Entreprise Mess today [6 June 2013]

Losty Dublin

Captain Chaos wrote: »

EMD do supply HEP as an option yes, and it works just fine in American locos that use a different electrical system then the one IE use which cause problems due to it's design. If it were built with todays technology there would be no issues.

If that is the case then either they (And probably other aspirant companies competing for the tender) didn't supply what was required as per the tender, the requirements of the tender were unsuitable or flawed, how the train was used differed from what the tender specified or a combination of all these factors.

EMD supplied loco's to NIR in the past that had HEP fitted so all parties should have been aware of issues that may have arisen. When we take into account our friendly politicians saw to it that the DD sets and 201's have run contrary to what was proposed initially it infers that somebody put flies into the ointment at some stage.

Captain Chaos wrote: »

If there was no issue with the 201s providing HEP why did IE and NIR spend all that time and money converting and testing the Mk3 EGVs. The 201s are not fit for purpose providing HEP with IE's electrical system.

As currently used, no they aren't; we can all agree on that

ardmacha

Now in relation to the locos and IE / NIR operations. The enterprise fleet of 201s as mentioned above has both TPWS / NIR Radio and CAWS. When TPWS was introduced there was a period were non TPWS fitted trains worker north. Then a ruling came in and it was restricted to TPWS only except in an emergency.

Whose brainwave was it to have two different cab signalling and train protection systems?

dowlingm

shamwari wrote: »

it might be a case of fitting some 22K's with TPWS and clearing these up run to Belfast

22001-6 already have it. For some reason even though clearance trials were done what, nine months ago? people are still being told to go on 29000 which lack the additional safety equipment or the ability to use maximum line speeds where they are available.

EDIT: We've had the discussion about HEP before. If you look at the locos in the US which have HEP they tend to be 16V units rather than IE's V12 EMD710s, and even then most operators are going with HEP generators for new locos (except METRA) or retrofitting it like VIA Rail did with its entire F40PH fleet.

Captain Chaos

Losty Dublin wrote: »

As currently used, no they aren't; we can all agree on that

As currently used yes, but what is the alternative? The locos are swapped fairly regularly and I am amazed the failure rate has stayed so low with only 7 locos.

What I believe is the issue with the 201s is that there is a compromise EMD had to make with the design to fit in with the Irish loading gauge and IE's axle limit. American and British locos tended or tend to have a separate generator or boiler in the loco providing the HEP that was completely isolated from the prime mover used for traction but not so with the 201 design. I don't know if it was lack of space or what.

I know I tend to compare the UK class 66 to our 201s sometimes but here is an example. With the latest batch of low emission class 66s they had to reduce the fuel tank capacity because the low emission engines are heavier and to keep the axle limit in check also the creep control gear had to be removed, something our 201s have. Just a theory I'm throwing out there.

Captain Chaos

dowlingm wrote: »

22001-6 already have it. For some reason even though clearance trials were done what, nine months ago? people are still being told to go on 29000 which lack the additional safety equipment or the ability to use maximum line speeds where they are available.

The thing is keeping at least 2 of those 6 units close to Connolly which can't realistically happen due to the way the 22k fleet operate. I don't know why they didn't fit it to all the units as delivered but NIR did the same by only fitting 3001-6 out of 23 sets with CAWS but they seem to be able to get hold of them regularly when needed to stand in.

steamengine

What exactly is the problem with HEP ? What actually breaks down - the generator, the engine or does it vary ? The HEP maximum load is only about 10% of total power - just curious !

Captain Chaos

ardmacha wrote: »

Whose brainwave was it to have two different cab signalling and train protection systems?

NIR follow the UK rail safety requirements. The UK don't use CAWS and opted for TPWS instead. CAWS fits IE needs and requirements. The DART use APT and CAWS systems.

The trains using the channel tunnel have to be compatible with 3 different electrical supply systems and 4 different signaling systems. Could be worse.

Captain Chaos

steamengine wrote: »

What exactly is the problem with HEP ? What actually breaks down - the generator, the engine or does it vary ? The HEP maximum load is only about 10% of total power - just curious !

The roughest and not great analogy I can come up with is imagine that to power the lights and radio in your car you had to keep your foot to the floor and the engine red lined all the time even when stopped. So stopped at traffic lights you are in neutral and the engine is still screaming. It would not last long at all like that and over heat.

