Why was the application IE made for diesel railcars rejected and instead they had to adapt Mark 3 push/pull intermediates and DVTs?

[railfan222]

Hi all,

 

Why was the application IE made for diesel railcars rejected and instead they had to adapt Mark 3 push/pull intermediates and DVTs?

 

Most rail operators had at this point had gone for DMUs and EMUs for suburban duties. Why could IE have not just simply made the control cars of the Mark 3 push/pulls into railcar driving cars and stick 2 or 4 intermediates into the driving cars. Then you would have a MK3 railcar.

The idea of MK3 push/pull meant that 121s had to be robbed from their main duties to operate in single formation with 6 push/pull coaches.

 

I do hope to get a good response from anyone in the know.

 

Regards Kian O'Leary.   

[Mayner]

4 hours ago, railfan222 said:

Hi all,

 

Why was the application IE made for diesel railcars rejected and instead they had to adapt Mark 3 push/pull intermediates and DVTs?

 

Most rail operators had at this point had gone for DMUs and EMUs for suburban duties. Why could IE have not just simply made the control cars of the Mark 3 push/pulls into railcar driving cars and stick 2 or 4 intermediates into the driving cars. Then you would have a MK3 railcar.

The idea of MK3 push/pull meant that 121s had to be robbed from their main duties to operate in single formation with 6 push/pull coaches.

 

I do hope to get a good response from anyone in the know.

 

Regards Kian O'Leary.   

Quite simply because building new commuter trains would have conflicted with Government policy.

The IE late 1980s proposal to build diesel railcars was rejected because the Irish Government was not prepared to fund/underwrite further investment in the railways apart from completing the Dublin-Cork Line CWR/CTC upgrade and MK3 Intercity programme. 

At the time the Government did not not see a long term future for the railways, the independent consultants reports commissioned in the 70s and 80s were quite pessimistic and failed to forecast the increase in intercity and commuter traffic that actually occurred in the 70s and 80s!

CIEs proposals to build the Supertrains and MK3 Intercity  sets as Push-Pull trains with DVTs was similarily rejected, CIE even built a mock-up MK2D driving cab during the early 70s,  the MK3 intercity programme was approve because the Government was faced with a choice of replacing its older coaches or closing the railways following the Buttervant and Cherryville Junction de-railments. 

For several years (before Buttervant) the CIE Chairman warned the Government (in the Annual Report) that it could no longer safely operate the railways because of the poor crash worthiness of its coaching stock.

The original proposal was to build the diesel railcars using the existing MK3 jigs and toolings, with underfloor diesel engines and three phase traction motors.

The Push-Pull driving trailers were designed to be upgraded to power cars, the BREL drawings for the MK3 Intermediates are titled "Railcar Trailers".

The jigs and toolings were scrapped following the completion of the Push-Pull sets

Edited December 27, 2021 by Mayner

[railfan222]

Mayner

 

Your answer you gave still does not seem good to me. I have to ask the following:

1: Why couldn't have Irish Rail have simply build the control cars with traction equipment and then merged 4 of them into 2 sets of Mark 3 based railcars. Why would the Irish Government reject IE's desire to have commuter railcars.

2: Why would the Goverment reject  proposals for the MK2s to be push/pull trains?

 

Regards Kian. 

[murphaph]

The answer to both is presumably money. Freight trains tended to operate at night a lot back then, so they could squeeze a dual use out of the loco fleet by going push pull. Without money from government nothing was possible. The traction motors alone would have required government funding. 

[Mayner]

7 hours ago, railfan222 said:

Mayner

 

Your answer you gave still does not seem good to me. I have to ask the following:

1: Why couldn't have Irish Rail have simply build the control cars with traction equipment and then merged 4 of them into 2 sets of Mark 3 based railcars. Why would the Irish Government reject IE's desire to have commuter railcars.

2: Why would the Goverment reject  proposals for the MK2s to be push/pull trains?

 

Regards Kian. 

Hi Kian

My reply was given in good faith, without going into too much depth my reply is based on my recollection of events and published information (IRRS Journals, the railway press and IE drawings) of over 30 years ago.

If my reply is not good enough it may be possible to obtain Department of Transport, Cabinet Papers on rail investment and CIE Annual Reports for the period under the Freedom of Information Act or by an enquiry through the IRRS.

Murphaph's comment that it was about money is correct.

The decision to reject the railcar proposal was based on a Government policy decision to cease significant investment in the railways apart from a number of projects that were already in progress including the MK3 Intercity programme.

The Government had basically lost patience with CIEs increasing losses during the 1970s and decided to split the organisation into 3 operating companies with Bus Eireann and Iarnrod Eireann expected to compete for traffic and operate within a capped operating subsidy.

