Decommissioned 8200 Dart units. Now a permanent feature at Fairview.

Run_to_da_hills

Whats exactly wrong with these 10 units that have now become part of the furniture at the Fairview Dart depot?

Is it a mechanical or electrical problem?



Surely a third party should now be called in at this stage to refit, modify or sort them out if the original manufacturers GEC Alstom of Spain are incapable of fixing them.

Back in 1956 when CIE bought the Metrovics, the Crossley motors didn't last very long, a third party, GM was called in and CIE never looked back. Could the same not be done with these? IE call on Siemens or Tokyu to refurbish them?.

It is an awful waste of tax payers money to see these units depreciating and rotting away when they should be in regular service.

Cookie_Monster

GM was called in and CIE never looked back

GM were very very reluctant to provide engines only and it took CIE a few years to convince them to do so.

As for the DARTs they even have permenant wooden chocks under the wheels now! I don't understand why they do not just return them as unfit for service. the seating on these were totally unsuitable too, very small.

Run_to_da_hills

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

GM were very very reluctant to provide engines only and it took CIE a few years to convince them to do so.

As for the DARTs they even have permanent wooden chocks under the wheels now! I don't understand why they do not just return them as unfit for service. the seating on these were totally unsuitable too, very small.

That contract paid off well and won CIE over for further orders in 121. 141, 181 etc and a total switch away from UK manufactures.

If Siemens or Tokyu stepped in it would not go down too well with GEC Alstom particularly if it was well publicized.

Is there anywhere else in Europe or the world using these units?

RENFE have been using GEC Alstom for years, do they have similar problems with after sales?.

Another point as you mentioned, why weren't these trains sent back? If IR can send two 22000's back to Korea surely they can do the same here.

Cookie_Monster

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

That contract paid off well and won CIE over for further orders in 121. 141, 181 etc and a total switch away from UK manufactures.

agree totally, add 071 and 201 to that. Even the UK is going GM these days with the 66 and 70.

If Siemens or Tokyu stepped in it would not go down too well with GEC Alstom particularly if it was well publicized.

I reckon they wouldn't touch them at this stage

Another point as you mentioned, why weren't these trains sent back? If IR can send two 22000's back to Korea surely they can do the same here.

who knows? the 22k didn't even leave the port though as the issues were immediatly identified, maybe as they 8200 were in service for some time before breaking down there was some issue. With all the rumours of corruption and incompetance in IE on this baord alsone maybe they came to some super sekret agreement to just ignore them or something

Ham'nd'egger

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

That contract paid off well and won CIE over for further orders in 121. 141, 181 etc and a total switch away from UK manufactures.

141 and 121 locos were ordered several years before any new engine heads for the 001 class were ordered from GM so it had no bearing on orders at all.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

If Siemens or Tokyu stepped in it would not go down too well with GEC Alstom particularly if it was well publicized.

It wouldn't make any material difference who refurbishes them; the fact that the units are largeluy unfit for traffic is detrimental either to the operator, the supplier of the sets or both. Given that Alstom are one of the most renowned brands in electric train construction and Irish Rail have never had major issues with the other DART units

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Is there anywhere else in Europe or the world using these units?

Nobody else uses them otherwise they'd not be in Fairview depot all the time

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

RENFE have been using GEC Alstom for years, do they have similar problems with after sales?.

Probable that they have had issue. There was Spanish staff sent over for commissioning/warranty work for some years after delivery as is the case with any railroad order worldwide.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Another point as you mentioned, why weren't these trains sent back? If IR can send two 22000's back to Korea surely they can do the same here.

22000's were returned unfit before they were even unloaded here due to damage in transit. 8200's have had sporadic returns to traffic but also have issues with the cabins being less suitable compared to 8100 and 8500 class DART's so they are not missed.

patrickbrophy18

The odd thing is that the design of these units are loosely based on the 2700 Commuter DMU's which were also manufactured by GEC Alstom. However, unlike their electric cousins, the 2700's are fitted with what looks like more comfortable seating with head rests and all:


What IE should have done when ordering the "new" DART units from Alstom was to make sure that the seat design was also based on those found in their deisel cousins. In fact, the seats in the 2700's appear to be similar to those seen in the 29000's. The seats in the Alstom DART units are rock hard and feel like those plastic seats that are used in class rooms. I can't imagine that it would be too difficult to fit the units with better seats. Either way, it is a disgrace that tax payers money was spent on these units and it is going to waste not even a decade later.

shamwari

Nobody seems to have answered the key question posed by the OP: what exactly is wrong with these Alsthom Units which are precluding them from giving regular and effective service?

Hungerford

shamwari wrote: »

Nobody seems to have answered the key question posed by the OP: what exactly is wrong with these Alsthom Units which are precluding them from giving regular and effective service?

Lack of spare parts and useless management.

shamwari

Hungerford wrote: »

Lack of spare parts and useless management.

Useless management perhaps, but I don't buy this notion of a lack of spare parts. There are GM loco's in use which all predate those DART units and there are no spare parts issues with these. Likewise for the 2700 rail cars, which are also an Alsthom product. I reckon IE can't send them back because they have them now for so long, and the manufacturer would base a defence around IE's lethargy in raising a complaint.

