Foynes Line

highlydebased · 25-05-2012 1:56pm #1

In today's Limk Leader, local councillors at it again

I have a number of problems with what they say

1-It has been disconnected at Limerick check for a considerable amount of time, over 10 years am I right in saying? Whats more, disused track panels have been stacked on it for just as long

2-as it is classed as an engineers siding, presence of signals etc is generally irrelvant. I've been up close and personal to much of the mechanical signalling on the line and either nature or knackers have claimed most of it

3-There will never be a passenger service on the line anyway

CONCERN is growing in Askeaton that the railway line, running from Limerick to Foynes, is being de-commissioned by stealth.

Residents living close to the railway crossing in Askeaton raised the alert earlier this week when they were told the railway gates were being removed and replaced by a fence.

And in a bid to stop such a development, a meeting on the issue has been organised for this Wednesday.

What is also of concern is that the crossing at Childers Road in the city has recently been covered by tarmac

Meanwhile, Askeaton councillor Kevin Sheahan has warned Iarnrod Eireann against any “pre-emptive” moves to close the rail line.

And he has raised the issue as a matter of urgency with Limerick County Council.

The council’s conservation officer Tom Cassidy is now investigating the matter and attempted to contact Iarnrod Eireann’s divisional engineering section yesterday in an effort to clarify the matter, but without success.

However, Mr Cassidy told the Limerick Leader he was of the view that the level crossing at Askeaton was part of the curtilege of the station house and that any work at the crossing would therefore require planning permission.

The Limerick Leader has also attempted to question Iarnrod Eireann and spoke briefly to one engineer but he said he was not aware of the Askeaton situation.

Cllr Sheahan said people in the locality do not want to see the level-crossing gates removed and replaced with fencing. “They are very angry about it,” he said, adding that the railway was part of the area for many generations.

But, he continued, he was particularly perturbed that the removal of the gates – and a possible removal of the signals – might usher in a closure of the line. “I believe this is the beginning of a total decommissioning of the line,” he said, pointing out that despite lobbying by public representatives and others, Iarnrod Eireann had effectively abandoned the line. And he criticised them for failing even to maintain weed-spraying on the line over the past number of years.

The railway line, he said, was a vital piece of infrastructure in the West Limerick area and had been identified as such in various transport, regional, county and spatial plans. It was of particular importance to Foynes port, he argued, and could also play an important role in developing tourism along the route of the line from Limerick to Adare, Askeaton and Foynes.

Any attempt to decommission the Limerick-Foynes rail line woule be in conflict with all stated public policy, Cllr Sheahan argued.

In recent discussions with Transport Minister Leo Varadker, the Shannon Foynes Port company chief executive Pat Keating once more raised the issue of the railway line with him and it is understood the Minister is disposed to the revitalisation of the rail link.

The maintaining of the line has also been identified as part of the company’s master plan which will run to 2041.

flyingsnail · 25-05-2012 2:33pm

Track panels have been removed in places. It has not been possible for a train to traverse the section for some time.

end of the road · 25-05-2012 4:48pm

IE will gradually remove track pannels crossing gates and all other infrastructure until such time as the line is fully lifted and then the abandonment order will come. not long now. it will never re-open but i suppose if the councilors wish to make things difficult for IE on this issue well i'm not going to criticize them.

Judgement Day · 25-05-2012 5:30pm

Limerick councillors will have more on their plate soon with the impending closure of the WRC north of Ennis and the Nenagh branch. :rolleyes:

dowlingm · 25-05-2012 6:31pm

We've been talking about the run down of the Foynes line for years. When did the Rip Van Winkles in Askeaton wake up?

corktina · 26-05-2012 8:59am

Judgement Day wrote: »

Limerick councillors will have more on their plate soon with the impending closure of the WRC north of Ennis and the Nenagh branch. :rolleyes:

i think that WRC closure will be too much of a Hot Potato for it to close anytime soon. The Nenagh line certainly will go soon and I wouldn't rule out Lim Junc to Waterford going either!

Judgement Day · 26-05-2012 9:11am

Perhaps the rails can be used to reopen the Newmarket branch? will the Banteer to Newmarket line ever reopen as a railway....:D

Losty Dublin · 26-05-2012 1:09pm

end of the road wrote: »

It will never re-open but i suppose if the councilors wish to make things difficult for IE on this issue well i'm not going to criticize them.

The Limerick councillors would be better off if they left this line alone, truth be told.