In the big scheme of things it does not make sense for a Government  to fund operating improvements such as Push-Pull trains or new Commuter Railcars if there is no long term commitment to retaining the railways.

The Governments approach to the railways was framed by a McKinsey Consultant reports carried out in the late 60s that considered the options of retaining, running down or closing the railways.

The report recommended retaining the radial intercity routes and closing almost everything else as the cost in terms of state support was broadly similar for all three options, but did not envisage growth in intercity or commuter traffic.

The Government accepted and CIE began to implement the reports recommendations, but CIEs losses on both rail and road got seriously out of control because of the oil crisis, investment was curtailed and the system.

Because of the increasing losses and public discontent with service Mc Kinsey was commissioned in the late 70s to look at the organisation of CIE  and recommended splitting the organisation into three operating companies which were expected to compete with each other to achieve improved efficiency and quality of service.

The report does not appear to have made a specific recommendation on the future of the railways, but the Government decision not to fund further investment in the railways indicates to gradual run down and closure.

The Irish economy was in a very weak position in the 1980s with high emigration and railways and public transport would have been fairly low priority in a country struggling to fund a Health, Education and Welfare.

The rail investment policies of the 70s and 80s were only reversed from the mid-90s with the availability of EU funding for rolling stock and route modernisation, though IE was expected to fund route modernisation on some lines (Athlone-Westport) form its own resources (borrowing). 

The relationship between CIE/ Iarnrod Eireann and the Department of Transport seems to have been poor for a long time there was a resistance to providing an "an above the line" subsidy for operating loss making passenger services.

The Government only recently developing a contract model for public transport with the NTA and finally accepting the principal that the service sponsor rather than the operator is responsible for funding passenger rolling stock.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Garfield]

12 hours ago, railfan222 said:

Mayner

 

Your answer you gave still does not seem good to me. I have to ask the following:

1: Why couldn't have Irish Rail have simply build the control cars with traction equipment and then merged 4 of them into 2 sets of Mark 3 based railcars. Why would the Irish Government reject IE's desire to have commuter railcars.

2: Why would the Goverment reject  proposals for the MK2s to be push/pull trains?

 

Regards Kian. 

I know you're new to the forum but it's not clever to slap someone in the face like that when they're genuinely trying to assist you in answering the question you posed. People here will be less inclined to help you in future if they're expecting that sort of response.

Something to consider.

[exciecoachbuilder]

On 27/12/2021 at 2:54 AM, railfan222 said:

Mayner

 

Your answer you gave still does not seem good to me. I have to ask the following:

1: Why couldn't have Irish Rail have simply build the control cars with traction equipment and then merged 4 of them into 2 sets of Mark 3 based railcars. Why would the Irish Government reject IE's desire to have commuter railcars.

2: Why would the Goverment reject  proposals for the MK2s to be push/pull trains?

 

Regards Kian. 

Mayner is 100% right with his answer. In the 70's / early 80's , there was no political appetite for spending money on the railways. In fact, i recall there was constant talk of closing railway lines and selling off big chunks of Inchicore works. We even had a coalition government transport minister, saying that had he  been in power, he would never have given the Dart project  the go ahead, incredible stuff imo. It took two rail disasters to bring the government to their senses.

I worked on the mk3 new carriage building ( NCB) project from 1984 to 1989, and I remember the talk at the time, being that there was going to be no more money 

to be spent on anymore carriage building projects on completion of the NCB project. Irish rail was to come up with a solution themselves and that the finance would have to come from the agreed budget in the existing contract. So they came up with their own push pull ideas. I have to be honest, I think that the Mk3 driving trailers are awful looking things, the carriage side light being used for the windscreen, just doesn't look right, and the cab is so big you could fit an elephant into the bloody thing, appalling. Ok guys, rant over......... Paul. 

 

 

 

[Galteemore]

A similar situation obtained in the North. When the 70 class began to expire, the 450 class emerged, using the 70 class power units (and one from a written off 80 class) matched to old BR under frames and a pastiche of a Mk3 body shell. It was the sort of product that would have delighted a manager like Henry Forbes. Passengers were less enthralled 

Edited December 29, 2021 by Galteemore

[jhb171achill]

17 minutes ago, Galteemore said:

A similar situation obtained in the North. When the 70 class began to expire, the 450 class emerged, using the 70 class power units (and one from a written off 80 class) matched to old BR under frames and a pastiche of a Mk3 body shell. It was the sort of product that would have delighted a manager like Henry Forbes. Passengers were less enthralled 

True - bar the MEDs, the 450 class were the ugliest and least comfortable things ever to run on rails.

