Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Belmond Grand Hibernian

24567…11

Comments

  • #52
    savagethegoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭savagethegoat


    you don't need yellow at the back ...and there will be a loco in front of it when it's at the front


  • #53
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,941 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    savagethegoat wrote: »
    It doesn't look great, what are you on about? It looks like a butchered Mk3 and badly done at that!



    At least wait and see what the final product looks like - it's a bit early to judge yet.


  • #54
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    lxflyer wrote: »
    At least wait and see what the final product looks like - it's a bit early to judge yet.

    It's finished externally except for detail livery works, the shape is what it is.

    With the long term plan of having the set top and tailed I personally don't see the point of an observation coach in this style.

    It does look like a modelers kit bash job though.


  • #55
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    savagethegoat wrote: »
    It doesn't look great, what are you on about? It looks like a butchered Mk3 and badly done at that!

    Does it really matter what it looks like on the outside? It's designed for people to look out of, not to be looked at at the end of the day.

    I'd imagine that they were limited in what they could actually do with it without compromising the structure.

    GM228


  • #56
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    ClovenHoof wrote: »
    wow! That looks fantastic! Imagine going around Bray Head in that.

    Unfortunately it won't be on the Rosslare line anytime soon unless the tour itinerary changes for the 2018 season as 2016/2017 seasons are finalised.

    GM228


  • #57
    savagethegoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭savagethegoat


    lxflyer wrote: »
    At least wait and see what the final product looks like - it's a bit early to judge yet.

    Tell clovenhoof that!


  • #58
    savagethegoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭savagethegoat


    GM228 wrote: »
    Does it really matter what it looks like on the outside? It's designed for people to look out of, not to be looked at at the end of the day.

    I'd imagine that they were limited in what they could actually do with it without compromising the structure.

    GM228

    It doesn't matter what it looks like but it does not look "fantastic"


  • #59
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,214 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    savagethegoat wrote: »
    It doesn't matter what it looks like but it does not look "fantastic"

    It does look fantastic when you consider its former state and what could have happened to it.

    It may be a "butchered" MK3, but who are you to say its badly done? This is a real deal commercial enterprise, not a model railway in your attic.


  • #60
    savagethegoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭savagethegoat


    well just look at the line of rivets across where the corridor connection was. Not pretty is it.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    lxflyer wrote: »
    At least wait and see what the final product looks like - it's a bit early to judge yet.

    well unless they plan on extending the windows and chopping roof panels like the Swiss Glacier Express cars it's a bit of an embarrassment as an observation carriage...

    it's fugly and provides very limited additional window space and interior space for observation for more than a couple of passengers at a time.


  • #62
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    One wonders was it made that way to retain the very good crash tolerance record of the Mk3 design. Any more modifications may have compromised the structural safety of the design, as it is it only has two doors and one gangway for access. I'm sure they will be strike hammers for at least two of those glass panes at the back.


  • #63
    Del.Monte
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭Del.Monte


    Extra large targets for stone throwers too.

    ****



  • #64
    ClovenHoof
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,121 ✭✭✭ClovenHoof


    I am sorry to tell you trainspotters that when I am sitting in the back of the observation car with my gin in tonic in hand observing the beauty of the Irish landscape pass behind me, neither I nor my fellow passengers will give a toss that it was once a MK3 thingy ma bob.

    Bottoms Up!


  • #65
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    ClovenHoof wrote: »
    I am sorry to tell you trainspotters that when I am sitting in the back of the observation car with my gin in tonic in hand observing the beauty of the Irish landscape pass behind me, neither I nor my fellow passengers will give a toss that it was once a MK3 thingy ma bob.

    Bottoms Up!

    Brilliant!

    Save me a seat!

    GM228


  • #66
    Del.Monte
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭Del.Monte


    As one lucky enough to have travelled from Whitehead/Dublin in the GNRI Directors Saloon No.50 (on an RPSI empty stock working in the early 1980s) - with full bar service for the two (!) of us aboard - my expectations are too high I suppose. The Directors Saloon had an attractive livery too!

