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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Train porn

1141517192029

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 131 ✭✭GBOA


    Some more good news from Downpatrick. : D

    There's nothing to indicate this has happened in at least 30 years!




  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Good stuff! :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 420 ✭✭metrovick001




  • Registered Users Posts: 270 ✭✭Eiretrains


    Random mix of vintage CIE traction (+NIR railbus) courtesy of the ITG/DCDR.:cool:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,139 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    here you go Itssoeasy, fixed the tags for you.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    Where did this come out of? I seem to remember at the time of delivery it was front page stuff in Canada but as usual CIE ****ed up on maximising the publicity here. Note how the engineer referred to 30 years life expectancy - how many 201s are OOU now? :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,337 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    here you go Itssoeasy, fixed the tags for you.

    thanks end of the road. I wasn't even looking for it and JD It's the first time I've seen it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    Note how the engineer referred to 30 years life expectancy - how many 201s are OOU now? :rolleyes:

    Yeah, that line hit me the most when you look now, 20 years later and there are 13 out of 34 locos out of use/damaged/surplus to requirements.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,559 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Yeah, that line hit me the most when you look now, 20 years later and there are 13 out of 34 locos out of use/damaged/surplus to requirements.
    How many of the 13 are the fault of IE and how many down to design or accidents...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Markcheese wrote: »
    How many of the 13 are the fault of IE and how many down to design or accidents...

    11 were withdrawn as surplus to requirements. (201-205,210-214,216). All except 216 were not certified for push-pull. 225 was damaged in a level crossing accident, while 230 was badly damaged in a fire on the Enterprise.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 131 ✭✭GBOA


    A bit of history is revealed on C231. After needle gunning the buffer beams, the original Metro Cammell loco number is revealed, originally painted in 1957.buffer_zpsf57cc1e5.jpg[IMG]http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/<a href=http://s239.photobucket.com/user/unclenessy/media/DCDR/buffer_zpsf57cc1e5.jpg.html target=_blank>[/img]buffer_zpsf57cc1e5.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    Karsini wrote: »
    11 were withdrawn as surplus to requirements. (201-205,210-214,216). All except 216 were not certified for push-pull.

    Not even that, their design will to allow them to actually couple to a Mk4 set unless its being dragged from the DVT end. The first batch of 10 201s delivered have a different draw hook design that does not allow the knuckle to be fitted to them that is needed for the Mk4s. And if the knuckle coupler could be fitted the different buffer design will not allow those 201s to get close enough to the coach for the couplers to engage without causing buffer lock.

    Silly decision why IE ordered the first batch of 10 locos like this. 206-209 were not part of the first 10 and were actually delivered later than locos 210-214.


  • Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭Temp101


    I'm surprised the "No. 31" survived the needle gun, given nothing much else did. Must have been good paint well applied.
    At least it's confirmation that the identity hasn't changed, unlike some GNRI steam locos in the past.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Not even that, their design will to allow them to actually couple to a Mk4 set unless its being dragged from the DVT end. The first batch of 10 201s delivered have a different draw hook design that does not allow the knuckle to be fitted to them that is needed for the Mk4s. And if the knuckle coupler could be fitted the different buffer design will not allow those 201s to get close enough to the coach for the couplers to engage without causing buffer lock.

    Silly decision why IE ordered the first batch of 10 locos like this. 206-209 were not part of the first 10 and were actually delivered later than locos 210-214.

    I once heard a story from an IE driver friend of mine (may not be true but he swears it is) that loco 201 was coupled to a Mark 3 push-pull set on a Dublin-Limerick service. It was driven from the 6100 control car on the way back as far as Thurles; until CTC found out and ordered that the loco be run around.

    I'm not sure if it is even physically possible due to the non-retracting buffers though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,337 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Karsini wrote: »
    I once heard a story from an IE driver friend of mine (may not be true but he swears it is) that loco 201 was coupled to a Mark 3 push-pull set on a Dublin-Limerick service. It was driven from the 6100 control car on the way back as far as Thurles; until CTC found out and ordered that the loco be run around.

    I'm not sure if it is even physically possible due to the non-retracting buffers though.

    But if it was a push pull set would that mean the loco wouldn't have to run round ?


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    But if it was a push pull set would that mean the loco wouldn't have to run round ?

    Yes, but 201-205 and 210-214 were not permitted to operate push-pull trains. They had the MU equipment so were technically capable, but the different buffer design was the problem.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,337 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Karsini wrote: »
    Yes, but 201-205 and 210-214 were not permitted to operate push-pull trains. They had the MU equipment so were technically capable, but the different buffer design was the problem.

    Ah right okay.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    I heard that story too, the loco used the standard screw coupler like the 121s did in push pull. Don't now the technical reason why the 201s had to use the knuckle couple for Mk3 PP sets and the 121s did not.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    I heard that story too, the loco used the standard screw coupler like the 121s did in push pull. Don't now the technical reason why the 201s had to use the knuckle couple for Mk3 PP sets and the 121s did not.

