Train Carriages Not Being Used

Cookie_Monster

Losty Dublin wrote: »

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

didn't the introduction of the vans mean one less coach per train so instead of 8 they are now 7, leaving 3 standards in addition to the above; 21 in service, 3 above, 3 by me, that still leaves one unaccounted.

Solair

I think this is a bit of an over reaction to be honest.

There are 234 Class 22000 DMU cars as far as I can see.

So, if 20 of them are idle at any one time, that's less than 10% of the fleet. That would seem well within the norms to me.

You'd need about 10% extra coaches to ensure that the service operated smoothly and to allow for routine maintenance!
Coaches need to be able to be taken out of service for deep cleaning, upholstery repair, carpet repair / replacement, even just to change the light bulbs and clean out the air conditioners and stuff.

As they get older, they'll need to be able to be taken out of service in small groups for minor refurbishment at times. So, you do need a bit of leeway !

If all coaches were always in service, you'd end up with days when there were shortages.

Also, it means that there's a bit of capacity for unusual events / high demand and future expansion should the economy pick up again.

I'd prefer to see the PAC going after areas of actual wastage in CIE, this doesn't appear to be one of them.

To me it looks like for the first time in the company's history it has a proper fleet of standardised trains and enough capacity to actually maintain them correctly.

The history we have had so far was small sub-fleets that were all too small to do proper maintenance without dumping passengers onto ancient stock, commuter trains or even busses.

Old fleet had insufficient small fleet of MK3s, insufficient small fleet of MK2s and a small fleet of Cravens (should have been scrapped years before they were) and a load of commuter trains operating long-distance intercity routes. It was a mess.

The Enterprise fleet's also too small to do anything without disruption.

With a large fleet of identical trains, you've common maintenance systems, common spare parts, common oprational proceedures and you start to get some of the kinds of efficiencies that an airline like Ryanair gets with all 737-800s or Aer Lingus with entirely Airbus aircraft.

For IE that could actually mean big cost savings in the medium to long term!

Suggestions for the PAC to look into:

New logo?
Excessive bureaucracy?
WRC
Trashing the MK3s long before they were old enough to be scrapped.
The mini-fleet of Alstom DART and DMU trains that got put up for sale...

Solair

In terms of recent purchases, I would actually think the Mark 4s were probably the questionable one.

Although when they were ordered, there was no funding for a big purchase of new DMUs to replace the whole intercity fleet. I think the original idea was that the MK4s were going to go onto key routes and the MK3s were to be cascaded down to other routes.

The plans changed.

In hindsight, I doubt they'd have purchased those MK4s at all and just gone 100% Intercity DMU.

Losty Dublin

Solair wrote: »

In terms of recent purchases, I would actually think the Mark 4s were probably the questionable one.

Although when they were ordered, there was no funding for a big purchase of new DMUs to replace the whole intercity fleet. I think the original idea was that the MK4s were going to go onto key routes and the MK3s were to be cascaded down to other routes.

The plans changed.

In hindsight, I doubt they'd have purchased those MK4s at all and just gone 100% Intercity DMU.

The Mark 4's were specced and tendered for around the start of the 00's. Dick Fearns is on Oireachtas record as stating that he'd have gone for all ICU given the chance; he took charge in 2003.

Solair

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The Mark 4's were specced and tendered for around the start of the 00's. Dick Fearns is on Oireachtas record as stating that he'd have gone for all ICU given the chance; he took charge in 2003.

Yeah, that's what I mean, it's from another era of purchasing and a similar order to the Enterprise.

dermo88

Losty Dublin

The Mark 4's were specced and tendered for around the start of the 00's. Dick Fearns is on Oireachtas record as stating that he'd have gone for all ICU given the chance; he took charge in 2003.

In fairness the 201 Class engines were relatively young at the time. They still had to be used and Iarnrod Eireann was still a significant mixed traffic operator at that time, with Sugar Beer, Cement, Containers, and more besides still forming a substantial part of its business.

67 Coaches were ordered (7 sets), and if I am not mistaken there was an option for a further 24 Coaches (3 sets). The dot matrix map in the coaches shows an unspoken intention to use the Mark 4 Coaches on direct Dublin-Limerick, Dublin-Galway and Dublin-Tralee services.