    3305.jpg

    ****



  • Advertisement
  • #67
    ClovenHoof
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,121 ✭✭✭ClovenHoof


    Del.Monte wrote: »
    As one lucky enough to have travelled from Whitehead/Dublin in the GNRI Directors Saloon No.50 (on an RPSI empty stock working in the early 1980s) - with full bar service for the two (!) of us aboard - my expectations are too high I suppose. The Directors Saloon had an attractive livery too!

    3305.jpg

    that is stunning alright. Where is it now?


  • #68
    flyingsnail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,765 ✭✭✭flyingsnail


    ClovenHoof wrote: »
    that is stunning alright. Where is it now?

    Stored RPSI whitehead


  • #69
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    flyingsnail wrote: »
    Stored RPSI whitehead

    What else have we forgot about?

    It's an awful shame stuff like that isn't accessible to the public from time to time.

    GM228


  • #70
    Del.Monte
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭Del.Monte


    GM228 wrote: »
    What else have we forgot about?

    It's an awful shame stuff like that isn't accessible to the public from time to time.

    GM228

    http://www.cs.vintagecarriagestrust.org/se/CarriageInfo.asp?Ref=3904

    3904.jpg

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66559841&postcount=17

    ****



  • #71
    dowlingm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    GM228 wrote: »
    Unfortunately it won't be on the Rosslare line anytime soon unless the tour itinerary changes for the 2018 season as 2016/2017 seasons are finalised.

    GM228
    would need to be 071 hauled too.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    dowlingm wrote: »
    would need to be 071 hauled too.

    Not necessarily, 201s can go to Arklow normally and are cleared to Rosslare in an emerency and have actually done so in the past with freight and passenger services.

    This train will most likely see tbe 201 ban to Portrush lifted (still not 100% finalised or else NIR 111s will be used) so IF it ever goes to Rosslare the restrictions may be lifted or at least will be allowed under Belmonds special operating instructions.

    GM228


  • #73
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,758 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    GM228 wrote: »
    Not necessarily, 201s can go to Arklow normally and are cleared to Rosslare in an emerency and have actually done so in the past with freight and passenger services.

    This train will most likely see tbe 201 ban to Portrush lifted (still not 100% finalised or else NIR 111s will be used) so IF it ever goes to Rosslare the restrictions may be lifted or at least will be allowed under Belmonds special operating instructions.

    GM228

    Platform issues??

    Can't see RSC turning a blind eye.


  • #74
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »
    Platform issues??

    Can't see RSC turning a blind eye.

    There is no platform issues with MkIIIs.

    GM228


  • #75
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,758 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    GM228 wrote: »
    There is no platform issues with MkIIIs.

    GM228

    Really so Rosslare platforms can take 7 coach Mark III, Generator and loco?


  • #76
    flyingsnail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,765 ✭✭✭flyingsnail


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »
    Really so Rosslare platforms can take 7 coach Mark III, Generator and loco?

    The platform loop can and the mk3s (at least in the original IE configuration) were permitted to be longer than the platforms they served. Whether that permission carried over when they were converted to sleepers remains to be seen.


  • #77
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »
    Really so Rosslare platforms can take 7 coach Mark III, Generator and loco?

    No most Rosslare platforms can't handle that long a train, but under grandfather rights they are permitted. If they wanted the RPSI could operate long craven set to Rosslare also under the same rights.

    It's run-rounds (and max consist rules) that will determine the lenghts of these types of trains, not the platform lenghts.

    GM228


  • #78
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    7149 (now a sleeper) is completed and on it's way home!

    http://www.wnxx.com/15/1510/231015/7149.htm

    Note the new windows which can be opened.

    GM228


  • #79
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    I assume final finishing will be completed at Inchicore like running numbers and warning panels and maybe some branding logos?