[Mayner]

10 hours ago, exciecoachbuilder said:

Mayner is 100% right with his answer. In the 70's / early 80's , there was no political appetite for spending money on the railways. In fact, i recall there was constant talk of closing railway lines and selling off big chunks of Inchicore works. We even had a coalition government transport minister, saying that had he  been in power, he would never have given the Dart project  the go ahead, incredible stuff imo. It took two rail disasters to bring the government to their senses.

I worked on the mk3 new carriage building ( NCB) project from 1984 to 1989, and I remember the talk at the time, being that there was going to be no more money 

to be spent on anymore carriage building projects on completion of the NCB project. Irish rail was to come up with a solution themselves and that the finance would have to come from the agreed budget in the existing contract. So they came up with their own push pull ideas. I have to be honest, I think that the Mk3 driving trailers are awful looking things, the carriage side light being used for the windscreen, just doesn't look right, and the cab is so big you could fit an elephant into the bloody thing, appalling. Ok guys, rant over......... Paul. 

 

 

 

Another factor in favor of the Push Pull sets was the lower capital cost compared with building railcars. The Push Pull sets were built to replace 141/181 Class locos and Park Royal Coaches on Dublin-Drogheda suburban trains, allocating (5-6?) 121s to push pull workings freed up the 141/181 for other freight and passenger duties and allowed the push pull fitted 121s to be used more intensively than on Intercity passenger or freight duties.

I don't know how many 121s were fitted for Push Pull operation possibly half of the class, the 'spare" Dublin 3 car Push Pull set sometimes operated as hauled stock on the Maynooth line behind a 141/181 loco.

The Push Pull fitted 121s were re-powered with engines and generators from B201s Class locos redundant following the DART electrification an excellent example of IEs make do and mend mentality during the late 80s early 90s.

The Heuston-Kildare Arrow suburban service was railcar operated from the onset because it was a completely new service supported by EU funding, Merrion Street cheese paring persisted with funding restrictions the new service running to an from Heuston rather than over the Loop Line to Connolly and Pearse Stations and 17 Mitsui railcars supplied to make up 8 sets and a maintenance spare.

The first big shift to railcar operation followed the introduction of the 2700/2750 series Sparrow railcars from Alstom in 1997-8. Apparently the Alstom 2700/2750 railcar were a lot cheaper that the Mitsui railcars, but went through a prolonged commissioning process and were all withdrawn proving less reliable in service than the 2600 & 2800 series Mitsui railcars.

[murphaph]

Were the 201 engines of the 645 type?

[ttc0169]

13 minutes ago, murphaph said:

Were the 201 engines of the 645 type?

GM 12 cylinder 710G3B. 

[Mayner]

1 hour ago, murphaph said:

Were the 201 engines of the 645 type?

The B201s had GM B-645 8 Cylinder engines 1100hp Gross the B121s were originally fitted with the GM 567CA 8 Cylinder engines. 950Hp Gross

[murphaph]

Hi Noel, no I mean the Metrovick 201s, the C Class that Mayner referred to in the post above, the ones that were transplanted into the push pull 121s. They were presumably 8 cylinder 567 or 645 types. Be interesting to know which (different sound files).

Cheers John, we cross posted but I see your answer. Much appreciated.

[dave182]

What year was the mk3 push-pull stock introduced?

[Fiacra]

On 29/12/2021 at 10:31 AM, exciecoachbuilder said:

I have to be honest, I think that the Mk3 driving trailers are awful looking things, the carriage side light being used for the windscreen, just doesn't look right, and the cab is so big you could fit an elephant into the bloody thing, appalling. Ok guys, rant over......... Paul. 

 

 

 

I never noticed that the windscreen is actually just a side window. Now that you've pointed it out, I can't unsee it, and you're right, it makes them look like a strange beast indeed!

[murphaph]

I always thought they looked pretty ugly because of the buffer beam, full size buffers and coupler. Just looks weird on an otherwise sleek DVT IMO as we are used to concealed Dellner couplers and whatnot these days. The windscreen always looked off too and now I know why lol.

[seagoebox]

In reply to Fiacra...

Here is a picture of the said windscreen, from the inside.. 6101 at Drogheda, about to work the 15.05 to Pearse.

[seagoebox]

A few more push pull images...t

the push-pull up on a stand, Inchicore 2nd May, 1988

Control car 6101 under construction, Inchicore, 2nd May 1988

The mock up, with the body removed, Inchicore, 16.9.1989

[Mayner]

 "Push Pull Control Car Layout"  The drawing appears to have been literally 'hot off the press"  as the revision was approved and CMEs Department released the drawing to me on 22/3/1989

I am not sure if the bogies are a LHB or a BREL design. 

