Irish Rail, travel times and permanent speed restrictions must improve!!

Losty Dublin

steamengine wrote: »

I have some experience of that route - used it for a month or two back in the mid 90's. Now with the DART service, the first stop past Howth junction should be Donabate, it would seem to be a no brainer.

Provided that the services serve Howth Junction to enable changing to the DART, that is

steamengine

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Provided that the services serve Howth Junction to enable changing to the DART, that is

Yes, of course - CIE has correctly pointed up one of the snags. It's the lesser of two evils at the end of the day. The problem is not solved, just diminished for the greater good. Basically faster trains should be able to overtake slower trains and with 15 minute clock face timetabling for DARTS, in both directions, one can readily see the difficulties. DART intervals are also compressed further during rush hour. At Howth Junction there are 14 movements (DART and Commuter) between 17.00 and 18.00 hours.

CIE

Losty Dublin wrote: »

It's not mega money if compared cent to cent to the construction of a motorway but when compared to the relative income increases and social benefit to the locality and the country that come off it, it gets harder to justify the investment into a railway on that basis alone. If we look at the WRC, it costs were €106.5m for an additional 36 miles of a total rebuilding of track, new stations, resignaling, CPOs, bridges etc but the argument against it is that it won't be heavily used compared to it's outlay. At the other end of the scale, both the DART and Luas cost more yet run at a profit and shift large amounts of people and for the better good of the country. While CIE or the RPA usually obtain funding for massive infrastructural projects from the State, road users don't directly pay for the motorways we travel on, toll booths aside. In short the cost benefits on rail nor do road users pay for road side cafes, staff to run roads but it gets more complex when the greater picture is considered

Too many holes in that argument. And I'm not talking about the WRC specifically anyhow, but when it comes to that, it's absurd (offensive, really) that the company charged with constructing it will be permitted to deliberately under-utilise it. And as far as the motorways go, that's a lot of land you're not getting back.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Getting back to the main point, the time and operational savings in running double track lines need to be significant before they can be justified. One very good example is the Clonsilla-Maynooth line; in 1994 it was doubled and the service levels on the line have become well used ever since, with longer trains running more often and thus carrying more people

That's called playing catch-up. I still don't see "mega money", especially with the disparity between road and rail funding, and I don't see how it helps the country by continuing to force the private sector out of the railways while at the same time keeping the rail mode from becoming as modernised as possible.

Losty Dublin

CIE wrote: »

Too many holes in that argument. And I'm not talking about the WRC specifically anyhow, but when it comes to that, it's absurd (offensive, really) that the company charged with constructing it will be permitted to deliberately under-utilise it.

They are not holes in an argument; they are practical issues that cost money in improving any line and they have to be considered when expanding any line. Indeed, road projects also go through the same evaluation but unlike a railway line roads don't have to consider the direct income aspect of any project analysis, save for toll roads of course. Ask yourself this as rule of thumb; are tens of millions of € worthwhile for a time saving of a couple of minutes? Sometimes it is but not always and that's what it comes down to; is the investment going to make a worthy benefit?

CIE wrote: »

And as far as the motorways go, that's a lot of land you're not getting back.That's called playing catch-up. I still don't see "mega money", especially with the disparity between road and rail funding, and I don't see how it helps the country by continuing to force the private sector out of the railways while at the same time keeping the rail mode from becoming as modernised as possible.

I'm not arguing with you about the rights and wrongs of road versus rail investment here but both types of projects need to benefit the nation as a whole and need to ensure that they aren't wasted money, which some have ended up as being though many reasons. Others may pay off in the long run so the immediate fruits won't be seen for some years to come. We can argue about perhaps not needing every motorway that was built but then again the same can be said of many of our railways.

Victor

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I agree with you that there probably is but the easy bit is in wishing for them; the real fun is in deciding where to place them to the best benefit. To find out those points you need to find out what services are crossing where and how long of a wait you are talking about. This is before you consider if the infrastructure can accomodate a second running line without affecting running speeds, the associated relaying, bridging and resignalling costs as well as the other elephant in the room; is there enough rolling stock and manpower to work any service enhancements to exploit the additional network capacity.

