41 new ICR centre cars

Jamie2k9

I note the cost has jumped from 100 to 150 million.

L1011

Phil.x wrote: »

Im on one of these intercity type trains now going to clonsilla from docklands, so with this order is this the end on electrification of the maynooth/m3 line.

Absolutely not.

Jem72

It's about time.

Buying centre cars only is a bit short-sighted but given how long this was left there is no other option. By the time these go into service, the youngest of the driving cars will be over 10 years old and the oldest will be heading for 15 years. Given Irish Rail's recent record, I'd be surprised to see them go much beyond 20 - 25 years of age so you're potentially looking at a maximum of 15 years of life on the new units.

Now they need to get the finger out with a proper plan for new suburban units and forget about this messing about with hybrids and battery trains. By the time they've let that drift for another few years, they'll have spent the price of the electrification project on delays and pointless features on trains. And then use the trains for the purpose for which they are designed. So get rid of ICRs on runs to Dunboyne and boneshaker 29Ks on Longford commuter and Rosslare.

end of the road

Phil.x wrote: »

Im on one of these intercity type trains now going to clonsilla from docklands, so with this order is this the end on electrification of the maynooth/m3 line.

i certainly wouldn't put anything passed the politicians but it's doubtful this order would kill off any electrification scheme as they won't make any meaningful dent in the problem. it's when such stock gets freed from dublin suburban that it will actually make the difference as it should sort out the over-crowding issue on long distance services.
there are plans to make big orders of suburban stock as well and that should help deal with the problem on the dublin suburban. part of that plan is for bi-modal trains, these are trains which can operate off both over-head wires and have diesel engines. it is these which might be used to get out of maynooth electrification but hopefully not as the current suburban diesel stock need refurbishment and there certainly is unlikely to be enough of the bi-modal trains to replace them and increase the frequency as i believe is planned to happen.

Phil.x

L1011 wrote: »

Absolutely not.

When do you think this will be up and running.

L1011

Phil.x wrote: »

When do you think this will be up and running.

DART: four to five years
Longer 22000s - three years, but we don't know where they'll use them yet.

Del.Monte

What part of the EU is South Korea in?

L1011

Del.Monte wrote: »

What part of the EU is South Korea in?

What?

GM228

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I note the cost has jumped from 100 to 150 million.

Note the €100M estimate was made 3 years ago, was based on an exact spec of the original order and excluded the project management costs (anyone know what PMCs are for a new stock).

It is likely these vehicles will have a new ZF transmission system and MTU hybrid engine, that was not an option considered in 2016.

L1011

GM228 wrote: »

It is likely these vehicles will have a new ZF transmission system and MTU hybrid engine, that was not an option considered in 2016.

Hadn't even thought of that but it'd actually be very awkward if they didn't - assuming the trials work out OK

Also the new interior fitout would be dearer than the original, that'll add some thousands to tens of thousands per car probably. Fire-proofing means it isn't just a few USB chargers and the price difference between cloth and leather sofas when it comes to a transport environment!

GM228

L1011 wrote: »

Hadn't even thought of that but it'd actually be very awkward if they didn't - assuming the trials work out OK

Also the new interior fitout would be dearer than the original, that'll add some thousands per car.

And not to mention the 1000s of modifications made over the years, all will up the price over the original price tag per car.

Jamie2k9

GM228 wrote: »

Note the €100M estimate was made 3 years ago, was based on an exact spec of the original order and excluded the project management costs (anyone know what PMCs are for a new stock).

It is likely these vehicles will have a new ZF transmission system and MTU hybrid engine, that was not an option considered in 2016.

50% is still a massive rise and even with new engines. The 100m was an estimate but how they have manged to get this so badly wrong is yet more proof of the competency of the NTA and how they have managed this project. I accept there are project costs but an extra 1.2 million per center carriage is crazy money.

Very costly project!

GM228

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

50% is still a massive rise and even with new engines. The 100m was an estimate but how they have manged to get this so badly wrong is yet more proof of the competency of the NTA and how they have managed this project. I accept there are project costs but an extra 1.2 million per center carriage is crazy money.

Very costly project!

The estimate was based on figures provided by Rotem (not the NTA) three years ago, build prices have increased significantly over the last number of years I believe.

Hybrid or otherwise new engines will have to be Euro Stage V compliant, current ones are Euro Stage IIIB, as I understand it Stage V are a much dearer engine. The ZF EcoWorld transmission is also dearer than the Voith T312 transmission, there are plenty of other factors which will drive up the cost, remember the €100M estimate is several years old.

Del.Monte

L1011 wrote: »

What?

