Whatever happened to the DART 8200 EMU units?

inorout

What happened to them? Were they put out of service for some reason? Why? Will they ever return?

I'm just curious.

Jamie2k9

Put out of service because it was issue after issue with them. It would of cost a fortune to "try" and keep them operating in service any longer.

end of the road

in short they were junk.
they are unlikely to return.

devnull

They were junk like a lot of stuff that Alstom produced at that time, however a bit of perseverance might have been able to fix them up, but considering Irish Rail have been skint for a number of years, probably not worth it.

goingnowhere

Actually no real problem with them, apart from being small in number

An unwillingness to invest in parts (a lot of the underfloor gear is common with the Luas trams) is what killed them, got worse spares could have been got cheaply but Irish Rail wanted to buy from Alstom and as a result get charged full wack

Bit of TLC would have got them moving, they do date from the bad era in Alstom but many other railways have worked through the quality issues.

The LHB units are not perfect by any means, the Tokyo car units took a while to get sorted (failed in service on first public run!)

Itssoeasy

end of the road wrote: »

in short they were junk.
they are unlikely to return.

So are the up the back of inchicore somewhere going a lighter shade of green ?

end of the road

Itssoeasy wrote: »

So are the up the back of inchicore somewhere going a lighter shade of green ?

i believe so.

Itssoeasy

end of the road wrote: »

i believe so.

Like many CIE/IR rolling stock before them.

devnull

goingnowhere wrote: »

Actually no real problem with them, apart from being small in number.

I think pretty much anyone who bought Alstom stock around the same time would disagree with you very strongly when it comes to that, because from new the units were chaotic.

They delivered about 4 fleets of rolling stock in the UK around the same time and all of them had chronic problems and were withdrawn for periods and in some cases replaced at a young age.

The only reason many of them ended up going back to service was because of the fact there was nothing else and the operators who put them back in service suffered months and years of problems before they started to behave.

The LHB units are not perfect by any means, the Tokyo car units took a while to get sorted (failed in service on first public run!)

They may not be perfect but they are over 30 years old, considering that they are damn fine units and the build quality of them is excellent and they got a proper refurbishment job without any corners being cut and everything pretty much works.

The Passenger information Siemens installed is far more sophisticated and reliable than the one on the Tokyo car sets for instance, but that should not be a surprise really, just looking at the screens tells you which ones were built to a price and which ones were built to a quality standard.

Shouldn't be any surprise though, as German engineering always has been better.

end of the road

devnull wrote: »

I think pretty much anyone who bought Alstom stock around the same time would disagree with you very strongly when it comes to that, because from new the units were chaotic.

They delivered about 4 fleets of rolling stock in the UK around the same time and all of them had chronic problems and were withdrawn for periods and in some cases replaced at a young age.

The only reason many of them ended up going back to service was because of the fact there was nothing else and the operators who put them back in service suffered months and years of problems before they started to behave.

which class was replaced young? i thought all but a couple of driving cars are back in service now?

devnull

end of the road wrote: »

which class was replaced young? i thought all but a couple of driving cars are back in service now?

By replaced young I mean that they were withdrawn for a time in favour of other stock because they were so unreliable, although ultimately a chronic shortage of rolling stock allowed many of them to return to service.

The Class 450s with South West Trains were specifically ordered to replace the class 458s, which later resulted in the PVR of class 458s being much under the number that South West Trains had, however gradually they improved reliability and were restored to service to be restore to service.

The Class 334s also had problems as well and additional rolling stock had to be leased to cover for the fact many were every day out of service leading to train cancellations on a regular basis and short formations and Scotrail couldn't depend on them.

Then you had the 180s of which FGW returned many of them to their lessors, some of which found other work and others sat doing nothing for some time as they were replaced with HSTS, they were apparently as low as 2,000 miles per failure at one stage.

I remember at one point Hull Trains had 6 of them for a timetable that only needed 4 in service a day and frequently they had at least half the fleet out of service and they had a lot of complaints and a lot of problems with them and their service was seen as something quite a joke for a long time.

