Remember travelling in 50's/60's Irish Rail rolling stock?

bobblepuzzle

Yer I remember :mad:

Had to travel on ****ty Mark 1's from the 50's/60's I think, they were to Dundalk going to college in 2002! :eek: WTF like!

I typed a strongly worded email to IR at the time.... anyone have the same ****ty experience everyday? The coaches were freezing, despite the heaters in the floor, and you could hear the water slushing back and forth from them...

Run_to_da_hills

I went to primary school in timber compartment carriages, no these were not the ones with the corridore. They had no pass throughs and you couldn't even pass from one compartment to the other, we called them "horse boxes". You had pull down a leather strap with holes in it to keep the window open. Pulled by C Class and GM141 locos. I would guess much of the suberban rolling stock of the late 60's would have been passed down from mainline and pre war, 1st world war at that.

Secondary school consisted with travelling in something more luxurious, AEC Railcars, park royal coaches and the odd Craven from the Wexford express train.

College consisted in travelling in cocktails of 1950's era Park Royals, Cravens, Push pull AEC railcars and Dart 8100 series after 1984.

One must note, the life span of some of these coaches particularly the home build park royals was expected to be 15 years, their life expectancy well exceeded that by double. On the other hand the MK3's were expected to last up to 30 years, ironically their life on the rails was cut in half.

flyingsnail

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Yer I remember :mad:

Had to travel on ****ty Mark 1's from the 50's/60's I think, they were to Dundalk going to college in 2002! :eek: WTF like!

I typed a strongly worded email to IR at the time.... anyone have the same ****ty experience everyday? The coaches were freezing, despite the heaters in the floor, and you could hear the water slushing back and forth from them...

You are probably thinking of cravens. They had heating at floor level but I don't remember the sound of water, unless the outlet was blocked and the steam cooled down inside the heating cylinder.

bobblepuzzle

flyingsnail wrote: »

You are probably thinking of cravens. They had heating at floor level but I don't remember the sound of water, unless the outlet was blocked and the steam cooled down inside the heating cylinder.

Steam came off the heaters to... disgusting environment

Run_to_da_hills

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Steam came off the heaters to... disgusting environment

Even more disgusting, people used to smoke on top of that.

CIE

I never rode in any Cravens, Park Royals or Laminates (remember those? I miss the interior configuration; we need more of those on Dublin-Cork instead of the Mark IVs and 22000 DMUs) with heating system problems. Suppose I was lucky.

FTR, Cravens date from 1964; so they lasted 42 years. The last cars that ran that were built in the 50s were the Park Royals, withdrawn in '94 I believe. As for the wasteful fate of the Mark 3s, I'll never change my opinion on that.

L1011

Lived in Craven and later Mk2-land for a very long time until enough 2900(0)'s arrived to take over.

Can remember occasionally travelling in some era of coach that had centre doors in the car, I presume these would have been Park Royals, this was before the first 2600s appeared.

I can also remember the rented Class 80s, which were used to provide services on the slowly reopening Maynooth line at the time, thats going back about as far as I can!

Run_to_da_hills

Buttevant killed off much of the older pre 60's timber based carriages in this country.

I found the Park Royals very comfortable, they seemed much wider than normal carriages with high top bench seating 3 / 2 across.

Losty Dublin

MYOB wrote: »

Lived in Craven and later Mk2-land for a very long time until enough 2900(0)'s arrived to take over.

Can remember occasionally travelling in some era of coach that had centre doors in the car, I presume these would have been Park Royals, this was before the first 2600s appeared.

Park Royals didn't have centre doors. Some of the Mark 2 carriages had a central door; these were in what were referred as composite carriages and would have had some standard and some first class accommodation in them. There were other carriages that had compartments with their own doors and while a few had access doors though their length with conventional seating arrangements

MYOB wrote: »

I can also remember the rented Class 80s, which were used to provide services on the slowly reopening Maynooth line at the time, thats going back about as far as I can!

And they are still running up north to this day. At the time, NIR had surplus sets and were even considering selling Irish Rail two sets before they had a surge in passenger numbers and called them back as they bumped up their service levels. One set was allocated for the Greystones shuttle train before it ceased around 1990; the Maynooth train then used a short train of carriages until it went over to railcars in 1994.

Run_to_da_hills

A rare shot of a class 80 at Dunlaoghaire during engineering works between Bray. These trains also sounded awesome, nicknamed thumpers in the North.



Iarnrod Eireann recently made a poor attempt to copy the style of these unusual trains by blocking off the pass throughs on the 2700's

highlydebased

MYOB wrote: »

Can remember occasionally travelling in some era of coach that had centre doors in the car, I presume these would have been Park Royals, this was before the first 2600s appeared.