Sorry, just a throwaway comment really, but I still can't get my head round why EU funding is spent on purchasing equipment from the far east instead of Europe. I don't know where the finance is coming from for this purchase but previous orders were EU funded.

Jamie2k9

GM228 wrote: »

The estimate was based on figures provided by Rotem (not the NTA) three years ago, build prices have increased significantly over the last number of years I believe.

Hybrid or otherwise new engines will have to be Euro Stage V compliant, current ones are Euro Stage IIIB, as I understand it Stage V are a much dearer engine. The ZF EcoWorld transmission is also dearer than the Voith T312 transmission, there are plenty of other factors which will drive up the cost, remember the €100M estimate is several years old.

NTA sitting on this project for 3 years has now cost a significant amount extra. I suspect the majority of cost is because of them not altered engine spec. Of course they won't be accountable for this.

Phil.x

Was it the rte program that got the government to sign off on these trains?

Infini

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

50% is still a massive rise and even with new engines. The 100m was an estimate but how they have manged to get this so badly wrong is yet more proof of the competency of the NTA and how they have managed this project. I accept there are project costs but an extra 1.2 million per center carriage is crazy money.

Very costly project!

Honestly the reason rail transport is in such a state to begin with is because the power's that be have treated the thing as a money making semi state instead of a core infrastructure for the transport of people. Let's be honest here these costs have to be paid because they took too long and there heavy demand which needs to be catered for.

End of the day if it has to be paid, it has to be paid.

tabbey

Del.Monte wrote: »

What part of the EU is South Korea in?

South Korea has a finger in every pie, not just the EU, but USA, and most countries of the far east. It has outplayed Singapore at being all things to all countries.
That is how they manage to penetrate every market.

So far the 2200s have been more reliable than products from Alstom and Metro-Vickers, so operators turn a blind eye to European solidarity.

L1011

Del.Monte wrote: »

Sorry, just a throwaway comment really, but I still can't get my head round why EU funding is spent on purchasing equipment from the far east instead of Europe. I don't know where the finance is coming from for this purchase but previous orders were EU funded.

There's no EU funding for this order; and the % on the last purchase was miniscule (2% or so) from memory.

I don't know who the underbidders were in 2004 but the winning - Japanese - bidder was deemed the most advantageous. That they subcontracted to Korea is irrelevant.

devnull

Few more details here
https://twitter.com/RailUsersIe/status/1189900492719165440

L1011

60 options? Should be exercised immediately ASAP surely?

Del.Monte

Of course if we still had the ability to build/assemble railway vehicles in Ireland....

L1011

Del.Monte wrote: »

Of course if we still had the ability to build/assemble railway vehicles in Ireland....

It wouldn't have been vaguely price competitive and tenders are compulsory.

tabbey

Del.Monte wrote: »

Of course if we still had the ability to build/assemble railway vehicles in Ireland....

Or even to hold on to those vehicles which were built/ assembled here.

The 124 coaches scrapped or sold to Belmond could have been retained for inter-city (Dublin - Cork, Limerick and Galway) use and the ICRs used on other mainline routes, where the ICR acceleration is most beneficial.

Del.Monte

L1011 wrote: »

It wouldn't have been vaguely price competitive and tenders are compulsory.

Well of course it wouldn't since the ability to build vehicles in Inchicore no longer exists. Whatever happened to the engineering centre of excellence promised by a former Chairman of CIE, Paul Conlon? They don't even build the tea-trollies.

L1011

Del.Monte wrote: »

Well of course it wouldn't since the ability to build vehicles in Inchicore no longer exists. Whatever happened to the engineering centre of excellence promised by a former Chairman of CIE, Paul Conlon? They don't even build the tea-trollies.

What happened was that it wasn't vaguely economically competitive.

The old days are dead.

Del.Monte

The plain facts were that no serious effort was made to do anything with the Works at Inchicore but sell bits off for housing. Generations of engineering skills thrown away and, as far as I know, the only outside work that the company got after Conlon's famous announcement was the overhaul of a pair of gates for a local church. You couldn't make it up.

L1011

Del.Monte wrote: »

The plain facts were that no serious effort was made to do anything with the Works at Inchicore but sell bits off for housing. Generations of engineering skills thrown away and, as far as I know, the only outside work that the company got after Conlon's famous announcement was the overhaul of a pair of gates for a local church. You couldn't make it up.

Do you want to fund the shortfall to run it out of your own pocket then?

If they were unable to successfully compete for work it was because they were too expensive. That should be blindlingly obvious to someone who likes to make that reference to them getting virtually no work repeatedly.