Sure all of the units are performing well right now, but operators had to deal with years of problems and daily headaches and you can be sure if there was any other option, many of them would never have returned to service but it was pretty much an unreliable train or no train.

tabbey

The question is, why did IR and other operators not sue Alstom for refunds?

devnull

tabbey wrote: »

The question is, why did IR and other operators not sue Alstom for refunds?

They actually built more units of at least one of the classes as compensation for how unreliable they were for their customers, think it was the Scotrail ones but I'm not sure, it was seen as better to do this than compensate with cash!

Significant amounts of time, effort and money was spent trying to improve them in the UK and the operators did try and hold Alstom to account and I believe they themselves footed a lot of the bills of doing so for the warranty related stuff.

The 175s were the most unreliable, following their introduction into service on a good day maybe 60% of them were serviceable, but for quite a few months the average was just under 55% with bad days you could have only 11 or 12 out of 27 able to operate in service.

Ironically the good thing that came out of this is that after this most operators started working into new train contracts maintenance, spares and repair contracts into any new orders which firmly put the ball in the court of the manufacturers for any ongoing issues, alas it came far too late for people who had already been bitten.

The First Great Eastern Desiro 360s were one of the first orders to benefit from this arrangement and are fully maintained by Siemens directly using Siemens staff and Siemens parts and have been very reliable trains indeed.

tabbey

devnull wrote: »

The 175s were the most unreliable .

The 175s look like a BREL Mk III bodyshell, it never occurred to me that they had any connection with Alstom.

EuropeTrainsIE

I highly doubt they will ever come back into service, someone actually informed me they will be scrapped along with the 2700s

EuropeTrainsIE

IE are planning to scrap them with their diesel brother 2700s

EuropeTrainsIE

tabbey wrote: »

The question is, why did IR and other operators not sue Alstom for refunds?

It is something I do wonder about, why DID they not sue Alstom? But like some people said, Alstom were producing rubbish fleets at the time

goingnowhere

After they bedded down into service all 10 were in service Mon-Fri running as a 4 car and 6 car set. Reliability wasn't too bad, never had one sit down on me (but they did sit down in service). Great performance, great acceleration, insane braking rate and rode pretty well as they have the original original DART bogie with the dampers (only 8101 had those in 1983)

It wasn't until about 4-5 years later that things went wrong, spare parts etc became expensive to source from Alstom. With a tiny fleet part stocks were a problem and it was much easier focus on the bigger fleets. Once beyond the warranty contract period Alstom was free from any legal claim.

Since then the contracts have been a lot tighter and the new DART contract is a build and support job so its in the interest of the manufacturer to build a reliable train (instead of making money on parts later).

devnull

goingnowhere wrote: »

It wasn't until about 4-5 years later that things went wrong, spare parts etc became expensive to source from Alstom. With a tiny fleet part stocks were a problem and it was much easier focus on the bigger fleets. Once beyond the warranty contract period Alstom was free from any legal claim.

Since then the contracts have been a lot tighter and the new DART contract is a build and support job so its in the interest of the manufacturer to build a reliable train (instead of making money on parts later).

A lot of the stuff that Alstom was churning out at that time wasn't great, the UK had similar experiences with fleets that were notoriously unreliable and they also lacked full service / maintenance and support contracts, that could have held them properly to account.

However the good aspect of that was it led First and Stagecoach to go with full maintenance and support contracts for their various fleets of Desiros going forward for Great Eastern and South West Trains which went on to become an very reliable family after both getting burnt by the issues caused by Alstom stock.

I suspect a similar lesson has been learnt here. Sure, nobody disputes that full service or maintenance and spares contracts are expensive. But it does create an incentive for rolling stock companies to provide a reliable fleet as they don't have such a financial interest in earning money on parts later as you say.

dowlingm

Would love to understand why the 82s aren’t scrapped already instead of taking up siding space. IE was quick enough to scrap the Mark 3 fleet in entirety when surely the 82s were stopped longer, and I think one (8205?) had fire damage

SeanW

Indeed, IE were in a fierce hurry to get rid of the Mark 3s. Now they still have 29000 rattleboxes going to Sligo and Rosslare. But I digress. Yes, if the 8200s can't be rehabilitated, they should go.