From the practical perspective of standardisation, it makes sense to go "All DMU". I know enthusiasts hate it, but the reality is customers won't be attracted to the system by Mark 3's or whatever. They actually do not care. The mistake perhaps was not retrofitting the generator guards van on the Mark 3 sets into a Driving Vehicle Trailer.

If I recall correctly, in 2006-2007 when the Loco Hauled vs Multiple Unit debate was in full swing on Irishrailwaynews, if my memory serves me correctly, Losty Dublin mentioned that Iarnrod Eireann actually evaluated that option and for a life extension of 20 years, it cost €500,000 per coach, including full internal refurbishment, rewiring, new braking equipment, retrofitting time division multiplex systems, and a bit more. When evaluated against the cost of a new DMU fleet instead, the DMU fleet won.

Of course enthusiasts went nuts at the thought that their beloved locos were gone. Yes, I regret the passing of the Mark 3s. They are gone before their time, but they represent an outdated concept of what the customer wants, rather than needs. This being the concept of the thrice daily heavy express, instead of a choice, represented by a bihourly, frequent light service.

The same debate occurred in Britain during 'Sprinterisation' in the 1987-1995 period. Loco haulage is simply just not economic under typical Irish conditions if the high frequency model is followed. There are the 'hidden extras' with such a system, such as:

1. Maintaining points.
2. Drawgear being worn out, needing replacement.
3. Run around costs, when a train reaches a terminus.
4. Track occupation costs, loco hauled systems tend to occupy more track.
5. Wear and tear on track. The Higher the axleload, the more damage done.

All these factors contribute to a conclusion. With less than 6 coaches, multiple unit operation is best. With 8 or more...and a mixed traffic system perhaps, the loco and coaches win. But it has been a long time, over 20 years almost since there was demand for 15 coach 'Specials' to Knock for example. Maybe keep the RPSI 'sweet' for a charter hire in such circumstances, but in that event, AirCon stock is unsuitable, its a hoor to maintain.

kingshankly

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

didn't the introduction of the vans mean one less coach per train so instead of 8 they are now 7, leaving 3 standards in addition to the above; 21 in service, 3 above, 3 by me, that still leaves one unaccounted.

The train consist was always 7, 2 first class 1 dining and 4 standard which is still the same now with the van. It's a while since I was on an 8 set train.
I must say the van has performed very well so far and as a driver tge noise levels in the cab are no longer unbearable.
Saying all this the 22s would be ideal for Belfast work.i reckon you would save 15/20 minutes alone by braking later at speed restrictions and stations and getting back up to speed quicker.
Plus there's not too much compromise on comfort

Solair

They would be an ideal solution for enterprise. Maybe of NIR commissioned a couple of rakes from Mitsui / Hyundai and IE dedicated a couple of theirs to it with a repaint in joint stock.

Maintenance and full technical support facilities are already in place in Portlaoise.

Would seem a bit daft to replace the De Deitrich stock with some other small fleet of odd ball trains.

corktina

you only have to watch Portillos programme in the UK to see the ascendancy of Units over Loco hauled.Even the Mk4+201s is to all intents and purposes a Multiple Unit.

Sad but you can see the economic logic behind it.

Solair

Personally, I never really understand all the nostalgia for old trains.

As much as I like seeing a few classic cars in a museum or a collectors rally, I would hate to actually have to drive to work on a wet day in one.

I don't see trains as any different to that.

Losty Dublin

Dermo, some excellent points raised here. The realism is that the benefits of units outweigh loco and carriage in so many ways in services; the overall picture also wins their favour. The options boiled down to flexible new DMU's which tick all the PC boxes or totally rebuild and refit Mark 3 to the same PC requirements and yet still need more fleet to fill in the gaps and new locos to haul them as the old GM were just not up for it any longer.

In spite of what the naysayers say and feel about Irish Rail, they do know what they were doing and why they did it. The auld gricers did the same in 1950 when AEC railcars came into traffic, A and C class, Mayback shunters and the GM engines in the 60's. Today gricing has moved from Brownbox to SLX but the lament is no different; we will do the same when the 22000's are no more

dermo88 wrote: »

Losty Dublin

The Mark 4's were specced and tendered for around the start of the 00's. Dick Fearns is on Oireachtas record as stating that he'd have gone for all ICU given the chance; he took charge in 2003.

