What is the fate of the Mark 3's?

31-08-2010 10:59pm

I've also been told that three of the five push-pull control cars have been scrapped! They were the most important ones to keep in my opinion. Not a chance of the Mk3s coming back now I'd say.

lord lucan · 31-08-2010 11:24pm

Karsini wrote: »

I've also been told that three of the five push-pull control cars have been scrapped! They were the most important ones to keep in my opinion. Not a chance of the Mk3s coming back now I'd say.

3 Driving trailers and 13 Push & Pull intermediates were scrapped up to June anyways.

9 regular MKIII coaches and 3 Buffet cars have also been scrapped. Haven't heard if any more have been scrapped since then.

Transportuser09 · 31-08-2010 11:24pm

Karsini wrote: »

I've also been told that three of the five push-pull control cars have been scrapped! They were the most important ones to keep in my opinion.

Indeed. You would think that if they ever where to use mk3s on the Belfast service pushpulls would have been ideal as otherwise the train would have to be shunted on arrival at Connolly unless (a). it use platform 5, which no doubt would cause distruption to commuter services. (b) replace the loco everytime a mk3 set arrives in Connolly (Loco 1 brings it in from Belfast, loco 2 attaches other end and takes the set back to Belfast). Again in Belfast a loco can run round but you would think this is something NIR would want to avoid as well.

Captain Chaos · 01-09-2010 12:11am

IE and NIR wanted to get rid of run arounds completely.

If they were to use standard Mk3 sets they could top and tail the rakes with a 201. They do this all the time in the UK because they have so many spare locos. We now have 1/3 of the 201 fleet spare. Strange thing is IE and NIR do not allow top and tail operations. I don't see why, the loco on the other end is off, same as a loco hauling a failed train. Like that 071 hauling a failed Mk4 set by the DVGT with the failed 201 on the other end last week.

But then again IE and NIR do not look after the locos well enough that they are not reliable enough to start up every time they are needed.

01-09-2010 12:15am

Captain Chaos wrote: »

IE and NIR wanted to get rid of run arounds completely.

If they were to use standard Mk3 sets they could top and tail the rakes with a 201. They do this all the time in the UK because they have so many spare locos. We now have 1/3 of the 201 fleet spare. Strange thing is IE and NIR do not allow top and tail operations. I don't see why, the loco on the other end is off, same as a loco hauling a failed train. Like that 071 hauling a failed Mk4 set by the DVGT with the failed 201 on the other end last week.

But then again IE and NIR do not look after the locos well enough that they are not reliable enough to start up every time they are needed.

IE previously stated weight issues as being the reason but they now allow 071s and 201s in multiple on the Cork and Belfast lines so this shouldn't be a problem anymore. The problem would be rewiring the coaches with AAR cables but that should be fairly trivial.

Captain Chaos · 01-09-2010 12:23am

Karsini wrote: »

IE previously stated weight issues as being the reason but they now allow 071s and 201s in multiple on the Cork and Belfast lines so this shouldn't be a problem anymore.

That's only for double headding, top and tailing should be fine. They don't like the idea of two powered up 071s or 201s right next to each other tearing up the rails.

A few months ago when the 071s went through a bad patch on the Taras there were a good few occasions when there were two 071s at one end of the train, granted only one was working at the time.

Transportuser09 · 01-09-2010 12:50am

Apart from wiring the locos for top and tailing, I would imagine that this would double the wear on the track. If they are to ever use mk3s on the Enterprise, it might be as easy to simply drop a new 201 on to the north end of the train when it comes into Connolly, which could be done without too much interence to the flow of commuter services. Not sure what the situation with Belfast would be, they might have to do with a runround at Central. There was mention a few months ago of Enterprise services being moved to Great Victoria Street in Belfast which would complicate things futher (No runround facilities, unlikely to have another loco present).

Captain Chaos · 01-09-2010 12:55am

Transportuser09 wrote: »

Not sure what the situation with Belfast would be, they might have to do with a runround at Central. There was mention a few months ago of Enterprise services being moved to Great Victoria Street in Belfast which would complicate things futher (No runround facilities, unlikely to have another loco present).

They could send a loco direct from York Road onto the end of the set at GVS. The first loco would then be shunt released exactly like at Connolly. It would actually work better at GVS than at Central as no need for a runround move.

Victor · 01-09-2010 12:29pm

Karsini wrote: »

IE previously stated weight issues as being the reason but they now allow 071s and 201s in multiple on the Cork and Belfast lines so this shouldn't be a problem anymore. The problem would be rewiring the coaches with AAR cables but that should be fairly trivial.

What about Drogheda Viaduct?

donvito99 · 01-09-2010 2:08pm

Is top and tailing just having a loco at either end of the train?

*nooob question

Cookie_Monster · 01-09-2010 2:12pm

donvito99 wrote: »

Is top and tailing just having a loco at either end of the train?

yep.

Uk's Intercity 125 is probably the best know example of this.

foggy_lad · 01-09-2010 2:22pm

donvito99 wrote: »

Is top and tailing just having a loco at either end of the train?