Some years ago, the council slapped a preservation order on the line in the mistaken belief that this would ensure it's future. However, this order had the result that engineering work could be performed on the line without lengthy planning permission proceedings. The nature of such an order meant that permission would be needed for any replacement work needed on the line. This applies from basic tasks such as track and signal replacement to upgrading of level crossings to heavy civil engineering bridge replacements, including a viaduct at Robertstown. This is work that Irish Rail undertakes daily so it's easy to see how impractical it is to them in practice if it was applied to other lines. Irish Rail ended up taking this decision to the Law Courts where it was overturned.

Regardless of all that, a preservation order would attract 0% more traffic onto the line; if anything it would make projects like this utterly impossible.

Hungerford · 26-05-2012 6:29pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

This applies from basic tasks such as track and signal replacement to upgrading of level crossings to heavy civil engineering bridge replacements, including a viaduct at Robertstown. This is work that Irish Rail undertakes daily so it's easy to see how impractical it is to them in practice if it was applied to other lines. Irish Rail ended up taking this decision to the Law Courts where it was overturned.

Whereupon Irish Rail invested millions in replacing the Robertstown viaduct, upgrading all the level crossings and installing mini-CTC on the line. Right?

Losty Dublin · 26-05-2012 7:20pm

Hungerford wrote: »

Whereupon Irish Rail invested millions in replacing the Robertstown viaduct, upgrading all the level crossings and installing mini-CTC on the line. Right?

As you well know, they didn't for 3 solid reasons.

1) The Preservation Order imposed by Limerick County Council made it impossible for any work to be done on the line. Rather than saving it, this actually had the effect of closing the line as no works could be carried out on it. Indeed, Irish Rail had tentative plans to use the port to land ballast from America until the council got in the way. By the time the order was struck out, it was too late.
2) There was no traffic on the line or even prospect of same so there was no reason to spend money. Doubtless if it was spent, the likes of you would bemoan the waste on a closed line, etc etc.
3) Freight services by Irish Rail legally have to be run on a standalone financial basis. To date, no customer hasn't wanted to pay the going rate and to use the line; this includes maintaining the line. Now that there is a potential freight flow to justify it, a spend on the branch can be made.

Of course, all of this won't matter to a naysayer like you :pac:

Judgement Day · 26-05-2012 8:19pm

You're just kidding right - in a country full of quarries and IE contemplate importing ballast from the USA. :rolleyes:

Losty Dublin · 26-05-2012 8:55pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

You're just kidding right - in a country full of quarries and IE contemplate importing ballast from the USA. :rolleyes:

I'm not, JD, so I'm told by PW contacts Sounds bizarre I know but bear with this for a minute.

Modern PW requirements ask for a certain density and core of stone to ensure a longer lasting and sturdier lifespan. In olden days, it was any auld stone that did the job and in time it's shown up as not always being up to the task. Quarries here can't produce the specific stone as cheap as it can be overseas so the tenders generally go overseas.

Hungerford · 26-05-2012 8:59pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Doubtless if it was spent, the likes of you would bemoan the waste on a closed line, etc etc.

Nope, I wouldn't. It makes sense to continue basic maintenance on useful pieces of infrastructure. It means that if a new source of demand emerges, the railway could cater for it at a reduced cost.

What Iarnrod Eireann has been doing with regard to dormant infrastructure is nothing more than legalised vandalism.

An interesting comparison is with NIR's Antrim-Lisburn branch. The branch has been under care and maintenance for almost a decade. During that time, NIR has done basic work on the line in anticipation of a potential reopening in the future. The line is still passable and has been used for passenger traffic as recently as this month.

If it were an Iarnrod Eireann line, the track would have been severed from the network, track panels would have been pulled up, the level crossings would have been destroyed and nature would have retaken the line.

If the line were reopened, the NIR approach would mean that a relay and resignalling work [only because the existing system is life expired] would be necessary to get it back in action. The Iarnrod Eireann approach would involve a complete rebuild of the line.

Judgement Day · 26-05-2012 9:36pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I'm not, JD, so I'm told by PW contacts Sounds bizarre I know but bear with this for a minute.

Modern PW requirements ask for a certain density and core of stone to ensure a longer lasting and sturdier lifespan. In olden days, it was any auld stone that did the job and in time it's shown up as not always being up to the task. Quarries here can't produce the specific stone as cheap as it can be overseas so the tenders generally go overseas.

I'm sorry but I find it difficult to accept that and, in fact, if CIE engineers/consultants produced a report to that effect I still wouldn't believe it. Sounds like the wrong type of leaves/snow etc. that CIE love to trot out as an excuse for problems - the wrong kind of stone my hole! The wrong kind of management more like.

