Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail
Comments
-
Your point on journey time is irrelevant. Maybe an hour from Claremorris to Galway will be possible based on a simple speed/distance calculation but there is more to it than that. Any services joining the mainline will have to fit in around other services on the line. An hour journey time isn't going to be attractive to many commuters anyway and would have to be at the right times of the day. As you pointed out, there is big demand on the existing mainline so it makes sense that that is prioritised for peak commuter paths.
Can you quote where I said anything about Athenry and Tuam services competing against each other? Additional peak time services from Athenry can be added at much lower cost without reinstating services to Tuam. Double-tracking sections on the mainline would also benefit intercity services. Passengers from Athenry or further west can't be used to justify reopening Tuam.
Of course the passing loop will gove some increase in line capacity, I never said I don't accept this (another example of you making up something to argue with). You accused me of peddling misinformation when your claims were based on incorrect information. You claimed doubling or tripling of capacity which simply isn't accurate.
Ultimately, level of capacity, optimal use of that capacity and achievable journey times will have to be determined by IÉ staff taking all considerations into account. You can speculate but that isn't factual.
0 -
Oh Pete c'mon you're being really unfair now. It seems that you accept that 20minutes wait time at Athenry and 50kph assumed speed between Tuam and Athenry (a virtually straight line), are both ridiculous assumptions. The unrealistically slow journey times are the main reason the EY CBA failed miserably.
But now you say:
journey time is irrelevant.It's absolutely not irrelevant. It is the main issue that comes up again and again to discredit the line.
I hear your points on capacity and challenges fitting in multiple routes on limited track. It's fair and correct. But I disagree with how big an issue it is made out to be. Proper timetabling can alleviate the conflicts. An additional platform at Athenry for Limerick trains or Athenry-Galway only trains would certainly help.
However we're not talking about trains every 5 minutes here. One train each direction per hour Dublin-Galway, one train each direction every 2 hours alternating Galway-Limerick and Galway-Westport. That's 4 trains in total per hour or 2tpdph at Athenry.
0 -
Please don't accuse me of being unfair, it is you who is being unfair. You selectively quote a part of what I said in relation to journey time. My full sentence was; "Your point on journey time is irrelevant". What I mean by this is that even if your claimed journey time of one hour from Claremorris to Galway was achievable, it still isn't an attractive journey time for commuters when additional journey time either side is factored in.
I also never said anything about the 20minutes wait time at Athenry and 50kph assumed speed from the EY report. It is you who keeps bringing these up. You say that it seems that I accept these when I never mentioned or referred to that report at all in this discussion. You are introducing this and attributing it to me which is unfair as my points had nothing to do with them.
As regards use of capacity on the mainline, we should be looking to provide regular services between Galway and Athlone throughout the day with additional stations created. Having long distance services also acting as commter services fails to meet current demand and is an impediment to further growth.
2 -
’Additional journey time on either side’ applies to any public transport service. It’s an argument for keeping the car front and center of transport policy.
3 -
I keep bringing these things up because every time an article or picture is posted regarding WRC, all the same comments start without fail.
Most of these comments are centered around a false idea that this line is an unviable money pit, driven by a biased report produced by EY. This report was fundamentally flawed, but leaves WRC supporters on the constant defensive against a barrage of misinformed, often abusive, commentary.
Your comments are always respectful, but I don't believe they're helping to challenge the false truths about the line. The truth is always somewhere in the middle. Perhaps if more people tried to find that middle point, these conversations could be more constructive.
3 -
Advertisement
-
Can you quote where the Arup AIRR report says reopening WRC is viable?
On WRC, Chapter 4 Recommends says;
West Coast
...
While many options for developing new railways in the region are unlikely to be viable within the horizon of this Review, the Review has identified several interventions in that appear to have potential. These interventions include:
• Improving services between Galway and Dublin, Limerick, Cork and Waterford – together with double tracking between Athenry and Galway.
• Improving service frequencies between key Mayo towns and Athlone by building more passing loops on this corridor.
• Restoring the rail line between Athenry and Claremorris. This would be particularly beneficial for freight, allowing a direct route for freight from Ballina and Westport to ports on the South Coast that avoid the most congested part of the rail network around Dublin. This would also reconnect Tuam to the railway and enable direct services between Galway and Mayo.