end of the road

indeed, it's certainly a bit of a strange one alright.
not to mention the 2700s which themselves won't see the light of day again more then likely.
and surely the stored 201s are completely stripped of parts by this stage as well.



either get them working or get rid for god sake.

end of the road

SeanW wrote: »

Indeed, IE were in a fierce hurry to get rid of the Mark 3s. Now they still have 29000 rattleboxes going to Sligo and Rosslare. But I digress. Yes, if the 8200s can't be rehabilitated, they should go.

yup, that was certainly gauling alright, but mind you so were a lot of other things.

goingnowhere

goingnowhere wrote: »

It wasn't until about 4-5 years later that things went wrong, spare parts etc became expensive to source from Alstom. With a tiny fleet part stocks were a problem and it was much easier focus on the bigger fleets. Once beyond the warranty contract period Alstom was free from any legal claim.

Many years ago 10 or more IE had 2 e-tenders up for the highest bidder to buy 2 lots of spare parts. One was 8200 parts the other was 201 class parts. You could imagine Turner Rail services might have gone for the 201 parts but in either case I never followed up on who won the tenders.

The point I make is that IE lost interest in these vehicles a long time ago.

Jamie2k9

dowlingm wrote: »

Would love to understand why the 82s aren’t scrapped already instead of taking up siding space. IE was quick enough to scrap the Mark 3 fleet in entirety when surely the 82s were stopped longer, and I think one (8205?) had fire damage

Best to pretend they didn't exist and avoid PR fallout. Imagine scrapping a train less than 10 years old. I will say the 2700 and 8200s might go for scrapping when the new DART fleet starts to arrive. If I am not mistaken they had them for sale a few years ago but no takers.

New fleet of trains which should be better for customers and the environment will enable them to send the others to be scrapped as the need for extra coaches should be gone.

GT89

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Best to pretend they didn't exist and avoid PR fallout. Imagine scrapping a train less than 10 years old. I will say the 2700 and 8200s might go for scrapping when the new DART fleet starts to arrive. If I am not mistaken they had them for sale a few years ago but no takers.

New fleet of trains which should be better for customers and the environment will enable them to send the others to be scrapped as the need for extra coaches should be gone.

I bet when the new trains start to arrive they'll get rid of the 8500 sets before they touch the 8100 DARTs. 8100 class are the best trains IE have across the network IMO especially since the Siemens refurb.

end of the road

it wouldn't surprise me, but in saying that if they scrapped the 8500 sets then we would be back where we started with a shortage of carrages, they would rightly be derided and they would find it hard to get funding for extra ones for a good while given they will have effectively proven that once they get new ones they throw away older serviceable ones dispite not needing to do so.
it would be different with the 8100s as by the time the new coaches fully enter service they will be over 40 years old.

Effects

Is there any real issues with the 8100s, given their age?

L1011

Manufacturer support is unlikely to last forever, neither Alstom as successor to LHB or Siemens for the overhaul work.

GT89

L1011 wrote: »

Manufacturer support is unlikely to last forever, neither Alstom as successor to LHB or Siemens for the overhaul work.

I know the 8100s aren't going to last forever but more what I was saying was that I think the 8100 class will outlive the 8500s once the new trains come. Think about when the 8100s came back from their Siemens overhaul they were more or less a brand new trains.

Unless IE are planning to refurb the 8500s but I doubt it as the plan was for the new rolling stock to replace the entire DART and much of the Commuter fleet eventually. I could be entirely wrong but I get the impression the 8100s are more reliable than the 8500s.

goingnowhere

8100 are rubbish in reliability numbers compared to the 8500, nowhere close.

8500 are stainless steel so don't have any corrosion issues and are based directly off designs in use large fleets in Japan. The LHB units were always unique, the current refurbed version is a Frankenstein train of bits from Siemens, LHB, GEC, Wabtec.

