Limerick-Ballybrophy line

JCX BXC

Would it be viable to run the Limerick-Dublin intercity trains via the Ballybrophy line assuming that was in good condition? I understand the Limerick-Dublin intercity don't actually stop at Limerick junction anyway.

Also, what condition is the Ballybrophy line in? Poor condition I understand?

Del.Monte

There's whole threads already devoted to this subject http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=101673219 , but in answer to your question - No. The line is in poor condition with a low speed limit, the junction faces the wrong way at Ballybrophy, and without a determined effort and spending some serious cash its only future is as a Greenway.

Banjoxed

Del.Monte wrote: »

There's whole threads already devoted to this subject http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=101673219 , but in answer to your question - No. The line is in poor condition with a low speed limit, the junction faces the wrong way at Ballybrophy, and without a determined effort and spending some serious cash its only future is as a Greenway.

Don't be wishing that now Del.Monte, there would be a Calvin Klein shortage for a day or two on C&T due to the excitement unleashed, if that happened.

JCX BXC

Apologies, I didn't look that far out for threads.

I understand the line is the biggest drain on the IE network, but if the speed restrictions weren't there would it be possible to route Limerick-Heuston trains via the Ballybrophy line? Despite facing the wrong way, would it be workable? For example the junction in Athenry is facing the wrong way for going to Galway from Ennis/Limerick.

My knowledge on this subject is in no way comprehensive, I'm interested. Thanks for linking that thread (let's face it the boards search function is awful).

Reputable Rog

My understanding is that the line is perfect between Limerick and Nenagh, capable of speeds of up to 90mph, problem is IE won't send an inspector to certify it.

Del.Monte

It would be possible and is something I have been advocating for a long time but it isn't going to happen. While it would be possible with the existing track layout it would only add to journey times. A north facing direct curve should have been put in decades ago but CIE don't do forward planning.

Del.Monte

Reputable Rog wrote: »

My understanding is that the line is perfect between Limerick and Nenagh, capable of speeds of up to 90mph, problem is IE won't send an inspector to certify it.

Not as I understand it but I'm open to correction.

goingnowhere

Reputable Rog wrote: »

My understanding is that the line is perfect between Limerick and Nenagh, capable of speeds of up to 90mph, problem is IE won't send an inspector to certify it.

Since said inspector would refuse to sign off

50-70mph at best, too many level crossings, sighting distance issues

Reputable Rog

Del.Monte wrote: »

Not as I understand it but I'm open to correction.

That is what I was told by one of the regular drivers of the service.

Isambard

Reputable Rog wrote: »

That is what I was told by one of the regular drivers of the service.

we heard that before somewhere.

n97 mini

That line has an inordinate amount of manual level crossings. It would be very very expensive to automate them all.

JCX BXC

It's hardly cheap to man them.

n97 mini

No, and it's probably the biggest reason that line is at the top of the closure list, but IE hasn't got the lump sum needed to replace them.

end of the road

sure level crossings is the biggest reason. more likely it's the picked excuse. it's IE we are dealing with so it will be the same reasons as why limerick junction waterford has been ran into the ground, and even then it can be brought back from the brink whatever about ballybroaphy, which would be a miracle.
by the way, those 2 and even the wrc closing won't be the end of it. more will go because "reasons" and queue the excuses which some will fall for over and over again.

Isambard

we should indeed be upgrading our network, but not no hoper branches...it's the real Inter City lines that need the investment so that they can compete and beat the motorways.

JCX BXC

If every line had the speed capability of the Dublin-Cork line then the rail network would be much more attractive straight away.

Del.Monte

Isambard wrote: »

we should indeed be upgrading our network, but not no hoper branches...it's the real Inter City lines that need the investment so that they can compete and beat the motorways.

How the hell is Ballybrophy/Limerick a no-hoper? With CIE running things the entire railway network is a no-hoper.

