IRM Latest! Double Bubble - The Iconic CIE Cement Bubbles Are Back In Two Liveries!

[Warbonnet]

One of the most requested wagons we get asked for from our Irish outline fans is nothing new, but an icon of our past. 

The humble cement bubble was the second wagon we ever produced, but was an absolute must have wagon for any Irish outline modeller. 

It's been several years since the last run, but we're delighted to announce that our Cement Bubbles are back, in two liveries!

HISTORY  

Introduced in seven batches between 1964 and 1972, a total of 150 of these two-axle wagons were built by Córas Iompair Éireann (CIÉ) to convey bulk loads of cement from Irish Cement’s plants at Drogheda in County Louth, Castlemungret in County Limerick and Platin in County Meath to distribution points throughout the CIÉ/Irish Rail and Northern Ireland Railways’ networks.

Despite being introduced at different stages, the fleet carried numbers in an unbroken sequence ranging from 25050 to 25199. Affectionately known as ‘bubbles’ due to their 
distinctive profile, the majority of the fleet remained in service right up until the cessation of cement traffic by rail in 2009. At first, the wagons carried an all-over medium grey livery  with CIÉ roundels and ‘Bulk Cement’ text on the body sides.  

 
In the early 1970s, they were repainted with orange/tan bodies and grey chassis. In the early 1980s, they received a further repaint which saw them turned out with ivory bodies and black chassis. This latter livery was carried until withdrawal, although it was often hidden below several layers of cement dust! While wearing this colour scheme, a small number of wagons also received ‘Irish Cement’ branding.

The wagons were loaded from overhead silos via a hatch located on top of the body, while unloading was conducted by utilising compressed air, which forced the powdered cement through the two cones at the base of the body and into a pipe which emerged at one end of the wagon. Unloading could be conducted at specialised terminals or by road-hauled trailers fitted with the necessary air blowers

The Model

Our cement bubbles were the second wagon we ever produced, and we're delighted to say that the detail and quality still more than holds its own among other releases since. Now in our fourth production run, we are bringing back the orange variant (only ever produced in small quantities once many years ago.

We are also bringing back the ivory livery with CIE roundel, a livery that the bubbles wore for the longest period in their careers, from the early 1980s until withdrawal in 2008. In the early to mid 80s they also ran in mixed trains of orange and ivory liveries, so they can complement each other in a rake. 

Three packs are available in each livery and are priced at £109.95 per pack, with 10% off when you buy two packs or more. 

Delivery of the bubbles will be Q4, 2025. Pre-order yours below, or from your local Accurascale stockist! 

Pre-Order Your CIE Cement Bubble Wagons Here!

View the full article

[Mol_PMB]

Thank you! 

 

Quick question though - do these have 26mm or 28mm axles?

Edited April 17 by Mol_PMB
Question added

[Mol_PMB]

Sorry, me again, another question. Do you have a list of the wagon numbers for each set? Looking at the photos on the website the same photos are used to illustrate all 3 packs of each livery.

• The orange ones pictured are 25172 (tank 172), 25104 (tank 55, the correct number offset for the early period before the tanks were renumbered to match the wagons) and 25156 (tank 156).
• The ivory ones pictured are 25122 (tank 122), 25106 (tank 106) and 25115 (tank 115).

Which set has these numbers and what other options have we got?

 

Many thanks,

Paul

[Wexford70]

Are these numbered differently to the first runs?

[MOGUL]

39 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

Sorry, me again, another question. Do you have a list of the wagon numbers for each set? Looking at the photos on the website the same photos are used to illustrate all 3 packs of each livery.

• The orange ones pictured are 25172 (tank 172), 25104 (tank 55, the correct number offset for the early period before the tanks were renumbered to match the wagons) and 25156 (tank 156).
• The ivory ones pictured are 25122 (tank 122), 25106 (tank 106) and 25115 (tank 115).

Which set has these numbers and what other options have we got?