In fairness the 201 Class engines were relatively young at the time. They still had to be used and Iarnrod Eireann was still a significant mixed traffic operator at that time, with Sugar Beer, Cement, Containers, and more besides still forming a substantial part of its business.

67 Coaches were ordered (7 sets), and if I am not mistaken there was an option for a further 24 Coaches (3 sets). The dot matrix map in the coaches shows an unspoken intention to use the Mark 4 Coaches on direct Dublin-Limerick, Dublin-Galway and Dublin-Tralee services.

From the practical perspective of standardisation, it makes sense to go "All DMU". I know enthusiasts hate it, but the reality is customers won't be attracted to the system by Mark 3's or whatever. They actually do not care. The mistake perhaps was not retrofitting the generator guards van on the Mark 3 sets into a Driving Vehicle Trailer.

If I recall correctly, in 2006-2007 when the Loco Hauled vs Multiple Unit debate was in full swing on Irishrailwaynews, if my memory serves me correctly, Losty Dublin mentioned that Iarnrod Eireann actually evaluated that option and for a life extension of 20 years, it cost €500,000 per coach, including full internal refurbishment, rewiring, new braking equipment, retrofitting time division multiplex systems, and a bit more. When evaluated against the cost of a new DMU fleet instead, the DMU fleet won.

Of course enthusiasts went nuts at the thought that their beloved locos were gone. Yes, I regret the passing of the Mark 3s. They are gone before their time, but they represent an outdated concept of what the customer wants, rather than needs. This being the concept of the thrice daily heavy express, instead of a choice, represented by a bihourly, frequent light service.

The same debate occurred in Britain during 'Sprinterisation' in the 1987-1995 period. Loco haulage is simply just not economic under typical Irish conditions if the high frequency model is followed. There are the 'hidden extras' with such a system, such as:

1. Maintaining points.
2. Drawgear being worn out, needing replacement.
3. Run around costs, when a train reaches a terminus.
4. Track occupation costs, loco hauled systems tend to occupy more track.
5. Wear and tear on track. The Higher the axleload, the more damage done.

All these factors contribute to a conclusion. With less than 6 coaches, multiple unit operation is best. With 8 or more...and a mixed traffic system perhaps, the loco and coaches win. But it has been a long time, over 20 years almost since there was demand for 15 coach 'Specials' to Knock for example. Maybe keep the RPSI 'sweet' for a charter hire in such circumstances, but in that event, AirCon stock is unsuitable, its a hoor to maintain.

dowlingm

Yes, locos are rebuilt in North America, but they tend to be EMD 645 at the least. 567 locos in stuff like SW1200s is often replaced with newer kit for fuel economy reasons. Also, the locos like F40PH and P42DC that continue to provide HEP tend to be 16 cylinder units rather than the 12s that IE run.

Amtrak HEP runs at 480V and GO Transit's at 575V. Here's a page which goes into the technical details.

EDIT: A better and safer option than the EGVs would have been to turn the De Dietrich DVT into something like the Mark 4 DVT. But then you'd lose a carriage length in Connolly whereas the EGV sticks out the far end.

Cookie_Monster

corktina wrote: »

Sad but you can see the economic logic behind it.

funny because in general the likes of the Swiss don't, still running mostly loco and carraige combinations with Lok2000 placed anywhere along the train.

kingshankly

Jesus there are some lads on here know there stuff if I ever break down in the arse hole of nowhere I now know who to contact

Captain Chaos

kingshankly wrote: »

I must say the van has performed very well so far and as a driver tge noise levels in the cab are no longer unbearable.

The first week in January I did notice that one of the EGVs was removed from one of the sets as I spotted 230 going around for about a week in HEP. Someone claimed to have seen one as York Road getting a bogie change. Don't know why the fourth EGV wasn't used while one had maintenance on it.

CIE

dermo88 wrote: »

Losty Dublin

The Mark 4's were specced and tendered for around the start of the 00's. Dick Fearns is on Oireachtas record as stating that he'd have gone for all ICU given the chance; he took charge in 2003.

