Innovations that could save Ireland's railways?

Judgement Day

At the end of April I submitted this proposal to the the farcial 'Your Country, Your Call' website just to see what reaction it might get - over a month on it is still being considered. I then posted a link to it here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055851437&page=4 post #50 to try and stir up things. However, as with most of the populace most people on Boards.ie (with some honourable exceptions) wouldn't vroom if you put 10 million volts through them!

Seriously though, apart from abolishing CIE/IE does anybody have any dynamic ideas for saving the Irish railway system? What about Drumm trains - do they tick all the boxes as I suggest?

THE DRUMM BATTERY TRAIN – An invention worthy of re-examination?

This is not an original idea but an earlier one well overdue for revisiting. In these days of global warming/need to cut greenhouse gases, create jobs, boost exports, the Drumm Battery train ticks all the boxes. The main problem with the original concept, if there was one, was battery technology was in its infancy and things have moved on from the 1930s. The beauty of Drumm Battery trains is that they didn’t need all the expensive paraphernalia of conventional electric railways – overhead wires, masts etc and could be charged at night using cheap surplus electricity. The engineering skills required to develop and build the new generation of railcars for home and export exists at the Irish Rail Works in Inchicore. As far as I know battery railcars are not currently being produced elsewhere so the opportunities for a major new industrial export business is there. A brief synopsis of the Drumm Train follows.

---

A pioneering electric train, the creation of Dr James J Drumm, was Ireland’s first green revolution on the railways. The battery-powered train worked well, but the shortages caused by World War II and the usual political machinations here at home, saw an end to the experiment 61 years ago, after nearly 20 years in service.
Drumm, a brilliant student of chemistry, came from Dundrum, Co Down, and his first education was at the local national school, where his mother was a teacher. He received his secondary education at St Macartan’s College, Monaghan, before third-level studies at UCD, where he was awarded an Honours BSc in chemistry, followed by an MSc degree.
He spent three years working with a chemical company in England, before returning to Ireland, where his first invention, in Dublin, was fine quality soap. Then he worked to keep peas green after they were canned.
In 1925, he attended a lecture on batteries that sparked his interest in the subject and he began developing an alkaline battery cell that could be rapidly charged and discharged.
His work in developing this traction battery coincided with the construction of the hydro- electric dam at Ardnacrusha, which was completed in 1929. It started producing far more electricity than the country needed at the time, so using some of it as motive power on the railways was a tempting option.
Nearly a century previously, the Rev Dr Nicholas Callan, that great electrical pioneer in Maynooth, had proposed a battery-operated train between Dublin and Kingstown, now Dún Laoghaire. But what worked well in the laboratory didn’t transform into commercial reality. Drumm was able to make that quantum leap.
His invention was first made public in 1927 and attracted widespread interest, not just here, but across Europe and in the US. The government of the day, through the then minister of industry and commerce, Paddy McGilligan, was enthusiastic and promptly allocated development funds. A Great Southern Railways permanent way inspection car was fitted out with 60 nickel- zinc rechargeable battery cells, each the size of a one gallon (4.5 litres) drum, wired in sequence.
The initial tests were held during August, 1929, between Kingsbridge and Hazlehatch, Co Kildare. The train could get up to to 50mph (80 kph) in just 50 seconds. Extensive testing followed, including at UCD. The longest test run was from Kingsbridge to Portarlington and back, all on a single charge.
By early December, 1931, the first Drumm train, with 13.5 tonnes of batteries fitted underneath it, was ready, capable of carrying 140 passengers. This newspaper reported ” the Drumm train proved itself no longer a pre- vision of the future, but rather a concrete achievement” . By 1939, four Drumm trains were in regular daily use. The longest Drumm trains had up to eight coaches.
The trains were built at the railway works in Inchicore, a remarkable feat, considering that the previous experience of the workforce there had been entirely with steam locos. The batteries were charged at Amiens Street (now Connolly station) and Bray, and a train could easily do 200 miles (just over 320km) and more a day.
For most of the 1930s and into the emergency years of the war, the Drumm train plied, very efficiently, between Harcourt Street station and Bray, sometimes continuing to Greystones. Fuel for steam locos was in short supply, so the Drumm trains were a godsend, at least to commuters in south Dublin.
Drumm’s own company had to close down in 1940, as it was no longer possible to try to promote the system abroad. The batteries had been designed to last 10 years and getting components for them proved increasingly difficult.
By the summer of 1944, when electricity was in short supply, the Drumm train had been withdrawn from regular use. In the Dáil that summer, Seán Lemass was non-committal as to whether the trains would ever be used again. After all, it hadn’t been developed under a Fianna Fáil government.
The last Drumm train ran on July 12th, 1949; most of the coaches were converted to ordinary railway working and no relics were preserved of the pioneering train. At around the same time, the last of the old electric trams in Dublin city were withdrawn from service, two early blows to the idea of green public transport.
One development at the same time helped undermine the Drumm train. In the early 1930s, the Great Northern Railway company had started producing diesel locos at its Dundalk engineering works. Eventually, diesel became the sole motive power of the railway system in Ireland, a cheap replacement for steam, but dependent on imported oil, not a very green solution.
War-time shortages combined with political intrigues had helped finish off his unique train.
Electricity didn’t re-emerge as the motive power for railways in Ireland until the DART was launched in 1984. Then Luas light rail followed 20 years later. In both cases, there’s an overhead power supply. Following the ending of the Drumm train, the idea of battery power wasn’t again considered, despite its impressive efficiency and green credentials.

