Isambard wrote: » you have to wonder how the network became so short of stock.
IE 222 wrote: » The only shortage is in Dublin commuter stock. What was the poor quality GM stock.
Isambard wrote: » shortage of stock is often trotted out as the reason for bustitution on the line in question
L1011 wrote: » There's a shortage of everything. The 201s were not fit for purpose and exceptionally unreliable in certain use cases which they were bought for. Much of the fleet sits up never to work again either through unsuitability or failures. The Dutch have shown what you do with something as bad as the 2700s or 8200s - send it back. The V250s were taken out of service and dumped back to AnsaledoBreda.
IE 222 wrote: » Doesn't mean the 201s were poor quality. They were too big and heavy and overkill for what they needed to do. The HEP was it's only real problem and that's more a short coming on IE than GM. There not designed for running at max power continuously. Part of the fleet has been made redundant for preference of a push pull fleet. Only 10 have been officially withdrawn. There still a good few years left in them and enough work to keep them going. Reading up on the v250 it's not surprising they sent them back. They were riddled with problems from day 1 and the regulator suspended them from operating after just a month in service. I'm not sure when IE started having serious issues with the Alstom stock but it would be difficult to return something after 5-10 years service. Was there a particular reason given as to why the 2700 and 8200 where purchased from Alstom. Everything else at the time was Japanese and they were incompatible with that stock.
LXFlyer wrote: » The Intercity situation will be addressed by the arrival of the 41 intermediate cars for the ICRs - that will allow for most of the currently doubled up sets to become separate trains.
L1011 wrote: » Something being unfit for the purpose it was sold/bought means it is poor quality; also GM sold them as HEP capable. They were a bad purchase and should have been fired back at GM as the wrong product - GM didn't have to offer them. The 2700s at least were troublesome from day one. There was a LOT of warranty work done on them and it didn't fix everything. Tendering rules explain purchases. I believe the 8200s are compatible with the other kit for multiple working. The demands on the extra sets created are going to come from all over the system though - its a start, of course, but I would expect everything to be as stressed as usual very quickly.
IE 222 wrote: » No it doesn't, it means it was bad buying. Unless you have the full details between IE and GM we don't know what promises GM offered in terms of HEP been successful long term. It worked but just wasn't sustainable on top continuous of max power running. IE didn't have to buy them either.
IE 222 wrote: » I don't know much about the 2700s in there early days but accept they weren't great performers overall. Maybe they offered a better deal on the 8200s as a result of it.
L1011 wrote: » This is a purchase in the modern era we're talking about. GM had to provide a bid, more or less; its not like the 1960s when a direct approach was OK. Realistically the argument here is about whether GM or IE made the critical error - 25 years ago. It should all have been fixed in the 90s and not hanging over til now. I know your username is a serial number for one of them, but really that doesn't give any reason to defend one of the worst purchases ever made. The 2700s and 8200s were ordered at about the same time; I think there were months between them entering service. Nothing was offered as a result of them being lemons; we just got two sets of crud. There were calls for the 2700s, particularly the 2750s, to be suspended for safety reasons just like the V250s btw - they were basically invisible to certain track circuit equipment. But nothing was done about. Because the CRR (and predecessors in the Department) is unwilling to make any decisive decisions about rolling stock, as shown by the fact that the maximum capacity for a rail vehicle is infinity - you cannot make a safety complaint about overcrowding.
IE 222 wrote: » I don't think many would agree with you that they were one of the worst purchases made, I think your been a little over dramatic here now.
IE 222 wrote: » There was definitely a few years between them. The 2700s were in service in the late 90s and 8200 weren't around till 01 or so.
L1011 wrote: » No, I think you're just too supportive of them. Awful purchase. There is a reason they're rotting away when 40+ year old 071s are not. Yes, they're the same manufacturer but not the same era, or indeed plant. The 8200s were in service for Greystones DART in April 2000. I believe the 2700s may have come in in November/December 1999. That's months, not years.
IE 222 wrote: » What do you expect them to do with the excess? There only withdrawn due to the fact there not required.
L1011 wrote: » Replace the realistically life-expired 071s; which they are incapable of doing, and which is why they're withdrawn. They should have been dumped for alternative equipment in the 1990s; and I wouldn't be surprised to see the 071s outlast them in the end. Passenger services will end with electrification of both lines they're used on; whenever that should occur. Any new light freight loco will just take over existing duties and let the 071s do the heavier work.
91wx763 wrote: » My bold- what would IÉ have done in 1994 though if the 34 201s were stopped and if it then took 2 or 3 years for them to be replaced ? The A class were nearly all withdrawn and what was still going was bunched. All the GM pairs would have had to become singles. We'd have had no railway.
ohographite wrote: » When the 41 new carriages arrive, does anyone know if they will be used to lengthen 3 carriage sets, 4 carriage sets, 5 carriage sets, 6 carriage sets or a few of each?
ohographite wrote: » Does anyone here know if the Waterford-Limerick junction line has an alignment wide enough to have a double track? I read in a book that the line was originally intended to be a double track, and the alignment looks to me to be wide enough.
IE 222 wrote: » The bridges can take double track. Some of the cuttings and embankments can but it would need to be widened for the most part as far as I know. It will never require doubling.
ohographite wrote: » A 20 km stretch of double track somewhere along the line would be good so that trains can pass each other without having to stop and wait.
IE 222 wrote: » That kind of money would be better spend on improving line speeds and on LJ to remove the reversal and gain direct curve to Dublin.
ohographite wrote: » I wasn't saying that a significant double track section should be prioritised over improved speeds and a direct curve to Dublin. I think the most important thing that needs to be done, to improve the service on the Waterford-Limerick line, is to have a few trains dedicated to the line so that trains can run more frequently, so that trains can run at the times when most potential passengers want to travel, and so that trains connect quickly with Dublin-bound trains in either Waterford or Limerick Junction. If even just that happens I am certain it would make a huge difference in passenger numbers.
IE 222 wrote: » But it's never going to have a level of frequency that requires double tracking, it's only 60 miles long as well. Look at Galway, Sligo and Waterford they all manage high enough frequency with single lines and loops. The loop at Clonmel can offer a bi-hourly service currently if a second set was placed on the route. Loops at Cahir and Carrick give enough capacity to pretty much run an hourly service.