In fairness the 201 Class engines were relatively young at the time. They still had to be used and Iarnrod Eireann was still a significant mixed traffic operator at that time, with Sugar Beer, Cement, Containers, and more besides still forming a substantial part of its business.

67 Coaches were ordered (7 sets), and if I am not mistaken there was an option for a further 24 Coaches (3 sets). The dot matrix map in the coaches shows an unspoken intention to use the Mark 4 Coaches on direct Dublin-Limerick, Dublin-Galway and Dublin-Tralee services.

From the practical perspective of standardisation, it makes sense to go "All DMU". I know enthusiasts hate it, but the reality is customers won't be attracted to the system by Mark 3's or whatever. They actually do not care. The mistake perhaps was not retrofitting the generator guards van on the Mark 3 sets into a Driving Vehicle Trailer.

If I recall correctly, in 2006-2007 when the Loco Hauled vs Multiple Unit debate was in full swing on Irishrailwaynews, if my memory serves me correctly, Losty Dublin mentioned that Iarnrod Eireann actually evaluated that option and for a life extension of 20 years, it cost €500,000 per coach, including full internal refurbishment, rewiring, new braking equipment, retrofitting time division multiplex systems, and a bit more. When evaluated against the cost of a new DMU fleet instead, the DMU fleet won.

Of course enthusiasts went nuts at the thought that their beloved locos were gone. Yes, I regret the passing of the Mark 3s. They are gone before their time, but they represent an outdated concept of what the customer wants, rather than needs. This being the concept of the thrice daily heavy express, instead of a choice, represented by a bihourly, frequent light service.

The same debate occurred in Britain during 'Sprinterisation' in the 1987-1995 period. Loco haulage is simply just not economic under typical Irish conditions if the high frequency model is followed. There are the 'hidden extras' with such a system, such as:

1. Maintaining points.
2. Drawgear being worn out, needing replacement.
3. Run around costs, when a train reaches a terminus.
4. Track occupation costs, loco hauled systems tend to occupy more track.
5. Wear and tear on track. The Higher the axleload, the more damage done.

All these factors contribute to a conclusion. With less than 6 coaches, multiple unit operation is best. With 8 or more...and a mixed traffic system perhaps, the loco and coaches win. But it has been a long time, over 20 years almost since there was demand for 15 coach 'Specials' to Knock for example. Maybe keep the RPSI 'sweet' for a charter hire in such circumstances, but in that event, AirCon stock is unsuitable, its a hoor to maintain.

DMUs always put a higher axle load on the track versus loco/carriages. Especially the 22000s, when the 63t/car (that's 15.75t on every axle on average, empty weight, varying with fuel and passengers) is compared with a single 67t 141/181 class (16.75t/axle, weight varying only with fuel). Compare that with a 38-tonne DeDietrich trailer (9.5t/axle empty).

And "Iarnrod Eireann evaluate"? Should be questioned at once. The second law of thermodynamics hasn't gone away, nor the greater costs and lower efficiency associated with increasing the number of moving parts.

Whether MU versus loco/carriage is used ought to depend on distance and station frequency more than other factors, due to need for faster acceleration to keep up with timetables. There are commuter railways out there whose EMU train lengths are always between 10 and 12 cars; eight-car trains are considered short. There are also DMUs out there that are designed to haul two, three, perhaps four trailer cars, thus acting as "power cars" and contributing to greater efficiency.

Like it or not, IE is using a system for HEP that is a broken system. That's borne out in the regression to using generator vans versus powering from the engine. What is IE trying to prove, other than not wanting to learn from its own mistakes (which is Luddism)? Got nothing to do with "enthusiasts" but best practice by other railways; IE is not so singular a system that what works on other railways (and the vendors they get their equipment from do supply other railways) can't work on its railway.

Solair

You also have to take in engine and transmission efficiency too though.

It's quite possible that the MTU engines on those DMUs are a lot more efficient than the GMs.

When you consider how much a small automative eco-diesel can squeeze out of the fuel you're putting into it, it sort of changes the ball game quite a bit.

But, without statistics, none of us know anything really.