ClovenHoof

The problem with many on this group and other groups were people like railways, is the complete and total nonacceptance that the CIE staff on the Nenagh branch won't change their work patterns. Please don't give me this crap that 5 years ago "Paddy McGinty at Roscrea had his breakfast 15 mins early to create a commuter service."

Until the unions are smashed at CIE, you can forget about saving lines like this.

end of the road

Isambard wrote: »

we should indeed be upgrading our network, but not no hoper branches...it's the real Inter City lines that need the investment so that they can compete and beat the motorways.

there are no no hoper branches. they closed in the 60s and 70s and even then a couple of those were closed for railway-political reasons rather then economics. i don't need to tell you why the ballybroaphy branch is in the state it's in.

ClovenHoof wrote: »

The problem with many on this group and other groups were people like railways, is the complete and total nonacceptance that the CIE staff on the Nenagh branch won't change their work patterns. Please don't give me this crap that 5 years ago "Paddy McGinty at Roscrea had his breakfast 15 mins early to create a commuter service."

and yet they were able to introduce the early morning direct service. funny that.

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Until the unions are smashed at CIE, you can forget about saving lines like this.

yeah. yeah. it's rightly not going to happen.

this line has been ran into the ground since the 70s. it's not some recent thing. it was always going to be ran down whether unions exist or not. several changes of management since the 70s and not one of them have bothered to improve the line. and yet it's the unions who are to blame for simply doing what their members pay them to do dispite management being the ones to make the decisians.

Isambard

Deedsie wrote: »

Ridiculous comment. If the line was invested in and upgraded it would be a viable line and it would be used. As it is now, it's slow, it has a shocking timetable that is seemingly unchangeable.

I think that the timetable improvements at the behest of the local TD which were a failure rather confirm that usage of this line cannot be increased to a suitable level. The parallel motorway is a much more popular option

There is no point investing in other than the areas where maximum returns can be expected. Such as increasing the speeds on the Dublin to Cork line to a point where journey times are markedly better than in the 1960s.

Del.Monte

Isambard wrote: »

I think that the timetable alterations at the behest of the local TD which were a failure rather confirm that usage of this line cannot be increased to a suitable level. The parallel motorway is a much more popular option

There is no point investing in other than the areas where maximum returns can be expected. Such as increasing the speeds on the Dublin to Cork line to a point where journey times are markedly better than in the 1960s.

FYP

There's a major difference between improvements and alterations just to be seen to be doing something.

Isambard

alterations to a seemingly unchangeable timetable.....

end of the road

Isambard wrote: »

I think that the timetable improvements at the behest of the local TD which were a failure rather confirm that usage of this line cannot be increased to a suitable level. The parallel motorway is a much more popular option

There is no point investing in other than the areas where maximum returns can be expected. Such as increasing the speeds on the Dublin to Cork line to a point where journey times are markedly better than in the 1960s.

maximum returns can be gained by investing in the whole network, rather then selected lines that IE want to run because "gsr" or some other reason they only understand. they have been improving dublin cork since god knows when and it is still as slow as a funeral. the rest of us have had enough of been left to decay slowly but surely, especially when we would be paying for improvements elsewhere (which i don't begrudge but i expect something back as well)

Jamie2k9

Would it be viable to run the Limerick-Dublin intercity trains via the Ballybrophy line assuming that was in good condition? I understand the Limerick-Dublin intercity don't actually stop at Limerick junction anyway.

Viable not a chance, one or two of the direct services serve the junction.

I understand the line is the biggest drain on the IE network, but if the speed restrictions weren't there would it be possible to route Limerick-Heuston trains via the Ballybrophy line? Despite facing the wrong way, would it be workable? For example the junction in Athenry is facing the wrong way for going to Galway from Ennis/Limerick.

My knowledge on this subject is in no way comprehensive, I'm interested. Thanks for linking that thread (let's face it the boards search function is awful).

It's possible but you would need a couple of hundred million to make it happen.

My understanding is that the line is perfect between Limerick and Nenagh, capable of speeds of up to 90mph, problem is IE won't send an inspector to certify it.