 

Many thanks,

Paul

 

Hi Paul,

Hope this helps

IRM1192,  Orange Pack 1

25106, 25194 and 25191

IRM1193, Orange Pack 2

25115, 25076 and 25182

IRM1194, Orange Pack 3

25122, 25091 and 25167

IRM1195, Ivory Pack 1

25172, 25138 and 25088

IRM1196, Ivory Pack 2

25104, 25073 and 25161

IRM1197, Ivory Pack 3

25156, 25144 and 25116

 

[Mol_PMB]

Thank you!

[Flying Snail]

43 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

Do you have a list of the wagon numbers for each set?

When you click on each set in the shop, you'll see the wagon numbers listed at the bottom of the Description tab

EDIT: Just spotted MOGUL has pulled together the wagon list 

Edited April 17 by Flying Snail

[Mol_PMB]

1 minute ago, Flying Snail said:

When you click on each set in the shop, you'll see the wagon numbers listed at the bottom of the Description tab

EDIT: Just spotted MOGUL has pulled together the wagon list 

Thanks. They weren't on the Description tab when I asked the question! Thanks to MOGUL for posting them here and adding them to the descriptions. 

Interestingly they don't tally with the numbers pictured. But we know what they are now, so that's all good.

Looking back at the previous sets, all these running numbers are new and do not duplicate previous releases. Good work!

 

[Fowler4f]

How many would run in a train, did they have a brake van attached or as they were vac braked just run with tail lamps ? TIA.

[Mol_PMB]

They didn't need a brake van.

It was quite common for a few cement bubbles to be in the same train as container flats or fertiliser wagons, though equally they would run in a block train of cement.

This photo by Colm O'Callaghan shows about the shortest train you could get away with - 4:

But something like this train of 10, photo by John Law, would be more typical:

See also:

 

Edited April 17 by Mol_PMB
added thread link

[Warbonnet]

58 minutes ago, Wexford70 said:

Are these numbered differently to the first runs?

They sure are!

48 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

 

Interestingly they don't tally with the numbers pictured. But we know what they are now, so that's all good.

 

We've only had one pack per livery from the factory to assess so far, so they are the same pack in each livery, just for illustrative purposes to give customers an idea of what the finished wagons look like. They're all identical save for changing numbers.

Cheers!

Fran 

[MOGUL]

15 minutes ago, Fowler4f said:

How many would run in a train, did they have a brake van attached or as they were vac braked just run with tail lamps ? TIA.

The max was 36 empties and trains of that length did run from Waterford back to Platin

Edited April 17 by MOGUL

[Mol_PMB]

I've updated my table of the models produced to include the new ones, which are highlighted in bold:

The IRM models are an excellent representation of the 1970 and 1972 batches and many of the new numbers are in these batches. 

The models are also very close to the 1967 batch, the only significant difference on these was the W irons (hard to see unless you look very closely).

The 1965 batches had several differences originally but became more standardised over time. I'm looking forward to backdating a couple of the models with their older type of brakes and other details.

I'm pleased to see that IRM have avoided numbers in the 1964 batch this time round as these had the most significant differences between prototype and model. 

There aren't any new grey ones so no chance for the gaffes committed with 25109, 25159 and 25187 in previous packs (none of these wagons were ever grey in reality).

Overall I'm very pleased to see these reappear and I think there is a good selection of prototype numbers. I have duly ordered 3 packs. Thank you!

 

Edited April 17 by Mol_PMB

[Fowler4f]

I still do somethings the old fashioned way ! Now why haven’t I entered the Oil Tanks, I’ve only got 6.

Edited April 17 by Fowler4f

[Horsetan]

I have succumbed and booked a pack. It occurred to me that I seem to have quite a lot of IRM stuff to look forward to......

[DJ Dangerous]

Bubblicious!

Will this batch run on the same chassis as earlier runs, where splitting and packing the chassis, or filing the insides of the axle boxes, is required for 21mm conversion?

Or has the clearance been tweaked to make them 21mm-friendly?

Great to see Rails of Sheffield retailing them, finally opening up Irish outline to the general UK market.

Brilliant move.

[Horsetan]

1 hour ago, DJ Dangerous said:

Will this batch run on the same chassis as earlier runs, ....

I'd be surprised if the chassis has been retooled already.

