Mark III carriages - why are they withdrawn?

Judgement Day

A recent visit to Waterford reminded me that there are large numbers of prematurely withdrawn Mk III carriages dumped around the country. Can anyone tell me why the carriages have only been allowed to give approx 21 years service as against 36 years from the MKIIs and an incredible 44 years from the Cravens?

Feel free to put me in the picture here or visit my railway blog where there will be no holds barred when it comes to discussing the running of our railways.

http://irishrailways.blogspot.com

KC61

Perhaps you should be asking the Chief Mechanical Engineer of Iarnrod Eireann as at the end of the day it's his decision?

paulm17781

I'd guess because they burn high amounts of diesel compared to the newer trains and they don't look as nice.

There is also a good chance it is because IE are trying to modernise the fleet.

Also, they were 22 years old. Just because the the mark II were 36 years old, it doesn't mean they should have been in service. As for Cravens, they should have been withdrawn about 15 - 20 years earlier.

IIMII

paulm17781 wrote: »

There is also a good chance it is because IE are trying to modernise the fleet.

whilst the money was there to do it, because it mightn't be tomorrow

paulm17781

IIMII wrote: »

whilst the money was there to do it, because it mightn't be tomorrow

I should have added that, thanks.

Biro

Still don't know why they weren't left on the Sligo line instead of those horrible commuter things they have. The bus is more comfortable, which defeats the purpose of paying more for the train.

IIMII

Local politicians wanted the new trains, they just knew there were new trains and didn't care that they were innappropriate for Intercity use

paulm17781 wrote: »

I should have added that, thanks.

Guessed that was what you meant

paulm17781

Biro wrote: »

Still don't know why they weren't left on the Sligo line instead of those horrible commuter things they have. The bus is more comfortable, which defeats the purpose of paying more for the train.

Have they not put the newer rail cars on the Sligo line?

I think the weight of the MK IIIs and the Shannon bridge is why they weren't put on it.

corktina

loco hauled coaches are an anachronism....multiple unit trains are more efficent.

Ham'nd'egger

paulm17781 wrote: »

Have they not put the newer rail cars on the Sligo line?

I think the weight of the MK IIIs and the Shannon bridge is why they weren't put on it.

Mark 3's could cross the bridge; it was the 201's that were not allowed over it.

csd

corktina wrote: »

loco hauled coaches are an anachronism....multiple unit trains are more efficent.

Do you have a source for this assertion?

From what I've read (second-hand) on IRN, it appears that BR did a study on this in the 80s. The findings were that multiple units were better for formations up to six coaches, but beyond that loco-hauled was the way to go.

My point is, I don't think you can make a blanket statement as to which is better. It depends on a number of factors. DMUs have a lot more moving parts to be maintained (one full engine per carriage vs a single engine in the loco). This is beneficial in that the failure of any one engine doesn't lead to failure of the entire train, but there are downsides too.

The issue with the Sligo line is not the weight of the coaches, but the weight of 201 class locos. It would have been allowable to put Mark IIIs on the Sligo line as long as they were hauled by 071s or the bo-bos.

/csd

Heisenberg1

Judgement Day wrote: »

A recent visit to Waterford reminded me that there are large numbers of prematurely withdrawn Mk III carriages dumped around the country. Can anyone tell me why the carriages have only been allowed to give approx 21 years service as against 36 years from the MKIIs and an incredible 44 years from the Cravens?

Feel free to put me in the picture here or visit my railway blog where the will be no holds barred when it comes to discussing the running of our railways.

http://irishrailways.blogspot.com

i heard the mkIII are going to get a refurb and be used on the proposed
houly service to belfast they are a great carriage them and the de dietrich
are the flagship rolling stock on I.E so if rumours are true they will be used
on the dublin belfast route

Ham'nd'egger

csd wrote: »

Do you have a source for this assertion?

From what I've read (second-hand) on IRN, it appears that BR did a study on this in the 80s. The findings were that multiple units were better for formations up to six coaches, but beyond that loco-hauled was the way to go.

My point is, I don't think you can make a blanket statement as to which is better. It depends on a number of factors. DMUs have a lot more moving parts to be maintained (one full engine per carriage vs a single engine in the loco). This is beneficial in that the failure of any one engine doesn't lead to failure of the entire train, but there are downsides too.

The issue with the Sligo line is not the weight of the coaches, but the weight of 201 class locos. It would have been allowable to put Mark IIIs on the Sligo line as long as they were hauled by 071s or the bo-bos.

/csd

He didn't say that what mode was overly better or worse; just that they are more efficient to run and generally in Irish Rails case, 22000s appear to be the better option. Railcars have less staffing costs incurred in running them, are more fuel efficient over loco hauled stock and they have a quicker turn round time both when in service and in servicing. There are different efficiencies in running loco stock depending on the service and there are cases that loco's make more sense; non stop higher speed services being one example.

DWCommuter

A railway operator with a brain in its head wouldn't have been in a rush to offload the mk111s. Having travelled on refurbed ones in the UK they are still far superior to anything new we have here.

A little bit of vision would have seen them refurbed and carefully placed into the timetable.

