Carrick on Suir

corktina

reported in the Irish Mail....the loop was ripped out before Christmas. Signal box stating fttb.

end of the road

whats fttb? why was the loop ripped out?

flyingsnail

end of the road wrote: »

whats fttb? why was the loop ripped out?

I think its “For the time being”

corktina

replaced with plain track sounds pretty permanent to me!

Losty Dublin

corktina wrote: »

reported in the Irish Mail....the loop was ripped out before Christmas. Signal box stating fttb.

The cabin remains for now. It breaks up the section for block working but the cabin man works the level crossing gate as well along with the protecting signals.

end of the road

looks like closure is definitely on the cards then? shame, i still think the line can be brought back from the brink if their was any interest in doing so

TheBandicoot

How often was the loop actually used in say, the last two years?

corktina

Probably the last time

Trick of the Tail

Why do IE often tear up things like passing loops that are not generally in use?

What's the advantage of removing them?

flyingsnail

Trick of the Tail wrote: »

Why do IE often tear up things like passing loops that are not generally in use?

What's the advantage of removing them?

If it is not there you don’t have to pay to maintain it.

Trick of the Tail

Ah. The usual IE shortsightedness.

Tear it up now instead of maintaining it, then possibly in the future, pay lots of money to reinstate it.

Oh, I forgot, IE don't believe in railways for the future.

end of the road

Trick of the Tail wrote: »

Why do IE often tear up things like passing loops that are not generally in use?

What's the advantage of removing them?

supposibly it saves costs by having less track to maintain, personally i see it as more running down of the line as it leaves less scope for more trains, BR did the same with many lines including singling some which for some of the ones that are still open now have to have or have had the loops put back or some lines have to be redoubled, i don't believe irish rail should be allowed to remove such infrastructure but nothing i can do about it oh well.

corktina

I suppose once they have the signalling sorted they will be able to get rid of the box and just pay a crossing keeper (or automate). It's a great shame that Carrick hadn't been developed as a full preservation base, it was really quite picture-skew.

Jamie2k9

Trick of the Tail wrote: »

Ah. The usual IE shortsightedness.

Tear it up now instead of maintaining it, then possibly in the future, pay lots of money to reinstate it.

Oh, I forgot, IE don't believe in railways for the future.

Considering its jointed track the points are probably well past life cycle and new points are not cheap. They have replaced it with new track and not jointed.

corktina

Just one loop left now isn't there? Clonmel. Still with only two trains a day each way.....

flyingsnail

corktina wrote: »

Just one loop left now isn't there? Clonmel. Still with only two trains a day each way.....

Doesn’t Tipperary still have a loop but only one platform?

corktina

I thought that came out the same time as Cahir

Sligo Quay

corktina wrote: »

It's a great shame that Carrick hadn't been developed as a full preservation base, it was really quite picture-skew.

It is, but I don't think it would have made a difference, when Irish Rail decided to get rid of a loop they don't care who's in the siding, they did it in Tuam, West Rail had a very good set up in Tuam at the time, but Irish Rail still got rid of the loop making it 1 long manual section Athenry / Claremorris, trapping West Rail in a disconnected siding, I think no90 had to be lifted out by crane.

corktina

writing on the wall perhaps?

Losty Dublin

corktina wrote: »

I suppose once they have the signalling sorted they will be able to get rid of the box and just pay a crossing keeper (or automate). It's a great shame that Carrick hadn't been developed as a full preservation base, it was really quite picture-skew.

As I said yesterday, the signal man operates the gates here and the protecting signals for the crossing. I dare say he probably issues tickets and keeps the station tidy as well so there isn't any saving to be made here in replacing one with another. Closing the cabin isn't an option as accommodation for the gate keeper/signal man is still required until such time as an automatic gate and new protecting signals are installed. Given the doubts about the lines long term future, investment of this level is unlikely as there are no savings to come from upgrading the crossing.

corktina

there already is a cabin for a crossing keeper by the gates.

I'd say there is a great saving to be had by razing the station to the ground, installing a bus shelter and retaining just one platform and employing a part time crossing keeper you needs to attend for four periods of 15 minutes each per day.
That is the economic end result of the financial situation IE is in. I don't like that reality but I'd rather see money diverted to lines which do have a long -term future.

end of the road

corktina wrote: »

I'd say there is a great saving to be had by razing the station to the ground, installing a bus shelter and retaining just one platform and employing a part time crossing keeper you needs to attend for four periods of 15 minutes each per day.

i don't think we should go there, same was done to stations on the rosslare waterford section of the line, i'm convinced in ireland it does turn people away from the railway, they could do a co-location with other businesses along the waterford limerick section such as a small shop, charge a reasonable rent and make a little money from the stations, but i've a feeling your suggestion is what will be done to most of the stations on the line bar probably clonmell, how these shower are getting away with the destruction of what is technically an inter city line in this day and age is beyond me, its the 1960s all over again, apart from those of us on a few forums nobody seems to care, what are the so called national transport authority doing for example? or will the "we don't see any business case for retaining the line" get out of jail card be trotted out again? and for how many more lines?

corktina wrote: »

That is the economic end result of the financial situation IE is in.

they were destroying this line even in the good times, and before, the policy has supposibly always been railway to and from dublin only, oh wait, bray harcourt street and navon were ripped up, so i don't know what CIE'S policy for retaining railways actually is

corktina wrote: »

I don't like that reality but I'd rather see money diverted to lines which do have a long -term future.

but do you think most lines have a long term future under IE? that is the question we need to ask, and not do the lines have a long term future, they would if managed right

corktina

I agree with you totally. What we are seeing is the endgame of progressively cutting the service in the name of economy when what should have been done is improving the service and going out looking for passengers. Who will use a service where if you miss your return train, you have to wait hours for the next (if there is one)?


PS thanks to whoever edited the title :-)

Jamie2k9

they were destroying this line even in the good times, and before, the policy has supposibly always been railway to and from dublin only, oh wait, bray harcourt street and navon were ripped up, so i don't know what CIE'S policy for retaining railways actually is

Considering the majority of the route was replaced with new rails, some LC automated. Had 4 services each way at one stage, dropped to 3 because of demand and the only reason the third one was stopped was the significant saving generated from operating costs by having a split shift with all staff.

dowlingm

There is the odd wagon movement to Limerick is there not?

flyingsnail

dowlingm wrote: »

There is the odd wagon movement to Limerick is there not?

Yes, usually a Limerick to Waterford return on a Wednesday