Carawaystick

Here's a few "innovations"
Trains that run on time
Trains that run when people want them to, not when it suits IÉ staff
Connections
Trains that are faster cheaper or better than alternative public transport
Aircon
Heating
Lighting
Smartcards that operate better than Oyster, not worse than paper ones they replace
Clocks all telling the same correct time.
Irish rail staff not getting company cars.

DWCommuter

Carawaystick wrote: »

Here's a few "innovations"
Trains that run on time
Trains that run when people want them to, not when it suits IÉ staff
Connections
Trains that are faster cheaper or better than alternative public transport
Aircon
Heating
Lighting
Smartcards that operate better than Oyster, not worse than paper ones they replace
Clocks all telling the same correct time.
Irish rail staff not getting company cars.

So obviously the views of an ordinary customer and not some engineering/logistics junky that will no doubt come on here shortly spouting off about how us mere mortals don't appreciate the fundamentals of operating a railway.

dermo88

I would'nt go mocking it cynically. As an engineering solution, a modern version of the Drumm battery train would work quite well.

Victor

There are some battery operated trams options, but usually for short distances, where overhead cables are considered impractical.

I think Inchicore is long past its hey-day of being able to build vehicles.

alias no.9

It's certainly an interesting idea, perhaps it could be built upon further with some 'on the fly' charging. Rather than electrifying the whole line, electrify occasional 10 mile stretches to charge up the batteries.
Alternatively you could electrify short stretches in locations where high power consumption is required to accelerate or climb. So for example, electrify a one mile stretch out of every station where the train will be getting up to speed and consuming most power and use the on board batteries primarilly to maintain momentum. This seriously reduces the specification requirements for the batteries.

popebenny16

Innovation number one: Get Rid of Irish Rail/CIE and its "culture".

Number two...

er,

thats about it, really.

JHMEG

Long term efficiency might not be that good with a battery train as charging is not 100% efficient.

Electric trains turn 100% of the juice into traction, whereas a battery train will only turn about 60% into traction. The rest is lost to heat etc during charging.

Judgement Day

Pretty sure this excellent video of the Drumm train from British Pathe has been aired on the Boards before, but it's worth seeing again - if only for the accents!
http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=6725

PS Please could somebody connected to the Green party come on here and tell us why this shouldn't/can't be done!

Cookie_Monster

Judgement Day wrote: »

PS Please could somebody connected to the Green party come on here and tell us why this shouldn't/can't be done!

Without looking into it in details I would imagine battery is nowhere near as cheap and efficient as electricity.
Batteries are expensive, polluting in manufacturing, need replacing every 5-10 years, take a long time to charge without high capacity dedicated facilities and are difficult and costly to dispose of properly.

3rd rail or induction driven would be better I reckon or even centenary.
Not an ideal comparison but look at the Prius or Gheewiz. Both get bad range, long long charge time, poor acceleration, poor mpg in regards to the prius, and replacing the batteries is extremely expensive.

JHMEG

Starting to believe to old Top Gear drivel there.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

poor mpg in regards to the prius,

73 mpg on the combined cycle is poor?

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

and replacing the batteries is extremely expensive.

Reconditioning is not. (Lots of car parts are expensive, for no apparent reason. Compare OEM to aftermarket prices)

Cookie_Monster

JHMEG wrote: »

Starting to believe to old Top Gear drivel there.


73 mpg on the combined cycle is poor?

That not real world though, I doubt there's a prius in Ireland that gets anything like that. As I said its a poor comparison anyway due to the nature or road vs rail movements. Anyway most loco are similarly designed but use electro deisel rather than electro petrol so they would be a better comparison, just convert one of the old 2700s to a test unit or something

Reconditioning is not. (Lots of car parts are expensive, for no apparent reason. Compare OEM to after market prices)

how long would batteries last in a heavy rail vehicle though. Would probably need overhaul every 1-2 years due to the load placed on them.

JHMEG

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

That not real world though,

It's indicative. Read some of current reviews. Economy is excellent.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how long would batteries last in a heavy rail vehicle though. Would probably need overhaul every 1-2 years due to the load placed on them.

They would last as long as they were designed to last, obviously! That factor is determined by how much they're willing to spend. The simple old lead-acid battery is capable of huge discharges and is good for at least 5 years.

BTW, I'm not a fan of battery trains for the reasons I gave above (charging losses).

Judgement Day

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Without looking into it in details I would imagine battery is nowhere near as cheap and efficient as electricity.
Batteries are expensive, polluting in manufacturing, need replacing every 5-10 years, take a long time to charge without high capacity dedicated facilities and are difficult and costly to dispose of properly.

3rd rail or induction driven would be better I reckon or even centenary.
Not an ideal comparison but look at the Prius or Gheewiz. Both get bad range, long long charge time, poor acceleration, poor mpg in regards to the prius, and replacing the batteries is extremely expensive.

Well, given that the original experiment with Drumm trains was successful, was at a time when cheap oil was NOT a problem and when we were not trying to reduce greenhouse emissions and that battery technology has probably (?) improved I think it needs urgent examination. Sadly the 'must have' the latest technology mentality prevalent amongst CIE/IE engineers they are not going to do it without being sat on by Eamonn Ryan. Fat chance as he probably hasn't even heard of the Drumm train.