[Mayner]

On 18/4/2025 at 2:03 AM, Fowler4f said:

How many would run in a train, did they have a brake van attached or as they were vac braked just run with tail lamps ? TIA.

20 wagons was the maximum load for a fully fitted train of Bubble Wagons hauled by a single 001 or pair of small GMs (121,141,181)

20 wagons would have been the normal load on bulk cement trains to destinations like Cabra, Cork, Athenry, Waterford, Limerick-Athy trains may have been shorter & possibly Tullamore. 

Bulk Cement to Belfast and Derry transported in the consist of cross border Liner Trains.

In loose coupled days single or short cuts of Bubbles were conveyed in mixed goods trains complete with Brake Vans, several Jonathan Allen photos published or Bubbles on Cross Border Goods Trains, and I remember in the mid1970s seeing pairs of Bubbles on a number of occasions in the middle of the consist of the Claremorris-Limerick goods train (most likely returning empty from Ballina (Asahi construction project)

[Glenderg]

On 17/4/2025 at 3:42 PM, Mol_PMB said:

I've updated my table of the models produced to include the new ones, which are highlighted in bold:

The IRM models are an excellent representation of the 1970 and 1972 batches and many of the new numbers are in these batches. 

The models are also very close to the 1967 batch, the only significant difference on these was the W irons (hard to see unless you look very closely).

The 1965 batches had several differences originally but became more standardised over time. I'm looking forward to backdating a couple of the models with their older type of brakes and other details.

I'm pleased to see that IRM have avoided numbers in the 1964 batch this time round as these had the most significant differences between prototype and model. 

There aren't any new grey ones so no chance for the gaffes committed with 25109, 25159 and 25187 in previous packs (none of these wagons were ever grey in reality).

Overall I'm very pleased to see these reappear and I think there is a good selection of prototype numbers. I have duly ordered 3 packs. Thank you!

 

When the running numbers were assigned to the original wagons, they were solely based on historical photographs - if a wagon had a visible running number and quirky graphical oddity such as a slightly smaller CIE logo, older electrical flash symbol, yellow solebar handles, it was included. If no photo of a wagon existed, it was not included in the list. Attention to detail was key, and I've no doubt that that attitude has not changed.  There were no "gaffes" as you alude to, access to private archives and individual collections not available to the public allowed for that. Whatsmore, there was a proposer of the data, me, and an approver of the same data, PC, and endless hours were spent ensuring accuracy. 

[DJ Dangerous]

22 hours ago, Horsetan said:

I'd be surprised if the chassis has been retooled already.

I’m not sure on how tweaking the tooling would work in reality, so thought it best to ask.

Remember, ‘tis better to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt, than to remain silent and be thought a fool.

[jhb171achill]

19 hours ago, Mayner said:

20 wagons was the maximum load for a fully fitted train of Bubble Wagons hauled by a single 001 or pair of small GMs (121,141,181)

20 wagons would have been the normal load on bulk cement trains to destinations like Cabra, Cork, Athenry, Waterford, Limerick-Athy trains may have been shorter & possibly Tullamore. 

Bulk Cement to Belfast and Derry transported in the consist of cross border Liner Trains.

In loose coupled days single or short cuts of Bubbles were conveyed in mixed goods trains complete with Brake Vans, several Jonathan Allen photos published or Bubbles on Cross Border Goods Trains, and I remember in the mid1970s seeing pairs of Bubbles on a number of occasions in the middle of the consist of the Claremorris-Limerick goods train (most likely returning empty from Ballina (Asahi construction project)

I well remember seeing them mixed in with all sorts of other stuff on the Dundalk to Grosvenor Road goods in the 1960s. From recollection, maybe only one or two in the mix, the rest of which was of course loose-coupled. The maximum number of wagons on that seemed always to be 32 to 34 - I don't think I ever saw more than that. Somethines there was a brake van at each end, i.e. one behind the loco as well as at the end of the train. The vast bulk of the wagons were four-wheel goods vans, mostly "H"s, but quite a few old wooden vans too, including the odd horizontal-planked GSR van. But the "bubble" (mostly grey then) would stand out amongst vans.....

