Train Carriages Not Being Used

CIE

kc56 wrote: »

Actually he might not be all that incorrect.

If you think of gauge as the distance between the wheels on an axle, then the Irish trains have a 'broad gauge'. However gauge is also used for 'loading gauge' which is the size of the carriages, width, height, length, sweep, platform height and gap etc. The Irish loading gauge is quite similar to the UK but different from most other networks and is considered to be 'narrow'. Most European carriages are longer, wider and higher, sufficient for double-deckers, than ours. Take just one area, platform height; we have high platforms while Europe uses low platforms. To use our trains in Europe, assuming the wheel gauge is modified, would require steps on every platform - a non runner. Most European stock either has steps build into the carriage or low floors.

Trains, unlike coaches, are custom built to suit the railways they run on and are not easily interchangable.

I think most people here, even on the commuting forum, know the difference between track gauge and loading gauge. Britain already accommodates trains that can operate not only there but on the continent, and Britain's loading gauge is considerably narrower horizontally than Ireland's.

Solair

I think we can safely assume the Minister simply knew the gauge was different and jumped to the conclusion Ireland must use narrow gauge.

His brief is more about the big picture stuff, not necessarily the finer details but even so, its a fairly fundamental quirk to be aware of when it comes to IE buying trains.

I'd be a bit nuts to sell them as there's unlikely to be any market for them and they'd also be unlikely to raise enough money to justify the sale. You'd be writing off tens of millions of capital investment.

The network could become busier I'm future years if the economy picks up, so having a bit of surplus totally standardised stock is not a bad thing.

Rotating them into the fleet means the fleet lasts longer and maintenance and even cleaning can be carried out without fuss.

corktina

I would suggest noone will buy secondhand stock as in this age it will be practically impossible to get permission to run them elsewhere. Just look at the hoops new-stock manufacturers have to jump through!

If they weren't a success here, who else will try their hand at them? Not likely is it?

Solair

There's nothing unsuccessful about them. They are excellent DMUs.

Irish Rail just over estimated how many they need and now has a rather large fleet.

I'd suggest getting rid of the Enterprise or storing some MK4s before doing anything like selling these!

If they've say 20 spare 22000 units, that's sufficient to replace the whole Enterprise fleet entirely and possibly radically improve journey times as the 22000s would handle the stop/start patterns much better than a heavy loco-hauled train and it would take the speed up from 145 to 160 km/h

They could also replace some longer distance commuter DMUs and cascading better commuter trains down to other routes while ditching older DMU / putting them into storage.

CIE

CIE wrote: »

But then again, Ireland somehow is magically the only country on the planet where head-end power "refuses" to work properly and IE has to waste more money buying DVTs that don't carry revenue passengers, thus forcing certain intercity trains to haul around empty space.

Will you ever let this go? You've been told numerous times why HEP doesn't work on the CIE electrical system and it's a logical reason. It comes down to AC vs DC if you need reminding.

CIE wrote: »

Is this in opposition to the "nationalisation fetish", which has been proven for well over a century to be an absolute failure and disaster? Started in Ireland with the act of government that created the Great Southern Railways, which nationalised 23 separate railway companies for no good reason under a company created by government order (nominally private, but no truly private company is started by an act of government). Ultimately became the nominally semi-state (but of course, fully state) CIE, which still exists and never went away. Nobody can start up a railway under their own capital nowadays thanks to this socialistic setup.

The political parties of course won't go for actual privatisation, which would also require a degree of de-regulation to allow them to attain profits. They'll go with the fascistic in origin (look it up) "public-private partnership" distorted privatisation.

So are you suggesting that we privatise the lot? Infrastructure too? Look at the UK and come back to me.

CIE

Karsini wrote: »

Will you ever let this go? You've been told numerous times why HEP doesn't work on the CIE electrical system and it's a logical reason. It comes down to AC vs DC if you need reminding

No, I've been told IE's excuses numerous times. I don't put a red cent (since Ireland uses them now) of stock into anything the government and/or the unions have to say. The fact that Ireland is the sole country in the developed world where HEP magically will not work means that either the Irish are too incompetent to make it work (which I don't believe) or that government micromanagers are too stubborn to buy the pre-existing technology which has existed for decades. After all, it works fine on the EMUs and DMUs. And (as I seem to recall) it worked when the Hunslet 101 class of NIR were hauling Class 2B push-pull cars on the Enterprise—which makes the present-day Enterprise a step backwards in time.

