What is the fate of the Mark 3's?

Cookie_Monster

kc56 wrote: »

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.

it was fitted to the "river" locos despite it not being needed. GM even questioned it apparently but IE insisted.

Here's a photo from my archive of the cab of 229 - it was taken through the window so nothing dodgy! You can see the blended brake switch disabled and sealed off.

Jehuty42

Karsini wrote: »

Here's a photo from my archive of the cab of 229 - it was taken through the window so nothing dodgy! You can see the blended brake switch disabled and sealed off.

Off-topic, but do you have any other cab interior pictures to hand?

Jonathan

Jehuty42 wrote: »

Off-topic, but do you have any other cab interior pictures to hand?

Ha! This thread lasted about 5 posts before going off topic.

It should just be renamed the 201/Mk3 Lovers Thread. :P

Cookie_Monster

Jonathan wrote: »

Ha! This thread lasted about 5 posts before going off topic.

It should just be renamed the 201/Mk3 Lovers Thread. :P

and why not?

we can have a railcar lovers thread too for thos who are interestes

(please disgregard the drunken comments as apropriate)

corktina

Jonathan wrote: »

Ha! This thread lasted about 5 posts before going off topic.

It should just be renamed the 201/Mk3 Lovers Thread. :P

and that would be wrong or odd because....?

Jehuty42

Jehuty42 wrote: »

Off-topic, but do you have any other cab interior pictures to hand?

Yes but none I can make public. Have some photos taken on IRRS visits to Inchicore Works but you're made sign a declaration that you won't publish or distribute the photos.

Cookie_Monster

Karsini wrote: »

Yes but none I can make public. Have some photos taken on IRRS visits to Inchicore Works but you're made sign a declaration that you won't publish or distribute the photos.

:eek:
:mad:

What shocking super-secrits might we find out.

Cookie_Monster

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

:eek:
:mad:

What shocking super-secrits might we find out.

Beats me, I saw nothing unusual in there. But I do remember someone uploading the photos from a 2007 visit on fotopic.net and was ordered to take them down. Not before I got to them though.

foggy_lad

The workers don't like being photographed doing very little maybe?

Transportuser09

foggy_lad wrote: »

The workers don't like being photographed doing very little maybe?

I doubt the directive comes from the workers themselves, would there even be much work going on at weekends in this day and age. I may be wrong but I think this issue may have arose a few years back when the media got photos of some fault on a particular loco class (might have been when the 201s came in, or maybe it was the 071s, so long ago the memorys a bit blurry), so this may be why IÉ don't want photos pubhlished. In fairness a lot of companies have such policies on their premises. Unlike a train station it's not a public place so the normal right to photograph doesn't apply.

foggy_lad

Transportuser09 wrote: »

I doubt the directive comes from the workers themselves, would there even be much work going on at weekends in this day and age. I may be wrong but I think this issue may have arose a few years back when the media got photos of some fault on a particular loco class (might have been when the 201s came in, or maybe it was the 071s, so long ago the memorys a bit blurry), so this may be why IÉ don't want photos pubhlished. In fairness a lot of companies have such policies on their premises. Unlike a train station it's not a public place so the normal right to photograph doesn't apply.

I know what you are saying is the case in many companies but why would Irish rail try to cover up faults? They don't want the public at large to find faults which they themselves with the benefit of train sheds and works depots and inspection pits etc are unable to find??

They just don't want the public knowing how incompetent they are!

Transportuser09

foggy_lad wrote: »

I know what you are saying is the case in many companies but why would Irish rail try to cover up faults? They don't want the public at large to find faults which they themselves with the benefit of train sheds and works depots and inspection pits etc are unable to find??

They just don't want the public knowing how incompetent they are!

I can't remember exactly it was so long ago, but basically there was a fault preventing the full introduction of whatever type of loco it was into service and they didn't want it publicised in the papers. I've a suspicion it may have been the 201s for some reason.

dowlingm

In Toronto the Doors Open programme got the TTC to open the Lower Bay "ghost" station (i.e. now unused) in 2007 and in later years to give tours to the workshops (it seems photography was restricted but I don't know the current policy). It was so popular that against all usual practice someone actually added 1 and 1 together and figured out they could make some cash. Now you can take a tour and pay $15/person ($5 <=12 years) including to Training Operations where you can drive a bus simulator.

Given CIE's parlous finances maybe someone should suggest that where there's rail and bus fans there's cash.

me_right_one

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

ITG and RPSI do it in Ireland but the likes of these (the 201's) are still only 15 years old and likely to cost over €100k still I reckon. When IE sell 40+ year old ones for anything up to 10k I doubt we'll see preservation societies going near them for at least 20 years. More likey they will be bought buy some rail company or other and put to some real work.

And what about a MK3 caraige? Any idea what one of them would cost?

If I won the lotto, I'd buy a whole train. I know a lad with a piece of land backing onto the dub-Sligo line, I'd pay for a siding to be made into there and store all me train-related stuff there!

murphaph

Transportuser09 wrote: »

I doubt the directive comes from the workers themselves, would there even be much work going on at weekends in this day and age. I may be wrong but I think this issue may have arose a few years back when the media got photos of some fault on a particular loco class (might have been when the 201s came in, or maybe it was the 071s, so long ago the memorys a bit blurry), so this may be why IÉ don't want photos pubhlished. In fairness a lot of companies have such policies on their premises. Unlike a train station it's not a public place so the normal right to photograph doesn't apply.

Funny, I was at an OPEN DAY (not restricted to members of certain societies or clubs, fully open at no cost to the general public) at a Deutsche Bahn works about 2 months ago. The people there were more than happy for us to photograph anything and everything. I suppose DB have less to hide and are proud of their ability to keep older stock running fault free, unlike Irish Fail who are so inept at maintaining their stuff that it has to be mothballed/sold for a pittance when it's still very young.

DB still have 30 year old coaching stock running in daily service. Scrapping these perfectly fit MkIIIs is nothing short of a disgrace!

dowlingm

murphaph wrote: »

DB still have 30 year old coaching stock running in daily service.

But DB have the facilities to rebuild. With the rundown of Inchicore it's doubtful we'll ever have a facility in Ireland again which could take on the job of a rebuild to get 20 more years out of stock.

Judgement Day

dowlingm wrote: »

But DB have the facilities to rebuild. With the rundown of Inchicore it's doubtful we'll ever have a facility in Ireland again which could take on the job of a rebuild to get 20 more years out of stock.

And who exactly is responsible for that? Lynch his predecessor Joyce, Fearn, David Waters, Dick Grainger, Noel Dempsey, Martin Cullen etc.etc. - up against a wall with the lot of them.

dowlingm

The responsibility is borne by those who decide IE priorities. If IE and the Dept don't regard vehicle manufacturing as worth investing in, it gets run down. I'm not sure it should be CIE's role but their records and designs should be preserved for anyone willing to do it.