 

[Noel]

Sounds a great move, and should prove popular. Is there any new tooling to correct the NEM pocket height error in the original run?

[Glenderg]

2 hours ago, Noel said:

Sounds a great move, and should prove popular. Is there any new tooling to correct the NEM pocket height error in the original run?

There was no issue with coupling height, it was all done to NEM standards, and if not, this rake would have ruined itself when the video was taken on the 16th November 2017, some 8 years ago. 

[DJ Dangerous]

Eight years ago? Hard for that to sink in. Eight whole years.

[Irishswissernie]

I amassed some 36 wagons from the first 2 batches but on the demise of Glengarriff I disposed of 10 packs (30 wagons) as the projected new terminal layout only had limited space for 6 wagons. Things move on and the terminus has been replaced by the NG7 board but the combined 00 Irish and the NG7 are now modified to form a continous run so I have ordered  2 more packs. There has also been some progress on the scenic extension to Four Masters Bridge but its taking some effort to actually do any modelling. Here is a throwback to Glengarriff with 'bubbles' and bagged trains featured.  The bubbles in the sidings were pre-IRM wersions.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 11:07 by Irishswissernie

[Noel]

[quote=glenderg]There was no issue with coupling height, it was all done to NEM standards, and if not, this rake would have ruined itself when the video was taken on the 16th November 2017, some 8 years ago..[/quote]

Hi Richie. Respectfully there was an error with the coupling height on the ballast wagons and the cement bubbles (inc ploughs that shared a common chassis). IRM even had a fix page on their web site back then with a solution. It wasn’t about running problems, it was about NEM compliance and incompatibility with Kadee couplings.  It wasn’t a problem if one used the supplied gull wing mini tension lock couplings but was incorrect for Kadee’s as the NEM pocket height was incorrect. All other IRM stock since then had had perfect NEM pockets in terms of height from the rail top.  I got around the problem by gluing kadee no 18s to the underside of the NEM pockets to get the correct height for kadee coupling height guage and kadee uncoupling magnets. It was a right royal PITA having to do it to two rakes of ballasts and two rakes of cement bubbles. This might have been a hangover of the unfortunate DJ input to IRMs first product which were the ballasts. Murphy Models had a similar fault with their craven coaching stock when the NEM pockets were also at the wrong height and needed fettling to use with popular kadee couplings. First world problem, but given the re-runs it might have been an opportunity to correct the tooling as that chassis is shared by carious IRM wagons (ballasts, cement, plough vans, magnesite’s, gypsum, etc).  Photo below illustrated the problem.

 

The manual fix. A pity the couplings could not be use correctly when plugged into the NEM pockets

[Fowler4f]

I'm sure Enda @Past Time Avenue, will come up with a solution ! He has produced a solution for the Cravens & MM Mk 2 for Kadee couplers. 

Edited Sunday at 16:05 by Fowler4f

[Mayner]

9 hours ago, Noel said:

 

Hi Richie. Respectfully there was an error with the coupling height on the ballast wagons and the cement bubbles (inc ploughs that shared a common chassis). It wasn’t about running problems, it was about NEM compliance and incompatibility with Kadee couplings.  This might have been a hangover of the unfortunate DJ input to IRMs first product which were the ballasts

Back in the day before the Ballast Wagons were released IRM issued a press/media release in the Modelling Press that it was not feasible to fit the NEM pocket at the recommended height because it clashed with the brake gear detail at one end of the wagon & had adapted a lower than reccommended pocket and a cranked coupler as a solution.

 

Interestingly Kadee's title page on European NEM HO OO conversions features a photo of IRM/Accurascale Ballast wagons https://www.kadee.com/convpl apparrently fitted with Kadee NEM 363-Series Adjustable Height Couplers.

The Kadee NEM coupler Fact sheets recommends fitting a 363 series coupler in combination with 362 series adaptor in cases where the NEM pocket is not installed at the recommended height.

