201 Class Locomotives

corktina

DannyGrey wrote: »

Yes they are crucial

Why do you always take a dig at posters here your a spotter like the rest of us:mad:

It's not a dig. I just wanted to know if this was a special occurence, (which it isn't)

What's crucial about it?


(I'm a pretty poor spotter if thats what I am, I didn't know what 8208 was )

Yeah, Translink have put an 8 or 80 in front of their older (2 or 3-digit) railway vehicles so they'd fit on the Ulsterbus computer system. 208, 111 and 113 have had their numbers changed to 8208, 8111 and 8113 but 112 and 209 are still untouched for now. They did the same with the 80s and the 450s.

Captain Chaos

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Ya but it has 8208 on the loco, NI Railways own it and for some reason that's the way its numbered. Same for 209 but as it doesn't have 8209 on it because its in the old entreprise colours.

The 8xxx number system is Translink's new numbering system from a few years back. It's to match in with the 80 class DEMUs and then the 450 class became the 8450s. I think their busses are numbered that way too. 113 was renumbered 8113 even though it conflicts with IEs DART numbers along with 8111. And IE didn't want the 2900s to conflict with NIR's 3000s so they became the 29000s in 2005. Mad stuff.

Then the new NIR 3000s and 4000s didn't get the 8 prefix. Yet 111 and 208 did. 112 and 209 have yet, if ever to get their 8s.

Edit: Karsini was too quick for me.

The one I still don't get is the numbering of the Mark 3 EGVs. I could understand 7605 being renumbered to 9605 as it's now part of the Enterprise fleet, but why 89605? I just assumed it was a Translink thing again but I was told it wasn't.

Captain Chaos

Karsini wrote: »

The one I still don't get is the numbering of the Mark 3 EGVs. I could understand 7605 being renumbered to 9605 as it's now part of the Enterprise fleet, but why 89605? I just assumed it was a Translink thing again but I was told it wasn't.

Yeah, Translink own all the EGVs as apposed to owning 2 and IE 2. But by that logic all the even numbered DD stock should get the 8 prefix too.

metrovick001

225 in better times - here

metrovick001

metrovick001 wrote: »

225 in better times - here

I'm guessing it's still stopped?

metrovick001

I read onthis board somewhere that it was being repaired and that its return to servicewas imminent.
I thinkthat 225 was the only 201 to be repainted into the original livery, the otherswere painted into the second orange livery with the fully yellow front.

metrovick001

metrovick001 wrote: »

I read onthis board somewhere that it was being repaired and that its return to servicewas imminent.
I thinkthat 225 was the only 201 to be repainted into the original livery, the otherswere painted into the second orange livery with the fully yellow front.

219 was repainted too. I've some photos of it on the Enterprise with the IE logo on the side in CIE 2000 font. I think the front steps were welded up too.

pointsman

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Yeah, Translink own all the EGVs as apposed to owning 2 and IE 2. But by that logic all the even numbered DD stock should get the 8 prefix too.

Owned by NIR yet carries the EU Long Number which only applies in EU Funded Railways like Irish Rail?

Captain Chaos

pointsman wrote: »

Owned by NIR yet carries the EU Long Number which only applies in EU Funded Railways like Irish Rail?

Yep, they do carry full UIC numbers and all 4 were put into the ownership of NIR in Feburary this year. But when they were repainted and renumbered they were painted by NIR but owned by IE at the time.

dowlingm

pointsman wrote: »

Owned by NIR yet carries the EU Long Number which only applies in EU Funded Railways like Irish Rail?

The "long number" is a UIC designation. However, it is a requirement of the European Railway Agency's Technical Standards for Interoperability (Operation).

How IE is "EU funded" and Translink not is unclear to me, but it is possible that NIR did not have a requirement to implement under previous directives but may need to move to doing so to conform with 2012/757/EU Appendix P effective January 2014

n0brain3r

218 passed Sallins at about 11:30 on freight for Ballina

Losty Dublin

dowlingm wrote: »

The "long number" is a UIC designation. However, it is a requirement of the European Railway Agency's Technical Standards for Interoperability (Operation).

How IE is "EU funded" and Translink not is unclear to me, but it is possible that NIR did not have a requirement to implement under previous directives but may need to move to doing so to conform with 2012/757/EU Appendix P effective January 2014

The debacle with the 2900 and 3000 class railcars shows the merits of a centralised numbering system.