So Athenry - Claremorris is included under things which "appear to have potential".
The assessments carried out as per Appendix B are not for individual lines, rather "packages". WRC was included in Package 3b as per Stage G;
Package 3b – West Coast
• A new 120km/h electrified line between Derry~Londonderry and Sligo, double-tracked between Derry~Londonderry and Letterkenny and single-track between Letterkenny and Sligo. Hourly services along the whole line and two trains per hour between Letterkenny and Derry~Londonderry.
• A new 120km/h electrified single-track line between and Sligo and Athenry, with hourly Sligo-Galway services.
• Electrification and speed upgrades, including limited realignment, between Athenry and Sixmilebridge to enable hourly services between Limerick and Galway.
At the next Stage (Stage H), it came to the following conclusion;
5. West Coast: Modelling undertaken for interventions on this corridor showed there would be very low demand for passenger rail services on this route and that building a railway on this corridor would have a significant adverse impact on the environment. There are also no obvious opportunities for developing significant rail freight demand between Claremorris and Derry~Londonderry. That said, the modelling showed there would some demand between Letterkenny and Derry~Londonderry. It was also assessed that a connection to Letterkenny was essential for achieving the Review’s goals of reaching as many large (population >10,000) towns as possible within reasonable economic constraints. This link was therefore retained in the Final Scenario. It was also noted that the link between Claremorris and Athenry provided an important link for the island’s rail freight network, and that the town of Tuam would probably generate demand for a passenger service. This link was also retained, but all other proposed links in Package 3b were dropped form the Final Scenario.
So on Athenry - Claremorris it says freight and "Tuam would probably generate demand for a passenger service", no actual assessment of cost to benefit and far from a ringing indorsement on passenger services. It should also be noted that all the all the Package 3 elements (of which WRC is one), were taken on the basis that Packages 1 and 2 were also delivered and Dual tracking between Galway and Athenry was included in Package 2a.
Package 3 – Regional and Rural
Package 3 focused on improving the connections of different regions both to each other and to the major cities and international gateways. It addresses gaps in the existing railway network, particularly in the North West but also in the west and the South East. There are four packages within this, each focused on a particular geographic region of the island. These packages also incorporate the interventions in Package 1 and Package 2a. The main features of each package are described below.
In terms of Portarlington - Athlone, the Final Package of Recommendations, under the heading Intercity, includes; Double tracking from Dublin as far as Mullingar, Athlone, and Kilkenny, as well as between Galway and Athenry. Obviously Portarlington - Athlone is the current single track section of Dublin - Athlone. I'm sure had they actually assessed the cost of specific interventions like this v the benefits arising, Portarlington - Athlone would score much higher than Athenry - Claremorris. In Chapter 4, Portarlington – Athlone is specifically mentioned as a section where additional capacity is needed;
Service frequencies
In the short term, some frequency enhancements can be delivered with existing infrastructure thanks to the planned procurement of additional rolling stock. However, to achieve a step change in frequencies and operating performance, it will be necessary to add capacity on sections of the rail network where there is a high level of conflict between intercity, freight and local commuter rail services. This is particularly relevant on busy sections of the railway on the approaches to Dublin and Belfast, and on single-tracked sections of the railway such as Portarlington – Athlone.
1 -
I haven't been bringing up the EY report at all. You have been bringing it up, not really sure why.
The flip side of this is people wanting WRC reinstated bring up AISRR as if it finds a viable case for reopening the line. It doesn't as it didn't specifically access it in terms of cost v benefits.
Eventually we will probably see another few hundred grand given to some consultants to assess it again. No doubt there will be the same arguments again with people who don't agree with the reports findings trying to discredit it. Nothing will happen and a potential asset will go unused for another decade because of the "rail or nothing" mentality.
The fact still remains that reopening the rail line isn't a live project, is not specifically planned for delivery under any current national plans and is not factored in to current capital expenditure plans.
2 -
Ideally you have sufficient people within a short distance of your rail service on one side, and significant employment/educational/entertainment opportunities on the other side. Small towns like Tuam or Claremorris don't have a lot of people in close proximity to their potential station and most of Galway's big employers plus NUIG involve additional travel to reach them from Ceannt. This is a genuine consideration. Claremorris to Galway in an hour might sound good but if the door to door journey is closer to an hour and a half, few people are likely to opt for that.