If you do something complicated all the time, there is limited point in outsourcing it because of the loss of control. Hence why Irish Rail even have a concrete plant for sleepers still

If you do something complicated only occasionally it is absolutely insanity NOT to outsource it. What would you have had an entire railcar plant doing for the past decade?

Del.Monte

An entire railcar plant, as you put it, could have been looking for export orders, maintaining the existing fleet etc. as had been done since time immemorial.

L1011

Del.Monte wrote: »

An entire railcar plant, as you put it, could have been looking for export orders, maintaining the existing fleet etc. as had been done since time immemorial.

Maintenance is not done at manufacturing facilities

Irish Rails cost base would not make them competitive for export orders. Unknown providers need to be extremely cheap to get initial orders; do you want to fund that? Should also remind you we don't make any of the raw materials in this country, so you are importing everything to begin with, which further ratchets up costs.

The days of railways building (or reassembling, as most recent Irish "built" ones were) their own stock are long gone, no matter what fond memories you may have.

At "time immemorial" for railways, we used steam traction and had open fourth class carriages. Do you think that means we should still use both, ignoring the realities of the modern world?

Ireland trains

Is there any chance Irish rail will exercise the option for 60 more coaches.

Is the new formation likely to change because:
-there will be no 5 car sets which means there can be no lenghtening of trains to rosslare.
- if current 5 car services are lenghtened to 6 cars, will services such as off peak Dublin- Cork icr services be unnecessarily lengthened or shortened to 4 coaches.

Also good news as presumably 12 of the 6 car ICR sets will not have premier class, which means that a current 5 car service to places such as Tralee will be extended to 6 car, and presuming no premier class, there will be an extra 102 seats, or a 33.5% increase.

All in all it is good news and hopefully it won't be the end of it.

Del.Monte

How is reducing the availability of so called 'Premier' class accommodation a good thing?

L1011

Ireland trains wrote: »

- if current 5 car services are lenghtened to 6 cars, will services such as off peak Dublin- Cork icr services be unnecessarily lengthened or shortened to 4 coaches.

There is some demand management (read: advance ticket price manipulation) that can be done on those services to attract time insensitive customers either from the peak trains or from buses; that the extra capacity would allow. This is something Irish Rail do relatively well.

Jamie2k9

Ireland trains wrote: »

Is there any chance Irish rail will exercise the option for 60 more coaches.

Is the new formation likely to change because:
-there will be no 5 car sets which means there can be no lenghtening of trains to rosslare.
- if current 5 car services are lenghtened to 6 cars, will services such as off peak Dublin- Cork icr services be unnecessarily lengthened or shortened to 4 coaches.

Also good news as presumably 12 of the 6 car ICR sets will not have premier class, which means that a current 5 car service to places such as Tralee will be extended to 6 car, and presuming no premier class, there will be an extra 102 seats, or a 33.5% increase.

All in all it is good news and hopefully it won't be the end of it.

I don't follow, Tralee will just change from a 5 car PC to a 6 car PC like it was before.

GM228

L1011 wrote: »

60 options? Should be exercised immediately ASAP surely?

It was hard enough getting the DoF to cough up the €150M as it was, can't see them releasing another €220M, especially when €600M is to be found for the hybrid fleet and another €XM for the ICR hybrid and transmission conversion projects.

I understand the 60 options includes all vehicle types (i.e not just centre cars), I can't see them being taken up.

Ireland trains

Del.Monte wrote: »

How is reducing the availability of so called 'Premier' class accommodation a good thing?

More seats

Geuze

L1011 wrote: »

The days of railways building (or reassembling, as most recent Irish "built" ones were) their own stock are long gone, no matter what fond memories you may have.

Does IE have the in-house skills to refurbish the 2700 class?

Del.Monte

Ireland trains wrote: »

More seats

Same argument could be used to remove some standard class seats too - more standing room. Removal of the already poor 1st/Premier class offering will further lead to the downgrading of the entire service to something below the existing standard class. All of Irish Rail's inter-city services should benchmark themselves against Belmond's train and aspire to continually improve their offering instead of staggering from crisis to crisis.

L1011

Geuze wrote: »

Does IE have the in-house skills to refurbish the 2700 class?

No. And they never had.

Zaph

L1011 wrote: »

60 options? Should be exercised immediately ASAP surely?

Given that this thread was started 3 years ago and it's taken until now to order the 41 cars for delivery in 2 years, it defies any sort of logic to hold off on exercising the options. It's not like they aren't needed, so why not try to have them available as soon as possible after the initial order is completed? Although of course this is Irish Rail we're talking about, so logic probably isn't a factor.