Run_to_da_hills

Almost 100 years prior to the Drumm South Dublin had Brunels atmospheric Railway which ran successfully between Dalkey and Dunlaoghaire for about 10 years and even reached a speed of over 80mph. :eek:

This technology would have been quite successful only for the problem of rats gnawing at the leather seals along the slotted pressure pipe which drove the train.

If people were encouraged to breed more cats along the route this technology could possibly be looked into again.

antoinolachtnai

You have the weight of the power source to haul around. Unlike diesel, the power source does not get any lighter as it is depleted.

It is very difficult to recharge in a frequent, scheduled service.

The cost and inconvenience of reconditioning the batteries is considerable, and impacts on the fuel efficiency. (This is not an issue with a prius, because it does relatively low mileage over the car's lifetime.) This would possibly need to be done every 18 months, rather than every 5-10 years (that, I understand is the situation with the Dublin Bus hybrid bus).

The speed of the services in the 30's was lower than it is today.

The diesel units that IR uses now actually resolve a lot of the business/efficiency issues with rail locomotives. It depends on electronic control technology that was not available in the 30's. It seems unlikely to me that you would get better efficiency from a Drumm train (taking into account generating and charging losses) compared to one of the IE diesels. But certainly it is possible, and it would be worth looking into. Someone with a bit of mechanical and electrical engineering background could do the research on paper though, it's not a project that would require many people or much time.

Carawaystick

I see noone's addressed how a battery powered train will fix any of the *real* issues with the rail networks in Ireland

so for all the battery lovin folks, please explain how a train will be heated by a battery powered train?

Bearing in mind we had about a month of sub zero temperatures this winter.

Victor

Indeed, fix what is broken and stop re-inventing the wheel.

foggy_lad

One thing that might save the rail network is cutting out all the little used lines/services and sorting out the hundreds of miles of speed restricted track so that inter-city trains are faster than the bus.

Also people need to dispense with this nostalgic notion that crumbling Victorian stations and water towers are worth keeping when they cost so much in maintenance and customer comfort.

Also trains need to be routed to populated areas instead of terminating outside towns and cities.

steamengine

Although this might be a little too much for our 'esteemed railway hierarchy' to absorb, it does show how some minds are working elsewhere in the world.

http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/newsteam/modern16.htm

This is how nuclear submarines are propelled - and for a steam locomotive the plant could generate electricity via a turbo generator, thence to traction motors. The fuel rod would be about the size of a cricket ball according to the article above. Basically the set up is - Reactor circulating hot helium to a boiler and then steam to a turbine driving a generator.

All the tecnology exists, its not science fiction stuff.

Judgement Day

Carawaystick wrote: »

I see noone's addressed how a battery powered train will fix any of the *real* issues with the rail networks in Ireland

so for all the battery lovin folks, please explain how a train will be heated by a battery powered train?

Bearing in mind we had about a month of sub zero temperatures this winter.

I haven't the faintest idea how the heating was provided on Drumm trains but presumably it was adequate as they ran satisfactorily in all weathers (including 1947!) My suggestion of the reconsidering the Drumm train was on several fronts:

Possible reduced dependency on oil imports (using existing electrical supplies that are currently under utilised at night.)
The possible job opportunities that 'could' come about if a successful export business were created.
Reduce pollution - did you ever try to breathe in Connolly when it's full of 22000s?
It is the sort of outside the box thinking that is required instead of the old jaded ideas such as reduce services, close lines, switch to railcars/then switch back to loco haulage/then switch back to railcars as has been done in the past.

Judgement Day

Victor wrote: »

Indeed, fix what is broken and stop re-inventing the wheel.

Precisely what I'm suggesting. The railway is broken and it's not about reinventing the wheel it's about having some ****ing imagination! I don't see any other useful suggestions here apart from closing down little used lines - Barry Kenny and Fearn have plenty of friends on the Boards.

steamengine

Judgement Day wrote: »

Precisely what I'm suggesting. The railway is broken and it's not about reinventing the wheel it's about having some ****ing imagination! I don't see any other useful suggestions here apart from closing down little used lines - Barry Kenny and Fearn have plenty of friends on the Boards.

Just recounting a radio interview some years back with an irish engineer who held a high rank in a 'foreign navy' and who happened to be a nuclear expert. He advocated that this country should seriously consider nuclear power as a means of supplying abundant electricity for our future needs. Controversial it may be but a logical answer which could revolutionise our railway systems, whether using the Drumm system or direct power.

But it seems to me, we wriggle and squirm in this country when faced with the logical choices which would solve our problems. Instead of following good practise elsewhere we come up with crazy solutions like pumping up mountain valleys with sea water and letting it run down through hydro electric turbines as outlined in the Spirit of Ireland scheme. All powered by windmills, without any consideration of how a 'Blocking high pressure' system could leave the country 'windless' for a month or so.

This is not outside the box thinking, other countries most notably France has a world class electrified railway system and oodles of nuclear power and all we have to do is copy such examples.