One way or another, its a shockingly bad waste.

Stonewolf

shamwari wrote: »

Useless management perhaps, but I don't buy this notion of a lack of spare parts. There are GM loco's in use which all predate those DART units and there are no spare parts issues with these. Likewise for the 2700 rail cars, which are also an Alsthom product. I reckon IE can't send them back because they have them now for so long, and the manufacturer would base a defence around IE's lethargy in raising a complaint.

One way or another, its a shockingly bad waste.

The GM locos are largely standardised mechanicly, they differ from their American cousins largely cosmeticly and by gauge and specification. The market for spare parts for them is enormous because those types of engines were/are the backbone of US freight operations.

Cookie_Monster

Stonewolf wrote: »

The GM locos are largely standardised mechanicly, they differ from their American cousins largely cosmeticly and by gauge and specification.

even though the later ones were built in Canada
:P

Run_to_da_hills

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

The odd thing is that the design of these units are loosely based on the 2700 Commuter DMU's which were also manufactured by GEC Alstom. However, unlike their electric cousins, the 2700's are fitted with what looks like more comfortable seating with head rests and all:


What IE should have done when ordering the "new" DART units from Alstom was to make sure that the seat design was also based on those found in their deisel cousins. In fact, the seats in the 2700's appear to be similar to those seen in the 29000's. The seats in the Alstom DART units are rock hard and feel like those plastic seats that are used in class rooms. I can't imagine that it would be too difficult to fit the units with better seats. Either way, it is a disgrace that tax payers money was spent on these units and it is going to waste not even a decade later.

For those of us that can remember CIE once used plastic "class room seats" fitted lengthways along the AEC Railcars when they were converted to DVT pre Dart, nothing could have been as bad as these however one solution for the Alstom Darts would be to rip out the seats altogether and fit seats in this configuration, also fit grab bars to allow for more standing room. This is the configuration used on much of the deep level tube lines and is more suitable for narrower carriages.

Cookie_Monster

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

For those of us that can remember CIE once used plastic "class room seats" fitted lengthways along the AEC Railcars when they were converted to DVT pre Dart, nothing could have been as bad as these however one solution for the Alstom Darts would be to rip out the seats altogether and fit seats in this configuration, also fit grab bars to allow for more standing room. This is the configuration used on much of the deep level tube lines and is more suitable for narrower carriages.

snip pic

I would imagine the argument there would be there number of doors is insufficient for the extra capacity that would allow and since they cannot really control capacity they could not do this, ie H&S would strike again.

Run_to_da_hills

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I would imagine the argument there would be there number of doors is insufficient for the extra capacity that would allow and since they cannot really control capacity they could not do this, ie H&S would strike again.

I couldn't see this being an issue, if anything it allows quicker evacuation than a conventonal configuration.

dowlingm

Bench seating quite unpopular with some - big backlash when proposed for new subway cars here. Apparently not good if you have motion sickness issues. At the very least some forward-back seats should be retained.

Stonewolf

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

even though the later ones were built in Canada
:P

Remind me again what continent Canada is on.

Run_to_da_hills

dowlingm wrote: »

Bench seating quite unpopular with some - big backlash when proposed for new subway cars here. Apparently not good if you have motion sickness issues. At the very least some forward-back seats should be retained.

Unless Irish commuters suffer from sea sickness more than those in the UK. :P

Again this configuration cannot be that bad if it is chozen on the new London Overground rolling stock. Look at the carriages closely, they are almost exactly the same size and door positions to the GEC Alstoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Overground

Cookie_Monster

Stonewolf wrote: »

Remind me again what continent Canada is on.

The North American one!

Hamndegger

I was once told that the problem with the 8200s is bogie related - how true I don't know.

Hamndegger wrote: »

141 and 121 locos were ordered several years before any new engine heads for the 001 class were ordered from GM so it had no bearing on orders at all.

The new IRRS journal this month has an excellent article on the 141/181 classes. It says the 181 order was conditional on receiving two 12-645E engines as a trial to re-engine the A class locos. But yes, GM were extremely reluctant to do so, saying they didn't want their "superior engines installed in inferior locomotives."

lord lucan

Karsini wrote: »

I was once told that the problem with the 8200s is bogie related - how true I don't know.


The new IRRS journal this month has an excellent article on the 141/181 classes. It says the 181 order was conditional on receiving two 12-645E engines as a trial to re-engine the A class locos. But yes, GM were extremely reluctant to do so, saying they didn't want their "superior engines installed in inferior locomotives."

This book :http://www.amazon.co.uk/Irish-Metro-Vick-Diesels-Colourpoint-Transport/dp/1898392153 has loads of info on the conversion to GM motors and the negotiations involved. Loads of great pics too.:)

Run_to_da_hills

Karsini wrote: »

I was once told that the problem with the 8200s is bogie related - how true I don't know.

And one would have thought that the Spanish were pioneers in bogie technology.