Where did find that information out. Inadequate signalling, track and general infrastructure to support such running.

It would be possible and is something I have been advocating for a long time but it isn't going to happen. While it would be possible with the existing track layout it would only add to journey times. A north facing direct curve should have been put in decades ago but CIE don't do forward planning.

It would never compete with current services unless it was designed for 100mph running from end to end.

Since said inspector would refuse to sign off

50-70mph at best, too many level crossings, sighting distance issues

After a relay, ICR's would eat the track given it's so poor.

The problem with many on this group and other groups were people like railways, is the complete and total nonacceptance that the CIE staff on the Nenagh branch won't change their work patterns. Please don't give me this crap that 5 years ago "Paddy McGinty at Roscrea had his breakfast 15 mins early to create a commuter service."

Until the unions are smashed at CIE, you can forget about saving lines like this.

No union fan especially those in CIE but this is so not true, the current shifts are designed to cut costs nothing else.

dowlingm

Reputable Rog wrote: »

My understanding is that the line is perfect between Limerick and Nenagh, capable of speeds of up to 90mph, problem is IE won't send an inspector to certify it.

in all the years of Irish Railway News boards trying to make Nenagh branch a thing, even they didn't propose 90mph. Inspector Gadget couldn't make that happen. In the last decade the amount of cash thrown at the branch, starting with the Ballybrophy junction relay keeping the existing layout and retaining the ETS, is nothing short of scandalous *for the return gained*. Could probably have done 90mph double track from Limerick Junction to Killonan cabin for less and carried many more satisfied customers. The parish pump got the cash instead - for relaying but no tamping, and no miniCTC, while fares were cut to ridiculous levels for the few that travelled.

IE didn't even route trains over the branch during closures between LJ and Ballybrophy. During times when buses subbed on the branch they were so quick up the road that they had to wait at each station because the train was scheduled for some time later.

The one thing I'd like to ask IE is why a based train in Roscrea wasn't tried instead of the IRN proposed Nenagh turnback which required capital spend AND put IE in direct competition with BE when there was no inbound service from Roscrea and it is a block post. But IE works under the nonsense of commercial confidentiality rather than explain itself.

BoatMad

CIE/IE always keeps a series of " failed " branches up its sleeve , to play political " texas Holdem" with the politicians. It never actually wants to have traffic on these lines as the last thing it wants is a network , that just " hangs on"

Hence the nonsense of a Limerick to waterford service that still runs on the old boat time table even though theres no through service to rosslare for years now

The current no hopers are LJ to waterford, Ballybrophy branch and the latest addition , Gorey to Rosslare

as these close the next " no hopers " will have to be found , most likely Manulla , carlow - waterford , etc IE are slowly removing all facilities from waterford

IE simply cannot run a rail network, because it has no interest in a service that customers need, it just works for its staff and every year to whinge at the exchequer for more money ( to pay same said staff)

It has destroyed vast swathes of Rail infrastructure, allowed perfectly good Mk3 carriages to rot along with a sizeable proportion of very expensive 201 class locos , destroyed any ability for freight to return etc etc


its time to get rid of it completely

end of the road

BoatMad wrote: »

CIE/IE always keeps a series of " failed " branches up its sleeve , to play political " texas Holdem" with the politicians. It never actually wants to have traffic on these lines as the last thing it wants is a network , that just " hangs on"

Hence the nonsense of a Limerick to waterford service that still runs on the old boat time table even though theres no through service to rosslare for years now

The current no hopers are LJ to waterford, Ballybrophy branch and the latest addition , Gorey to Rosslare

as these close the next " no hopers " will have to be found , most likely Manulla , carlow - waterford , etc IE are slowly removing all facilities from waterford

IE simply cannot run a rail network, because it has no interest in a service that customers need, it just works for its staff and every year to whinge at the exchequer for more money ( to pay same said staff)

It has destroyed vast swathes of Rail infrastructure, allowed perfectly good Mk3 carriages to rot along with a sizeable proportion of very expensive 201 class locos , destroyed any ability for freight to return etc etc


its time to get rid of it completely

even IE being got rid of won't save the railway.