Karsini wrote: »

So are you suggesting that we privatise the lot? Infrastructure too? Look at the UK and come back to me

Statist rot. The UK never engaged in full privatisation never mind deregulation, which was part of the initial failure. Besides that, full nationalisation has not come roaring back, and that eventually proved to be an advantage versus bringing back BR.

It makes perfect sense. We use 380V three phase AC on our stock. AC requires a constant field rate which couldn't easily be achieved via a variable speed engine. Even going down to 48-49Hz can cause problems. That's why the 201s have to run at full bore with HEP on, and why they've taken a hammering on the Enterprise over the last 15 years. Other countries use DC which can be generated by a variable speed prime mover, but they require AC inverters under each coach which is wasteful (as DC-AC or AC-DC conversions consume energy in the process) and is also more of a maintenance load.

Maybe I'm a socialist/communist, but I don't approve of any of these services being in private hands. I just look at what happened with British Rail and Eircom and say no to privatisation.

ardmacha

There is rolling stick lying up, yet there is no train to Belfast from Dublin that would allow a person with business there arrive before 9am. When there is a big event there is no great availability of special trains, perhaps these would not be busy, but by and large they are not tried.

Jamie2k9

There's nothing unsuccessful about them. They are excellent DMUs.

Irish Rail just over estimated how many they need and now has a rather large fleet.

Irish Rail didn't over estimate the number require and I beleave that if the ecomny wasn't in this current mess they would be ordering more sets anytime around now to cater for demand.

There is rolling stick lying up, yet there is no train to Belfast from Dublin that would allow a person with business there arrive before 9am. When there is a big event there is no great availability of special trains, perhaps these would not be busy, but by and large they are not tried.

Demand tends to be towords Dublin in the mornings and if the 7.35 to Belfast was moved to 6.30 I think it would do more harm and good for passenger numbers.

21 set stored now but is that figure the same for July/August when nearly all Waterford, Galway and Westport services are all 6 peice sets.

Then stick em on the Limerick to Galway route instead of the 2800s. Add seat reservations and a trolley service.
Might help add a dozen or two more passengers.
Might not be a lot but it sure cant do any damage!

Might add one or two pass holders but increase operating costs and catering staff don't come free.

ardmacha

Demand tends to be towords Dublin in the mornings and if the 7.35 to Belfast was moved to 6.30 I think it would do more harm and good for passenger numbers.

How do you know what the demand is? Do you interview on the M1?

I'm not suggesting moving the 7:35 to 6:30. Make it 8:00 and run an earlier train, this could also collect some commuters at Dundalk and Newry. Now I imagine some of this has to do with track capacity at the Belfast end, but imagination is needed.

Jamie2k9

ardmacha wrote: »

How do you know what the demand is? Do you interview on the M1?

I'm not suggesting moving the 7:35 to 6:30. Make it 8:00 and run an earlier train, this could also collect some commuters at Dundalk and Newry. Now I imagine some of this has to do with track capacity at the Belfast end, but imagination is needed.

That will likely result in two trains running half empty and costing both operators money. Best compromise would be 07.00 departure from Connolly and into Belfast 09.15.

CIE

Karsini wrote: »

It makes perfect sense. We use 380V three phase AC on our stock. AC requires a constant field rate which couldn't easily be achieved via a variable speed engine. Even going down to 48-49Hz can cause problems. That's why the 201s have to run at full bore with HEP on, and why they've taken a hammering on the Enterprise over the last 15 years. Other countries use DC which can be generated by a variable speed prime mover, but they require AC inverters under each coach which is wasteful (as DC-AC or AC-DC conversions consume energy in the process) and is also more of a maintenance load.

Maybe I'm a socialist/communist, but I don't approve of any of these services being in private hands. I just look at what happened with British Rail and Eircom and say no to privatisation.

Meanwhile, Ireland's railway network shrinks while Britain's does not and even grows in some respects. That speaks for itself.

No, none of those excuses make a bit of sense at all. There are no corresponding examples elsewhere, where any other rail operator was forced to exchange HEP for DVTs. I have to conclude that IE went with an unproven system that obviously does not work and is too stubborn to admit that they made a grave error.

corktina

CIE wrote: »

Meanwhile, Ireland's railway network shrinks while Britain's does not and even grows in some respects. That speaks for itself.