  • #80
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Captain Chaos wrote: »
    I assume final finishing will be completed at Inchicore like running numbers and warning panels and maybe some branding logos?

    That is the plan AFAIK, also needs to be re-united with refurbished bogies aswell. Apparently returning via Belfast.

    I believe branding will not be applied until service launch although one carriage may before launch for promotional reasons.

    GM228


  • #81
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Del.Monte wrote: »
    http://www.cs.vintagecarriagestrust.org/se/CarriageInfo.asp?Ref=3904

    3904.jpg

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66559841&postcount=17

    Is it still as per the photo and likely to be restored?

    GM228


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Del.Monte
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭Del.Monte


    As far as I know it is still pretty much as pictured here. It has absolutely no business being in Belturbet anyway - Cultra is the only place for an historical piece of rolling stock like this.

    ****



  • #83
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Del.Monte wrote: »
    As far as I know it is still pretty much as pictured here. It has absolutely no business being in Belturbet anyway - Cultra is the only place for an historical piece of rolling stock like this.

    Indeed, or at least with the RPSI who have the means to restore it!

    GM228


  • #84
    savagethegoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭savagethegoat


    GM228 wrote: »
    What else have we forgot about?

    It's an awful shame stuff like that isn't accessible to the public from time to time.

    GM228

    RPSI are spending 2 million on a display building starting about now.


  • #85
    Del.Monte
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭Del.Monte


    A better view of the Belturbet carriage WL&WR 900/465a while awaiting rescue at Claremorris in the early 1980s.

    900%2B1%2BAT%2BCLAREMORRIS.png

    ****



  • #86
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,247 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    GM228 wrote: »
    Is it still as per the photo and likely to be restored?

    I was inside this carriage a few years ago. There's a considerable amount of water damage as a result of a leaky shed in Mallow but otherwise she is structurally fairly sound and with a lot of her original glass and fittings in place. Her running gear wasn't something that I got to inspect but her current home is both dry and free from rising damp.

    As regards a new home for her? Well she won't be of any use to Cultra until such time that she undergoes a serious restoration. The RPSI have enough rolling stock of equal importance and significance that needs attention as it is without taking this one on. Even if they did have the resources to hand to restore here, well it's potential to return to traffic is nil; Downpatrick are no more likely to work on or find use for it as well. For now it's safe where it is in Belturbet; lets be thankful for small mercies.


  • #87
    Rashers72
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,207 ✭✭✭Rashers72


    Apart from the Aldi and Lidl vouchers I am surprised people still buy the Independent, considering the weak journalism. Great example of a non story re photos:
    http://www.independent.ie/life/travel/travel-news/first-look-at-irelands-orient-express-carriages-in-refurbishment-34304841.html


  • #88
    n97 mini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    Customers of the lavish train are expected to be wealthy US, British and continental tourists, rather than domestic rail enthusiasts or Thomas the Tank Engine fans

    That really is poor journalism to come out with that kind of line.


  • #89
    roundymac
    Registered Users Posts: 2,712 ✭✭✭roundymac


    They don't give a sh1t, they'v been paid to file copy and that's exactly what they'v done; neither does the editor, he probably dos'nt know the difference between a Mk1V and a Craven.


  • #90
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,247 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    roundymac wrote: »
    They don't give a sh1t, they'v been paid to file copy and that's exactly what they'v done; neither does the editor, he probably dos'nt know the difference between a Mk1V and a Craven.

    Yes he does. One's roman numerals while the other presents Newsround :)


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    BeardySi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭BeardySi


    roundymac wrote: »
    neither does the editor, he probably dos'nt know the difference between a Mk1V and a Craven.

    While I agree with your sentiment, is there any reason the editor of a national newspaper should know the difference?


  • #92
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,174 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Treadhead wrote: »
    While I agree with your sentiment, is there any reason the editor of a national newspaper should know the difference?
    i believe yes . if your going to write about trains you should have actual knowledge on the subject.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #93
    savagethegoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭savagethegoat


    How could you expect a journalist to have knowledge of every subject there is to write about.? Just consider how inaccurate the info must be in all the other articles you read.