Jamie2k9

BoatMad wrote: »

CIE/IE always keeps a series of " failed " branches up its sleeve , to play political " texas Holdem" with the politicians. It never actually wants to have traffic on these lines as the last thing it wants is a network , that just " hangs on"

Hence the nonsense of a Limerick to waterford service that still runs on the old boat time table even though theres no through service to rosslare for years now

The current no hopers are LJ to waterford, Ballybrophy branch and the latest addition , Gorey to Rosslare

as these close the next " no hopers " will have to be found , most likely Manulla , carlow - waterford , etc IE are slowly removing all facilities from waterford

IE simply cannot run a rail network, because it has no interest in a service that customers need, it just works for its staff and every year to whinge at the exchequer for more money ( to pay same said staff)

It has destroyed vast swathes of Rail infrastructure, allowed perfectly good Mk3 carriages to rot along with a sizeable proportion of very expensive 201 class locos , destroyed any ability for freight to return etc etc


its time to get rid of it completely

One or two valid points, the rest is just rubbish. People just need to get over the Mark 3 thing, yes they were great however would of required millions to bring them up to standard. It's coming up to 10 years since withdrawn started.

22/34 of 201 fleet are in active service which will likely increase to 24 short term with 225/230 not in service because of a fire and accident but the long task of returning 230 has started AFAIK. Who saw that coming....

If the final 10 had PP capability I think you would see a handful still in active service.

Del.Monte

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

One or two valid points, the rest is just rubbish. People just need to get over the Mark 3 thing, yes they were great however would of required millions to bring them up to standard. It's coming up to 10 years since withdrawn started.

22/34 of 201 fleet are in active service which will likely increase to 24 short term with 225/230 not in service because of a fire and accident but the long task of returning 230 has started AFAIK. Who saw that coming....

If the final 10 had PP capability I think you would see a handful still in active service.

Where's the rubbish in BoatMad's post? Belmond were able to refurbish MkIIIs but a company like CIE with Inchicore Works couldn't? During the good times they squandered money like it was going out of fashion but the company is living on borrowed time and if/when the BE dispute spreads....

Jamie2k9

Del.Monte wrote: »

Where's the rubbish in BoatMad's post? Belmond were able to refurbish MkIIIs but a company like CIE with Inchicore Works couldn't? During the good times they squandered money like it was going out of fashion but the company is living on borrowed time and if/when the BE dispute spreads....

Nobody said IE couldn't however the fact is it would of been a costly exercise and the option for extra trains which were needed anyway came along.

BE won't impact on IE at all, just the unions scaremongering, how on earth did shared depots work before, oh yeah business as usual.

Del.Monte

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Nobody said IE couldn't however the fact is it would of been a costly exercise and the option for extra trains which were needed anyway came along.

BE won't impact on IE at all, just the unions scaremongering, how on earth did shared depots work before, oh yeah business as usual.

Don't bet on contagion from BE not affecting IE and anyway IE's own strike is heading down the tracks shortly. The MkIII fiasco is symptomatic of CIE's attitude to wasting money and their answer to any question about anything is - "we're upgrading the Dublin/Cork line".....:rolleyes:

Jamie2k9

Del.Monte wrote: »

Don't bet on contagion from BE not affecting IE and anyway IE's own strike is heading down the tracks shortly. The MkIII fiasco is symptomatic of CIE's attitude to wasting money and their answer to any question about anything is - "we're upgrading the Dublin/Cork line".....:rolleyes:

They will get their pay rise once they offer something in return!

I do agree about the endless money pouring into the Cork line, NTA should be taking a more active role in requiring adequate investment on other routes where ROI is good.

thomond2006

I might be using the evening train from Castleconnell on Monday to connect at Ballybrophy. Should I expect an empty train? Should I book the 9.99 ticket to Hueston online or is that fare available on a machine at the station?