    121's were allocated to the fleet as stopgap measures and were not able to be fitted with new couplers so they used their screw coupler units. The initial batch of 201's were ordered for use on the Mark 3 push pull units as well as the Enterprise and conventional stock haulage so they were fitted with alternative coupler links for the new units as well.


  • Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭Temp101


    121's were allocated to the fleet as stopgap measures and were not able to be fitted with new couplers so they used their screw coupler units. The initial batch of 201's were ordered for use on the Mark 3 push pull units as well as the Enterprise and conventional stock haulage so they were fitted with alternative coupler links for the new units as well.

    I don't really understand this. 121's were working Mk.3 push-pulls for about five years before the 201's arrived, so I don't really think they were a stop-gap. They were just very slow. I also don't remember the initial batch of ten 201's doing anything much other than conventional train haulage. Any 201's on push-pulls I remember were from the later orders. Given that Class 47's worked Mk.3 push-pull sets on the Glasgow to Edinburgh route at rather higher speeds than I ever saw an IE one doing, using screw shackle between locomotive and train, I'm not sure what the objection was on IE.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    Isn't it to do with surging between loco and carriages with screw couplings?


  • Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭Temp101


    corktina wrote: »
    Isn't it to do with surging between loco and carriages with screw couplings?
    Perhaps, but I would expect the buffers to absorb those forces.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    There actually isn't anything complex here, to be honest. The Mark 3 PP sets were to be powered by new engines whenever they were delivered along with some to run the Enterprise and some freight turns. Until the new engines came into traffic 121s were allocated for the sets. This is mentioned in the mark 3 PP briefing documents, a copy of which I have at home.

    By the time the 201s entered traffic, the order had increased from 12 to 34, including the two ordered by NIR. This allowed IE to replace class 001 entirely and to allow their other GMs to move onto secondary links and duties.

    I agree with you that they were underpowered for the 6 car sets and the links asked of them. I don't know if they could have had engines installed from withdrawn 001 class locos fitted; they would have made a massive difference to performance and timekeeping.
    Temp101 wrote: »
    I don't really understand this. 121's were working Mk.3 push-pulls for about five years before the 201's arrived, so I don't really think they were a stop-gap. They were just very slow. I also don't remember the initial batch of ten 201's doing anything much other than conventional train haulage. Any 201's on push-pulls I remember were from the later orders. Given that Class 47's worked Mk.3 push-pull sets on the Glasgow to Edinburgh route at rather higher speeds than I ever saw an IE one doing, using screw shackle between locomotive and train, I'm not sure what the objection was on IE.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    Did I hear that Irish Rail head talking about 100 MPH on passenger services....:confused:


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭Temp101


    There actually isn't anything complex here, to be honest. The Mark 3 PP sets were to be powered by new engines whenever they were delivered along with some to run the Enterprise and some freight turns. Until the new engines came into traffic 121s were allocated for the sets. This is mentioned in the mark 3 PP briefing documents, a copy of which I have at home.

    I agree with you that they were underpowered for the 6 car sets and the links asked of them. I don't know if they could have had engines installed from withdrawn 001 class locos fitted; they would have made a massive difference to performance and timekeeping.

    I hear you re the official initial thoughts regarding the 121's as a stop gap. From memory, I seem to recall that it was expected that the new locos would release 071's to work the push-pulls and/or conversions to railcars/normal hauled stock? I'm afraid I never gave much credence to the thought of turning the driving trailers into railcars though, which coloured my previous comments. I think, even assuming the electrical equipment would have stood the additional load, that you would have needed such a lot of work to incorporate 12-645's into the 121's that it wouldn't really have made financial sense.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4 Emin


    Have been searching the web for a while looking for a cab picture or video from IR's 22000 class DMU, but wasn't able to find one. Maybe someone here knows where to find it?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Emin wrote: »
    Have been searching the web for a while looking for a cab picture or video from IR's 22000 class DMU, but wasn't able to find one. Maybe someone here knows where to find it?

    IE themselves released some cab shots taken in the Docklands station when the ICRs were new. Should still be around somewhere.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,756 ✭✭✭flyingsnail


    Emin wrote: »
    Have been searching the web for a while looking for a cab picture or video from IR's 22000 class DMU, but wasn't able to find one. Maybe someone here knows where to find it?

    I have some here from when they first arrived and were doing a tour of the country.

    http://snail.smugmug.com/Class22000IntercityRailcar/


  • Registered Users Posts: 4 Emin


    I have some here from when they first arrived and were doing a tour of the country.

    Thanks! Great pics!


