RSC report into RPSI Midelton train 2014

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

n97 mini

Never been to Midleton but surprised to read a modern station can only accommodate 4 carriages.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

metrovick001

LOL - and people wonder why the web summit has been moved to Lisbon!!

Del.Monte

A lot of hot air in my opinion. With all the red tape it's a wonder the railway operates at all. It seems to have been a well organised/policed event and who blew the whistle on it? Also, if the rest of the report is as inaccurate as the statement at the beginning which says the Youghal branch east of Midleton closed in 1981...:rolleyes:

Jamie2k9

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wasn't designed for an operation, is it really justifiable to spend taxpayer's money for a group of spotters visiting once in a blue moon.

LOL - and people wonder why the web summit has been moved to Lisbon!!

They went with the money they are getting, one core reasons given was hotel prices in Dublin, do a seraph in Lisbon in November and they are up to 6 times the €50 quoted!

Not fully read the report but it looks like a lot of rubbish, IE adopted a relaxed approach and the RPSI should of known better when planning services, the network statement can be retrieved in 2 minutes.

Vic_08

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Wasn't designed for an operation, is it really justifiable to spend taxpayer's money for a group of spotters visiting once in a blue moon.

Passing loop? No, the extra points, signal interlocking, etc would have been a substantial cost on the re-opening and keeping it in operational condition would be an ongoing cost that would be unjustifiable.

Longer section for extended train to fit inside the starting signal? Yes, any number of reasons why this would be needed and jut a one-off cost of an extra length of track.

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Not fully read the report but it looks like a lot of rubbish, IE adopted a relaxed approach and the RPSI should of known better when planning services, the network statement can be retrieved in 2 minutes.

A lot of whatiffery and doomsday scenarios, thankfully nothing like the really dangerous carry-on across the water with WCRC that has grounded most mainline steam operations indefinitely.

tabbey

The report also mistook meters for yards in quoting lengths between signals in 3.1 , paragraph 17.

I do not know if the RSC has ever issued a report free of errors, The most bizarre was the report on the 29 class derailment at Wicklow some years ago, which contained a map showing the location as several coach lengths from the railway.

People who issue such sloppy reports should not be given the task of investigating genuine incidents.

The Midleton incident was a non event, just something to justify the existence of another useless quango.

This rubbish would never occur when Mr Feehan was Railway Inspecting Officer.

Itssoeasy

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sure cobh doesn't have a run round loop either now since when they upgraded the cobh line. I know it might not be technically needed as loco hauled services aren't the norm and would cost money but to me there is no flexibility in the event of something going wrong.

savagethegoat

to me it's the everyday passenger being asked to shoulder the costs of rare specials, almost all of them crankex's . Not justifiable and the result of demanding them would likely be loco hauled trains banned

Jamie2k9

Passing loop? No, the extra points, signal interlocking, etc would have been a substantial cost on the re-opening and keeping it in operational condition would be an ongoing cost that would be unjustifiable.

Longer section for extended train to fit inside the starting signal? Yes, any number of reasons why this would be needed and jut a one-off cost of an extra length of track.

Points are not cheap or i'm told, if they were then there is much more key area's on the network which requires new sets not reconditioned ones.

You also need to remember it was build when IE had little money so wasting money for a once a year weed spray and the odd RPSI is frankly not justifiable.

Sure cobh doesn't have a run round loop either now since when they upgraded the cobh line. I know it might not be technically needed as loco hauled services aren't the norm and would cost money but to me there is no flexibility in the event of something going wrong.

What could go wrong, there is nothing that could go wrong that would require a turnaround at the other side.

to me it's the everyday passenger being asked to shoulder the costs of rare specials, almost all of them crankex's . Not justifiable and the result of demanding them would likely be loco hauled trains banned

I agree it would need to be a fairly regular operation to justify the costs.

GM228

tabbey wrote: »

The report also mistook meters for yards in quoting lengths between signals in 3.1 , paragraph 17.

The RSC report didn't mistake meters for yards, 3.1 17 is a direct quote from the IE circular, note then what is written in paragraph 18.

18. The above table is an extract from Weekly Circular (an IÉ-IM internal train planning publication circulated to all interested parties) No. 3356 of week ending 5th July 2009. The contents of which raises concern given the accuracy of information contained therein, i.e., the measurements in metres and yards do not equate. The weekly circular is the primary reference document used by all RU’s operating on the rail network, IÉ-IM track maintenance personnel, and those undertaking capacity allocation activity. The fact that a relatively simple but important table contains inaccurate information is of concern.

tabbey

Del.Monte wrote: »

A lot of hot air in my opinion. With all the red tape it's a wonder the railway operates at all. It seems to have been a well organised/policed event and who blew the whistle on it? Also, if the rest of the report is as inaccurate as the statement at the beginning which says the Youghal branch east of Midleton closed in 1981...:rolleyes:

The date of 1981 is I think when beet trains finished.

Regular passenger services ended 1963,but summer excursions continued until late 1980s.

