Why do Irish trains journeys have such rough ride quality

TheBoyConor

Hi.

I'm on the train from cork to Dublin on a Mk IV and it has me thinking, why are the train journeys in Ireland so rock n roll.

I mean I understand that the line could be bad but isn't there frequent work to up upgrade and renew the pw along this route all the time?

Coming up this morning I got to to go to the toilets and walking up along the carriage I was hanging on for dear life to the seats as the train thrashed about up, down and side to side.

By comparison in France or Germany you'd be hurtling along at the same speed or faster and it feels like you're gliding along on a cushion of air. There would hardly be a ripple in your tea. Whereas in Ireland your tea would be almost sloshing around in the cup.

I'm aware that our alignments are over 100 years old but so are many continental and UK lines and they are smooth. The fact that PW renewal work is ongoing and it's all cwr makes the age argument a bit thin.

I'm guessing a lot of the contractors used would be the same ones who do PW work in the UK and on the continent.
Is it the case that Irish PW work is done to much more generous tolerances and this results in such a rough ride?
If so why? Is it purely a cost saving measure? And surely such a rough PW results in increased wear and tear on both the pw and the stock.

I am also aware of the ride quality issues that affect the mark IVs but what I experienced this morning is not harmonics or oscillations, it was random thrashing around due to a very out of kilter track.

Another thing I notice on some lines is that even though they are of cwr, you can still hear and feel every weld joint in the track even though it might be a recent relay. For example, the section from LJ to Waterford is predominantly Cwr on concrete sleepers, much of which is less than 10 years old. Yet you still hear and feel nearly every joint, sometimes it's subtle, at times you'd swear it was jointed track. In other countries you don't get this at all.

Are IE PW standards and tolerances for new works really so loose and shoddy? Or are they accepting substandard work from rail contractors?

incentsitive

I dunno, I find the ride quality quite good on a train, although it does depend on whether there's a table in the way or not.

Isambard

first thing to state is that the MkIV ride quality is far inferior to the Mk3.

Seanmk1

The ride on the Mark 3's was pretty good alright.

I regularly travel by train in other countries and in my opinion the ride in Ireland is OK. Not fantastic, but not terrible either.

I was on the Eurostar this week and struggled a little to walk down to the buffet.

CelticRambler

I haven't been on an Irish train for a very long time, but had the dubious experience of (a lot of) Amtrak a few months ago. That was rough!

goingnowhere

Its horses for courses, the engineering quality required for running 70-100 mph with light axle loads isn't huge

Central Europe is heavy axle loads combined with much more high speed running 100-120 not uncommon. This gives you a very firm and inflexible track which requires fairly basic suspension. Try the Austrian hills at 60mph on the latest RailJet coaches and the ride while smooth is full of squeals and lurches. The Europeans also have a much wider loading gauge to stuff all the dampers and swing links into.

Irish track requires fairly complex suspension, the Mk3 BT10 is the ultimate in bogie design (and its primary suspension copied world over) it had an ingenious secondary arrangement. The original dampers were always better, the newer ones are not so good, but its the combination with the Mk3 rigid and light coach which gives the great experience. The B4 was never quite right and required very careful maintenance to keep the ride smooth.

The Irish Mk4 rides perfectly if it is on decent new track otherwise its all over the place.

Losty Dublin

The best ride quality of any Irish carriage I've been in was that of RPSi's ex GNR 88. Sadly, it's unlike to see traffic anytime soon. I am told that ex GSWR 861, a trip axle bogie was better again; it too is unlikely to see traffic in the mid term.

prinzeugen

Isambard wrote: »

first thing to state is that the MkIV ride quality is far inferior to the Mk3.

And it could be fixed. Same issue with the 29000s also. BR had a similar issue with their Mk4 stock (different I know) and the solution is simple.

They could not workout why a SIG bogie was fine under a Mk3 but rubbish under a Mk4.

Gangways!

They need a damper between the coupler/drawbar and headstock to stop lateral movement.

The gangways/Pullman rubbing plate on Mk2/3 stock have friction faceplates that restrict sideways movement.

Sealed gangways as used now dont. So you can have stiff suspension or softer suspension and some sort of lateral damper.

worded

I heard all the romance was lost on train travel since they started spot welding the tracks ....

joeysoap

I was on the Enterprise last week, both journeys. Difference of night and day, the earlier one to Dublin was quite rock and rolly ( by enterprise standards) and there was the odd ‘bump’. TBH I was surprised, could hardly make the phone out at times.
The return was smooth as silk, no rolling , hardly noticed it slowing down for Drogheda (no stop). It was dark on the return but barely knew we were moving.

Was on a double decker in both Belgium and Austria (Westbahn) fairly recently. Wouldn’t even know you were moving. ( Belgium was expensive, Austria cheap as chips)

man98

I've traveled a lot on the Cork - Dublin line and I can tell you that the 22000 Class provides a much smoother ride. The Mk 4 is a push pull set, and you can feel that you're being pushed from Cork to Dublin, which can make the journey a bit shakier. The ICR does wobble from side to side a bit when it accelerates, and especially where they're doing works on the line, but it is smoother overall. The Mk 4 from Dublin to Cork is a nicer experience, though not quite to ICR standard imo. Both are, however, a lot smoother than the 29000 Class can be.

prinzeugen

You will always know when you are being pushed by a loco. There is a "bounce" when the coaches go a tiny bit faster than the loco and the coupling tightens.

Its what burst the Mk3 vans on the Enterprise when first introduced. The dragboxes could not take the shocks through the Dellner coupler.

Never designed for that but modified to HST standards now I believe.