Oliver1985

I wonder are they bad boys making a return to service a set just went flying through Killester out of service:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Hungerford

Oliver1985 wrote: »

I wonder are they bad boys making a return to service a set just went flying through Killester out of service:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

The cynic in me wonders if it is being propelled by a 29K railcar and is on tour to some other depot.

Cookie_Monster

Hungerford wrote: »

The cynic in me wonders if it is being propelled by a 29K railcar and is on tour to some other depot.

hauled by a 201 to replace the broken 22k's perhaps

Oliver1985

Hungerford wrote: »

The cynic in me wonders if it is being propelled by a 29K railcar and is on tour to some other depot.

No was driving by itself good few vests in the front !!!

robd

Maybe the new DART equivalent of this

Sponge Bob

They spent €18m or €19m last year scrapping trains, never could work out how they managed it myself

dowlingm

The problem is there is only 5 x 2 of them, so it makes it hard to contemplate refitting them just to get 10 cars back, or to acquire powered intermediates from Alstom or someone else to bulk them out. I wonder if Siemens were ever asked about Siemensing them into a pseudoLHB config where motors and bogies and control equipment would have been shared across the fleets but that would probably have messed with the tender - EU procurement rules do impede getting things done sometimes.

To me there is only two reasons IE are retaining them: hanging onto them until depreciated to avoid another Sunday Business Post broadside for scrapping them early, or to use as a bargaining chip/trade in when Alstom come calling about the Interconnector EMU order.

Given IE's history with bits and pieces of orders, I really hope that future fleet order will be a decent size, with no more 2 car sets with the loss of seating entailed by redundant cabs. Yes, night services are better off with short sets but the LHBs should be able to fill that role for a long time.

Cookie_Monster

could they simply be fitted in formation with 8100 units to make six or eight carriage trains

8100-8100-8200-8100 giving 8 for example. Effectively trailer cars with a little bit of electrical wiring for lights, doors and so forth. gut the motor etc to lighten them.

Run_to_da_hills

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

could they simply be fitted in formation with 8100 units to make six or eight carriage trains

8100-8100-8200-8100 giving 8 for example. Effectively trailer cars with a little bit of electrical wiring for lights, doors and so forth. gut the motor etc to lighten them.

In general mixed generation EMU/ DMU sets look horrible. :mad:

They may not look too much out of place with the round roofed 8500 Tokyu Car sets.

Oliver1985

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

In general mixed generation EMU/ DMU sets look horrible. :mad:

They may not look too much out of place with the round roofed 8500 Tokyu Car sets.

Maybe we could have a mixed set of emu and dmu for the rush hour :D:D

dowlingm

I believe the 82xx/85xx have been coupled before. However, if the problem is bogie related or is otherwise reliability-impairing you're just hobbling a perfectly good 85xx. Given current ridership it's not really a problem most of the time, and if there hadn't been a delay in receiving back the 81xx they might have been parked even earlier. It's just a shame that IE can park up trains in the open like this - it's hardly like sticking planes in the Mojave where there's no moisture or taggers.

dowlingm

The 8200s can work with the 8500s and sometimes did to create a 6-piece set. Not sure if they can work with the 8100s but I'd assume so.

dowlingm wrote: »

it's hardly like sticking planes in the Mojave where there's no moisture or taggers.

Agreed, the whole cab front of 8402 was covered in graffiti a few years back.

loyatemu

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

They may not look too much out of place with the round roofed 8500 Tokyu Car sets.

plus you'd be creating the most uncomfortable seating combination possible - the hard too-high low-backed seats on the 8200s and the ridiculously close together downward sloping designed for japanese midgets seats on the 8500s. :pac:

dowlingm

IE actually planning to do something, or having fun with spotters - you decide.

GM228 on IRN Board wrote:

According to sources in the DART 8201/8401 and 8203/8405 are undergoing tests ready for a return to service. They were coupled together recently and tested as a four-piece set within the depot. Apparently only these four units will re-enter service and there are no long term plans to return the other three sets to service, one of which I'm told had an electrical fire earlier in the year and would require substantial work for a return to service?

My suspisions are it was 8403 which caught fire and that is why the sets were split, why else would IE split the set and leave part of it out of service because 8203 and 8403 were refurbished last year in Inchicore which included a re-wiring, making it the best of the four sets in Fairview, or mayby not?

Oliver1985

dowlingm wrote: »

IE actually planning to do something, or having fun with spotters - you decide.

That could have been the set(s) i posted a few weeks back in Killester!!!
I wasnt looking at the numbers

Run_to_da_hills

dowlingm wrote: »

IE actually planning to do something, or having fun with spotters - you decide.

Originally Posted by GM228 on IRN Board wrote:

According to sources in the DART 8201/8401 and 8203/8405 are undergoing tests ready for a return to service. They were coupled together recently and tested as a four-piece set within the depot. Apparently only these four units will re-enter service and there are no long term plans to return the other three sets to service, one of which I'm told had an electrical fire earlier in the year and would require substantial work for a return to service?

My suspisions are it was 8403 which caught fire and that is why the sets were split, why else would IE split the set and leave part of it out of service because 8203 and 8403 were refurbished last year in Inchicore which included a re-wiring, making it the best of the four sets in Fairview, or mayby not?

What fool put out the fire.