Victor

steamengine wrote: »

Although this might be a little too much for our 'esteemed railway hierarchy' to absorb, it does show how some minds are working elsewhere in the world.

http://www.internationalsteam.co.uk/trains/newsteam/modern16.htm

This is how nuclear submarines are propelled - and for a steam locomotive the plant could generate electricity via a turbo generator, thence to traction motors. The fuel rod would be about the size of a cricket ball according to the article above. Basically the set up is - Reactor circulating hot helium to a boiler and then steam to a turbine driving a generator.

All the tecnology exists, its not science fiction stuff.

Hang, these are guys who can't get the microphone-speaker interface to work reliably.

antoinolachtnai

The main problem on Irish railways at the moment is the cost of running the thing. Very little of the cost relates to the cost of the actual fuel to move the trains. It's all the service and maintenance and management.

foggy_lad

Judgement Day wrote: »

Precisely what I'm suggesting. The railway is broken and it's not about reinventing the wheel it's about having some ****ing imagination! I don't see any other useful suggestions here apart from closing down little used lines - Barry Kenny and Fearn have plenty of friends on the Boards.

it is broken because people are not and never will be using it until it is going to places they want to go! for example a train today from carlow to heuston station outside dublin city takes 1hour 20minutes and a further 30minutes walking to the luas waiting and getting into the city centre that is a total of 110minutes but the bus can do it in 90minutes right into the city centre and more people live closer to the bus stops than the train stations which are mostly outside town centres.

people will get the most convenient not necessarily the cheapest but a €10 difference in price will swing 90% towards the faster busses in todays cash strapped climate.

building new track on top of old trackbed like the navan rail project and the western rail project is a waste of money as the old stations are past use and the old lines will never be used as people live too far away from the old stations! these lines/stations closed many years ago due to declines in populations but there has not been enough increase in populations to reinstate these lines, but new lines to nearby towns would be far more beneficial and raise more revenue!

one example is the station at sallins which is out in the middle of nowhere but should have been moved to naas by changing the railway layout. also in kildare or newbridge where the stations are far outside the towns when they could easily have been routed through the towns.

ireland is to blame for allowing past sins and wastefulness to be perpetuated in our name! so build stations in town centres and have railway tracks that actually go where people want to go!

silverharp

I'm skeptical that Ireland needs a rail system bar commuting lines into Dublin. Have there been any useful studies done on railways on a low density Island nation? it just seems like we dont have the economies of scale to make railways work here. Its just another state monopoly that provides a poor service as it lives "outside the market"

Get the roads right and free up bus competition here and you will have much better point to point travel then is possible now.

Capt'n Midnight

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The main problem on Irish railways at the moment is the cost of running the thing. Very little of the cost relates to the cost of the actual fuel to move the trains. It's all the service and maintenance and management.

With fixed overheads the best thing to do is increase volume so they are a smaller part of the cost per ticket.

The big thing about public transport is punctuality. It's no good advertising that the train is faster than car if people feel they need to add an hour because they feel the train is likely to be late.

Cost is also a factor. To get the train you need to get to the station. That makes the train a little more expensive than the ticket. Would be nice if the train ticket included a bus journey at both ends.



Drumm train, might be ok for commuter in areas not yet electrified, maybe. But we can't afford the R&D.

Victor

foggy_lad wrote: »

one example is the station at sallins which is out in the middle of nowhere but should have been moved to naas by changing the railway layout. also in kildare or newbridge where the stations are far outside the towns when they could easily have been routed through the towns.

While a branch along the old route to Naas would be an idea, the trick would be to concentrate new medium-high density development close to stations, not to divert the railway into what can often be low density town cores.

Judgement Day

While searching for material for the Waterford/Rosslare railway Facebook page I happened across this image of Machu Picchu TouristTrain in Peru. What strikes me immediately, apart from the attractive (serviceable) livery, is the fact that passengers are able to view out the front of the railcar. How innovative but the CIE's AEC 1950's railcars also had this design feature. None of the current CIE/IE railcars allow passengers a view ahead unlike the Luas. I'm sure all the CIE/IE groupies and rail techno geeks will be along here to explain why this would be impossible in the Irish context and why, in any event, it is irrelevant to the future of the railway. I say it is completely relevant - a state of attitude towards passengers/customers - when did CIE/IE last design trains to suit customer requirements rather than engineers? Anybody been on CIE/IE's tourist train??

Victor

A larger cab is useful when training new drivers, is probably more comfortable and has the advantage of letting the driver look out either side - I vaguely recollect something about this being useful when using stations with passing loops and the "wrong" platform. Actually - the driver of that train in the photo can't see the platform (its curved anyway) from his cab.

Judgement Day

Victor wrote: »

A larger cab is useful when training new drivers, is probably more comfortable and has the advantage of letting the driver look out either side - I vaguely recollect something about this being useful when using stations with passing loops and the "wrong" platform. Actually - the driver of that train in the photo can't see the platform (its curved anyway) from his cab.

Victor - without wishing to insult you:

While searching for material for the Waterford/Rosslare railway Facebook page I happened across this image of Machu Picchu TouristTrain in Peru. What strikes me immediately, apart from the attractive (serviceable) livery, is the fact that passengers are able to view out the front of the railcar. How innovative but the CIE's AEC 1950's railcars also had this design feature. None of the current CIE/IE railcars allow passengers a view ahead unlike the Luas. I'm sure all the CIE/IE groupies and rail techno geeks will be along here to explain why this would be impossible in the Irish context and why, in any event, it is irrelevant to the future of the railway. I say it is completely relevant - a state of attitude towards passengers/customers - when did CIE/IE last design trains to suit customer requirements rather than engineers? Anybody been on CIE/IE's tourist train??