Losty Dublin · 26-05-2012 9:53pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

I'm sorry but I find it difficult to accept that and, in fact, if CIE engineers/consultants produced a report to that effect I still wouldn't believe it. Sounds like the wrong type of leaves/snow etc. that CIE love to trot out as an excuse for problems - the wrong kind of stone my hole! The wrong kind of management more like.

Well disbelieve it if you like. All I can say to you is that this position was arrived at after outside engineers and consultants recommended it.

sporty56 · 26-05-2012 11:07pm

Losty, Could you elaborate on remarks on importing railway ballast ? Similar topic came up years ago when Luas construction was imminent.

The Australian contractor was under mistaken impression that the only rock in Ireland was limestone and had plans to import ballast. Generally limestone does not make for durable ballast when combined with concrete sleepers(reason that CIE closed and sold off Lisduff and Lecarrow). However there are a few limestone quarries here which produce satisfactory ballast – near Carlow, Mullingar and Millstreet come to mind. There are of course several igneous/metamorphic rock quarries on the island that produce the best railway ballast you can get. I find it extraordinary to believe that economics of imported ballast could make any sense as cost alone of loading/shipping/delivery to any railhead here would exceed price of our own materials.

The Aussies soon copped on they’d been wrongly advised and got on with the job using local source. A pleasant surprise being that a considerable quantity of Sandyford granite being removed at same time as part of Beacon development had very good railway ballast qualities so they saved a bit of money there. Unfortunately still Joe Public had to cough up £10 transport costs for each German manufactured concrete sleeper used for Harcourt street line relay but that’s another story………

Judgement Day · 27-05-2012 12:00am

Lecarrow has been gone for yonks but even when Lisduff was sold off there were many hundreds of miles of timber sleepered lines. There was more than meets the eye about what went on over Lisduff.

dowlingm · 27-05-2012 2:20am

Losty

1) The Preservation Order imposed by Limerick County Council made it impossible for any work to be done on the line. Rather than saving it, this actually had the effect of closing the line as no works could be carried out on it. Indeed, Irish Rail had tentative plans to use the port to land ballast from America until the council got in the way. By the time the order was struck out, it was too late.

Now, you're a clued in guy and I've appreciated a lot of the gen you've posted, but the reality is that the Order in question was in place for THREE MONTHS - from April 25 2005 until stayed by Mr Justice Quirke on July 26. I find it incredible that those three months happened to be the crucial ones in the fate of the line

Losty Dublin · 27-05-2012 11:25am

dowlingm wrote: »

Losty

Now, you're a clued in guy and I've appreciated a lot of the gen you've posted, but the reality is that the Order in question was in place for THREE MONTHS - from April 25 2005 until stayed by Mr Justice Quirke on July 26. I find it incredible that those three months happened to be the crucial ones in the fate of the line

The order was in place for 3 months but the lead in time to the order itself takes a lot longer than the 2 hours of a council meeting. Rest assured, the order was brewing for a few years before it was made.

Losty Dublin · 27-05-2012 11:37am

sporty56 wrote: »

Losty, Could you elaborate on remarks on importing railway ballast ? Similar topic came up years ago when Luas construction was imminent.The Australian contractor was under mistaken impression that the only rock in Ireland was limestone and had plans to import ballast. Generally limestone does not make for durable ballast when combined with concrete sleepers(reason that CIE closed and sold off Lisduff and Lecarrow). However there are a few limestone quarries here which produce satisfactory ballast – near Carlow, Mullingar and Millstreet come to mind. There are of course several igneous/metamorphic rock quarries on the island that produce the best railway ballast you can get.

I find it extraordinary to believe that economics of imported ballast could make any sense as cost alone of loading/shipping/delivery to any railhead here would exceed price of our own materials.The Aussies soon copped on they’d been wrongly advised and got on with the job using local source. A pleasant surprise being that a considerable quantity of Sandyford granite being removed at same time as part of Beacon development had very good railway ballast qualities so they saved a bit of money there. Unfortunately still Joe Public had to cough up £10 transport costs for each German manufactured concrete sleeper used for Harcourt street line relay but that’s another story………

Not being a geologist but yeah, I was told that it is to do with the stone quality and types used and that certain stones are more adept than others; it's not like the old days of using the local stone, gravel or even ash and clinker from boilers. I don't know the bits and bobs about who quarries what and where in Ireland or at what quantities but the Irish Rail sleeper, rail and ballast contracts are tendered for; if the local companies aren't bidding the cheapest price or even tendering a bid at all then there isn't much that can be done about it.

corktina · 27-05-2012 1:12pm

theres a huge quarry in the west of Scotland only accesable by sea, shipped from there would be option no doubt

Losty Dublin · 27-05-2012 1:27pm

corktina wrote: »

theres a huge quarry in the west of Scotland only accesable by sea, shipped from there would be option no doubt

Now that you mention it, Scotland is one source of stone so that may well be the same place.

dowlingm · 27-05-2012 2:12pm

Hungerford - the NIR approach might seem less invasive but might also be a factor of the dribs and drabs of money granted for such works by the NIO and now the Assembly in part because of the substantial sums committed to the C4Ks and the Adelaide Depot? The other factor which may have prevented that line from being lifted is proximity to Aldergrove/BFS - there's not enough political will to say there will be an airport link but not enough to say there won't be either.