2 -
I think this argues that additional (and existing) rail services should be complimented by additional services around Galway City. For example I think the 404 bus should terminate at Oranmore train station and the service (or a 404B at peak hours) would route through Parkmore and come into Galway along the 409 route.
Given where we are now, and sadly the way things are done in Ireland, an Athenry to Claremorris service is an optimistic minimum of 5 years away. So we’re not just solving for the problems of today we’re solving for the problems of today and 5+ years from now. A 1,000 employee factory is opening Athenry, and with a reinstated line you could have workers coming from Claremorris and Tuam by train each day. That’s just one example, before anyone thinks it’s a solitary argument in favour of rail.
1 -
I was very clear on this point before the conversation diverged into the same old arguments.
The main point being they've cleared the line between Athenry and Claremorris simply to get engineers on site to assess realistic costs. That's it. We know it doesn't have funding.
The speedy progress of Foynes, at a cost of €105m, may change the perception on reopening WRC. Phase 1 of Foynes has a contracted price of €65m with Sisk. Phase 2 is not contracted but is expected to cost €40m. Given the similarities between the lines, the previous figure of €400-600m now appears to be massively over-estimated.
Galway and Mayo are plagued by urban sprawl and this is not going to be fixed by adding bus routes. Investing in rail, putting towns on the network, re-connecting disconnected lines - that will change people's behaviour and help towns densify. The country needs balanced investment. A few 100m in this region versus €17billion being invested in Dublin is a drop in the ocean.
1 -
Advertisement
-
Claremorris is already connected by rail to towns like Castlebar, Ballina and Westport, why not invest in improving services between these towns plus bus connections to large employers? It could be done much faster and at lower cost. Instead all the focus is on investing a 9 figure sum in something which won't actually move a lot of people.
Claremorris is a town of less than 4,000 people. You will need a high percentage of it's working population travelling south regularly by train to justify reopening Athenry - Claremorris. That is the nature of rail, capital and operational costs are high for which you get high capacity, but you need to be utilising that capacity. The demand would be more in line with bus capacity which would have similar if not better journey time, serve multiple stops and offer greater frequency.
Looking beyond Claremorris, journey times from the likes of Castlebar, Ballina and Westport to Athenry are not going to be very attractive to people living in those towns. And yes, people will also be factoring in whatever additional journey time is required either side, the headline rail journey time is only one factor. You also have to consider service frequency, if long gaps between services, people are less likely to use due to inflexibility.
Ultimately, big improvements are needed on the existing lines in Galway and Mayo before a meaningful level of service can be added on WRC. The focus on WRC is misplaced and only hampers rail development in the region. Look at the political and media attention WRC gets while a measly 1km passing loop is being added at Oranmore. If we were serious about rail services in the west, there are numerous relatively small but cumulatively very beneficial improvements which could be made which would have immediate effect but that doesn't get headlines so there is little interest.
4 -
Well it's a bit disingenuous to be bringing up the EY and dismissing an argument nobody is actually making while at the same time taking the WRC recommendation from AISRR but dismissing its cost estimate because it doesn't suit your view. If anything, both reports have flaws. A new report will no doubt also be considered to be flawed by anyone not getting the answer they wanted. It just means nothing will happen. All reports show no case for reopening north of Claremorris but Greenway can't be considered there apparently, the constant cycle of reports can at least prevent Greenway progress.
Clearing the line to access costs is a red herring. It remains to be seen what the actual cost of reopening Foynes - Limerick is but you could use that on a pro-rata basis plus project specific items and allow for inflation for a cost for Athenry - Claremorris. Clearing the line isn't going to change the estimate by more than a couple of percent. The issue is more on the benefits side of the CBA.
Galway and Mayo are not plagued by urban sprawl. They are characterised by ribbon development and have a large percentage of rural dwellers which is not urban sprawl. The main towns in each county are already connected to each other and the country's capital by rail. Investing in rail would aid their development but it needs to be well thought out investment. There is a lot which could be done with the existing operational lines which is barely talked about.
0 -
It's a bit disingenuous to bring this to a semantic argument of urban sprawl versus ribbon development, as if it changes the point I was making.