Is the Irish railway system different from others throughout the world? Are are drivers and their trainers retarded compared to others? More comfortable for the driver - why don't we provide him with TV and a bed while we are at it?

eia340600

Judgement Day wrote: »

Is the Irish railway system different from others throughout the world? Are are drivers and their trainers retarded compared to others? More comfortable for the driver - why don't we provide him with TV and a bed while we are at it?

The easier it is for a driver to keep a journey safe and in-line with platforms, the safer and more in-line the trains will be.Advantage?I think so.

Judgement Day

eia340600 wrote: »

The easier it is for a driver to keep a journey safe and in-line with platforms, the safer and more in-line the trains will be.Advantage?I think so.

Spoken like a true Boards servant! How is it that it is safe in other countries? How was it that the old AEC railcars, even after conversion to push pull working, still allowed passengers to see out the front of the train - unless you had a bolshie driver who pulled down the blinds? There are none so blind and those that will not see. :rolleyes:

noelfirl

How standard is front view in other countries? Don't see SNCF doing it much. DB do it with the ICE sets, even then driver still has full panoramic view, think that's about it? Never seen it myself in a European context on NS, SNCB, RENFE or UK TOCs. What exactly is the advantage or customer benefit it would be providing? What exactly is there to see out the front, save hedgerows, signals and obscured trees for the most part?

Hungerford

Judgement Day wrote: »

Spoken like a true Boards servant!

Erm... there is a sensible reason for cabs that extend fully across the front of the train. It's called making sure you don't decapitate your passengers when you shut the doors.

It's a particular issue with station passing loops and wrong-line working. If the cab was only on one of the train and the platform was on the opposite side, the driver would be unable to see whether it would be safe to shut the doors.

They could get away with it on the AECs because they didn't have electronically controlled doors - they relied on guards shutting them and signalling the driver to leave.

Hungerford

Victor wrote: »

Actually - the driver of that train in the photo can't see the platform (its curved anyway) from his cab.

I think what we are looking at is the back of the train. I certainly can't see a driver in the cab. I suspect that you will find that the cab is always on the platform side of whatever direction it is travelling in.

Judgement Day

Hungerford wrote: »

Erm... there is a sensible reason for cabs that extend fully across the front of the train. It's called making sure you don't decapitate your passengers when you shut the doors.

It's a particular issue with station passing loops and wrong-line working. If the cab was only on one of the train and the platform was on the opposite side, the driver would be unable to see whether it would be safe to shut the doors.

They could get away with it on the AECs because they didn't have electronically controlled doors - they relied on guards shutting them and signalling the driver to leave.

Jaysus there's a lot of Board's servants out tonight. Seriously though, you're missing the point. The AEC railcars had the drivers cab right across the front and the passengers could see out if the blinds were up so I don't understand your point about automatic doors. You can even see it in this image of the 'preserved' 6111 at Inchicore Works.

noelfirl

So once again, what is the benefit here? You can't seriously think that this is an 'innovation' that's going to rake in the passenger numbers? Seems to me like pointless design motif that will appeal to an absolute minority of passengers, seeing as on most railways here there is nothing to see out the front except hedgerows, bridges and signals.

Judgement Day

noelfirl wrote: »

How standard is front view in other countries? Don't see SNCF doing it much. DB do it with the ICE sets, even then driver still has full panoramic view, think that's about it? Never seen it myself in a European context on NS, SNCB, RENFE or UK TOCs. What exactly is the advantage or customer benefit it would be providing? What exactly is there to see out the front, save hedgerows, signals and obscured trees for the most part?

Again, without wishing to appear rude but you must be very unobservant. On buses, the Luas etc many passengers, especially visitors and families with children always make a bee-line for the front seats where they can see out of the window. It is called good design, taking people into account not just engineering requirements. One of CIE's main problems is that for decades it has been a plaything for engineers with little or no notice taken of passengers/freight etc. I suppose next you will tell me that you find nothing wrong with having your view out the side window of a train blocked by the bad positioning of the seating such as on some of the woeful 'commuter; railcars. :rolleyes:

noelfirl

Judgement Day wrote: »

Again, without wishing to appear rude but you must be very unobservant. On buses, the Luas etc many passengers, especially visitors and families with children always make a bee-line for the front seats where they can see out of the window. It is called good design, taking people into account not just engineering requirements. One of CIE's main problems is that for decades it has been a plaything for engineers with little or no notice taken of passengers/freight etc. I suppose next you will tell me that you find nothing wrong with having your view out the side window of a train blocked by the bad positioning of the seating such as on some of the woeful 'commuter; railcars. :rolleyes:

On buses and Luas' there are things to see. On mainline rail, how is it of any benefit, when all you will see is the same bridges, hedgerows and signals over and over again???

Judgement Day

noelfirl wrote: »

On buses and Luas' there are things to see. On mainline rail, how is it of any benefit, when all you will see is the same bridges, hedgerows and signals over and over again???

Are you for real or just here for an argument? If you don't already work for CIE you should apply now, as with your attitude you should make it right to the top. Why don't you suggest something innovative instead of petty sniping?