Losty Dublin

kingshankly wrote: »

Jesus there are some lads on here know there stuff if I ever break down in the arse hole of nowhere I now know who to contact

They must have eaten the brains of Inspectors Kerrigan, Cranley, Walsh, Bentley and Farrell in Humphrey O'Connor's signal cabin

dowlingm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

funny because in general the likes of the Swiss don't, still running mostly loco and carraige combinations with Lok2000 placed anywhere along the train.

Not a fair comparison to throw in electric locos though?

Hungerford

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

funny because in general the likes of the Swiss don't, still running mostly loco and carraige combinations with Lok2000 placed anywhere along the train.

I think that that's due to pragmatism. The Lok2000 is a relatively new locomotive class [the oldest members are around 20 years old]. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with them - they are capable of 120 mph and can do express services with ease. Swiss locomotives generally have a lengthy lifespan and there are still a decent number of Ae 6/6s from the 1950s and 1960s on freight duties.

SBB though are slowly moving towards EMUs though but they aren't willing to dispose of stock prematurely, unlike certain other railways operators. :rolleyes:

goingnowhere

Swiss have a fairly massive rail freight business which requires loco haul.

There are all kinds of rules to block, ban and limit HGV traffic which helps no need to creating that demand

SBB don't look terribly worried about money to start with anyway, generously funded by state and supported by national rules which seem to block long distance coaches.

Head down to Geneva, Zurich or Bern and observe the amount of idle stock, its probably more than Irish Rail's entire fleet several times over

dermo88

CIE

DMUs always put a higher axle load on the track versus loco/carriages. Especially the 22000s, when the 63t/car (that's 15.75t on every axle on average, empty weight, varying with fuel and passengers) is compared with a single 67t 141/181 class (16.75t/axle, weight varying only with fuel). Compare that with a 38-tonne DeDietrich trailer (9.5t/axle empty).

And "Iarnrod Eireann evaluate"? Should be questioned at once. The second law of thermodynamics hasn't gone away, nor the greater costs and lower efficiency associated with increasing the number of moving parts.

1. I checked. The 22K units weigh 48 tonnes. The full loaded weight with passengers and fuel and a lot extra is 63 tonnes. Heck 100 passengers at 80kg average each and a full fuel load MIGHT barely make 63 tonnes, but thats pushing it.

2. A GM carries no passengers unless its pulling stock.....think about it.

Hungerford

think that that's due to pragmatism. The Lok2000 is a relatively new locomotive class [the oldest members are around 20 years old]. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with them - they are capable of 120 mph and can do express services with ease. Swiss locomotives generally have a lengthy lifespan and there are still a decent number of Ae 6/6s from the 1950s and 1960s on freight duties.

Can we replace pragmatism with common sense. Thats an Electric based system at the crossroads of Europe against a rock on the edge. Think about that.

Hungerford

dermo88 wrote: »

CIE
Can we replace pragmatism with common sense. Thats an Electric based system at the crossroads of Europe against a rock on the edge. Think about that.

I was primarily discussing SBB's fleet strategy. I know that the situations aren't strictly comparable but it is interesting how SBB seem to squeeze more life out of their equipment than Irish Rail.

Hungerford

Hungerford wrote: »

I was primarily discussing SBB's fleet strategy. I know that the situations aren't strictly comparable but it is interesting how SBB seem to squeeze more life out of their equipment than Irish Rail.

I'd say a lot of it was down to public opinion. For a long time we were perceived as having the "oldest trains in Europe".

end of the road

Judgement Day wrote: »

If the damn things (22000s) had been fitted with SDO we could have 6-coach sets on the Rosslare line.

exactly, but no, they would rather us be cramed in like cattle or put up with a 4 car peasant wagon instead.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Perhaps they can be dumped stored in Waterford when the remaining MkIIIs are scrapped.

i'm afraid those places will be set aside for some of the 2700s for their program of natural bio-degration

Victor

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

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.

If at 0600/0630, a 3-car 22000 ran from Greystones to Belfast Airport and another ran from Bangor to Dun Laoghaire, the market would hardly be flooded with seats, but a useful early arrival at either city would exist. The stopping pattern would need to be worked out carefully.

steamengine wrote: »

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.