BREL used similar bogies on contemporary MK3 based EMUs and Sprinter DMUs

The original drawing is to 1:75 scale and too large to scan on the home printer.

 

 

Title caption of CIE diagram of "Intermediate Car for proposed Railcars Set date 17/10/1986 which gives an indication of the time-line of the project.

 

Like the IC125 trains the IE Push Pull sets are a good example of what can be achieved by experienced railway engineers and managers using limited resources when a hi-tech solution is not achievable or affordable.

The MK3 Push Pull sets resulted in a big improvement in passenger accommodation replacing the Park Royals on Pearse-Drogheda suburban services while allowing IE to work within its capital budget.

The introduction of the MK2AC and International Train allowed IE to strengthen its passenger fleet when capital to buy or build new Intercity rolling stock was unavailable.

The MK2AC stock was acquired in a swap with Vic Berry for B201 Class locomotives, the International Train is likely to have been acquired from BREL at a substantially lower price than building a similar train.

The big drawback is that an organisation that has been forced to make do and mend for generations tends to loose control when the purse strings are opened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[railfan222]

18 minutes ago, Mayner said:

 "Push Pull Control Car Layout"  The drawing appears to have been literally 'hot off the press"  as the revision was approved and CMEs Department released the drawing to me on 22/3/1989

I am not sure if the bogies are a LHB or a BREL design. 

BREL used similar bogies on contemporary MK3 based EMUs and Sprinter DMUs

The original drawing is to 1:75 scale and too large to scan on the home printer.

 

 

Title caption of CIE diagram of "Intermediate Car for proposed Railcars Set date 17/10/1986 which gives an indication of the time-line of the project.

 

Like the IC125 trains the IE Push Pull sets are a good example of what can be achieved by experienced railway engineers and managers using limited resources when a hi-tech solution is not achievable or affordable.

The MK3 Push Pull sets resulted in a big improvement in passenger accommodation replacing the Park Royals on Pearse-Drogheda suburban services while allowing IE to work within its capital budget.

The introduction of the MK2AC and International Train allowed IE to strengthen its passenger fleet when capital to buy or build new Intercity rolling stock was unavailable.

The MK2AC stock was acquired in a swap with Vic Berry for B201 Class locomotives, the International Train is likely to have been acquired from BREL at a substantially lower price than building a similar train.

The big drawback is that an organisation that has been forced to make do and mend for generations tends to loose control when the purse strings are opened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very good drawings by the IE CME team. I understand now that before the Mark 3 Push/Pulls there were the Park Royals and hauled by the smaller GMs of the 121s, 141s and 181s.

 

 

How did IE have the ability to fit push/pull capability to the 121s? It seemed that IE were okay with the 121s using their fixed buffers and chain couplers for push/pull working. While with the non push/pull 201s, they were just left to rot outside in Inchicore.       

 

It seems that for decades most of the Dublin suburban trains were loco hauled instead of DMU operated. Like with the C201 Class locos. It seemed that CIE really did care about how old the Metrovick C201 locos were when their branchlines closed and so they retrofitted them with push/pull capability and used them with converted AEC Railcar sets until the DART.

 

It is really a simple job to retrofit a fleet of locos not equipped with push/pull to push/pull capable.

 

The Mark 3 Push/Pull driving cab interiors do look nice.

 

Regards Kian. 

[K801]

Would love to see a pic of that Mk2 mockup in the 70s

[jhb171achill]

On 3/1/2022 at 2:00 AM, railfan222 said:

How did IE have the ability to fit push/pull capability to the 121s? It seemed that IE were okay with the 121s using their fixed buffers and chain couplers for push/pull working. While with the non push/pull 201s, they were just left to rot outside in Inchicore.       

It's a fairly easy concept in engineering terms.

On 3/1/2022 at 2:00 AM, railfan222 said:

 

It seems that for decades most of the Dublin suburban trains were loco hauled instead of DMU operated. Like with the C201 Class locos. It seemed that CIE really did care about how old the Metrovick C201 locos were when their branchlines closed and so they retrofitted them with push/pull capability and used them with converted AEC Railcar sets until the DART.

It's not so much that they "cared"; their job is to get people from A to B. They re-engined the Cs because (a) spares for AEC railcars were becoming hard to get, and (b) Dublin suburban needed capacity. Old railcars and GM-powered Cs were the best solution at the time without spending huge sums of money.

On 3/1/2022 at 2:00 AM, railfan222 said:

It is really a simple job to retrofit a fleet of locos not equipped with push/pull to push/pull capable.

Indeed. Having said that, no need to unless its necessary.