The report should be a bit more accurate, otherwise it should not criticise IR and RPSI for trivial failings.

tabbey

GM228,

I take your point about the details being copied from the weekly circular, but you have raised another interesting point, Are railway personnel expected to retain the weekly circular from July 2009, just in case they might need to consult it in November 2014?

GM228

tabbey wrote: »

The date of 1981 is I think when beet trains finished.

Regular passenger services ended 1963,but summer excursions continued until late 1980s.

The report should be a bit more accurate, otherwise it should not criticise IR and RPSI for trivial failings.

Beet trains finished August 1982 and 1987 saw the last trains on the line (a Knock pilgrimage and an IRRS special I believe).

Does the error in closure date on the report really matter?

Del.Monte

GM228 wrote: »

Beet trains finished August 1982 and 1987 saw the last trains on the line (a Knock pilgrimage and an IRRS special I believe).

Does the error in closure date on the report really matter?

It show a sloppiness which if continued throughout the report.....

GM228

tabbey wrote: »

GM228,

I take your point about the details being copied from the weekly circular, but you have raised another interesting point, Are railway personnel expected to retain the weekly circular from July 2009, just in case they might need to consult it in November 2014?

I very much doubt it (especially if the staff member didn't work there in 2009), but my guess would be that the incorrect info was held in a database for reference when required.

end of the road

Itssoeasy wrote: »

there is no flexibility in the event of something going wrong.

i'm afraid like the days of matching capacity to demand on some services, the days of flexibility on the railway are long gone. i'm not even talking in terms of loco hauled trains as they are few anyway, so much easier to have a second loco near by to bring the train back.

(sorry i will let yee get back to RPSI now)

savagethegoat

I did wonder why the loco for the return journey travelled independently. Is there some reason why trains to Midleton can't be "top and tailed"?

GM228

savagethegoat wrote: »

I did wonder why the loco for the return journey travelled independently. Is there some reason why trains to Midleton can't be "top and tailed"?

Passenger trains are not permitted to be top and tailed, and even if they were it's not possible on vacuum braked trains.

end of the road

GM228 wrote: »

Passenger trains are not permitted to be top and tailed

what is the reason for that?

savagethegoat

you'll have to elaborate a bit there.
Why are they not permitted to be top and tailed? It can't be an objection to a loco at the back as the Mk4s are propelled quite happily. What difference does vac make?

Captain Chaos

savagethegoat wrote: »

you'll have to elaborate a bit there.
Why are they not permitted to be top and tailed? It can't be an objection to a loco at the back as the Mk4s are propelled quite happily. What difference does vac make?

Because on a vac braked train the loco at the end is free rolling dead weight with no brakes. On an air brake train the rear loco has brakes controlled by the lead loco.

GM228

end of the road wrote: »

what is the reason for that?

savagethegoat wrote: »

you'll have to elaborate a bit there.
Why are they not permitted to be top and tailed? It can't be an objection to a loco at the back as the Mk4s are propelled quite happily. What difference does vac make?

Top and tailing has never been permitted in Ireland until recent times when it was introduced for Ballast trains.

Top and tailing and Push-Pull operation is a bit different in that the loco at the rear of a push-pull will be sending emergency signals to the control car and can be shut down remotely etc, when top and tailing a rear loco would either have to be shut down completely or have a second crew on board. Top and tailed Ballast trains require double crewing.

Vacuum braked trains can't control the brakes on the rear loco.

savagethegoat

I imagine you are saying that the loco controls the vac brakes through it's air brake system but has no vac brakes itself?

GM228

savagethegoat wrote: »

I imagine you are saying that the loco controls the vac brakes through it's air brake system but has no vac brakes itself?

Yes, they are entirely air braked but control the vacuum brakes on rolling stock via a vacuum exhauster.

Older locos such as the A class, B101 class etc were entirely vacuum braked (bar one A which was modified with air brakes as a trial).

savagethegoat

gotcher....thanks

Jamie2k9

Mark IV had two 201's front/rear after the now discontinued 05.15 failed. 211 (non PP) leading and 223 at the rear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iyfo3chaCI

GM228

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Mark IV had two 201's front/rear after the now discontinued 05.15 failed. 211 (non PP) leading and 223 at the rear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iyfo3chaCI

Permitted and fairly normal in a failure situation. 211 was hauling the failed set to Dublin.

AlekSmart

tabbey wrote: »

The report also mistook meters for yards in quoting lengths between signals in 3.1 , paragraph 17.

I do not know if the RSC has ever issued a report free of errors, The most bizarre was the report on the 29 class derailment at Wicklow some years ago, which contained a map showing the location as several coach lengths from the railway.

People who issue such sloppy reports should not be given the task of investigating genuine incidents.

The Midleton incident was a non event, just something to justify the existence of another useless quango.

This rubbish would never occur when Mr Feehan was Railway Inspecting Officer.

Wow ...there's a name from the past !!..J.V. Feehan...whatever happened to him ?

Del.Monte

AlekSmart wrote: »

Wow ...there's a name from the past !!..J.V. Feehan...whatever happened to him ?

Long since gone to the Great Railway Inspectorate in the sky where all accidents are minor. Incidentally, he was the uncle of a well known enthusiast - Sandy Mount.