I don't suggest that having visibility out the front of trains will turn round the railways fortunes on its own but it is all part of the solution - you know: 1st class and WiFi brings business passengers, capacity to carry bikes brings bike passengers, doors that allow wheel chairs encourage wheel chair users and so on and so on - do I really have to spell it out for you? I don't know why you come on Boards, I know why I do - to learn, to put ideas out there, to draw attention to important issues, to publicise events, to share what little knowledge I have picked up in my 51 years and respond - not to aimlessly knock everything. But then again perhaps that is why I have 3,025 posts and you have 91 despite being on the Boards for 6 months longer than me.

noelfirl

Judgement Day wrote: »

Are you for real or just here for an argument? If you don't already work for CIE you should apply now, as with your attitude you should make it right to the top. Why don't you suggest something innovative instead of petty sniping?

I don't suggest that having visibility out the front of trains will turn round the railways fortunes on its own but it is all part of the solution - you know: 1st class and WiFi brings business passengers, capacity to carry bikes brings bike passengers, doors that allow wheel chairs encourage wheel chair users and so on and so on - do I really have to spell it out for you? I don't know why you come on Boards, I know why I do - to learn, to put ideas out there, to draw attention to important issues, to publicise events, to share what little knowledge I have picked up in my 51 years and respond - not to aimlessly knock everything. But then again perhaps that is why I have 3,025 posts and you have 91 despite being on the Boards for 6 months longer than me.

Your incredible arrogance in suggesting that anyone who disagrees with your vehemently anti-CIE point of view is astounding. At best you display nothing short of breathtaking disdain for anyone who does not immediately beat the drum of hunt them out and string them up.

To be frank, I think the only reason you are harping on about the front view is due to the incredibly tinted rose-glasses you wear about childhood experiences with the AEC railcars and your presumption that just because it was a design aspect at that time, that it should be one now. You have provided one example of such a setup from Peru (which, without researching, appears to be more atmospheric and tourist directed then standard Irish Intercity rail), I do not doubt that there is more then one example. However, as I have pointed out, the vast majority of national rail operators in Europe have not (or at least do not, at this time) operate such setups, suggesting that this is not a design feature that concerns them much (with the exception of DB, on the ICE service), this is really astounding I suppose, since it is generally accepted that European rail operators generally put more thought into there patrons needs, well I guess they'll be sending you royalty cheques for your suggestion, it having never occurred to them before that such a nugget of ingeniousness would be critical important in boosting passenger satisfaction.

On the nature of your latter ideas, wheelchairs, bikes, etc., I would not dare to suggest that these are bad provisions, but I contest that they are of any signficant importance, or would be, if improved, in increasing patronage or satisfaction. The key points, as I see it to improving those metrics would be 1) improval of journey times, 2) improvement of comfort vis-a-vis the rail quality Dublin-Cork and other lines, 3) improval of journey options, with regards to later/earlier/more frequent operating intervals and 4) retention of competitive fares, even if journey times, comfort and journey options are improved by investment, both of the monetary and of the improved management type. I contest your mini-ideas as being of lesser importance in terms of the overall operational quality of railway in this country, and I particularly contest this battery train discussion which has taken up the first two pages of this thread, but which I hope everyone reading knows, is complete pie in the sky. With regard to your oft-put forward idea of re-introducing Fastrack as a cornerstone of re-invigorating the railway's fortunes, I note that you never provided a satisfactory reason in another thread (where I raised the issue) as to why Irish Rail, with subvention, should be operating a competing parcel delivery service when we have a far more economically viable spread of courier/delivery companies capable of providing such services via our heavily-improved intercity road network. I thus also contest this idea as being of any importance in the future of the rail. The road network, by the way, also draws back to my primary points above, about what I think are critical aspects of improving rail viability. Like it or lump it, we now have a road network that provides a more decent in many respects alternative to rail transport to the large cities. Whether or not we should, as taxpayers, invest untold amounts of money in improving rail competitivity against road, is a topic for another thread.

Now, as regards my 91 posts versus your 3000-odd, I would never deny myself as mainly a reader, less a contributor to most boards I frequent. I don't think there's any rule against that is there? None-the-less despite what you might think, lacking in post number does not exclude me, or any other poster, from picking up on or addressing anyone, who I or anyone feel is off the mark with regard to their posting. And you may feel you can take the high ground with your a) age and b) post-number, I will not regress from pointing out that I think your arguments are unconvincing, blindingly tinted by reminiscing to the past, and underlain by a current of hatred against CIE.

*Whom, by the way, I do not work for, would not be sorry to see gone, but do not feel is necessary to engage in such vitriolic rhetoric against, when it is clear that such an approach will get you nowhere in the real world.

steamengine

The Hill of Howth tram, long since gone, was an example of a very popular tourist and day tripper amenity which was abandoned ostensibly for financial reasons. It enjoyed good patronage throughout the summer months and IMO it still would be a top attraction if it were around today.

The open air top was a really magnificent way to see Dublin Bay as you climbed to the summit, and the steep descent into Howth village was sometimes rapid and slightly alarming, although I don't ever recall hearing of a braking failure.