But which is cheaper towing the extra vehicle (which risked being scrapped anyway) or the fuel and wear and tear on the engines?

Solair wrote: »

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.

They did ask for expressions of interest from couriers and the like.

Victor

Solair wrote: »

In terms of recent purchases, I would actually think the Mark 4s were probably the questionable one.

Although when they were ordered, there was no funding for a big purchase of new DMUs to replace the whole intercity fleet. I think the original idea was that the MK4s were going to go onto key routes and the MK3s were to be cascaded down to other routes.

The Mark 4s were originally meant to be spread across a variety or routes and would likely have been used to supplement the fleet and/or allow older stock to be retired. I suspect there was an option for a follow-on order. Then they came up with the idea of marking Cork-Dublin hourly and used the identical stock to build the brand.

Solair wrote: »

I think this is a bit of an over reaction to be honest.

There are 234 Class 22000 DMU cars as far as I can see.

So, if 20 of them are idle at any one time, that's less than 10% of the fleet. That would seem well within the norms to me.

You'd need about 10% extra coaches to ensure that the service operated smoothly and to allow for routine maintenance!

Routine maintenance is easy, it's the 5-year and/or 1,000,000km-type overhauls that means sets aren't available for weeks or months. You can't do it piecemeal carriage by carriage as it much less efficient than having a 'production line'.

The history we have had so far was small sub-fleets that were all too small to do proper maintenance without dumping passengers onto ancient stock, commuter trains or even busses.

Agreed. Buying fleets of 10-30 vehicles isn't very useful. There are higher overheads in buying and maintaining.

The Enterprise fleet's also too small to do anything without disruption.

In theory you have four sets, but they cannibalised the fourth set for standard carriages to make the other three longer. Depending on demand, careful scheduling and slotting-in a 22000 for some of the quieter services would mean several carriages could be taken out at a time.

With a large fleet of identical trains, you've common maintenance systems, common spare parts, common oprational proceedures and you start to get some of the kinds of efficiencies that an airline like Ryanair gets with all 737-800s or Aer Lingus with entirely

The problem there is if your fleet is of only one type and something does go wrong, it is likely to be wrong with the entire fleet. You are also potentially hostage to one manufacturer / supply chain for parts.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

funny because in general the likes of the Swiss don't, still running mostly loco and carraige combinations with Lok2000 placed anywhere along the train.

Of note, the Swiss system is 99% electric. http://www.bueker.net/trainspotting/maps_switzerland.php

CIE wrote: »

DMUs always put a higher axle load on the track versus loco/carriages. Especially the 22000s, when the 63t/car (that's 15.75t on every axle on average, empty weight, varying with fuel and passengers) is compared with a single 67t 141/181 class (16.75t/axle, weight varying only with fuel). Compare that with a 38-tonne DeDietrich trailer (9.5t/axle empty).

And what of the 201 that is stuck in front of that DeDietrich?

Note that wear and tear increases by something like the square of the axle weight.

Victor

dermo88 wrote: »

In fairness the 201 Class engines were relatively young at the time. They still had to be used and Iarnrod Eireann was still a significant mixed traffic operator at that time, with Sugar Beer, Cement, Containers, and more besides still forming a substantial part of its business.

Freudian?

Jamie2k9

If at 0600/0630, a 3-car 22000 ran from Greystones to Belfast Airport and another ran from Bangor to Dun Laoghaire, the market would hardly be flooded with seats, but a useful early arrival at either city would exist. The stopping pattern would need to be worked out carefully.

Glad you changed it 06.00 and not left it just 06.30 as by the time it reaches Connolly it will be just about ahead of the current 7.35 service. IMO best option would be to have a trail and move the 07.35 to 06.45/07.00 to see if demand is there etc before adding another service. At that hour of the morning having two service is going to take from one another but would not flooded with seats.

Anyway there is more chance of an 06.00 service to Cork before another service to Belfast.

Victor

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

IMO best option would be to have a trail and move the 07.35 to 06.45/07.00 to see if demand is there etc before adding another service.

Moving the Entreprise would mean you would also have to move the 0709 Pearse-Drogheda the 0630 from Greystones that feed the Enterprise.