Irish Rail Annual Report 2014

Jamie2k9 · 04-06-2015 5:46pm #1

http://www.irishrail.ie/media/iarnrod-eireann-annual-report-2014.pdf?v=gradkca

Some stand out points:
Losses cut from 16.4 million to 2.2 million
Longer Freight trains being looked at to reduce costs
Locomotive engine replacement with smaller efficient ones (auto shutdown also)

Thedarkb · 04-06-2015 9:10pm

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Locomotive engine replacement with smaller efficient ones (auto shutdown also)

I'm guessing this is going to be the 071s having their engines switched with 8-710s

04-06-2015 9:28pm

Seems to mention the 201s too:

The possibility of replacing the 20 to 40 year old 2-stroke engines with smaller modern efficient engines, with automatic shutdown provided as standard, is now being considered.

Jamie2k9 · 04-06-2015 9:33pm

Karsini wrote: »

Seems to mention the 201s too:

Indeed 201's came to my mind when I read it, one might hope that if they are replacing engines they could possible squeeze the 201's to 125mph to match the Mark IV for future speeds

Captain Chaos · 04-06-2015 9:54pm

I think it's more to do with the traction motor gearing ratios than the power plant installed. One only has to look at the Class 66 in the UK, 3,200hp prime mover like the 201s but top speed is 75mph but it can haul far more tonnage. Freightliner ordered a batch of 66s with a different gearing ratio limiting them to 65mph but they can haul even heavier trains as a result.

The power plant in the 201s right now can push it to 125mph with the right traction motors but I don't think the bogies will be too kind on the track at all and they may need improved yaw dampers fitted.

The Mk4s need brake modifications if they were to be used at 125mph.

04-06-2015 9:58pm

Removing the HEP alternators would reduce the weight of the 201s a fair bit. Might be something they'll consider, now that HEP use is not permitted on the Enterprise.

Captain Chaos · 04-06-2015 10:16pm

Karsini wrote: »

Removing the HEP alternators would reduce the weight of the 201s a fair bit. Might be something they'll consider, now that HEP use is not permitted on the Enterprise.

You'd think they would have tried that in the locos that don't have working HEP from years back like 209 and 234 as two that spring to mind.

There might be balancing issues with it removed and ballast may need to be added. Suppose it depends if the money is there to do a study to see if it would work or be worth while. The extra weight is of benefit in some situations like hauling liners out of Northwall with poor rail conditions, a lighter loco may experience more wheel slip.

In the US CEX added ballast to the locos that are assigned to the heaviest coal trains to aid in traction when starting off.

04-06-2015 10:24pm

Captain Chaos wrote: »

There might be balancing issues with it removed and ballast may need to be added.

I actually said that to a guy in Inchicore one time and he said "good thinking, but it could be overcome."

Captain Chaos · 04-06-2015 10:26pm

With enough money most things could be overcome in Irish Rail.

end of the road · 05-06-2015 1:21pm

the 201 engines aren't 40 years old though unless they are talking about the 710 model in general. but i don't think that is even 40 years old. as far as i know some of the class 66 are having automatic shut down fitted so i'm sure the 201s could have it done without having to replace the engine

Jamie2k9 · 05-06-2015 2:50pm

end of the road wrote: »

the 201 engines aren't 40 years old though unless they are talking about the 710 model in general. but i don't think that is even 40 years old. as far as i know some of the class 66 are having automatic shut down fitted so i'm sure the 201s could have it done without having to replace the engine

They may want to reduce overall consumption, it may mean once prices for fuel increase again Mark IV will stay running.

Del.Monte · 05-06-2015 2:55pm

So IE only 'lost' €2 million in 2014.....pull the other one. Lies, damned lies etc.. Staff morale is on the floor, This is an ex.parrot railway company.

kc56 · 05-06-2015 3:04pm

end of the road wrote: »

the 201 engines aren't 40 years old though unless they are talking about the 710 model in general. but i don't think that is even 40 years old. as far as i know some of the class 66 are having automatic shut down fitted so i'm sure the 201s could have it done without having to replace the engine

071's are 40+ years old.

I believe that tested an auto shutdown on the 201's but it was problematic and wasn't proceeded with.

No more 'thunder'!

end of the road · 05-06-2015 3:12pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

So IE only 'lost' €2 million in 2014.....pull the other one. Lies, damned lies etc..

i'm with you on this one.

LXFlyer · 05-06-2015 4:39pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

So IE only 'lost' €2 million in 2014.....pull the other one. Lies, damned lies etc.. Staff morale is on the floor, This is an ex.parrot railway company.

So are you calling all the finance professionals that produced and audited the accounts liars?

Thedarkb · 05-06-2015 6:52pm

kc56 wrote: »

071's are 40+ years old.

I believe that tested an auto shutdown on the 201's but it was problematic and wasn't proceeded with.

No more 'thunder'!

071s aren't 40 years old yet.

Losty Dublin · 05-06-2015 7:36pm

Thedarkb wrote: »

071s aren't 40 years old yet.

Well, they are 39 years in traffic this year so it's as close as.

Thedarkb · 05-06-2015 7:38pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Well, they are 39 years in traffic this year so it's as close as.