It's a bit disingenuous that you insist on focusing on demand from Claremorris alone, despite the links that would be created between all the urban centres in the region.
It's a bit disingenuous to throw in Claremorris-Cooloney, despite the fact it isn't part of this current conversation.
It's a bit disingenuous to claim the main towns in each county are already connected to each other and the capital. The former is certainly not true and you're obviously missing the bigger picture that this is about regional development, connecting all the towns in the region with the regional capitals, not just Dublin.
It's a bit disingenuous to dismiss the contracted costs of Foynes and claim they're irrelevant, because you don't like what it means for your argument.
It's a bit disingenuous to ONCE AGAIN dismiss me bringing up the EY report and then throw in, that the main issue on the CBA is the benefits side, which ONCE AGAIN is referring to the fundamentally flawed EY REPORT. Are you serious???
0 -
From a commuter perspective it’s not just Claremorris it’s Tuam as well. From an ‘intercity’ perspective it connects Galway, Ennis, and Limerick to Westport, Ballina and Castlebar. The service options and use cases start to broaden.
You’re simply wrong on the headlines comment. Ceannt Station is being renovated and the number of platforms increased by 150%, Oranmore station is getting a passing loop and second platform and a feasibility study is underway on double tracking Galway to Athenry. Anecdotally I believe the trains on Limerick to Galway are being upgraded to accommodate the significant increases in passengers. There is plenty being done to improve existing services - in 5 years it will be time to go further.
1 -
Re: Oranmore loop... wow. Seriously?
Currently Athenry/Galway is a 20'-ish ride, meaning that the maximum frequency we can push out in both directions alternating is in the f-42~44 ballpark, depending on how quickly interlocking switches directions and what not.
It does not matter what length the Oranmore loop will be for the following to still remain true. The Oranmore loop will allow to cut the line into two 10-minute-ish sections, meaning that the highest alternating direction frequency would now be around f-21~24. It's double the service potential.
Also whereever did the tripling comments come out of?
1 -
The tripling comment was from me, since the current actual usage of the line is only 1tpdph. The long section of single alignment creates significant risk for knock-on delays, and as such operates well below maximum capacity.
The passing loop would increase maximum capacity to 2.5 to 3 tpdph. And with reduced risk for knock-on delays, it will be easier to operate closer to that maximum.
0 -
Yes it's about moving the transport infrastructure belatedly into the 21st century. Most of the towns on disused lines have populations twice what they were when the rail lines closed and will continue to grow. So many reasons to open the line (which would most likely be already open if the 2008 crash hadn't occured)
- Decarbonisation
- Facilitating more efficient freight movement (the link between Claremorris and Athenry provided an important link for the island’s rail freight network - AIRR)
- Reducing pressure on the rail network around Dublin (allowing a direct route for freight from Ballina and Westport to ports on the South Coast that avoid the most congested part of the rail network around Dublin - AIRR)
- Balanced regional development (low density of rail lines in the West and Northwest has been highlighted by the EU as an issue for regional development)
- Improving economic conditions for businesses by linking the main towns in the west to each other (support freight and regional connectivity objectives in the West of Ireland - AIRR)
- Reducing congestion in Galway city which is worsening all the time as car volumes increase
- Benefits to tourism (particularly between Westport and Galway)
- Relative ease of reinstatement (Due to the current condition and alignment of the track, the Claremorris – Athenry railway can be reinstated relatively soon - AIRR)
Most of the above is of course ignored by some people who are against the line who try to focus the conversation on elements such as commuter numbers which are not the drivers for opening the line, but rather a secondary benefit. That doesn't work of course as most people are aware of the big picture and the need to plan for the future of all the regions.
1 -
Not sure why you are getting stroppy. Talking about rail and urban sprawl is fine but urban sprawl simply doesn't apply to sparsely populated rural areas with a widely dispersed population. That isn't semantics.
I was talking about Claremorris as it would be too far to attract significant commuter passengers for Galway. Journey time from Tuam would be attractive for commuting but given it's small population and Ceannt being well away from most big employers, demand would be limited. The AISRR itself said "Tuam would probably generate demand for a passenger service", didn't mention Claremorris, it doesn't even get a "probably".