As it is now, the consensus is that there is probably more need to expand the capacity on the GNR mainline and surburban lines into Dublin than on the single lines out of town. The current plan of slotting in more frequent trains throughout the day is for now, the better and cheaper option and it's probably better for the passenger to have more choice of train times as a whole.

Loops, in particular dynamic loops (long passing loops, where the waiting train doesn't need to stop) would be useful on Maynooth-Mullingar, Portarlington-Athlone and perhaps Greystones-Wicklow. A third or fourth track would be useful Bray-Balbriggan and Hazelhatch-Cherryville Junction.

However, they may not be practical in some locations were there weren't previous additional tracks.

shamwari wrote: »

I also wonder if working peak DART's with cascading stops (i.e. sets serve alternate stations) during peak hours is worthy of consideration? It would certainly add to improved journey times.

How would you get from stop 1 to stop 2, 4 or 6? Possibly more meaningful would be to run certain trains non-stop between the busier stations, but at the same time not under-providing a service to the stations you skip. As it is RTPI is killing bus stops that don't have RTPI.

Losty Dublin

Victor wrote: »

Loops, in particular dynamic loops (long passing loops, where the waiting train doesn't need to stop) would be useful on Maynooth-Mullingar, Portarlington-Athlone and perhaps Greystones-Wicklow. A third or fourth track would be useful Bray-Balbriggan and Hazelhatch-Cherryville Junction.

However, they may not be practical in some locations were there weren't previous additional tracks.

For the cost of installing one of these dynamic loops, it is almost as economic to keep going with the double track altogether.

Victor

Not necessarily. From Maynooth to Longford, the passing loops are erratically placed, with spacings of 8 to 15 miles. This becomes problematic in the evening when there are large numbers of crossing trains. A passing loop every 6-8 miles would improve that, but at Longwood-Hill of Down things don't fit as neatly and it might be useful to have a 3km dynamic loop.

The advantage of a dynamic loop is that it is no more mechanically complicated than a typical short loop and to a degree can be placed such that it avoids pinch points at bridges or narrow embankments and cuttings. Meanwhile, instead of starting from stationary, the train can hold back and when passing the other train, can do so at substantial speed. It is also more fuel efficient. Admittedly, there is the extra cost of track and track maintenance, but two tracks cost marginally less than twice what one track costs.

Location Mile Post Distance from previous location Distance from previous passing loop
Dublin Connolly - 2.00 Double track
Drumcondra - 1.00 1.00 Double track
Maynooth 15.00 16.00 Double track
End of Double Track ** 15.50 0.50 Double track
Kilcock 18.75 3.25 No passing loop
Enfield 26.50 7.75 11.00
Longwood ** 32.75 6.25 No passing loop
Hill of Down ** 35.75 3.00 No passing loop
Killucan ** 41.75 6.00 15.25
Mullingar 49.75 8.00 8.00
* The Sligo line is measured from Broadstone Station; the MPs for Dublin Connolly and Drumcondra have been approximated.
** Non-station location.

Losty Dublin

Victor wrote: »

Not necessarily. From Maynooth to Longford, the passing loops are erratically placed, with spacings of 8 to 15 miles. This becomes problematic in the evening when there are large numbers of crossing trains. A passing loop every 6-8 miles would improve that, but at Longwood-Hill of Down things don't fit as neatly and it might be useful to have a 3km dynamic loop.

The advantage of a dynamic loop is that it is no more mechanically complicated than a typical short loop and to a degree can be placed such that it avoids pinch points at bridges or narrow embankments and cuttings. Meanwhile, instead of starting from stationary, the train can hold back and when passing the other train, can do so at substantial speed. It is also more fuel efficient. Admittedly, there is the extra cost of track and track maintenance, but two tracks cost marginally less than twice what one track costs.