201s used to be in HEP almost all day when on the Enterprise but new operating practices brought in a few years ago instruct the driver to take the loco out of HEP mode when stopped for a long time and not to engage HEP mode until about 20 mins before departure I think it is. A ground supply is used to power the lights and air con while the loco is not in HEP. This seemed to make a difference in reducing failure rates.

dowlingm

I don't understand the point about 22001-6 Captain Chaos. If keeping those six sets on Drogheda/Sligo/Rosslare duties to be nice and handy for Enterprise failures isn't feasible, why did IE fit them out as such in the first place? Sure, when Drogheda Depot couldn't accept 22s I could see the issue around swapping them back and forth for maintenance but I would have thought that issue sorted now? Look forward to getting more detail on that if you have some.

In any event, IE only sent one 29K set north yesterday apparently, so a single 3 car 22K would have given the same seat count.

ardmacha

NIR follow the UK rail safety requirements.

Why? Their kit never operates in Britain, there is no reason whatsoever to have the same system if it is going to cause problems with cross border operations.

Hungerford

ardmacha wrote: »

Why? Their kit never operates in Britain, there is no reason whatsoever to have the same system if it is going to cause problems with cross border operations.

They are subject to UK law.

Captain Chaos

dowlingm wrote: »

I don't understand the point about 22001-6 Captain Chaos. If keeping those six sets on Drogheda/Sligo/Rosslare duties to be nice and handy for Enterprise failures isn't feasible, why did IE fit them out as such in the first place? Sure, when Drogheda Depot couldn't accept 22s I could see the issue around swapping them back and forth for maintenance but I would have thought that issue sorted now? Look forward to getting more detail on that if you have some.

In any event, IE only sent one 29K set north yesterday apparently, so a single 3 car 22K would have given the same seat count.

I'd say the reason they only sent one set was that they knew numbers were low in advance. The train that failed had about what, 120 on board. Or they probably only had one set at had at the time, only IE ops department know.

I don't know what IE's thought process was for the limited fitting of TPWS to the 22ks. I assume along the lines of NIR's C3Ks fitted with CAWS.

The way the 22s are rotated around Drogheda, Connolly, Heuston and LTCD any set can end up anywhere. Come to think of it, after sets 1-4 were delivered and hauled to Drogheda and Dundalk later that night by a pair of 141s I have never seen them on the Connolly side of the network again. They must have at some stage though.

dowlingm

Captain Chaos wrote: »

after sets 1-4 were delivered and hauled to Drogheda and Dundalk later that night by a pair of 141s I have never seen them on the Connolly side of the network again. They must have at some stage though.

22002 did the clearance trial so at least once

L1011

114 passengers? At this stage it might be cheaper from a fuel/staff/wear perspective for Irish Rail to pick up some Boeing 717's second hand and run Dublin to Belfast City...

Captain Chaos

At the time of 206's failure things were very different; IE needed every loco they had, plus more, hence their loan of 112 from NIR. Now that about half of the fleet is surplus to requirements I'd say that could well be it for 230.

Captain Chaos wrote: »

201s used to be in HEP almost all day when on the Enterprise but new operating practices brought in a few years ago instruct the driver to take the loco out of HEP mode when stopped for a long time and not to engage HEP mode until about 20 mins before departure I think it is. A ground supply is used to power the lights and air con while the loco is not in HEP. This seemed to make a difference in reducing failure rates.

I haven't seen this been done. Usually the loco is put into standby HEP mode which uses the main generator to provide HEP at a reduced capacity. That spins the engine at 720 rpm which is roughly around notch 6. So it's still quite high.

Losty Dublin

Captain Chaos wrote: »

What I believe is the issue with the 201s is that there is a compromise EMD had to make with the design to fit in with the Irish loading gauge and IE's axle limit. American and British locos tended or tend to have a separate generator or boiler in the loco providing the HEP that was completely isolated from the prime mover used for traction but not so with the 201 design. I don't know if it was lack of space or what.

There shouldn't an issue with loading gauges though; the JT42 were an off the peg loco size wise. Axle weight issues relate more to some bridges around the country and the poor state of track through years of non investment; that said there have been heavier axles with some steam engines of the past.

This one looks fairly bad.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=470058916409242&set=a.470058749742592.1073741829.310456715702797&type=1&theater

Losty Dublin

ardmacha wrote: »

Whose brainwave was it to have two different cab signalling and train protection systems?

They are two different systems doing two different jobs albeit with some overlapping similarities.

Train Protection Warning System is a system that prevents trains from passing red signals (SPAD) and breaking track speed limits. It is legally required by UK law for all mainline trains operation in the UK and Northern Ireland. This includes any Irish Rail and RPSI train that operates over the border.