No, none of those excuses make a bit of sense at all. There are no corresponding examples elsewhere, where any other rail operator was forced to exchange HEP for DVTs. I have to conclude that IE went with an unproven system that obviously does not work and is too stubborn to admit that they made a grave error.

i tend to agree with CIE here (shock horror!) on both counts here. Not that you can compare the railways in the UK to here in any meaningful way but the services there seem to be booming whilst ours are in decline and as to the HEP, it seems to me that someone made a wrong decision somewhere along the line, with the result that an extra empty and totally unnecessary (apart from the genny) vehicle is being dragged down to Cork and back on every service, a maintenance and capital cost that could have been avoided with ACinverters on the train (to look at it from the other direction)...

Park Royal

serfboard wrote: »

Link.
I can see both sides here - at the time they were bought it looked like passenger numbers were steadily increasing and if we hadn't busted, they would have been criticised for not buying enough carriages and for over-crowded trains.

On the other hand, it is not just the recession that has caused the decline in passenger numbers. The completion of the motorways and the consequent competition from bus operators has, IMO, contributed far more.

Still beats me as to why they didn't upgrade the tracks first (double-tracking in parts, more speed in others) before buying new carriages.

Thoughts?

I think tracks were upgraded and signalling and platforms and many level crossings......before the big orders for carriages were placed.......as for double tracking ...great idea ....wheres the money.....there is always a shortage of money........always was...always will be......no shortage of things to do.....and improve......but there are always budget restrictions.......perhaps the country is too small and poor for a proper railway?. always was always will be?.

Solair

Park Royal wrote: »

I think tracks were upgraded and signalling and platforms and many level crossings......before the big orders for carriages were placed.......as for double tracking ...great idea ....wheres the money.....there is always a shortage of money........always was...always will be......no shortage of things to do.....and improve......but there are always budget restrictions.......perhaps the country is too small and poor for a proper railway?. always was always will be?.

Its about low densities of population ,scattered development and lack of any sense of planning.

Similar reason to why rail doesn't work well in many parts of the united states.

We built Ireland to be totally car dependent.

We actually have a much better motorway network than most equivalent sized/population countries eg NZ.

steamengine

Karsini wrote: »

It makes perfect sense. We use 380V three phase AC on our stock. AC requires a constant field rate which couldn't easily be achieved via a variable speed engine. Even going down to 48-49Hz can cause problems. That's why the 201s have to run at full bore with HEP on, and why they've taken a hammering on the Enterprise over the last 15 years. Other countries use DC which can be generated by a variable speed prime mover, but they require AC inverters under each coach which is wasteful (as DC-AC or AC-DC conversions consume energy in the process) and is also more of a maintenance load.

Maybe I'm a socialist/communist, but I don't approve of any of these services being in private hands. I just look at what happened with British Rail and Eircom and say no to privatisation.

+1............ great explanation Karsini on HEP and its implications in comparison to the relative simplicity of a generator van. Surprise surprise, even though an effective solution has been found, now more criticism of an extra non-revenue coaches/generator vans being pulled from A to B.

You're right about privatisation, why have profits repatriated abroad, which would be the most likely scenario ?

Nice to see that someone agrees with me. :pac:

You also need to consider that this system was introduced with the Mark 2s. In 1972 when these coaches were built, none of the CIE locos had ETH or HEP. They would have had two options:

A - Retrofit some locos with HEP from a secondary engine
B - Build generator vans and allow any loco to haul them

None of the CIE locos would have been powerful enough to accommodate prime mover HEP. Especially with the GMs and Cs of the day; you'd be pretty much dedicating a loco to provide HEP to the Mark 2s, meaning you'd have a non-revenue generating vehicle anyway. I'm not even sure about the A class at only 1,325hp, I'd suspect not. So it would have to be a secondary engine. NIR also tried 1000V DC ETH on 111 and 112 yet still reverted to generator vans. I'd be curious to know what their experience was.

We're not alone here either. I'm sure that dowlingm can tell you about the situation in North America with the F40PH locos. These are being converted to use secondary engines for HEP, after years of running AC HEP off the prime mover. These are also 16-cylinder engines rather than the 12-cylinder engines used in the 201s, so they would have been better able to handle the strain.

Solair

It's irrelevant on the DMUs anyway. Every coach carries passengers.

I would really like to see a fuel efficiency comparison between the three intercity train types : 22000, MK4 & Enterprise.
Fuel per passenger per km

They really should let some couriers use the luggage space in the generator vans though. FastTrack parcels just between Cork, Belfast and Dublin wouldn't be bad.