I think some of the ex BR MK2's had center doors

The Stroller

An interesting topic. I worked for Irish Rail based at Connolly between 1991 and 1999. I worked most of those trains as a Guard except the 80 class.

The Maynooth line before the doubling of the track between Clonsilla and Maynooth saw anything from Parkroyals, Cravens, MK2A/B, hauled push-pulls basically anything could turn up!

Run_to_da_hills

The Maynooth line had some 121's hauling commute, something we never saw on the pre Dart bray line except for the pair that ran the Rosslare train.

CIE

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Buttevant killed off much of the older pre 60's timber based carriages in this country

If a similar accident happened today, the results would be just as devastating. Even if you had carriages built like an old US heavyweight coach, with six-wheel bogies and all that steel, you'd have the same number of deaths and injuries. The greater need back then (as today) is greater attention to infrastructure and signalling.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I found the Park Royals very comfortable, they seemed much wider than normal carriages with high top bench seating 3 / 2 across.

They didn't merely seem wider; they were indeed wider, at 10 feet 2 inches (about four inches narrower than the USA's current 10' 6" width). No carriage since has been built to take advantage of Ireland's loading gauge.

DWCommuter

CIE wrote: »

If a similar accident happened today, the results would be just as devastating. Even if you had carriages built like an old US heavyweight coach, with six-wheel bogies and all that steel, you'd have the same number of deaths and injuries.

I know we are getting off topic, but are you sure about that? The considered cause of the fatality level (according to the formal investigation) was put down to wooden bodied coaches, just like those at Cherryville. Of the 18 people killed at Buttevant, the majority were in the first four coaches that were built of timber. Similar circumstances applied at Cherryville where the speed involved was significantly lower. I think its a little misleading to make the claim you have made.

CIE

DWCommuter wrote: »

I know we are getting off topic, but are you sure about that? The considered cause of the fatality level (according to the formal investigation) was put down to wooden bodied coaches, just like those at Cherryville. Of the 18 people killed at Buttevant, the majority were in the first four coaches that were built of timber. Similar circumstances applied at Cherryville where the speed involved was significantly lower. I think its a little misleading to make the claim you have made.

There are other considerations, such as centre of gravity, momentum (a steel or aluminium carriage would be carried further forward striking the engine with greater force, and pushing further off the track into adjacent structures, perhaps even rolling off the track due to momentum), plus perhaps any inherent difference between the relative emergency-stopping power of vacuum and air braking systems.

Either way, the cause of the accidents in both cited cases were significant that you'd end up with just as disastrous results today. (Why should there have been train-train collisions in the 80s, when there had been automatic train stopping systems in use for decades in the world? never mind points incidents such as at Buttevant.)

corktina

DWCommuter wrote: »

I know we are getting off topic, but are you sure about that? The considered cause of the fatality level (according to the formal investigation) was put down to wooden bodied coaches, just like those at Cherryville. Of the 18 people killed at Buttevant, the majority were in the first four coaches that were built of timber. Similar circumstances applied at Cherryville where the speed involved was significantly lower. I think its a little misleading to make the claim you have made.

absolute nonsense of a claim I say.....steel bodied cars with all-buckeye couplings are designed to resist over-riding and telescoping and are many times safer than timber bodeid coaches.Even if derailed they have a tendancy to stay inline and intact. Takr that ICE in Geramny some years ago which was derailed....it stayed upright and intact fior some distance until it hit (unfortunately) a motorway bridge.

Judgement Day

CIE wrote: »

There are other considerations, such as centre of gravity, momentum (a steel or aluminium carriage would be carried further forward striking the engine with greater force, and pushing further off the track into adjacent structures, perhaps even rolling off the track due to momentum), plus perhaps any inherent difference between the relative emergency-stopping power of vacuum and air braking systems.

Either way, the cause of the accidents in both cited cases were significant that you'd end up with just as disastrous results today. (Why should there have been train-train collisions in the 80s, when there had been automatic train stopping systems in use for decades in the world? never mind points incidents such as at Buttevant.)

Lack of investment by the State and sloppy operating practices by CIE - it's all there in the enquiry reports.

corktina

Buttevant is one of those sad chapter of errors which shouldnt have happened but still do. If people are operating slackly and without proper supervision, then such accidents are inevitable.