Continuous Automatic Warning System is an in cab signal system that relays the status of upcoming signals in cab. It offers some train protection in the form of an automatic brake application when a driver doesn't acknowledge a change from a green signal but it can't prevent SPAD.

Both have merits and drawbacks but together they work very well in cab.

The UK looked at installing CAWS in the 90's but baulked when the likely cost was going to be billions; this was at a time when they were looking to cutting costs for private operators.

foggy_lad

Karsini wrote: »

This one looks fairly bad.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=470058916409242&set=a.470058749742592.1073741829.310456715702797&type=1&theater

Some reports are stating that the loco was uncoupled from the rest of the train and moved along the track for safety but from those pictures that is not the case!

foggy_lad

foggy_lad wrote: »

Some reports are stating that the loco was uncoupled from the rest of the train and moved along the track for safety but from those pictures that is not the case!

No it doesn't seem like it. I see RTE's report also claimed that passengers were moved towards the rear of the train... well that wouldn't be very wise considering that the loco was at the back.

Jamie2k9

I'd say the reason they only sent one set was that they knew numbers were low in advance. The train that failed had about what, 120 on board. Or they probably only had one set at had at the time, only IE ops department know.

I don't know what IE's thought process was for the limited fitting of TPWS to the 22ks. I assume along the lines of NIR's C3Ks fitted with CAWS.

The way the 22s are rotated around Drogheda, Connolly, Heuston and LTCD any set can end up anywhere. Come to think of it, after sets 1-4 were delivered and hauled to Drogheda and Dundalk later that night by a pair of 141s I have never seen them on the Connolly side of the network again. They must have at some stage though.

When the latest ICR sets became began to enter service the older sets were removed for overhauls. Sets 1 to 6 have clocked up most miles and this week at least 1 if not 2 of the sets were around Connolly. Its not impossible to keep them Connolly side but the Sligo line has 3 6 car High Capacity sets allocated and they cover a significant amount of Sligo services daily. This doesn't help with ensuring availability of sets 1 to 6.

Karsini wrote: »

At the time of 206's failure things were very different; IE needed every loco they had, plus more, hence their loan of 112 from NIR. Now that about half of the fleet is surplus to requirements I'd say that could well be it for 230.

I haven't seen this been done. Usually the loco is put into standby HEP mode which uses the main generator to provide HEP at a reduced capacity. That spins the engine at 720 rpm which is roughly around notch 6. So it's still quite high.

What happens at night? Hope HEP from the loco is stopped. The roar of 201's at Connolly compared to them at Heuston is unreal.

Jamie2k9

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

What happens at night? Hope HEP from the loco is stopped. The roar of 201's at Connolly compared to them at Heuston is unreal.

It is stopped overnight, yes. The locos are probably shut down completely but I don't know for sure.

dowlingm

The fuel burn must be significant too. Back when decisions were being made on this stuff diesel didn't cost quite so much!

dowlingm

dowlingm wrote: »

The fuel burn must be significant too. Back when decisions were being made on this stuff diesel didn't cost quite so much!

I'm sure. I was once told that the loco can't do two round trips without refuelling. I can't see how the fuel consumption would be worse with the EGV.

bikeman1

No IE GMs are shut down between duties and are left ticking over all night. This has been the policy for fear of the loco not starting the next morning.

As wity everything, there are exceptions. Athlone used to shut down the locos there because of the proximity of houses. Sometimes a per way train gets shut down if not being used for a few days.

But in the main they remain ticking over.

bikeman1

bikeman1 wrote: »

No IE GMs are shut down between duties and are left ticking over all night. This has been the policy for fear of the loco not starting the next morning.

As wity everything, there are exceptions. Athlone used to shut down the locos there because of the proximity of houses. Sometimes a per way train gets shut down if not being used for a few days.

But in the main they remain ticking over.

I thought this was changed in recent years? I remembered hearing several cases of locos failing to start in Ballina, especially 071s. 214 was one of them, was hauled back to Dublin and never ran again.

bikeman1

In my recent visits to Westport and Drogheda both on Sundays the 071s were ticking over. 201s on Connolly shed are always ticking over.

Jamie2k9

I think they mostly get shut down if they are not running for a day or 2.

kingshankly

bikeman1 wrote: »

In my recent visits to Westport and Drogheda both on Sundays the 071s were ticking over. 201s on Connolly shed are always ticking over.

New rules engines must be shut down now to save fuel

Oscar Bravo

Bikeman1,it mustnt of been a very recent visit as the timber loco is always shut down at Westport on the friday evening it arrives until the Monday/Tuesday where shunting for loading takes place. Likewise in Ballina, both locos that stay for the weekend are always shutdown.