Losty Dublin

Karsini wrote: »

It makes perfect sense. We use 380V three phase AC on our stock. AC requires a constant field rate which couldn't easily be achieved via a variable speed engine. Even going down to 48-49Hz can cause problems. That's why the 201s have to run at full bore with HEP on, and why they've taken a hammering on the Enterprise over the last 15 years. Other countries use DC which can be generated by a variable speed prime mover, but they require AC inverters under each coach which is wasteful (as DC-AC or AC-DC conversions consume energy in the process) and is also more of a maintenance load.

Add to this the fact that HEP as supplied was intended to run with shorter train sets and far fewer stops than the service actually now runs. This has served to add stress on the engines, which any engine fitted with a HEP has to cope with. It's worth pointing out that the hilly climbs on the Dublin-Belfast line is hard on engines at the best of times; this too plays it's part.

Referring back to the HEP settings on the 111 class, the end result was that 111 and 112 had serious engine wear and regular failures in service due to overrunning and over stressing so HEP was decommissioned on them by NIR.

Solair

It's a pity waste heat from the loco can't be used to heat / supplement the heat on the trains too. Seems daft blowing all that energy onto the sky through the cooling fans.

That's the problem with locomotive hauled trains though. They're not really a tightly integrated system. It's more like a tractor and trailer than a car.

I'm sure DMUs can so things better because the power packs are tightly integrated into the design of the coaches.

Also, I can't see how diesel electric can be as efficient as hydraulic drives. There must be huge losses in converting the diesel engine's rotational energy output into electrical energy then back to rotational energy via traction motors.

Hydraulic drives can't be as lossy as all that stuff!

Losty Dublin

Solair wrote: »

It's a pity waste heat from the loco can't be used to heat / supplement the heat on the trains too. Seems daft blowing all that energy onto the sky through the cooling fans.

That's the problem with locomotive hauled trains though. They're not really a tightly integrated system. It's more like a tractor and trailer than a car.

I'm sure DMUs can so things better because the power packs are tightly integrated into the design of the coaches.

Also, I can't see how diesel electric can be as efficient as hydraulic drives. There must be huge losses in converting the diesel engine's rotational energy output into electrical energy then back to rotational energy via traction motors.

Hydraulic drives can't be as lossy as all that stuff!

Diesel Electric is far more efficient than hydraulic for heavier and variable loads. A diesel electric revs lower at idle or stationary and only generates what power is needed to move the consist at a given time; a 201 sitting in Cork will use a fraction of what it uses in traffic. A DEM is more stable and hardier in general. A hydraulic, like a car engine, requires gear changing so high revs can occur at low speeds at certain times during a trip. Where hydraulic wins out is through quicker acceleration rates, lower fuel use for smaller consists over loco hauled trains and hence better fuel management, lower noise emissions and less issues with adhesion via a longer consist of powered axles.

The heat lost at the top of an engine is dispersed from the engine heads. It's about the same as what makes your car bonnet warm after you have been driving. There are scavenger systems in the exhaust that help aid turbochargers in industrial stationary engines such as those found in a locomotive so they are more efficient than you'd think.

Solair

I'd still like to see statistics to back that up.

Hydraulic drives from the likes of Voith have come along in leaps and bounds over the years. I'd like to see a comparison of like with like i.e. modern diesel-electric vs modern fluid drive.

I doubt the 22000s are anything other than very efficient and I would just like to see an actual cost per km/per passenger seat breakdown.

I just have a suspicion that the MK4/De Dietrich+ GM 201 + Generator car combo could be burning a lot more fuel than an equivalent DMU.

As a passenger, I see absolutely no advantage for the MK4 over the 22000. I find the 22000s a lot more comfortable. The seats are more supportive, there's power at every seat, they're much brighter as the windows aren't tinted to Spanish standards and they're definitely not as noisy as some of their British counterparts which sometimes sound like there's a tractor engine under the floor!

Also, the build-quality seems much higher. The MK4 has failed doors inside (at the coach ends) the 22000 doors seem to work well. The whole interior just seems like it's screwed together properly and the ride is also significantly better. I have been up and down to Cork on a MK4 up and a 22000 down and the 22000 is a class act in comparison, particularly in terms of ride quality.

I just find the MK4s rattly and they're still not remotely as smooth as their predecessors or the 22000s. On the Cork line they're shuddery and shaky as they run.

Admittedly, I prefer the ICRs over the Mark 4s as a passenger. Mainly due to the ride quality, which on a Mark 4 is still inferior to that of the Mark 3. I don't like the underfloor engine but it's nowhere near as bad as the 29000s, which often gave me a headache when travelling on them to Drogheda or Clonsilla.