Location Mile Post Distance from previous location Distance from previous passing loop
Dublin Connolly - 2.00 Double track
Drumcondra - 1.00 1.00 Double track
Maynooth 15.00 16.00 Double track
End of Double Track ** 15.50 0.50 Double track
Kilcock 18.75 3.25 No passing loop
Enfield 26.50 7.75 11.00
Longwood ** 32.75 6.25 No passing loop
Hill of Down ** 35.75 3.00 No passing loop
Killucan ** 41.75 6.00 15.25
Mullingar 49.75 8.00 8.00
* The Sligo line is measured from Broadstone Station; the MPs for Dublin Connolly and Drumcondra have been approximated.
** Non-station location.

That actually makes little or no case for employing dynamic loops, Victor. They are of benefit on very long sections of track which, let it be said, is rare in Ireland. However the costs incurred in laying and building infrastructure for the long lengths of track they need (Thinking of bridges, embankments and realigned track for a start), the re-signaling of sections to deal with what is effectively a double track combined with fitting suitable points to cope with the faster speeds that trains will access the loops would be better pressed in going the whole hog, which would have better returns as a whole.

corktina

there isnt enough traffic to justify full double track. It would be much cheaper to build just one loop where the trains could pass at full speed. Even two or three if necessary would be way cheaper than full double track

n97 mini

CIE wrote: »

What kind of "mega money" really...? A lot of motorways are costing €12 million per kilometre (€18 million per mile) on average. Should we proceed with the M17 then? How much will the "Atlantic Corridor" cost the Irish taxpayer...?

Anyone can use the motorways. The railways are at the mercy of one state-owned company.

Losty Dublin

corktina wrote: »

there isnt enough traffic to justify full double track. It would be much cheaper to build just one loop where the trains could pass at full speed. Even two or three if necessary would be way cheaper than full double track

That's my whole point; it actually isn't much cheaper to install these loops compared to laying conventional double track and they don't offer enough benefit to improve service times, all told. To work best, they need to be quite long and with higher speed points; these do cost a lot more to install plus .
Granted they will offer more crossing points but the current traffic levels are not causing much hassle on most lines and with stations fairly close to each other as a rule, the current crossing loops are adequate.

corktina

No they arent because the big problem with single lines comes when one train is late and the opposing train has to wait for it to clear a section, and maybe the train has failed in the section, in which case they will both be sat for a long time. With a dynamic loop of 3 to 10 miles, there is a buffer zone which can absorb a certain degree of lateness so that perhaps the opposing train wont be delayed too.

Losty Dublin

corktina wrote: »

No they arent because the big problem with single lines comes when one train is late and the opposing train has to wait for it to clear a section, and maybe the train has failed in the section, in which case they will both be sat for a long time.

With a dynamic loop of, there is a buffer zone which can absorb a certain degree of lateness so that perhaps the opposing train wont be delayed too.

For trains to use crossovers/points at speed, they need to be of a far higher quality, size and layout than conventional points. These cost far more as a result than the average crossover and require longer install times as well.

The next issue, that of the distances in the loops is their noose. If a loop is 3 miles long, a train doing a modest 40MPH needs around 5 minutes to cover the loop. Add on time for adequate braking distances at either end for protecting signals and your closer to 7 minutes. With a traditional looping point, a train on the main line can keep up close to full speed; a double line affects neither. If you extend the loops to the 10 miles you suggest, this is close enough to the distances between the majority of stations on single line track, once you bring the length of current loops into the equation. For marginally more outlay you enhance up and down lines.

Lastly, train failures occur more often for track/point failures than engine failures. Increasing dependence on loops and points with higher speed trains can increase the chance of services and as such is asking for trouble.

I'm not denying that more crossing points are not needed; just that dynamic loops are not the golden horde. If they were, they would be a lot more common worldwide than they currently are.

corktina

but if you have your dynamic loop between two stations you actually reduce the numbers of points because you have eliminated one loop altogether. There is no need for high speed facing (or trailing) points as (In an Irish application) the train would be stopping at the stations at either end of the loop anyway, and possibly at one at an intermedaiate point. The saving in time comes from not having to wait for a n approaching ,possibly late, train/

To fully double track a line such as the likely candidates in Ireland would make the whole project not viable.