L1011

I'd also expect the current situation will increase the expectation that public transport should be air conditioned, which the last 8500s are and none of the 8100s

Effects

L1011 wrote: »

I'd also expect the current situation will increase the expectation that public transport should be air conditioned, which the last 8500s are and none of the 8100s

Isn't that what the windows are for:pac:

end of the road

Effects wrote: »

Isn't that what the windows are for:pac:

of course, but this is the modern railway and going forward we probably won't be able to have opening windows on a train as people might fall out of them or something, dispite the fact it would be impossible for them to fit through them.

devnull

goingnowhere wrote: »

8100 are rubbish in reliability numbers compared to the 8500, nowhere close.

8500 are stainless steel so don't have any corrosion issues and are based directly off designs in use large fleets in Japan. The LHB units were always unique, the current refurbed version is a Frankenstein train of bits from Siemens, LHB, GEC, Wabtec.

They're getting on in years certainly but even as someone who doesn't like bench seats and generally doesn't prefer older stock in most cases, they are for sure the train that feels the most suited to the work that they do. They feel like a real inner suburban train whereas the others feel like an outer suburban train.

The whole build quality inside since they were refurbished is really good. You wouldn't think that the interior refurbishment was 15 years ago. The Passenger information system is also far better quality, although the software update where they made everything totally bilingual on the announcements 3 years or so ago resulted in things being announced at the wrong time which was never an issue before.

devnull

end of the road wrote: »

of course, but this is the modern railway and going forward we probably won't be able to have opening windows on a train as people might fall out of them or something, dispite the fact it would be impossible for them to fit through them.

Windows are not needed when trains have a good and reliable air-conditioning system.

The problem of not having any windows is only a problem when trains are specified with weak and unreliable air conditioning.

Vic_08

devnull wrote: »

Windows are not needed when trains have a good and reliable air-conditioning system.

The problem of not having any windows is only a problem when trains are specified with weak and unreliable air conditioning.

Having opening windows can also be a cause of non-functioning AC, once the backup of opening windows is there the AC becomes an optional fix for maintenance rather than something expected to be operational on every carriage every day.

This situation has plagued most of the UK 158 and 166 fleet for decades, "emergency" ventilation windows are fitted so a huge % of the fleet spend most of the summer with broken AC.

TheBoyConor

They are basically and EMU version of the 2700s. Otherwise they are the same.

I have often said it, but I wonder could IE look into the potential to re-introduce the 8200 and 2700s in modified form as hauled stock? This would circumvent the issues with drivetrain as they would be just modifying the braking system and removing the power and motor equipment. Prefereably they could replace the bogies with BT10 units as used on the MkIIIs which had excellent ride quality. Perhaps there are still some to be recliamed from any remaining MkIIIs.
I envisage that they would be outfitted for push-pull which isn't a massive ask as the set ends already have a divers cab.
I think they would go well as short haul commuter trains if hauled by something like a baby GM, some of which are still perfectly servicable but ITG owned. I can imagine IE leasing back a few baby GMs which would not cost a fortune, and would also be a handy revenue stream for the ITG plus having the locomotives kept operational and maintained by IE. Personally, I would like to see the converted sets hauled by a C201 Metrovick of which there are a 2 in or very close to full working order condition, but realistically they are too far long out of action to be brought back into service.
Failing either, I expect that they could be hauled by an 071 or new IE201 of which there are plenty on hand. In this configuration with high speed locomotives I envision their potential use on more long distance routes, perhaps the Westport line.
It is not all that far fetched an idea, I mean there is precedent for it. The AEC railcars were similarly modified for a new career as hauled stock and were quite successful. I have no doubt that it would be far cheaper than purchasing brand new trains.

The 27/8200s are far from perfect or even good, but i think it is a terrible waste to scrap stock that is hardly even in it's mid life in railway stock terms.

If they cannot be salvaged, would the ITG or RPSI take on a few?

L1011

The cost of introducing them as hauled stock would not be significantly cheaper than a full refurb; as the days of just making sure they rolled and putting some school chairs down the sides are long gone.

Full rewire, new seating, new toilets (or toilets + tanks at all in the case of the 8200s), new PIS, completely different braking/door control/all other forms of control etc etc. All you're avoiding is motor rework.

So no, that's not happening. And the baby GMs are never coming back for commercial service, nor the Metrovicks, nor any other surreal fantasy. Things are retired for a reason.