 

Edited Monday at 01:24 by Mayner

[Glenderg]

8 hours ago, Noel said:

[quote=glenderg]There was no issue with coupling height, it was all done to NEM standards, and if not, this rake would have ruined itself when the video was taken on the 16th November 2017, some 8 years ago..[/quote]

Hi Richie. Respectfully there was an error with the coupling height on the ballast wagons and the cement bubbles (inc ploughs that shared a common chassis). IRM even had a fix page on their web site back then with a solution. It wasn’t about running problems, it was about NEM compliance and incompatibility with Kadee couplings.  It wasn’t a problem if one used the supplied gull wing mini tension lock couplings but was incorrect for Kadee’s as the NEM pocket height was incorrect. All other IRM stock since then had had perfect NEM pockets in terms of height from the rail top.  I got around the problem by gluing kadee no 18s to the underside of the NEM pockets to get the correct height for kadee coupling height guage and kadee uncoupling magnets. It was a right royal PITA having to do it to two rakes of ballasts and two rakes of cement bubbles. This might have been a hangover of the unfortunate DJ input to IRMs first product which were the ballasts. Murphy Models had a similar fault with their craven coaching stock when the NEM pockets were also at the wrong height and needed fettling to use with popular kadee couplings. First world problem, but given the re-runs it might have been an opportunity to correct the tooling as that chassis is shared by carious IRM wagons (ballasts, cement, plough vans, magnesite’s, gypsum, etc).  Photo below illustrated the problem.

 

The manual fix. A pity the couplings could not be use correctly when plugged into the NEM pockets

Kadee user expects NEM user to conform to their niche standards, got it.

But these were and still are the standards laid down by others, we just conformed to them. We even had to compromise on fidelity to achieve an NEM pocket. After all, there is a reason that Kadee make a host of couplings to adjust height, prevent buffer lock, allow for distinct distances between wagons. This, at the time, was not an issue we could put resources into to cater for, not even a minority.

Please show me the source of how we were NEM Non Compliant as this standard was used across the board, not just Ballast, Cement and others. Same pocket height for the A Class as the Tara Mines wagon. 

 

[Warbonnet]

20 hours ago, Noel said:

[quote=glenderg]There was no issue with coupling height, it was all done to NEM standards, and if not, this rake would have ruined itself when the video was taken on the 16th November 2017, some 8 years ago..[/quote]

Hi Richie. Respectfully there was an error with the coupling height on the ballast wagons and the cement bubbles (inc ploughs that shared a common chassis). IRM even had a fix page on their web site back then with a solution. It wasn’t about running problems, it was about NEM compliance and incompatibility with Kadee couplings.  It wasn’t a problem if one used the supplied gull wing mini tension lock couplings but was incorrect for Kadee’s as the NEM pocket height was incorrect. All other IRM stock since then had had perfect NEM pockets in terms of height from the rail top.  I got around the problem by gluing kadee no 18s to the underside of the NEM pockets to get the correct height for kadee coupling height guage and kadee uncoupling magnets. It was a right royal PITA having to do it to two rakes of ballasts and two rakes of cement bubbles. This might have been a hangover of the unfortunate DJ input to IRMs first product which were the ballasts. Murphy Models had a similar fault with their craven coaching stock when the NEM pockets were also at the wrong height and needed fettling to use with popular kadee couplings. First world problem, but given the re-runs it might have been an opportunity to correct the tooling as that chassis is shared by carious IRM wagons (ballasts, cement, plough vans, magnesite’s, gypsum, etc).  Photo below illustrated the problem.

 

The manual fix. A pity the couplings could not be use correctly when plugged into the NEM pockets

Hi Noel,

Respectfully, an error is usually something made unconsciously, thinking it was correct to begin with. For the ballast and cement bubbles, we consciously decided to go with the cranked coupler solution to maintain prototype fidelity of the under frame. It was not an error, it was a conscious decision.
 

We explained it at the time, at considerable length to you. And again on subsequent releases of these wagons. Other posters on here remember our explanation as demonstrated above. I’m surprised you haven’t, when it was explained in answer to your queries, countless times. I’m absolutely certain you’re not trolling of course. That would be rather pointless and silly for a grown man to do. 
 

Cheers!

Fran