The discussion on ballast types for different kinds of sleepers is interesting, I had no idea it makes a difference. I'm puzzled about the reference to Lisduff though - is it just that IE don't own the quarry but continue to take stone from it? After all they are renewing the crossovers there this month.

foggy_lad · 27-05-2012 3:25pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

You're just kidding right - in a country full of quarries and IE contemplate importing ballast from the USA. :rolleyes:

Many of the Quarries operating in Ireland are doing so illegally without proper planning permission and other requirements so it may not be possible for Irish Rail to use stone from these?

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/question-marks-raised-over-rail-link-to-west-limerick-1-3879447

Cllr Sheahan said people in the locality do not want to see the level-crossing gates removed and replaced with fencing.
<snip>
It was of particular importance to Foynes port, he argued,

How could this line be important to anything considering how long it has been closed to traffic and the amount of money it must have lost for Irish Rail before closure?

Losty Dublin · 27-05-2012 3:42pm

dowlingm wrote: »

Hungerford - the NIR approach might seem less invasive but might also be a factor of the dribs and drabs of money granted for such works by the NIO and now the Assembly in part because of the substantial sums committed to the C4Ks and the Adelaide Depot? The other factor which may have prevented that line from being lifted is proximity to Aldergrove/BFS - there's not enough political will to say there will be an airport link but not enough to say there won't be either.

The discussion on ballast types for different kinds of sleepers is interesting, I had no idea it makes a difference. I'm puzzled about the reference to Lisduff though - is it just that IE don't own the quarry but continue to take stone from it? After all they are renewing the crossovers there this month.

I didn't follow onto his comments of last night in relation the the so called "Back Line" from Lisburn to Antrim. It has been opened and closed as it is a link to Derry a few times in it's history, hence it's been kept passable. As it is, it's being debated about it being reused by NIR yet again. It is not used for any regular or semi regular service for passenger trains.

Lisduff is not owned by CIE and as such, they don't use it for rail ballast any more. It is used as a delivery and loading point for ballast trains, which is part of the reason why it was recently renewed; it's points were also upgraded to speed up mainline trains.

sporty56 · 27-05-2012 8:46pm

As Losty mentions Lisduff Quarry has been in private ownership from early 80s and the limestone quarried there is not used for railway ballast any more. It still has a railway use from time to time as aggregate from there is used in manufacture at the precast concrete sleeper plant in Portlaoise. Lisduff aggregate was extensively used over the last decade or so in construction of Cork and Limerick motorways. As regards IR, Lisduff is only a loading point for ballast delivered from quarries near Carlow, Castletown and Borrisoleigh. Railway Ballast used by European railways must conform with EN 13450. There are various categories of use within the document ranging from TGV lines to sidings

Foggy lad mentions dubious sources, all the suppliers that IR use are well established and in full compliance with local authority and EPA guidelines.

cbl593h · 28-05-2012 11:06pm

corktina wrote: »

I wouldn't rule out Lim Junc to Waterford going either!

Carrick on suir closure reported last week as "imminent" by "buffet steward"/signalman. Gate man to be kept,won't repeat racially aggravated expletives used about him. What were described as the "ITG siding" turnouts were to be removed due to they being beyond maintenance but now the loop is to go and the box closure will follow in quick succession...........

Losty Dublin · 29-05-2012 12:03am

Heard that about Carrig a while ago. ITG are dismayed but not surprised by the news; it's been on the cards this long time.

Itsdacraic · 05-11-2013 11:19pm

Any word on this potentially re-opening? I saw it mentioned in the 2030 development plan launched by SFPC recently.

dowlingm · 08-11-2013 5:15pm

Unless the 2030 SFPC plan includes "we've changed our minds on asking IE to co-fund refurbishment/reinstatement - we'll foot the bill for the whole thing" I doubt much will change.

Poxyshamrock · 10-11-2013 8:11pm

They've taken away the railway gates at Childers Road in the last few weeks.

Foynes Line

Comments