Its demise makes me wonder how seriously we want to engage in tourism when you see a priceless tourist/heritage amenity like this thrown away.

markpb

Judgement Day wrote: »

While searching for material for the Waterford/Rosslare railway Facebook page I happened across this image of Machu Picchu TouristTrain in Peru. What strikes me immediately, apart from the attractive (serviceable) livery, is the fact that passengers are able to view out the front of the railcar.

Seriously... that's what you took from that photo!? Am I the only one seeing a heavy-rail train meandering between two buildings, obliterating the footpath on one side and with pedestrians wandering meters in front of the gaudily painted cow catcher? Won't someone please think of the children?

I thought that kind of scant disregard for health and safety was saved for Compton and other parts of south central Los Angeles.

foggy_lad

Victor wrote: »

While a branch along the old route to Naas would be an idea, the trick would be to concentrate new medium-high density development close to stations, not to divert the railway into what can often be low density town cores.

i was really talking about digging up the whole rail line and starting from scratch from a city centre location heading out to places like Naas and kildare town centres where people would want to go, they will only use the train if it is more convenient and at the moment it is not as for most journeys you need a luas out to heuston or a taxi from the station to the town centre. more expense after paying over the odds for the trip!

dowlingm

The idea is a bit mad but let's humour it a bit. The Alstom DARTs could be used as an prototype for a battery train similar to the Citadis 302 units in Nice. Let's say they are sent to Cork to replace the 2600s on the Midleton service (the reason I'm using Midleton rather than Cobh is the more urban nature of most stations making it easier to stick a 1500V DC substation there).

Train retains panto but traction gear is linked to a heavy duty battery - there would be no direct motor-panto link. In Kent or when parked overnight, the panto would be raised to charge the battery, and the overhead would stretch for a few hundred meters to keep the battery topped up during initial acceleration. Once it passes out of the station the panto would be lowered and kept down until stopped at the next station, with the battery being charged by regenerative braking.

Keeping the battery topped up at each station and using the trains on commuter routes with short inter-station distances would substantially reduce the total weight required, and the Alstoms aren't doing anything anyway so stripping them down and refitting the traction gear is more feasible than designing a new EMU from scratch.

Once the trials were complete production BEMUs could be created from the 8500s as they come up for mid-life refit, with a view to operating "beyond the wire" in Dublin to supplement or replace outer suburban diesels.

All of this will never happen of course - but it's an interesting hypothetical

limklad

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Almost 100 years prior to the Drumm South Dublin had Brunels atmospheric Railway which ran successfully between Dalkey and Dunlaoghaire for about 10 years and even reached a speed of over 80mph. :eek:

This technology would have been quite successful only for the problem of rats gnawing at the leather seals along the slotted pressure pipe which drove the train.

If people were encouraged to breed more cats along the route this technology could possibly be looked into again.

You forgot about this bit on using third class passengers

Dublin Rail wrote:

http://homepage.eircom.net/~tulips/ei/ges-atmospheric.htm
If a train stopped short of the station, the third-class passengers were requested to help push the train,

I would hate having to push the train up the hill with second and First class passengers in it when it rains or if the wind blowing down the hill against the Train.

Hungerford

Judgement Day wrote: »

Jaysus there's a lot of Board's servants out tonight. Seriously though, you're missing the point. The AEC railcars had the drivers cab right across the front and the passengers could see out if the blinds were up so I don't understand your point about automatic doors.

My apologies. I thought that you wanted a cab that was to one side of the train. As long as the cab stretches across the front and the driver can see the doors on both sides, it doesn't matter what the walls are made of. Indeed, the Luas has a glass wall between the driver and the passengers.

corktina

dowlingm wrote: »

The idea is a bit mad but let's humour it a bit. The Alstom DARTs could be used as an prototype for a battery train similar to the Citadis 302 units in Nice. Let's say they are sent to Cork to replace the 2600s on the Midleton service (the reason I'm using Midleton rather than Cobh is the more urban nature of most stations making it easier to stick a 1500V DC substation there).

Train retains panto but traction gear is linked to a heavy duty battery - there would be no direct motor-panto link. In Kent or when parked overnight, the panto would be raised to charge the battery, and the overhead would stretch for a few hundred meters to keep the battery topped up during initial acceleration. Once it passes out of the station the panto would be lowered and kept down until stopped at the next station, with the battery being charged by regenerative braking.

Keeping the battery topped up at each station and using the trains on commuter routes with short inter-station distances would substantially reduce the total weight required, and the Alstoms aren't doing anything anyway so stripping them down and refitting the traction gear is more feasible than designing a new EMU from scratch.

Once the trials were complete production BEMUs could be created from the 8500s as they come up for mid-life refit, with a view to operating "beyond the wire" in Dublin to supplement or replace outer suburban diesels.

All of this will never happen of course - but it's an interesting hypothetical

I know this is but an example but it isnt a good one as the pool of units that go to Midleton also go to Cobh and Mallow, making this expensive and complicated to implement.
I dont think that much charge would get to the batteries in the few seconds the units would stop at intermediate stations and thus this facitiy would be not needed. Simialrly, these services are relative slow and regenerative braking wouldnt make much difference either.This style of braking would mostly be of benefit with heavy frieghts going down long inclines or with an intensive suburban service á lá Southern Railway UK type.
What you are proposing is a Parry People Mover GT I think...