SeanW

We're unlikely to go back to loco haulage of commuter and regional services, so we have little need for coaches except on the Cork and Belfast Intercity lines. As to the Sligo and Rosslare lines, hopefully they'll get some more 22ks cascaded from short-haul duties around Dublin with DART upgrades. And I heard a saying years ago "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear" but that's basically what you'd be trying to do turning a small custom fleet of crappy DART cars into long distance coaches. The 2700 DMUs might be better because they were sort of designed for regional service (They had toilets AFAIK) but still in the modern era it would likely be a lot of retrofitting cost for very little reward, relatively speaking. As to Metrovick locomotives ... just ... no.

GT89

Suggesting the metrovicks coming back is surely a wind up

TheBoyConor

Why would you need to rework the doors or toilets on the 2700s? They should all work fine. They'd just need a supply of compressed air to function. And there would be no need to replace all the seats and tables as the layout is already suitable for regional use.

Another option that I could imagine is reintroducing the 2700 fleet and inserting the 8200s as unpowered intermediates. This could be never to work with just wiring changed as most of the mechanicals on both types are identical.

I think if the will was there to go out they could make fine sets. I mean, ie see no problem in spending hundred of millions on far eastern ICRs that are harsh cheap boxes with no character, but the existing stopped fleets and locomotives could be refurbished at some lesser cost.

TheBoyConor

GT89 wrote: »

Suggesting the metrovicks coming back is surely a wind up

Not when there are 4 of them in working order or very close to working order. Most of the time they have nothing to do and are idle and the main job of work is too keep them from seizing up from non use. If they could be brought in for use it would keep them maintained and active and the lease be a source of funds for the ITG .

and it wouldn't necessarily have to be IE running them. You could have a West rail type set up on some lines, for example I could envisage the north tipperary line, and LJ Waterford where a West rail type group could operate the time table with their locos and sets modified for haulage. In an honesty , if it were to be done, I bet they could operate the services at a fraction of the coats that IE claim it takes to run it because they are a bloated inefficient beuraucracy.
The AEC railcars worked well in their hauled configuration for many many years, and the westrail set up worked well for a number of years of it's existence. It was CIE killed it off by strangling it with beuraucracy and fabricated fees.
I think it's a lack of vision and a refusal of IE to consider anything outside of what they've always done. An organization terminally incapable of imagination or innovation.

GT89

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Not when there are 4 of them in working order or very close to working order. Most of the time they have nothing to do and are idle and the main job of work is too keep them from seizing up from non use. If they could be brought in for use it would keep them maintained and active and the lease be a source of funds for the ITG .

and it wouldn't necessarily have to be IE running them. You could have a West rail type set up on some lines, for example I could envisage the north tipperary line, and LJ Waterford where a West rail type group could operate the time table with their locos and sets modified for haulage. In an honesty , if it were to be done, I bet they could operate the services at a fraction of the coats that IE claim it takes to run it because they are a bloated inefficient beuraucracy.
The AEC railcars worked well in their hauled configuration for many many years, and the westrail set up worked well for a number of years of it's existence. It was CIE killed it off by strangling it with beuraucracy and fabricated fees.
I think it's a lack of vision and a refusal of IE to consider anything outside of what they've always done. An organization terminally incapable of imagination or innovation.

Maybe as preserved stock even that seems unlikely but the chances of 1950s locomotives that were withdrawn nearly 30 years ago coming back into regular service is 0

end of the road

GT89 wrote: »

Maybe as preserved stock even that seems unlikely but the chances of 1950s locomotives that were withdrawn nearly 30 years ago coming back into service is 0

exactly, it's never going to happen.
the c 201 class were worked rather hard when they were in service on the dublin suburban, as well as that, having a herritage diesel working on main line services means greater maintenence and spare parts are required to keep them running.
giving them a little run out as they are getting keeps them in working order and allows everything to last a lot longer.

end of the road

from what i hear the AEC pushpull sets weren't a success, apparently it took a lot to keep them going and they had to have maintenence staff on board as well.
not to mention they were in a desperate state for years and even more so by the end, and even as rail cars i believe they were worked rather hard compared to other diesel rail cars of their generation, having to power a number of unpowered coaches on long inter city and regional routes.
the AEC pushpull sets were a stop gap during serious austerity and while interesting to look at pictures of them there is no doubt they were the pits.