Vic_08

Del.Monte wrote: »

Same argument could be used to remove some standard class seats too - more standing room. Removal of the already poor 1st/Premier class offering will further lead to the downgrading of the entire service to something below the existing standard class. All of Irish Rail's inter-city services should benchmark themselves against Belmond's train and aspire to continually improve their offering instead of staggering from crisis to crisis.

You post some nonsense here but this is off the wall even for you.

IE should benchmark their trains against a company charging the super rich €15k for a 6 day railtour? So when IE remove 95% of their seats so (you?) can be whisked around the country in luxury where do you suggest the rest of the public go when they want an affordable journey?

Any sort of higher class accommodation on public transport is only viable if it pays it's way, subsidising it from the public purse or general fares is in no way justifiable, especially when the space could be used to alleviate overcrowding.

If a higher spec of 1st class can bring in better revenue at higher fares to justify it then yes but if all it does is increase the cost base while carting around fresh air on otherwise packed trains then it cannot be supported.

The same goes for enhanced catering provision, using fares or tax revenue to subvent a small number of people reliving the "golden age" of rail travel is not on.

If you want to experience the Belmond so much then quick, book yourself on it's selling out fast.

Del.Monte

@ Vic 08

Pity that you can't read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote and I'm not being drawn by your smart comments.

Jem72

Is it just me or is that a very strange layout for an Intercity Railcar. Knowing Irish Rail, this will be used a standing space which is just wrong on an Intercity service. I get the rationale of removing the toilet - 3 toilets on a 4 car set is plenty leaving it as open space is a bit strange.

It would be great if they were to use the space to improve catering services on trains with no premier car but I wouldn't expect that to happen.

DoctorPan

Jem72 wrote: »

Is it just me or is that a very strange layout for an Intercity Railcar. Knowing Irish Rail, this will be used a standing space which is just wrong on an Intercity service. I get the rationale of removing the toilet - 3 toilets on a 4 car set is plenty leaving it as open space is a bit strange.

It would be great if they were to use the space to improve catering services on trains with no premier car but I wouldn't expect that to happen.

It's meant to be for bike storage like NIR's DMUs.

Geuze

If the overcrowding is on commuter trains around Dublin, then why not order more of the 29000 class?

Is is because it's easier to order more ICR because options already exist in the original contract to order more?

DoctorPan

Geuze wrote: »

If the overcrowding is on commuter trains around Dublin, then why not order more of the 29000 class?

Is is because it's easier to order more ICR because options already exist in the original contract to order more?

The option existed in the original contract for a further order of ICR centre cars so that's why we're getting more ICRs. Should have been some off lease class 185s.

devnull

Geuze wrote: »

If the overcrowding is on commuter trains around Dublin, then why not order more of the 29000 class?

Is is because it's easier to order more ICR because options already exist in the original contract to order more?

The 29000 class hasn't been built for 15 years and is no longer avaliable to order.

MrAbyss

Jem72 wrote: »

Is it just me or is that a very strange layout for an Intercity Railcar. Knowing Irish Rail, this will be used a standing space which is just wrong on an Intercity service.

It's for commuter services as there is a chronic overcrowding issue in the GDR. People from provincial regions will already have their seat before the train reaches the outskirts of big smoke. I think it is an excellent compromise and everyone wins.

If it was up to me I would have made the standing/tip-up seating twice as much as what they ordered.

IE 222

I think it's a big mistake doing away with the 5 car formations. A lot of them 3&4 cars will likely have to work in pairs, drastically reducing the number of available sets. 5 cars are perfect for the likes of Waterford, Sligo, Westport and even PPT with the extra standing room.

Will they be able to turn some of the new cars so they could have one large standing area in the centre instead of 2 separate areas.

60 options are good, be interesting to see if they'll pursue this. Maybe creating options for a future Enterprise replacement/expansion. I think they could of negotiated for 45 cars, extra 4 driving cars, with the extra €50 million especially as they've the 60 options which includes driving cars.

Jem72

I can't see a single standing area on a relatively log train working well at all. Passengers tend to distribute themselves relatively evenly along platforms so only a small proportion of them will be in the right place to get on at the standing area and the trains will be too packed to move along the corridors.

It's also of relatively little use to long-distance commuters in the evenings. The real solution to overcrowding on these services is proper stopping patterns and to use real commuter trains for the shorter journeys. Ripping a heap of seats out of an extremely expensive intercity railcar just ends up wasting a quarter of the space in the unit when it is used for its intended purpose.