Jamie2k9

thomond2006 wrote: »

I might be using the evening train from Castleconnell on Monday to connect at Ballybrophy. Should I expect an empty train? Should I book the 9.99 ticket to Hueston online or is that fare available on a machine at the station?

Online fare only.

Del.Monte

Asking people to use it because it would be a shame to see it close is a waste of time. The line needs investment, a timetable that serves a useful purpose and proper marketing.

n97 mini

Deedsie wrote: »

My numbers were wrong. There are about 25 people on this evenings train. The second carriage has more passengers than I thought.

How many carriages?

n97 mini

Deedsie wrote: »

2 carriages. Small enough sized carriages. I would say around 25 passengers. Seems a reasonable number for a Wednesday evening train on a dead rail line?

To put it in context there were probably more level crossing staff on duty on that line at the same time.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

To put it in context there were probably more level crossing staff on duty on that line at the same time.

most of the crossings are accommodation crossings from what i understand so there weren't more staff then passengers.

n97 mini

At least 10 crossings on that line are attended. If they'd work for €9.99 you'd only need 10 passengers to pay them.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

At least 10 crossings on that line are attended. If they'd work for €9.99 you'd only need 10 passengers to pay them.

so, a lot less crossing staff then passengers when that poster was on the train then.

n97 mini

end of the road wrote: »

so, a lot less crossing staff then passengers when that poster was on the train then.

Yeah, big difference between being utterly fcuked and completely and utterly fcuked alright.

JCX BXC

The line doesn't have to make a profit, it just doesn't have to fail spectacularly.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

Yeah, big difference between being utterly fcuked and completely and utterly fcuked alright.

there is also a big difference between 10 and 25. it's also impossible for 10 people to be more people then 25 people.

n97 mini

^ 2nd last one is automatic by the looks of it.

There are level crossings on chronically busy commuter lines that still haven't been automated either, (edit) as well as loads on busy intercity lines.

n97 mini

Some lines are an perfect example of bad planning though. Might have been ok in 1850 but not now.

Compare all the level crossings in Mayo with this stretch of the Cork line (there are very few overall between Dublin and Cork). To automate every level crossing in Mayo is putting lipstick on a pig. The reality is a lot of it needs to be rebuilt with over and under passes cutting out the need for level crossings altogether.

JCX BXC

There is a few manual open ones on the Cork line even! Such as at Buttevant railway station!

n97 mini

Deedsie wrote: »

Just compare the number of level crossings on the Limerick - Dublin (Via Nenagh) line to the Cork - Dublin line. See attached pic

There are two differences: one has very few level crossings, the other has a lot. Secondly, most of those level crossings (on the latter) are not automated.

But why has the Cork line less level crossings? For one it seems to have been better designed with a lot of bridges instead of level crossings, like this one, or this one or this one, but also if you look, some level crossings have been permanently shut.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Isambard

n97 mini wrote: »

There are two differences: one has very few level crossings, the other has a lot. Secondly, most of those level crossings (on the latter) are not automated.

But why has the Cork line less level crossings? For one it seems to have been better designed with a lot of bridges instead of level crossings, like this one, or this one or this one, but also if you look, some level crossings have been permanently shut.

Why? because it was built by a wealthier Company in the first place.

Banjoxed

Isambard wrote: »

Why? because it was built by a wealthier Company in the first place.

Would it be the Great Southern and Western Railway, who built the railway from Dublin to Cork, or the Great Southern and Western Railway, who built the line branching off the Cork line from Ballybrophy to Limerick?

Isambard

I stand corrected, but that is the reason for other lines.

edit....a map showing GSWR lines is not evidence that the GSWR built the line and without spending hours researching I can't be sure you are correct, do you have evidence that the GSWR actually built the line? It was quite common for local companies to build lines and then they were taken over by larger companies.