the 2700s really were designed for suburban routes, they might look a little better internally then their counterparts in the 26/8/900s but they are a bog standard suburban train and not a very good one.
i don't know if the original intent was for them to operate regional services and they got diverted to suburban, or the fact they were forced on to regional services around 2004 gave the impression that they were designed for regional services, but regional they certainly aren't or at least not in terms of modern expectations by passengers which thankfully are high these days.
why in hell IE should waste money converting them to loco haulage is beyond me, they are aweful rickety heaps of junk, and if they cannot be fixed up as DMUS they should be cut up and be done with it for god sake and the same with the 8200s.

GT89

end of the road wrote: »

from what i hear the AEC pushpull sets weren't a success, apparently it took a lot to keep them going and they had to have maintenence staff on board as well.
not to mention they were in a desperate state for years and even more so by the end, and even as rail cars i believe they were worked rather hard compared to other diesel rail cars of their generation, having to power a number of unpowered coaches on long inter city and regional routes.
the AEC pushpull sets were a stop gap during serious austerity and while interesting to look at pictures of them there is no doubt they were the pits.

the 2700s really were designed for suburban routes, they might look a little better internally then their counterparts in the 26/8/900s but they are a bog standard suburban train and not a very good one.
i don't know if the original intent was for them to operate regional services and they got diverted to suburban, or the fact they were forced on to regional services around 2004 gave the impression that they were designed for regional services, but regional they certainly aren't or at least not in terms of modern expectations by passengers which thankfully are high these days.
why in hell IE should waste money converting them to loco haulage is beyond me, they are aweful rickety heaps of junk, and if they cannot be fixed up as DMUS they should be cut up and be done with it for god sake and the same with the 8200s.

Any attempt to bring the 2700 or 8200s back into would be very much an expensive stop gap solution. IE screwed up badly ordering those trains but they really need to move on and replace them with new stock. No point spending a fortune to fix them up only for them to need to replaced again a few years later might aswell buy new rolling stock with a proper service, waaranty and parts agreement.

end of the road

GT89 wrote: »

Any attempt to bring the 2700 or 8200s back into would be very much an expensive stop gap solution. IE screwed up badly ordering those trains but they really need to move on and replace them with new stock. No point spending a fortune to fix them up only for them to need to replaced again a few years later might aswell buy new rolling stock with a proper service, waaranty and parts agreement.

i would tend to agree.
perhapse the gear boxes engines and generators might be salvagable as spairs for the 26 and 2800s as i believe they are all the same type but that's about all the 2700s are good for now.

tabbey

end of the road wrote: »

from what i hear the AEC pushpull sets weren't a success, apparently it took a lot to keep them going and they had to have maintenence staff on board as well.
not to mention they were in a desperate state for years and even more so by the end, and even as rail cars i believe they were worked rather hard compared to other diesel rail cars of their generation, having to power a number of unpowered coaches on long inter city and regional routes.
the AEC pushpull sets were a stop gap during serious austerity and while interesting to look at pictures of them there is no doubt they were the pits.

.