I wouldn't rule out a thread here in the future bemoaning the fact that IE were so quick to pull them from service because we are hopelessly short of stock at certain times. Time will tell the tale.

IE were like a rabid dog with the money they got. They were in such a rush to make everything new and shiney, that they forgot all about contingency, customer service, competitiveness and the very basics needed to make a railway efficient and relevent. Despite the investment, bad publicity continues to mount. Nothing has changed on that score.

Successive Governments are also to blame for instilling a culture of make do in the company and preventing them from planning for the future in a proactive fashion. When the money poured in, they abandoned the decisions from the make do era. That does not make economic sense. The entire MK4 order is a classic example. A half finished train.

I appreciate how some of you want all the new stuff and you're right, but unfortunetly some of the older stuff that is still modern in railway terms, is being waysided to the detriment of our railway.

Judgement Day

IIMII wrote: »

whilst the money was there to do it, because it mightn't be tomorrow

So going on a life expectancy of 21 years for rolling stock and the fact that in twenty years time it is highly unlikely that there will be money for replacements - where does that leave us?

Judgement Day

Another thing a lot of posters seem to forget is that it was the same CIE/IE management that rushed into buying 201's, MkIIIs and MkIVs - it wouldn't fill you full of confidence that they know what they are doing! One day soon the brakes on spending are going to come on hard and perhaps orders may even be cancelled?

PS I won't hesitate to contact the CME ,for all the use that may be, and Dick Fearn too. Results will be posted here and on my blog.

http://irishrailways.blogspot.com/

L1011

Judgement Day wrote: »

So going on a life expectancy of 21 years for rolling stock and the fact that in twenty years time it is highly unlikely that there will be money for replacements - where does that leave us?

Borrowed cash, just like the Mk3s, the Mk2s, the Cravens, the Park Royals...

corktina

csd wrote: »

Do you have a source for this assertion?

From what I've read (second-hand) on IRN, it appears that BR did a study on this in the 80s. The findings were that multiple units were better for formations up to six coaches, but beyond that loco-hauled was the way to go.

/csd

really? HSTs are multiple units...so are voyagers and all the rest of the modern stuff, including the Channel Tunnel associated stuff...even the class 91 electrics are effectively part of a multiple units..with a driving trailer the other end just like the Cork/Dublin line..

Its common sense...less trackwork needed at Termini....driver changes ends and off you go the other way., much cheaper and simpler (and not half as interesting)

loco hauled in the UK is confined mostly to freight nowadays.

L1011

corktina wrote: »

loco hauled in the UK is confined mostly to freight nowadays.

Or hauling EMUs on unelectrified lines, such as was done by Virgin WestCoast to Holyhead

paulm17781

Hamndegger wrote: »

Mark 3's could cross the bridge; it was the 201's that were not allowed over it.

Yeah that's right, thanks.

My other memory is that a Sligo politician raised murder that they were getting "hand me downs" from the other line so they decided to give them shiny new trains instead. I can't be certain that was true but it's what I heard.

Judgement Day

On the news tonight - Mini Budget with more cutbacks before the end of the month - is it any wonder that the country is broke - E voting machines (€54 million and counting); Thornton Hall Prison (€30 million in 2005 and not a sod turned); P PARS payroll system for HSE (€182 million before abandoned); Transport 21 (€16 billion for public transport) and State companies like CIE/IE out of control. Whatever about certain CIE/IE executives fetish with modernity, the withdrawal of perfectly good rolling stock is wasteful bordering on criminal in the light of the serious financial crisis the country is in. It is this type of insanity that has us where we are - still we can always cancel some more special needs teachers to pay for the new railcars. :mad::mad::mad:

Latest on Fastrack is that it may be retained on Belfast/Dublin/Cork services - no doubt with the same number of managers and clerical staff!!

IIMII

Judgement Day wrote: »

Latest on Fastrack is that it may be retained on Belfast/Dublin/Cork services

How do they plan to retain it if the problem was the new trains? Handy service alright, used it a few times

KC61

IIMII wrote: »

How do they plan to retain it if the problem was the new trains? Handy service alright, used it a few times

The Cork and Belfast services are loco hauled with space for parcels.

All of the other routes are to be railcar operated, which have a cupboard but which apparently are not suitable for parcels.....

dowlingm

IE were like a rabid dog with the money they got. They were in such a rush to make everything new and shiney

In fairness, refurb is a harder sell not least because it doesn't make a good photo-op. KC61 any news on the tender to refurb the 48 Mk3s?

KC61

dowlingm wrote: »

In fairness, refurb is a harder sell not least because it doesn't make a good photo-op. KC61 any news on the tender to refurb the 48 Mk3s?

None at the moment...it would appear that the CME is determined to eradicate them!

D'Peoples Voice

Judgement Day wrote: »

P PARS payroll system for HSE (€182 million before abandoned);

[pedantic]PPARs is still used to pay over 36,000 staff every month, as for the other 70.000 plus people in the Health budget, they are paid outside of PPARs because it was costing too much to continue developing PPARs to be able to handle their wages
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=8677
[/pedantic]