Judgement Day

noelfirl wrote: »

Your incredible arrogance in suggesting that anyone who disagrees with your vehemently anti-CIE point of view is astounding. At best you display nothing short of breathtaking disdain for anyone who does not immediately beat the drum of hunt them out and string them up.

To be frank, I think the only reason you are harping on about the front view is due to the incredibly tinted rose-glasses you wear about childhood experiences with the AEC railcars and your presumption that just because it was a design aspect at that time, that it should be one now. You have provided one example of such a setup from Peru (which, without researching, appears to be more atmospheric and tourist directed then standard Irish Intercity rail), I do not doubt that there is more then one example. However, as I have pointed out, the vast majority of national rail operators in Europe have not (or at least do not, at this time) operate such setups, suggesting that this is not a design feature that concerns them much (with the exception of DB, on the ICE service), this is really astounding I suppose, since it is generally accepted that European rail operators generally put more thought into there patrons needs, well I guess they'll be sending you royalty cheques for your suggestion, it having never occurred to them before that such a nugget of ingeniousness would be critical important in boosting passenger satisfaction.

On the nature of your latter ideas, wheelchairs, bikes, etc., I would not dare to suggest that these are bad provisions, but I contest that they are of any signficant importance, or would be, if improved, in increasing patronage or satisfaction. The key points, as I see it to improving those metrics would be 1) improval of journey times, 2) improvement of comfort vis-a-vis the rail quality Dublin-Cork and other lines, 3) improval of journey options, with regards to later/earlier/more frequent operating intervals and 4) retention of competitive fares, even if journey times, comfort and journey options are improved by investment, both of the monetary and of the improved management type. I contest your mini-ideas as being of lesser importance in terms of the overall operational quality of railway in this country, and I particularly contest this battery train discussion which has taken up the first two pages of this thread, but which I hope everyone reading knows, is complete pie in the sky. With regard to your oft-put forward idea of re-introducing Fastrack as a cornerstone of re-invigorating the railway's fortunes, I note that you never provided a satisfactory reason in another thread (where I raised the issue) as to why Irish Rail, with subvention, should be operating a competing parcel delivery service when we have a far more economically viable spread of courier/delivery companies capable of providing such services via our heavily-improved intercity road network. I thus also contest this idea as being of any importance in the future of the rail. The road network, by the way, also draws back to my primary points above, about what I think are critical aspects of improving rail viability. Like it or lump it, we now have a road network that provides a more decent in many respects alternative to rail transport to the large cities. Whether or not we should, as taxpayers, invest untold amounts of money in improving rail competitivity against road, is a topic for another thread.

Now, as regards my 91 posts versus your 3000-odd, I would never deny myself as mainly a reader, less a contributor to most boards I frequent. I don't think there's any rule against that is there? None-the-less despite what you might think, lacking in post number does not exclude me, or any other poster, from picking up on or addressing anyone, who I or anyone feel is off the mark with regard to their posting. And you may feel you can take the high ground with your a) age and b) post-number, I will not regress from pointing out that I think your arguments are unconvincing, blindingly tinted by reminiscing to the past, and underlain by a current of hatred against CIE.

*Whom, by the way, I do not work for, would not be sorry to see gone, but do not feel is necessary to engage in such vitriolic rhetoric against, when it is clear that such an approach will get you nowhere in the real world.

Wow, that was some post! Your longest on the Boards? I note that I seem to provoke your ire more than most, as about 10% of your posts are replies to mine. Whether it's 'Why Ireland's Railways are under threat', 'Rail Gourmet hard to stomach' or the current thread I seem to be irritating you - sorry.

I suppose my arrogance stems from 25+ years of tolerating fools gladly but now that I'm in my dotage I no longer am prepared to. Yes, I have a pathological hatred of CIE/IE born of years of dealing directly with over all sorts of issues. And I feel that there is nothing to be lost by 'engaging in vitriolic rhetoric' against them at every opportunity as nothing else works and they need to be exposed for what they are.

As regards the issue of front view access from railcars - it is a minor side issue and nothing to do with looking at it from childhood experiences. By the time I travelled on the AEC railcars - by then converted to push-pull operation - the experience was anything but exotic with torn and dirty leatherette seats, no toilets etc.etc. but that did not detract from the one pleasant feature - the view. For somebody to claim, as you have, that there is nothing to be seen from the front of train indicates to me that you are either severely visually impaired or stone dead.

The Drumm Train suggestion I submitted to 'Your Country, Your Call' was intended to see what response it would elicit - thus far none. The concept, as has been commented on by several here, is basically sound. You dismiss it with derision without saying why - and the reason is you don't know why do you?

As regards the number of posts, the point that I was trying to make is that I'm passionate about a range of issues and come on here to discuss them, whereas you appear to contribute little other than to knock suggestions - certainly in my case.

Finally, as regards Fastrack - I have answered this question ad nauseum - a train runs from A to B and costs X to run, the more revenue it generates from passengers/Fastrack/bicycles/catering etc. the less it costs to run. The less the train costs to run the more money is available for A+E, special needs assistants, social welfare etc.etc.

Finally, and sorry, but by way of yet another arrogant statement, I have operated trains on CIE/IE, built and run my own tourist railway and have 32 years of railway interest/experience behind me - how about you? I believe that Irish railways can be saved from oblivion, that they are worth saving but not with CIE as the operating company - how about you?