The AEC railcars were acquired at a time when expectations were low regarding speed and performance. People were accustomed to clapped out steam engines pulling coaches, many of which were over forty years old. The railcars were almost space age in comparison.
The bodies, built by Park Royal, were timber frame, as was the norm in Ireland at the time, and had been the norm in Britain until very shortly before.
They entered service on mainline trains, running sedately across the Midlands. The mainline to Cork and the Rosslare line were more demanding of the 125 hp engines (two per power car, four in a three or four car train).
As Craven coaches became available for mainline trains, in the late 1960s, the railcars mostly gravitated to the suburban service along the east coast. During the summer all sorts of people travelled from the city centre to Bray, killiney seapoint, Howth and Malahide. Sadly some of these had no respect for the railcars, the other passenger or society, and vandalised the coaches. To accommodate larger numbers, the main line seats were replaced with 3+2 bus type seats, upholstered in vinyl/leatherette. These were increasingly slashed. The main damage was in the summer. The rest of the year, suburban trains were mostly used by genteel middle class commuters. With the opening of Kilbarrack in 1969, this began to change.
One year in the late sixties, the CIE annual report mentioned the low average mileage run by the railcars, 26,000 miles per year, or 500 a week, not a lot more than a family car.
In the late 1960s, as the economy was beginning to boom, new housing estates and increasing car ownership led to greater traffic congestion, consequently more commuters turned to rail. One of the four car sets was extended to six cars in the peak hours and a new service started to Dalkey. That was 1968. The following year, most of the suburban trains started running across the city, north/south, before that, there had been only one, Howth to Bray in the morning and Bray to Howth in the evening, (primarily serving the large number of women working in the sweepstakes at ballsbridge). With through running, greater numbers of people used the train.
By 1970, it was obvious that the railcars could not last much longer, they were working more intensely, with doors being closed or slammed every few minutes, morning and evening, as well as abuse in the summer. Increasing passenger loads led to frequent overheating in summer, especially on the Saturday afternoon train to Rosslare, overloaded with people going on holiday to seaside resorts around Gorey. Going up the hill from Wicklow to Rathdrum was very taxing for the railcar engines. Structurally the bodies were deteriorating, as the doors swung, you could even see the door frame twisting.
Electrification started being mentioned but most people wanted new railcars in the interim. The CIE board probably felt that with 34 C class locos rebuilt with 1,100 hp GM engines, it would be a waste not to use them. Thus the decision was made to convert the railcars to push pull vehicles, powered by B 201 locos. As a short term measure, the cars were Spartan to say the least. The internal end of each car, where the cab had been, was covered with plywood, a graffiti artist paradise. To avoid people slashing the seats, solid plastic seats, of the type used in meeting halls, were fixed on metal frames along each side, with standing space in the middle.
Nobody had any respect for these trains. If the scum could not slash the seats, they did their best to make their mark. Lighters were used to burn the plastic seats.

When the DART trains were built, the lesson had been learned, a good standard of vehicle is more respected, leading to less vandalism

91wx763

TheBoyConor wrote: »

They are basically and EMU version of the 2700s. Otherwise they are the same.

I have often said it, but I wonder could IE look into the potential to re-introduce the 8200 and 2700s in modified form as hauled stock? This would circumvent the issues with drivetrain as they would be just modifying the braking system and removing the power and motor equipment. Prefereably they could replace the bogies with BT10 units as used on the MkIIIs which had excellent ride quality. Perhaps there are still some to be recliamed from any remaining MkIIIs.
I envisage that they would be outfitted for push-pull which isn't a massive ask as the set ends already have a divers cab.
I think they would go well as short haul commuter trains if hauled by something like a baby GM, some of which are still perfectly servicable but ITG owned. I can imagine IE leasing back a few baby GMs which would not cost a fortune, and would also be a handy revenue stream for the ITG plus having the locomotives kept operational and maintained by IE. Personally, I would like to see the converted sets hauled by a C201 Metrovick of which there are a 2 in or very close to full working order condition, but realistically they are too far long out of action to be brought back into service.
Failing either, I expect that they could be hauled by an 071 or new IE201 of which there are plenty on hand. In this configuration with high speed locomotives I envision their potential use on more long distance routes, perhaps the Westport line.
It is not all that far fetched an idea, I mean there is precedent for it. The AEC railcars were similarly modified for a new career as hauled stock and were quite successful. I have no doubt that it would be far cheaper than purchasing brand new trains.

The 27/8200s are far from perfect or even good, but i think it is a terrible waste to scrap stock that is hardly even in it's mid life in railway stock terms.

If they cannot be salvaged, would the ITG or RPSI take on a few?

Lad, I thought in the past you were acting the maggot but you seem to be serious. Come on will ya ?

tabbey

tabbey wrote: »

The AEC railcars were acquired at a time when expectations were low .....

When the DART trains were built, the lesson had been learned, a good standard of vehicle is more respected, leading to less vandalism

Thanks for the detailed history of the AEC Railcars. I never knew that much about them.

The Preserved 6111 vehicle was never converted to crappy school chair seating. Was this deliberate or was it a case of they never got around to it?