The ride does vary by train rather than track. DART to Howth, fine. 29000 to Howth Jnt, you get seasick!

tabbey

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The best ride quality of any Irish carriage I've been in was that of RPSi's ex GNR 88. Sadly, it's unlike to see traffic anytime soon. I am told that ex GSWR 861, a trip axle bogie was better again; it too is unlikely to see traffic in the mid term.

Older coaches had better ride quality because they were designed to cope with jointed track, and generally poorer permanent way.

Personally I always thought the Commonwealth bogie was the best for comfort. Park Royals and laminate coaches had them. The B4 bogie was not quite as good, being designed for CWR.

Last time I was in Australia (2012) the Victoria railways (V Line) still had a good few coaches with Commonwealth bogies, it was a pleasure to travel on them.

tabbey

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Hi.

I'm on the train from cork to Dublin on a Mk IV and it has me thinking, why are the train journeys in Ireland so rock n roll.

I mean I understand that the line could be bad but isn't there frequent work to up upgrade and renew the pw along this route all the time?

I'm guessing a lot of the contractors used would be the same ones who do PW work in the UK and on the continent.
Is it the case that Irish PW work is done to much more generous tolerances and this results in such a rough ride?

I am also aware of the ride quality issues that affect the mark IVs

Are IE PW standards and tolerances for new works really so loose and shoddy? Or are they accepting substandard work from rail contractors?

Mk IV coaches are certainly part of the problem.

Track quality in Ireland has always been worse than in Britain, which in turn was never as good as continental Europe.

This is partially due to the type of soil which lies under the permanent way.
Renewing track (rails + sleepers + ballast) to an expensive standard, is not giving us full value because the ground underneath is not adequately drained, leading to "wet spots", where the track dips under the weight of passing trains.

To solve this problem would be expensive and involve closing the line for a period, excavating the ground and replacing it with massive amounts of ballast, before rebuilding the track above it.

It will never happen unless we build new high speed lines.

goingnowhere

Its all well and good talking about 861, but it operated in a fairly safe sub 60mph domain.

Once you get above 60-70mph the lateral suspension becomes really important and you get the classic trade off, if its too soft its great a slow speed but horrible at high speed make it too stiff and its horrible at slow speed. Same can be said of the Commonwealth bogies, huge heavy lumps.

The BT10 had a fairly medium setting and the very unique teflon rubbing plates instead of the body yaw dammer to provide rotational stiffness.

Its easy today say the Mk3 was better but we cannot compare unless we splash out on the Belmond train. The 22k and Mk4 are reasonable good. There are bad bumps on the DART line which the LHB units barely feel, go over on a 22k and you get a big shake.

The real issue with the Mk4 has been hunting it has a tendency to get into a side to side motion at speed and in a max cant/max speed case in a corner it lacks stiffness and you get to the bump stops, so the Curragh and Templemore were always interesting as the bogie would bounce off the bump stops, the Mk3 did this but it tended to easy into the corner and hold it rarely bumped

tabbey

goingnowhere wrote: »

Its all well and good talking about 861, but it operated in a fairly safe sub 60mph domain.

Once you get above 60-70mph the lateral suspension becomes really important and you get the classic trade off, if its too soft its great a slow speed but horrible at high speed make it too stiff and its horrible at slow speed. Same can be said of the Commonwealth bogies, huge heavy lumps.

British Rail MkI coaches ran comfortably at up to 100mph on Commonwealth bogies.

Its easy today say the Mk3 was better but we cannot compare unless we splash out on the Belmond train.

HSTs in Britain are Mk 3. They are the backbone of Great Western as well as being found on East Midland Trains and some LNER.

Stephen15

prinzeugen wrote: »

The ride does vary by train rather than track. DART to Howth, fine. 29000 to Howth Jnt, you get seasick!

Also the 8100 class provides a significantly better ride quality than the newer 8500. Very well built trains.

Jamie2k9

tabbey wrote: »

Mk IV coaches are certainly part of the problem.

Track quality in Ireland has always been worse than in Britain, which in turn was never as good as continental Europe.

This is partially due to the type of soil which lies under the permanent way.
Renewing track (rails + sleepers + ballast) to an expensive standard, is not giving us full value because the ground underneath is not adequately drained, leading to "wet spots", where the track dips under the weight of passing trains.

To solve this problem would be expensive and involve closing the line for a period, excavating the ground and replacing it with massive amounts of ballast, before rebuilding the track above it.

It will never happen unless we build new high speed lines.

Mark IVs are almost entirely the problem however inconsistent track upgrades by IE are also a big problem. They upgraded a few sections a few years ago and ride qualify is good but all recent upgrades have not been the same even the current works could be better but it probally comes down to money.

On a more general note the 22s are way better however they did have there own problems when they arrived. They are pretty poor on Portarlington/Athlone section at the minute.

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

Also the 8100 class provides a significantly better ride quality than the newer 8500. Very well built trains.

Well built, well refurbished, excellent internal build quality too, as well as being excellent in the winter cold!

thomasj

In fairness, The 29000s seem to have the best track record when it comes to performance and reliability.

Look at the ongoing mechanical issues with regards to DART and 22k carriages .

Jamie2k9

thomasj wrote: »

In fairness, The 29000s seem to have the best track record when it comes to performance and reliability.

Look at the ongoing mechanical issues with regards to DART and 22k carriages .

Only because the 29s don't do much work, if they were worked like the 22s then CAF would come in for as much criticism as they get for the MarkIVs.

Running above 70-75 mph is where costs and maintenance play a major role and 22s mostly do it full time.