DWCommuter

corktina wrote: »

absolute nonsense of a claim I say.....steel bodied cars with all-buckeye couplings are designed to resist over-riding and telescoping and are many times safer than timber bodeid coaches.Even if derailed they have a tendancy to stay inline and intact. Takr that ICE in Geramny some years ago which was derailed....it stayed upright and intact fior some distance until it hit (unfortunately) a motorway bridge.

Yes I know it was nonsense corktina. But I'm on probation so I'll insist on politeness.;)

corktina

good to have your valued contributions back

CIE

corktina wrote: »

absolute nonsense of a claim I say.....steel bodied cars with all-buckeye couplings are designed to resist over-riding and telescoping and are many times safer than timber bodeid coaches.Even if derailed they have a tendancy to stay inline and intact. Takr that ICE in Geramny some years ago which was derailed....it stayed upright and intact fior some distance until it hit (unfortunately) a motorway bridge

Apples and oranges comparisons aren't going to get a point across. The characteristics of those accidents in question are completely different. And frankly, 101 deaths are a great catastrophe especially compared to Buttevant and even Cherryville Junction.

There was another crash that I can think of, back in 1951 involving the Pennsylvania Railroad's Broker, a commuter train in New Jersey, which used all-steel cars of even heavier construction than the ICE 1 at Eschede; going over a temporary trestle in Woodbridge N.J., the train derailed and caused 84 deaths.

So since I didn't make a point about carriage construction (note my comments again), but rather potential to cause death, my point stands.

corktina

CIE wrote: »

So since I didn't make a point about carriage construction (note my comments again), but rather potential to cause death, my point stands.

just to remind people what you did say..
."If a similar accident happened today, the results would be just as devastating. Even if you had carriages built like an old US heavyweight coach, with six-wheel bogies and all that steel, you'd have the same number of deaths and injuries"

People can make their own minds about whether your point stands or was total tripe in the first place....

CIE

corktina wrote: »

just to remind people what you did say..
."If a similar accident happened today, the results would be just as devastating. Even if you had carriages built like an old US heavyweight coach, with six-wheel bogies and all that steel, you'd have the same number of deaths and injuries"

People can make their own minds about whether your point stands or was total tripe in the first place....

I know exactly what I said. It's not a matter of perspective. It's a matter of whether people will survive or die. The building materials of carriages seem to make less of a difference than infrastructure safety and keeping up on it, which is why I didn't mention what might happen to the carriages in an accident, but that people were in danger of dying without respect to what happened to the carriages. If the train at Buttevant were all-Craven stock but had the same number of deaths, what would one say then?

corktina

wheres the "yawn" smilie?

L1011

CIE wrote: »

There was another crash that I can think of, back in 1951 involving the Pennsylvania Railroad's Broker, a commuter train in New Jersey, which used all-steel cars of even heavier construction than the ICE 1 at Eschede; going over a temporary trestle in Woodbridge N.J., the train derailed and caused 84 deaths..

It rolled down an steep enbankment. Not really Buttevant comparable.

Also: "The fifth and sixth cars were left hanging in mid-air over a street which was shiny from rain, and many who survived the crash jumped to their deaths believing they would land in water."

And the train had 1100 people on it, compared to 230 at Buttevant so the % killed isn't anywhere near as dramatically higher as you'd like to make it seem.

Losty Dublin

CIE wrote: »

I know exactly what I said. It's not a matter of perspective. It's a matter of whether people will survive or die. The building materials of carriages seem to make less of a difference than infrastructure safety and keeping up on it, which is why I didn't mention what might happen to the carriages in an accident, but that people were in danger of dying without respect to what happened to the carriages.

The materials and structural build and integrity of the carriage is the first and most fundamental thing that serves to prevents deaths (And to some extent injuries) in the event of a crashed train as it is the only constant involved in a crash.

CIE wrote: »

If the train at Buttevant were all-Craven stock but had the same number of deaths, what would one say then?

I'd actually say that you ought to shut up now as you clearly appear to have no idea as to what you are talking about. Cravens were involved in the Buttevant disaster and actually came out of it fairly well; recommendation 6 of the accident inquiry addresses this.

CIE

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The materials and structural build and integrity of the carriage is the first and most fundamental thing that serves to prevents deaths (And to some extent injuries) in the event of a crashed train as it is the only constant involved in a crash

Constants do not dictate what happens to people in a crash. The variables do. Citing Eschede erroneously throws that fact into stark relief.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I'd actually say that you ought to shut up now as you clearly appear to have no idea as to what you are talking about. Cravens were involved in the Buttevant disaster and actually came out of it fairly well; recommendation 6 of the accident inquiry addresses this

And the accident inquiry is the absolute authority? especially its opinions?

