1011 wrote: »
    2 permanently coupled would be fine. I know the auto-couplers are useless on them

    They have that issue sorted out now. The 2700s just need more regular maintenance than the 26 or 2800s. A 3 car set would be fine for the line, use one of the bubble units coupled to a set.

    But bringing back the 270ss creates more problems than it solves. Driver training, maintenance training and stocking different spare parts as that have nothing in common with the 26/2800s.


  • Options
    #110
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    csd wrote: »
    Ok I'll bite! What special project? Any hints? :)

    /csd

    The CAWS upgrade project!

    GM228


  • Options
    #111
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Captain Chaos wrote: »
    They have that issue sorted out now. The 2700s just need more regular maintenance than the 26 or 2800s. A 3 car set would be fine for the line, use one of the bubble units coupled to a set.

    But bringing back the 270ss creates more problems than it solves. Driver training, maintenance training and stocking different spare parts as that have nothing in common with the 26/2800s.
    i agree, but we could do with them back eventually though. all though it won't happen as the 26 and 2800s won't have their gangways put back probably as it can't be done. typical waste

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    end of the road wrote: »
    i agree, but we could do with them back eventually though. all though it won't happen as the 26 and 2800s won't have their gangways put back probably as it can't be done. typical waste

    All the 2600s still retain gangways, a lack of gangways won't stop any potential return!

    GM228


  • Options
    #113
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    GM228 wrote: »
    All the 2600s still retain gangways, a lack of gangways won't stop any potential return!

    GM228
    no but neither the 27 or 28 could operate as anything more then 2 cars. unless they gangways could be put back which is hardly likely?

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #114
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,678 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    end of the road wrote: »
    no but neither the 27 or 28 could operate as anything more then 2 cars. unless they gangways could be put back which is hardly likely?

    There is no requirement for gangways, the 22s operate without often - any 7 car (and I think 8 is also an option now) is missing a gangway between sets


  • Options
    #115
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    L1011 wrote: »
    There is no requirement for gangways, the 22s operate without often - any 7 car (and I think 8 is also an option now) is missing a gangway between sets

    which stops movement between sets. not a good idea IMO

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #116
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    end of the road wrote: »
    which stops movement between sets. not a good idea IMO

    Same issue with the DARTs! The 2800s still operate from time to time as 4 cars as did the 2700s before retirement!

    GM228


  • Options
    #117
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,678 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    end of the road wrote: »
    which stops movement between sets. not a good idea IMO

    Without catering, the need to change sets is minimal


  • Options
    #118
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    L1011 wrote: »
    Without catering, the need to change sets is minimal
    i don't agree. i've often found the need to change sets if 1 carrige is to full or the heating hasn't worked on 1 set. they were bought with them so they should have been left.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #119
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Why would they remove gangways?!


  • Options
    #120
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Why would they remove gangways?!
    i honestly don't know, i think it was absolutely a stupid thing to do. i understand the 2700 gangways being locked out because of the coupling problem but ridiculous removing them when they could have been permanently coupled in sets of 2 and 3 instead of remaining as 2 car. but its all irrelevant anyway as they most likely won't return to traffic and the 28s to dublin

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,678 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    end of the road wrote: »
    i don't agree. i've often found the need to change sets if 1 carrige is to full or the heating hasn't worked on 1 set. they were bought with them so they should have been left.

    Neither of those are pressing concerns that can't be done at a station.


Advertisement