Losty Dublin

Solair wrote: »

I'd still like to see statistics to back that up.

I doubt the 22000s are anything other than very efficient and I would just like to see an actual cost per km/per passenger seat breakdown.

I just have a suspicion that the MK4/De Dietrich+ GM 201 + Generator car combo could be burning a lot more fuel than an equivalent DMU.

As a passenger, I see absolutely no advantage for the MK4 over the 22000. I find the 22000s a lot more comfortable. The seats are more supportive, there's power at every seat, they're much brighter as the windows aren't tinted to Spanish standards and they're definitely not as noisy as some of their British counterparts which sometimes sound like there's a tractor engine under the floor!

Also, the build-quality seems much higher. The MK4 has failed doors inside (at the coach ends) the 22000 doors seem to work well. The whole interior just seems like it's screwed together properly and the ride is also significantly better. I have been up and down to Cork on a MK4 up and a 22000 down and the 22000 is a class act in comparison, particularly in terms of ride quality.

I just find the MK4s rattly and they're still not remotely as smooth as their predecessors or the 22000s. On the Cork line they're shuddery and shaky as they run.

I don't have figures but I've heard rumblings that 22000s are a little bit dearer than loco per KM at the moment. That said, a 201 class loco has 8 engine rev points (notches) while a 22000 has 2 gear speeds which changes around a little under the 50 MPH point so there are times where a loco will use less fuel than a 22000.

I would prefer a 22000 as well but they were specced several years after the Mark 4s and so there was pre snagging done as well as different needs like socket points. A refit for the Marks would see them catch up so here's hoping.

Jamie2k9

Are the 22000 not costing €6 per km, weather than is per carrage or per 3 peice set not sure. I would find it hard to beleave that the loco is costing less at times.

kc56

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I don't have figures but I've heard rumblings that 22000s are a little bit dearer than loco per KM at the moment. That said, a 201 class loco has 8 engine rev points (notches) while a 22000 has 2 gear speeds which changes around a little under the 50 MPH point so there are times where a loco will use less fuel than a 22000.

I would prefer a 22000 as well but they were specced several years after the Mark 4s and so there was pre snagging done as well as different needs like socket points. A refit for the Marks would see them catch up so here's hoping.

I must disagree somwhat:
Both loco and ICR run at max RPM while accelerating. Fuel consumption is more a matter of the total weight of the consist than the transmission. ICR cars are 63tons each compared to 42 tons for a Mk4. A 6car ICR weighs 378 tons while a 7-piece Mk4 is around 294 tons + 120 for the loco = 414tons. On that basis a 6xICR should be more efficient that a 7xMk4. You then have to add the fuel used by the DVT as the ICRs' engines also provide power.

The 8 notches on a 201 are lower power setting for cruising and initial acceleration. Don't know if ICRs have notches as such.

ICR engines run at max rpm from almost stationary with the hydraulic transmission gradually changing gear ratios. At around 70mph (50 for a 29k) the transmission locks up giving a direct drive at higher speeds. It's like a one-speed automatic transmission.

MTU make hydraulic locomotives and claims they are more efficient that diesel-electric. Hydraulic makes more sense in a DMU but I'm not sure if they more efficient given the very large range of gear ratios used (0-70mph in one range).

An idling ICR engine is still providing heat and power to the coach.

Solair

The transmission system on those intercity railcars seems (from a bit of googling) to be extremely sophisticated.
They also exceed all sorts of environmental requirements.

However, without actual statistics, we're all only speculating.

They're far fancier than any of the other DMUs in use here and seem to be ahead of many British counterparts too.

I'd be very surprised if the 201 locos, given that they were designed in the early 90s, are more efficient.

The DMUs also seem to have hydraulically assisted braking which means much less mechanical wear on brake pads / systems. The hydraulic system slows the train using valves and baffles working against the flow of fluid and generates waste heat.

Sort of like a hydraulic version of electric breaking.

Cookie_Monster

No mention that 25% of the dedeitrich (sp) stock is "not in use" as a spare set, what makes them so different?
:rolleyes: nothing news

Judgement Day

If the damn things (22000s) had been fitted with SDO we could have 6-coach sets on the Rosslare line. Perhaps they can be dumped stored in Waterford when the remaining MkIIIs are scrapped. :rolleyes:

Losty Dublin

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

No mention that 25% of the dedeitrich (sp) stock is "not in use" as a spare set, what makes them so different?
:rolleyes: nothing news

The 25% stock breaks down as a spare DVT, standard and dining car.