All operators are meant to have this numbering system in place; it's just that it takes time to call in all your rolling stock to apply these numbers.

Captain Chaos

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The debacle with the 2900 and 3000 class railcars shows the merits of a centralised numbering system.

All operators are meant to have this numbering system in place; it's just that it takes time to call in all your rolling stock to apply these numbers.

Not really, the UIC system is a bit of a mess. Very hard to quickly ID a unit with it unless you know what numbers you need to pick out of it. Look at how they painted them on some of the 2600s, the number is in 2 different size fonts. The useless EU part is in small print and the numbers IE use to ID a unit are in a bigger font.

The UK TOPS is better imo. It's what IE should have used and had to in the end for the 29s along with the 22s.

Losty Dublin

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Not really, the UIC system is a bit of a mess. Very hard to quickly ID a unit with it unless you know what numbers you need to pick out of it. Look at how they painted them on some of the 2600s, the number is in 2 different size fonts. The useless EU part is in small print and the numbers IE use to ID a unit are in a bigger font.

The UK TOPS is better imo. It's what IE should have used and had to in the end for the 29s along with the 22s.

I didn't say UIC is the solution but a more central system is justified, especially when fleets cross borders. The debacle between the 2900 and 3000 occurred because of a conflict between two different fleets, let alone classes. Had either company used a different fleet number then it would have likely been avoided for another few years.

Captain Chaos

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The debacle between the 2900 and 3000 occurred because of a conflict between two different fleets, let alone classes. Had either company used a different fleet number then it would have likely been avoided for another few years.

Sure NIR walked into another one and nothing was done about it. The 8100 DART units and NIR deciding to put an 8 on the 111 class. Also the CAF 4000s DMUs and IE CAF Mk4s.

NIR don't care and walk into IE's numbering system.

Jamie2k9

218 worked Fridays Ballina-Waterford DFDS.

n0brain3r

215 just passed Sallins for Ballina on freight

Itssoeasy

Wikipedia article on 201 class wrote:

Unfortunately, the locomotives have had a chequered service history. The authors of Jane's Train Recognition Guide noted that IÉ had had problems with engine fires and bogie cracks.[2]

I found this part interesting for locos so young in loco terms.

Captain Chaos

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I found this part interesting for locos so young in loco terms.

Well the engine fires, a few were down to using HEP on the Enterprise. 206 had to be almost fully re built internally after an engine fire while on the Enterprise. EMD told IE they did not recommend the HEP on the 201s but that's what IE wanted.

The class 70s in the UK are suffering from alot of engine fires too and they are far newer than the 201s. One has had to be rebuilt after a bad fire. They are made by GE and don't have an HEP equipment though, so it's worse for them reputation wise.

n0brain3r

232 worked todays IWT passing Sallins @ 11:15

Oscar Bravo

234 worked the empty timber train into Westport this evening arriving there at 1915.

RonanM123

Over heard a little rumour and its that 201's have a temp ban on Waterford line due to a landslide between Muine Bheag and Carlow recently and those alignment machines will have to pay a visit soon. Just hope they will sort out the other 3 TSR's while around. No 201's have operated services since it happened. I'm not sure if its true as if wiki is correct there is only 12 tonnes difference in weight of 071 and 201's.

234 worked the empty timber train into Westport this evening arriving there at 1915

This didn't come from Waterford, 234 anyway. It was in Ballina yard on Friday and it didn't work the DFDS or timber to Waterford on Monday so a loco change at Kildare happened.

Oscar Bravo

It wasnt in Ballina all day Friday....

RonanM123

Oscar Bravo wrote: »

It wasnt in Ballina all day Friday....

Isn't it Westport-Waterford timer on Friday and the DFDS wasn't worked by a 201. It hardly ran empty to Waterford.

Oscar Bravo

For the past few weeks the ex Westport timber ran on Monday. So an empty went in on a wednesday and did not go back out until Monday. Not sure if thats the case this week or not.

Jamie2k9

In regaurd to the loco ban, not sure about it but I am almost certain that 234 was not in Waterford Monday evening. It also was not in Belview so its a mystery where it got to.

Oscar Bravo

234 still in Westport,will work the timber to Waterford on Monday. nice rest for a 201.

Jamie2k9

209 and 215 on Cork route yesterday while 222 worked Ballina to Waterford DFDS service.