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Startup and load test of a 16-645E3 engine, sounds like it might be the E3B variant. Worth watching for the sound alone. :)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭dowlingm



    The DMUs for Metrolinx I posted on the photo thread. This is a fairly BFD as apart from 1950s Budd stainless DMUs which were grandfathered and the few units Colorado Railcar made before they went wallop, this is the only "FRA compliant" option available to run DMUs on mainline without temporal separation (no freight during operating hours, as on San Diego SPRINTER or Ottawa O-Train and their Euro DMUs)

    Hopefully the damn things work in the winter especially! Not the prettiest DMU but the FRA regs value strength over looks.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 611 ✭✭✭MGWR


    dowlingm wrote: »
    Not the prettiest DMU but the FRA regs value strength over looks
    The Federal Railroad Administration is starting to open up to "alternate" crash-management technologies. I do find it odd that Canada is following the USA's lead, because the FRA has no jurisdiction in Canada, and these DMUs (why high platform versus low, I wonder?) will never operate in the USA apart from that test run on Metra. Never mind the "high" standard set for the Acela Express, because the collision "crashworthiness" of something like France's TGV Duplex really isn't far off from that standard, and those trains are a great deal lighter than the single-level Acela.

    As for "pretty" DMU, that seems highly subjective. I don't see too many DMUs in the Old World that are too long in the looks department; they're functional at best.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    MGWR - while Transport Canada does operate somewhat apart from FRA in some respects, it makes no sense to do so entirely given the huge amount of freight traffic between the two countries. There are definite areas of difference (like Positive Train Control on passenger lines). It's a bit like UK and Irish rules of the road - 90% shared, 10% different. EDIT: also, this DMU will run in the US, as Toronto took options on a US order for Sonoma Marin in California; Portland WES in Oregon are taking two to add to their Colorado Railcar DMU fleet. MBTA are likely sniffing around as they have a DMU project in the works.

    Anyway, back to the videos. Here's the Toronto Transit CEO and PRO talking about the new streetcar rollout starting at the end of the month and demonstrating the vehicle bits and bobs. It does not mention what happens if, as may happen, all door boarding and long vehicles create skanger zones, but we'll see how it goes...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 611 ✭✭✭MGWR


    Metra in Chicago has a few almost-tramways within the Chicago city limits. The former Illinois Central's South Chicago Branch runs in the median of 71st Street for a few blocks and a couple of stations; the configuration is reminiscent of a lot of new-build light rail, but uses 16-foot-tall (4.9m) EMUs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 611 ✭✭✭MGWR


    BNSF diesel-powered rotary snow plough cutting through extremely deep snow drifts. Unfortunately, no date nor location given.


  • Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭Temp101




  • Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭GMKK96


    A few track machine start ups and shunts, two 071 timber runarounds, a surprise mk4 visit and an 071 hauled IWT liner I caught at Kildare.



  • Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭GMKK96


    Track machines, HOBs, Liners, timber, mk4s, ICRs and a loco change at Kildare.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The signal's still powered!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,756 ✭✭✭demanufactured


    The signal's still powered!

    Yup
    Been showing the red aspect for about 20 years.
    I even remember when the odd pw train would travel...They would wouldn't even bother to change the signals...The train would stop just before the signal. ..pilot man would get out and open the gates..and give a hand signal to tell the driver to proceed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 131 ✭✭GBOA


    Perhaps this may have been posted before. An interesting look at the railwaymen of France during WW2. Subtitles available.



  • Registered Users Posts: 90 ✭✭GMKK96


    A video of BR D1015 on per way work. Am I correct in saying this loco is preserved? How would it end up working per way trains?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,536 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Yup
    Been showing the red aspect for about 20 years.
    I even remember when the odd pw train would travel...They would wouldn't even bother to change the signals...The train would stop just before the signal. ..pilot man would get out and open the gates..and give a hand signal to tell the driver to proceed.

    What I want to know - who's been replacing the sodding lightbulbs?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,756 ✭✭✭demanufactured


    MYOB wrote: »
    What I want to know - who's been replacing the sodding lightbulbs?

    Don't think they have ever been replaced...The line runs by the estate I grew up in and it was where we hung out a lot as kids...It was our playground.
    The distant signal is still showing amber as well.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,139 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    GMKK96 wrote: »
    A video of BR D1015 on per way work. Am I correct in saying this loco is preserved? How would it end up working per way trains?
    BR class 52 D1015 'Western Champion' is indeed preserved. she has been hired out to work these and i think stone trains as well. amazing machines.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,536 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    One of the 55 Deltic's also gets hired from preservation from time to time; think there's a lack of mainline certified heavy diesels.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,139 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    MYOB wrote: »
    One of the 55 Deltic's also gets hired from preservation from time to time; think there's a lack of mainline certified heavy diesels.
    correct. also there are new rules on emitians for new build locos. there probably isn't a compliant engine designed to fit into UK gauge locos just yet.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    correct. also there are new rules on emitians for new build locos. there probably isn't a compliant engine designed to fit into UK gauge locos just yet.
    The emissions restrictions regime depends primarily on when the vehicle was built. So a loco built in, say, 2004 only has to comply with standards as they stood in 2004.

    There will be separate issues of local and national total emissions standards, e.g. many city centres are under pressure for NOx and PM2.5 standards, so they restrict access by certain vehicles.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    BR class 52 D1015 'Western Champion' is indeed preserved. she has been hired out to work these and i think stone trains as well. amazing machines.

    I'd say that actually is a stone working rather than p way.

    Would that we had such variety here


  • Advertisement
Advertisement