They were delivered in 1976 but were left lying around for a year due to teething problems. I'll check their actual dates to traffic later when i root out my copy of traction and travel

Thedarkb · 05-06-2015 7:50pm

071 30/5/77
072 1/6/77
073 2/6/77
074 4/6/77
075 2/6/77
076 24/5/77
077 6/6/77
078 30/5/77
079 25/5/77
080 30/5/77
082 27/5/77
083 29/6/77
084 30/5/77
085 25/5/77
086 14/6/77
087 26/5/77
088 6/7/77

Losty Dublin · 05-06-2015 8:05pm

Thedarkb wrote: »

They were delivered in 1976 but were left lying around for a year due to teething problems. I'll check their actual dates to traffic later when i root out my copy of traction and travel

Good rooting out. Any reason why 088 was a few weeks later off the rest of the class to make into traffic?

Thedarkb · 05-06-2015 8:42pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Good rooting out. Any reason why 088 was a few weeks later off the rest of the class to make into traffic?

Don't know sorry, I'd assume it needed something replaced, given most of them were on their second or third starter motor before they even entered service.

Losty Dublin · 06-06-2015 11:33am

Thedarkb wrote: »

Don't know sorry, I'd assume it needed something replaced, given most of them were on their second or third starter motor before they even entered service.

They certainly were not popular with drivers, DT's or running sheds when first entering traffic nor were they reliable for that matter. By 1980 they had settled down and such was their reliability that they became a near 24/7 workhorse.

Until the time when GM came over and inspected their bogies; that's a thread all of it's own making

Thedarkb · 06-06-2015 3:56pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

They certainly were not popular with drivers, DT's or running sheds when first entering traffic nor were they reliable for that matter. By 1980 they had settled down and such was their reliability that they became a near 24/7 workhorse.

Until the time when GM came over and inspected their bogies; that's a thread all of it's own making

I recall this happening with the 181 class too, leading them to be limited to 75

metrovick001 · 07-06-2015 12:27pm

I think the OP may be referring to the important subsidy IE receive from the harp for running the service.
Profit and loss should not be used as metric for determining the sucess if a public service.

Accounts a very go

lxflyer wrote: »

So are you calling all the finance professionals that produced and audited the accounts liars?

dowlingm · 08-06-2015 12:13pm

Could be looking at replacing the 710s with Caterpillar C175 or Cummins QSK60 or QSK95 high speed powerplants, as are going into current generation 125mph diesels being built in the U.S. (EMD F125, Siemens Charger)

end of the road · 08-06-2015 12:49pm

dowlingm wrote: »

Could be looking at replacing the 710s with Caterpillar C175 or Cummins QSK60 or QSK95 high speed powerplants, as are going into current generation 125mph diesels being built in the U.S. (EMD F125, Siemens Charger)

is it not the bogies and other issues with the 201s that mean they can't do 125 MPH though?

Captain Chaos · 08-06-2015 2:01pm

end of the road wrote: »

is it not the bogies and other issues with the 201s that mean they can't do 125 MPH though?

It's a few things. One, they were not designed with that speed in mind, if it was they would have changed it's un-sprung weight and fitted different bogies. Also it's gearing ratios is designed for mixed traffic work leaning towards fast express services. They are electronically limited to 100mph.

Our 201s are like a happy medium between the UK class 66 and class 67.

GM228 · 08-06-2015 4:14pm

Captain Chaos wrote: »

They are electronically limited to 100mph.

105mph to be exact

GM228

lucernarian · 09-06-2015 7:53pm

I notice that Irish Rail haven't given any mention to the "HR8" scheme of the North Dublin/Fingal Transport Study - linking the Maynooth line at Glasnevin Junction to the Airport. Considering the advantages of a scheme linking the airport and also substantially adding to the DART network, I'm surprised why Irish Rail aren't giving the idea even the smallest mention.

Jamie2k9 · 09-06-2015 9:13pm

lucernarian wrote: »

I notice that Irish Rail haven't given any mention to the "HR8" scheme of the North Dublin/Fingal Transport Study - linking the Maynooth line at Glasnevin Junction to the Airport. Considering the advantages of a scheme linking the airport and also substantially adding to the DART network, I'm surprised why Irish Rail aren't giving the idea even the smallest mention.

Annual reports are generally a year in review and not really relevant to future projects.

lucernarian · 09-06-2015 9:18pm

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Annual reports are generally a year in review and not really relevant to future projects.

The year in review would include the Transport Study, I mean they did explicitly mention the Combined Rail proposal for LR3 + HR1 which had not been publicly discussed before the study was published. Of the heavy rail schemes taken forward to the Dept. for further investigation, HR8 was not even mentioned in the annual report.

Jamie2k9 · 09-06-2015 9:24pm

lucernarian wrote: »

The year in review would include the Transport Study, I mean they did explicitly mention the Combined Rail proposal for LR3 + HR1 which had not been publicly discussed before the study was published. Of the heavy rail schemes taken forward to the Dept. for further investigation, HR8 was not even mentioned in the annual report.

Did Irish Rail produce the study, no......it would be included with the NTA.

Why bring something up which has not being given the green light?

lucernarian · 09-06-2015 9:30pm

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Did Irish Rail produce the study, no......it would be included with the NTA.

Why bring something up which has not being given the green light?

Irish Rail brought up one scheme that hasn't been given the green light... I don't see the issue in remarking that they didn't pay any heed to the other scheme in the report. Both the combined scheme and HR8 hadn't been seen in govt consultations or reports* before but Irish Rail only mentioned the link to the Northern line.

Irish Rail themselves brought up one scheme in their repor which hasn't been given the green light. Not the other scheme - one I think would be of huge benefit to Irish Rail.

Irish Rail Annual Report 2014

Comments