*nooob question

yes but only one loco is running depending on the direction of the train it is usually the one at the front.

corktina · 01-09-2010 5:04pm

foggy_lad wrote: »

yes but only one loco is running depending on the direction of the train it is usually the one at the front.

....so you dont have to rewire the coaches then!

Run_to_da_hills · 01-09-2010 5:16pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

yep.

Uk's Intercity 125 is probably the best know example of this.

Or its processor the now extinct Blue Pullman.

dowlingm · 01-09-2010 7:46pm

Top and tail with the rear loco dead seems mad to me with the extra fuel burn and wear arising from dragging it around. Top and tail with both locos powered and AAR interconnects would double the number of powered axles for better acceleration and adhesion but the power balance would have to be right and the RSC likely to have to sign off.

Victor · 01-09-2010 8:07pm

Will such a configuration have enough braking power?

corktina · 01-09-2010 9:07pm

all the brakes would be working throughout the train and controlled by the leading loco.

Air brakes work on the principle of blowing off the brakes, if any werent working the train wouldnt move.

01-09-2010 10:39pm

Victor wrote: »

What about Drogheda Viaduct?

I couldn't tell ya, I don't know! But what I do know is that it was in the weekly circular during the summer.

dowlingm · 01-09-2010 11:38pm

The other advantage to push-pull is that 50% of the time the train is not under a diesel plume from the exhaust. For me, I'd want to run any refitted Mark 3 train as DVT (probably new build CAFs)+trailers+201.

Run_to_da_hills · 02-09-2010 12:17am

dowlingm wrote: »

The other advantage to push-pull is that 50% of the time the train is not under a diesel plume from the exhaust. For me, I'd want to run any refitted Mark 3 train as DVT (probably new build CAFs)+trailers+201.

Also DVT trains don't have to be washed as frequent as DMU's.

Victor · 02-09-2010 9:23pm

corktina wrote: »

all the brakes would be working throughout the train and controlled by the leading loco. Air brakes work on the principle of blowing off the brakes, if any werent working the train wouldnt move.

As I understnad it, at high speed, a 201 loco is too heavy to efficiently brake itself, so it partly relies on the braking from the other axels. With two 201s, its even harder to brake.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Also DVT trains don't have to be washed as frequent as DMU's.

How come?

L1011 · 02-09-2010 9:27pm

Victor wrote: »

How come?

I'd imagine it has to do with the positioning of the exhausts, but I don't see it being a serious concern. Its not like Irish Rail wash them often enough anyway!

Run_to_da_hills · 02-09-2010 9:49pm

Victor wrote: »

As I understnad it, at high speed, a 201 loco is too heavy to efficiently brake itself, so it partly relies on the braking from the other axels. With two 201s, its even harder to brake.

How come?

DVT driven there is less exhaust resedues falling back on the train compaired to a DMU that is constantly belshing out exhaust resedues along the lenth of the train from several under carriage motors.

me_right_one · 03-09-2010 1:23am

Victor wrote: »

As I understnad it, at high speed, a 201 loco is too heavy to efficiently brake itself, so it partly relies on the braking from the other axels. With two 201s, its even harder to brake.

Wasnt it a 201 that hit that tractor on the Ballina line today?

Rud · 03-09-2010 2:36am

me_right_one wrote: »

Wasnt it a 201 that hit that tractor on the Ballina line today?

yes 225

corktina · 03-09-2010 7:33am

Victor wrote: »

As I understnad it, at high speed, a 201 loco is too heavy to efficiently brake itself, so it partly relies on the braking from the other axels. With two 201s, its even harder to brake.

that isnt logical. The heavier the loco the better the brakes will work. Add 6 coaches and youve added 48 more braked wheels, add another 201 and youve added another 12.

Cookie_Monster · 03-09-2010 8:36am

True, the 201 have additional brakes they don't even use in service as the equipment was an un-needed addition, don't they?

03-09-2010 9:18am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

True, the 201 have additional brakes they don't even use in service as the equipment was an un-needed addition, don't they?

Yep, they have dynamic brake equipment which uses the traction motors as generators in order to slow down the locomotive - the excess energy produced by the traction motors is then dispersed as heat. It can also do blended braking which uses a combination of dynamic and air braking. But it has never been used by IE.

dowlingm · 03-09-2010 5:22pm

Karsini wrote: »

Yep, they have dynamic brake equipment which uses the traction motors as generators in order to slow down the locomotive

Stick a battery in to get the output from the motors and you have a 201 Prius

:D:D

kc56 · 03-09-2010 7:40pm

Karsini wrote: »

Yep, they have dynamic brake equipment which uses the traction motors as generators in order to slow down the locomotive - the excess energy produced by the traction motors is then dispersed as heat. It can also do blended braking which uses a combination of dynamic and air braking. But it has never been used by IE.

My understanding is that dynamic breaking is only useful for long down grades such as you get in mountainous areas. The idea is that the locos do most if not all the breaking thus avoiding the risk of overheating wheel brakes. There are no gradients long enough in Ireland for dynamic breaking and it was never fitted to IE locos.

A major accident happened in California some years ago when there was insufficient dynamic breaking available for an over weight train and the wheel brakes failed from overheating.

What is the fate of the Mark 3's?

Comments