Sorry, but telling me to "shut up" makes me do the opposite. I have a problem with personal attacks; I don't tend to stand for them. The fact is that the Cravens were not the lead carriages and did not strike the locomotive; the emergency braking effects saved them and their occupants from further damage. Either way, the cause of the accident was the problem and instead everyone's focussing on the effects. It's an insult to the dead and injured to be more concerned about losses to the company than to its customers, never mind the company in question's blatant lack of concern for safety (now I never said that wood construction was not part of this to a degree, but really, the infrastructure constants and variables should have been better controlled, because deaths could have happened no matter the vehicle construction, which was my point; please re-read).

(Meanwhile, super-light automobiles of maybe 0.5-0.75 tonnes drive alongside 7-tonne "supertrucks" and this is not a safety problem.)

myob wrote: »

It rolled down (a) steep enbankment. Not really Buttevant comparable

Not the whole train by far. And it's about as comparable to Buttevant as Eschede is, which is what I meant.

myob wrote: »

And the train had 1100 people on it, compared to 230 at Buttevant so the % killed isn't anywhere near as dramatically higher as you'd like to make it seem

Focussing on percentage of deaths is, WADR, callous. That's never the point in an accident.

L1011

CIE wrote: »

.Focussing on percentage of deaths is, WADR, callous. That's never the point in an accident.

It rather is the point when you're comparing unlike with like. Its about the only thing that can be seen as a constant.

For some surreal reason you're trying to claim that the utterly lethal, prone-to-concertina-ing wooden carriages weren't the main cause of deaths at Buttevant and you're trying to compare it to something completely different.

Why you're doing that, feck knows.

I was on the RPSI's wooden bodied set back in March. Wooden bodied coaches are banned from most routes, only allowed on Dublin-Sligo and Dublin-Rosslare I believe, and are restricted to 40mph on the routes they are allowed to run on. While the Park Royals aren't wooden they're still treated as such.

I wasn't a fan of the Cravens when they were in service, usually found them to be terribly maintained. Spent many a day travelling on them between Mallow and Tralee and on a few occasions got the direct 1310 Heuston-Tralee which always used an 071 and Cravens. I haven't been on one since November 2006 but I'd probably take up the opportunity for another go if I got the chance, just for the nostalgia factor. But my favourite by far was the Mark 3.

corktina

Its not really that the bodies are made of wood thats the problem, its really that the underframes are seperate and the body tends to be dislodged or disintegrates and the solid underframe scythes though the next carriage. Integral construction and buckeye coupling stops this happening, keeps the train more or less intact and in line and reduces the chance of telescoping.

There are several good books I would recomend on the subject of accidents, those by R T Rolt O S Nock and Adrian Vaughan come to mind.

Judgement Day

Towards the end of pre-DART (1984) services on the Dublin Suburban system anything with wheels could be pressed into service - especially on Friday evenings when the best suburban stock was robbed for the mainline. I can still remember travelling from Connolly to Bray one evening in a six coach train which had two (!) Radio Studio side-corridor carriages as part of its make-up. I no longer have a copy of the excellent Hirsch & Doyle stockbook but from memory one of the RS carriages only had a nominal 8 (!) seats in it, but there was standing room in the side corridor. And you tell young people today and they don't believe you.

Incidentally, one of the reasons that the far sighted Garret Fitzgerald and his followers were against the DART was the inability to rob the EMUs for the mainlines at weekends - I kid you not!

corktina

well, speaking friom my viewpoint in this cardboard box in middle of t'road, I remember stock on the Cork mainline with a lavatory compartment converted to seating....that would have been 1987...

The Stroller

corktina wrote: »

well, speaking friom my viewpoint in this cardboard box in middle of t'road, I remember stock on the Cork mainline with a lavatory compartment converted to seating....that would have been 1987...

Sounds like one of the Park Royal Brake Standards (1941TL to 1948TL). The Guards compartment was in a toilet cubicle and contained a long black leather seat. I say that is what you saw as they were never locked off properly and I often found passengers sitting there.

Judgement Day

That the laminated stock was unfit for purpose is well illustrated by this pic I took of 3211 at Bray (pre-DART) - the result of a low speed shunting accident. This type of timber construction was the cause of many deaths at Buttevant and Cherryville.

Judgement Day

And this happy pic at Mullingar Scrapyard as we said farewell to another AEC railcar - probably shaved with it since.

Losty Dublin

CIE wrote: »

Constants do not dictate what happens to people in a crash. The variables do. Citing Eschede erroneously throws that fact into stark relief.And the accident inquiry is the absolute authority? especially its opinions?