  • #94
    GM228
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    savagethegoat wrote: »
    How could you expect a journalist to have knowledge of every subject there is to write about.? Just consider how inaccurate the info must be in all the other articles you read.

    Indeed I agree with this, if that were the case every newspaper would need people with knowledge of every subject they write about, they would probably then be the most knowledgeable/highly skilled workers in the worlds seeing as how they report on probably just about everything each year!


  • #95
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,941 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    GM228 wrote: »
    Indeed I agree with this, if that were the case every newspaper would need people with knowledge of every subject they write about, they would probably then be the most knowledgeable/highly skilled workers in the worlds seeing as how they report on probably just about everything each year!

    Unless journalists are specialists in specific fields, they are not going to know the level of detail alluded in the earlier post. Nor could any reasonable person expect them to. Most journalists are news correspondents - they report across all subjects, and as such will have a knowledge of most subjects that any "man on the street" will have.

    However, I think it is not unreasonable in this day and age to expect that patronising descriptions of people as "Thomas the Tank Engine fans" are not used to describe people who have an interest in railways.

    People have all kinds of interests, and frankly that's what makes the world an interesting place - that kind of comment is belittling and frankly dated at this stage.


  • #96
    savagethegoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭savagethegoat


    lxflyer wrote: »
    Unless journalists are specialists in specific fields, they are not going to know the level of detail alluded in the earlier post. Nor could any reasonable person expect them to. Most journalists are news correspondents - they report across all subjects, and as such will have a knowledge of most subjects that any "man on the street" will have.

    However, I think it is not unreasonable in this day and age to expect that patronising descriptions of people as "Thomas the Tank Engine fans" are not used to describe people who have an interest in railways.

    People have all kinds of interests, and frankly that's what makes the world an interesting place - that kind of comment is belittling and frankly dated at this stage.

    you're being over touchy here and misunderstanding what it says. It refers to rail enthusiasts or T The TE fans...it isn't suggesting they are interchangeable descriptions. They mean it wont have enthusiasts or children as it's core market.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    savagethegoat wrote: »
    How could you expect a journalist to have knowledge of every subject there is to write about.? Just consider how inaccurate the info must be in all the other articles you read.

    I'd expect they could manage to put an hour or so of research into a piece they write rather than spouting any old rubbish. It's not too much to ask really


  • #98
    cython
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,773 ✭✭✭cython


    Treadhead wrote: »
    While I agree with your sentiment, is there any reason the editor of a national newspaper should know the difference?
    end of the road wrote: »
    i believe yes . if your going to write about trains you should have actual knowledge on the subject.
    savagethegoat wrote: »
    How could you expect a journalist to have knowledge of every subject there is to write about.? Just consider how inaccurate the info must be in all the other articles you read.

    And this (not knowing everything about everything) arguably goes double/treble for the editor (about whom the question was originally asked, after all), given that someone in that position sits over an even broader field of subjects than any single journalist.


  • #99
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,214 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    This latest "attack" on enthusisasts is perceived nonsence. The article does not refer to enthusiasts with the Thomas the Tank Engine remark. It's obvious it claims that this fancy train is not designed for enthusiasts (clearly stated) or kids (via the tank engine reference.)

    But if you are a trainspotter/enthusiast and want to get offended, then off you go.:rolleyes:

    As for this project, I can't wait for it to happen. Despite all the negativity on our railway, this is a breath of fresh air from a company who know what they are doing and they have put their money where their mouth is.


  • #100
    savagethegoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭savagethegoat


    I bet the antics of the train buffs chasing it will be a source of amusement to the crew and passengers. (I'll be one of them...better buy a hoodie!


  • #101
    metrovick001
    Registered Users Posts: 420 ✭✭metrovick001


    ..me too..!


  • Advertisement
Advertisement