(an example would be the Waterloo to Exeter line in the UK

Losty Dublin

corktina wrote: »

but if you have your dynamic loop between two stations you actually reduce the numbers of points because you have eliminated one loop altogether. There is no need for high speed facing (or trailing) points as (In an Irish application) the train would be stopping at the stations at either end of the loop anyway, and possibly at one at an intermedaiate point. The saving in time comes from not having to wait for a n approaching ,possibly late, train.

Sure, all you have just described there is double track between two stations;)

corktina

exactly, what else would a dynamic loop be , unless you want one NOT between two stations?
There still is no case to double track the entire line, for the cost of that youtr could add long loops on several lines

Losty Dublin

corktina wrote: »

exactly, what else would a dynamic loop be , unless you want one NOT between two stations?

So it's not a double line from station a to station, it's actually a loop? Oooookkkkkkayyyyyy :rolleyes:

corktina wrote: »

There still is no case to double track the entire line, for the cost of that youtr could add long loops on several lines

Nor is there a solid case for dynamic loops, which as I have stated to you several times are not good bang for the buck nor are they as feasible as you reckon. But it's not sinking in with you so there's no point in debating this with you.

corktina

I dont really understand what you are saying.Double track between stations and a dynamic loop are essentailly the same thing. Im not suggesting you have double track between EVERY station, just at a strategic point or points en route.

I was under the impression you were advocating double tracking the entire length of a line rather than one or more elongated loops that would enable trains to cross en route rather than AT a station, which would involve possibly one of them having to wait for the other.

Its no good you saying they arent good VFM without saying WHY. They would allow more flexibilty and improved timekeeping at the smallest cost. If you replace two loops with one long one, you arent incurring any huge signalling or trackwork costs,so HOW are they not good VFM?

Cool Mo D

corktina wrote: »

I dont really understand what you are saying.Double track between stations and a dynamic loop are essentailly the same thing. Im not suggesting you have double track between EVERY station, just at a strategic point or points en route.

I was under the impression you were advocating double tracking the entire length of a line rather than one or more elongated loops that would enable trains to cross en route rather than AT a station, which would involve possibly one of them having to wait for the other.

Its no good you saying they arent good VFM without saying WHY. They would allow more flexibilty and improved timekeeping at the smallest cost. If you replace two loops with one long one, you arent incurring any huge signalling or trackwork costs,so HOW are they not good VFM?

Dynamic loops between stations seems like pretty good value for money to me. Double tracking Galway- Athenry, Tullamore - Athlone, and Athy - Bagnalstown would practically eliminate the need to wait for crossing trains on intercity journeys, at a fraction of the cost of doubling whole lines.
Couple this with raising the line speed of Heuston to Portlaise form the current 70/80/90mph mix, to a consistent 100mph, and you could get substantial journey time reductions for relatively small outlay.

All the networks speed restrictions are available here:https://www.irishrail.ie/upload/IE_Network_Statement_2011.pdf for the interested.

cocoshovel

I was going to make a new thread about this but I said I will just put it in here. It probably relates to signaling some way or another anyway.

I have noticed that around where I live and pretty much every other railway crossing Ive come across in Ireland comes down at least 5 minutes before the train passes. Why is it so inefficient and time consuming? In most other countries it comes down less than a minute or even less than 30 seconds before the train passes. I think its ridiculous the amount of time we have to spend waiting at crossings here.


Examples of other countries, America & Japan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yLUBxis0tw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8roeslzcQk

Cool Mo D

In America, drivers are trained that you have to stop at every level crossing and look whether a train is coming or not - no flashing lights are no guarantee that a 3km long freight train is not about to roll through the junction, because malfunctioning level crossings will not stop trains running.

In Ireland, along the DART line anyway, the train has to be able to come to a complete stop if a car is trapped between the gates, so the gates need to be down longer. It all depends on the level of safety you are going for.

dowlingm

Here in Canada there is no shortage of dumbasses who will take on a mile long freight. Still doesn't mean we have to have 4-barrier CCTV everywhere. They even have those horns before each LC and people still try it on. As we saw in Ireland time after time even 4 barrier isn't a deterrent to the truly stupid