Sorry, but telling me to "shut up" makes me do the opposite. I have a problem with personal attacks; I don't tend to stand for them. The fact is that the Cravens were not the lead carriages and did not strike the locomotive; the emergency braking effects saved them and their occupants from further damage. Either way, the cause of the accident was the problem and instead everyone's focussing on the effects. It's an insult to the dead and injured to be more concerned about losses to the company than to its customers, never mind the company in question's blatant lack of concern for safety (now I never said that wood construction was not part of this to a degree, but really, the infrastructure constants and variables should have been better controlled, because deaths could have happened no matter the vehicle construction, which was my point; please re-read).

(Meanwhile, super-light automobiles of maybe 0.5-0.75 tonnes drive alongside 7-tonne "supertrucks" and this is not a safety problem.)Not the whole train by far. And it's about as comparable to Buttevant as Eschede is, which is what I meant.Focussing on percentage of deaths is, WADR, callous. That's never the point in an accident.

I've read this post several times and I'm still lost for words as to how misleading, inaccurate and downright silly it is.

Regardless of what esteem (or lack thereof) you hold an accident enquiry in, the point remains that accidents worldwide have all come to the conclusion that wooden bodied stock are a massive safety liability for passengers in the case of a crash and that they must either be removed from traffic altogether or severely limited in terms of speed and service availability to minimise injuries/death. This view is held by Irish Rail, NIR, it's held here by the Railway Safety Commission, it's held by the RPSI who run what wooden stock remains on our network, it was held by accident enquiries and it was held by the Government of the day when they allowed CIE to purchase Mark 3 stock to replace Park Royals, Bredins, railcars, brake vans and other non tubular or steel framed passenger stock.

Nobody is arguing that there are other elements involved accidents but elements that can be improved on in the event of an accident for the safety of passengers will always be the rolling stock that they are carried in. The pic JD posted up of a railcar damaged in a shunting accident should demonstrate how delicate paneled stock is.

corktina

unfortunately there are people who will bend and misinterpret facts deliberatley in order to justify statements they foolishly make rather than accept they have made a boo-boo.

The facts here are that the opinion was given that the use of modern rolling stock in the Buttevant crash would have resulted in the same number of casulties . That is patently WRONG and has been shown as such, yet this guy still keeps insisting that HE is right. Very odd indeed.

CIE

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I've read this post several times and I'm still lost for words as to how misleading, inaccurate and downright silly it is

"Misleading" implies that I'm trying to make a point that doesn't exist in reality. However, all I see is my comments repeatedly being misinterpreted, which is where the "downright sill(iness)" seems to really be sourced. It's a strange case of circular reasoning and evasion of the point.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Regardless of what esteem (or lack thereof) you hold an accident enquiry in, the point remains that accidents worldwide have all come to the conclusion that wooden bodied stock are a massive safety liability for passengers in the case of a crash and that they must either be removed from traffic altogether or severely limited in terms of speed and service availability to minimise injuries/death. This view is held by Irish Rail, NIR, it's held here by the Railway Safety Commission, it's held by the RPSI who run what wooden stock remains on our network, it was held by accident enquiries and it was held by the Government of the day when they allowed CIE to purchase Mark 3 stock to replace Park Royals, Bredins, railcars, brake vans and other non tubular or steel framed passenger stock

But it's not the case that it can minimise death/injury all by itself. It can certainly minimise destruction of property. What minimises death and injury to passengers is not being negligent of safety on the alignment, especially when it comes to maintenance, signalling, et al.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Nobody is arguing that there are other elements involved accidents but elements that can be improved on in the event of an accident for the safety of passengers will always be the rolling stock that they are carried in. The pic JD posted up of a railcar damaged in a shunting accident should demonstrate how delicate paneled stock is.

I didn't claim that anyone's arguing that point with me, which is funny. I'm merely saying that I didn't bring it up with my comments about relative safety. There is no record of travel being overall less safe due to construction of coaches; indeed, passengers have travelled safely for many decades in wooden-bodied stock thanks to safety controls. Once those controls are relaxed, the danger quotient goes up. I'm certainly not advocating a return to wood-body construction (and resent anyone trying to imply that I am); I'm merely saying that the relative safety between wood and metal bodies is indeed relative, and if infrastructure/signalling safety standards are lax, passengers are in danger in either case. OK?

corktina

No you said the result would be the same for different constructions....it clearly would NOT be the same and many deaths and injuries have been avoided due to modern intergral construction and coupling systems.

I should like to see a rail enthisiast forum on here, but whilst you constantly post mis-information to further your political ends, this is unlikely to happen.