2700s being withdrawn, possibly sold off?

Following a pattern, getting rid of more reasonably young stock for no obvious reason apart from wanting to waste millions on new stuff

Jehuty42 wrote: »

When the new 22000s come on stream

No need to book the farewell special just yet then :rolleyes:

On a discussion on RUI the issue of the "last train" to and from Waterford has come up again. Back in April 2010 and the south Wexford closure I was kicking around the thought of extending the Limerick Junction 2700 set arrival at 2027 into Waterford up to Carlow. This would give a connection to the last northbound service ex Carlow and also a connection from the last southbound to Carlow. This would mean a transfer across the footbridge at Carlow though.

Normally I would scoff at the notion of replacing the current 2700 with a 22000, a 100mph 200 seat set for tens of passengers at 40mph (I may have done some scoffing along those lines with respect to the WRC).

Now the Waterford-LJ set is the only 2700 working out of Waterford to my knowledge. Should it be replaced by a 3 x 22000 then the Carlow transfer would become unnecessary - the 2010 ex Heuston (also a 3 x 22000 I understand) would simply run through to Waterford and the service ex Waterford would pick up the Carlow traffic heading back north, essentially a set swap, assuming the crews could exchange sets at some point to get back to their bases. A no change service would be more convenient for the passengers.

Additionally, being an all-22000 base would mean having a spare 22000 on hand on Sundays to extend any 3-car runs to 6 where useful which the 2700 is useless for at present as well as offering some possible crewing opportunities to make best use of rosters.

The cherry on top would be the explosion of rage from the Wesht if they got "stuck" with 2800s while the Clonmel line was fully converted to 22s

If the DOT don't do something to ensure these do not get scrapped or "Mark 3"ed, I'd be amazed. Forcing them to be stored for a putative private operator entry (the EU exemption from that will fall soon) would be the best thing to do.

What will happen to the hybrid 2600/2700 set, 2609/2716? All the work that went into that. It spent months in Scotland and then almost another half year in Drogheda to get it into service.

I take it that will be scrapped too. I doubt 2609 will be able to act as a spare car for the 2600 fleet again with all the work that was done to it to enable it to be a 2700 D1 or D2 car. So it looks like the first 2600 loss.

If the 2700s are being withdrawn, what rolling stock will be deployed on the Limerick to Galway line?

The 5-car 22000 laid up in Inchicore implies that even if you can (operate minus a B carriage), they don't want to.

Captain Chaos wrote: »

The reason for boarding up the 2700s is because the gangway access has been locked off for a number of years after some unexpected uncoupling issues on the Rosslare line and in the Connolly shunting yard which I watched one day and could not quite believe it, they just could not get them to form in in a 6 car formation, they seperated every time they ran a brake test. As for the paint job, some 2600s have the same scheme applied for some time now.

Last weekend I noticed a 6 car 22k set heading North through Clongriffen at around 14:00 on Sunday. During the week I have seen either a 6 car or 2x3 22k pass through same at around 23:30 followed closely by a tara.

I've witnessed a separation too on the Ennis line.

Even if they were not going to use the gangways what was stopping them just keeping them locked off?

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The main issue with running a DMU with a cab closed off mid train arises in the event of a carriage needing to be evacuated; this would limit them to running as a 2 car set only.

The hybrids may be kept in traffic in some form as the dual cab set up offers a degree of flexibility in class.

The same applies to the 8100/8300 DART units. Yet no problems there.

I doubt the hybrids will be kept as they can't work in multiple with any other DMU unit as they are they are not compatible with the 2600s and 2700s since their mod work and will always be limited to 2 cars. They can be dragged around by other units alright.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong but the issue with the units as I understand it relates to the connecting of pairs of 27's and not individual units to each other.

Yes, the coupling issue is at the cab ends of 27s, any D1 and D1 or D2 car can be put together with the semi permanent coupled end. But two D2 cars cannot operate end to end. With the cab ends of the 27s boarded up they are exactly the same for evacuation as an LHB DART.

The 27s do have a dedicated cab area as do the 26s and 28s, the drivers just close and lock the cab compartment door thats placed in exacty the same way as a DART or 29K. They open this door in the unused cabs to allow gangway access when it was allowed effectively splitting the cab area in two halfs.

dowlingm wrote: »

This is more of a logistical question than a proposal - could the 2700 coupling be changed to something a bit more robust and thus result in a 4 or 6 car "set" which could only be changed in a similar fashion to changing cars between existing two car pairs? I had a notion that this was basically what they did with the 2750s when they formed the 3-car consists.

The 27s have auto couplers at the cab ends just like all the DARTs and DMUs and they all work great all around the world. The ones on the 27s have their off day far to often. The 27s operate in pairs back to back like they were designed with cab end, auto couple facing out. The 2750s are special, 2751 and 53 can operate as a single as their is a cab and therefor an auto coupler at each end.

The auto couplers IE have fitted are Dellners and there is another German made model but I don't know which DMU class use which.

It occurs to me that one reason to hide away the 2700s is quite simply there aren't enough drivers to operate additional sets above and beyond any netting up from the incoming 22000s.

foggy_lad wrote: »

They can't afford to run them so they must be withdrawn. Which would you prefer to mothball much of the 22000 stock or the much older 2700 stock which is not as suitable for inter city work so therefore less flexible? IE will hopefully make more money with better trains in service.

I'd prefer they'd not pissed away million on unneeded 22k's when there are perfectly good 2700s that'll do the job on a number of lines.

foggy_lad wrote: »

They can't afford to run them so they must be withdrawn. Which would you prefer to mothball much of the 22000 stock or the much older 2700 stock which is not as suitable for inter city work so therefore less flexible? IE will hopefully make more money with better trains in service.

Where is your proof they can't afford to run them? They are running 2800's instead of them which surely not that much more efficient/costing less to run!

The reason the 2700s are being withdrawn has been gone over before. There is significant commonality between the 2600 and 2800, being both of Tokyu Car manufacture. Therefore the parts stock to be kept can be shared between the fleets.

The 2700s have an additional problem in that they have had coupler issues when formed into longer units. Many of them are also due for heavy overhaul. They also have the same engines as 26/28 so perhaps there would be scope to swap engines between the fleets to minimise downtime for the 26/28s. It should also be noted that trains don't drive themselves - were the 2700s to be retained the driver cohort would have to be expanded.

As foggy lad said, the 22s are a done deal and what should be the objective now is to force IE to make proper use of them including completing the necessary procedures to make them usable in the North. Foggy lad defending IE should be enough to persuade anyone there isn't much merit in the charges surely?