The main towns in Mayo (Westport, Castlebar, Ballina, Claremorris) are linked to each other and Dublin by rail. Most of the main towns in Galway (Galway, Oranmore, Athenry, Ballinasloe) are linked to each other and Dublin by rail. There are also exceptions in Galway, Tuam being one. Regional development is well and good but value for money in reopening Athenry - Claremorris still has to be proven (AISRR doesn't do that).
I didn't dismiss the contracted costs of Foynes and claim they're irrelevant. If you think that I did can you provide the quote? It's not the first time you have accused me of something I didn't say. I quoted the cost estimate from AISRR, without a breakdown and seeing what was included, I can't comment on it's accuracy.
I only times I referred to the EY report were to point out to you that I didn't bring it up, assume it was accurate or rely on it in this discussion. The first time I mentioned it was to point out to you that I never said anything about accepting the 20minutes wait time at Athenry and 50kph assumed speed from it. If that report didn't exist, nothing in what I have said would change as I haven't used it. Please stop bringing it up and accusing me of things around it
I won't mention disingenuous.
0 -
Of course there's Tuam but it's not exactly huge. No doubt it would generate some commuter traffic but the way Galway city has developed limits that.
Galway has already been connected to Ennis and Limerick. There would be some demand for travel between Galway and Westport, Ballina and Castlebar but not train loads.
It's great that there is some planned investment in rail in Galway but it is pretty unambitious. Should be double-tracking between Galway and Athenry, adding new stations (Roscam, Renmore, possibly eastern side of Oranmore), new curve to Ennis line west of Athenry. Unfortunately WRC gets all the attention.
1 -
I didn't bring up tripling capacity. My point was that there are other considerations in achievable journey times than distance covered. Introducting another branch at Athenry would have an impact on scheduling and that would have to be determined by the professionals. Then there is the question of when capacity is available, what impact a train coming from Tuam would have if it has to be in Galway around 8.30am.
0 -
Advertisement
-
You've ignored or played down the relevance of Foynes costs in relation to WRC, and continued to refer to the 400-600m cost outlined in the AIRR, but ignored the fact that Foynes contract is a more recent development. Based on this specific development, the government believe WRC can be reinstated cheaper than previously estimated (for freight).
This is at the very core of my original posting about clearing the line. I'm not claiming as fact that the costs would be cheaper, but recent evidence suggests it would be. They're simply clearing the line to get engineers on site to assess.
Also, ribbon development and urban sprawl are not so distinct. In Ireland, both of these are driven by a road centric mentality. This will not stop by building more roads or adding bus routes. Only rail can truly challenge these issues. It you build rail, people will want to live near it. This is not some wild theory.
1 -
You and others seem to be happy to go with the AISRR when it suits you because it recommends reopening Athenry - Claremorris but I'm not allowed quote costs from the same document? I think AISRR is a pile of crap and fairly worthless in any discussion on the future of the rail network. I'm happy to disregard the cost estimate but equally, the idea that it strengthens the case for reopening Athenry - Claremorris should be dropped too.
Using Foynes - Limerick as a benchmark is fine but that is for a freight only line. For the regional development/interconnectivity thing, you also need to factor in costs for passenger standards, stations, etc. We all know where this is going, another report where people cherish the parts that suit them and rubbish the parts that don't. The end result; nothing happens for several more years until the next report to end all reports is commissioned.
And there is a big difference between urban sprawl and isolated individual houses a long way from towns and villages. Settlement patterns are determined by planning policy, from local to national level. The existence of a train line or building new ones does not determine planning policy, you can have good planning policies without trains. Most of the main towns in the region have been served by rail for more than a century yet the settlement patterns are what they are. The truth is that the existing rail network has been neglected, reopening another line which has been closed for decades to add one more town isn't going to change much. The focus should be increasing capacity and providing meaningful service levels on existing lines. Buses are also an important part of the transport mix and can play a key role in such an area with a dispersed population, as is the case in similar areas all over Europe.
3 -
The tripling comment was therefore comparing the current with the potential rather than the potential with the potential. Yeah, I'm still in the rights to question it.
There isn't much complex about it to be honest. Being the heaviest-used route, any and all Athenry/Galway scheduling would have to be done around the Dublin/Portarlington/Athlone/Athenry route first, with the Ennis and Tuam directions constructed around it – it's actually a rather standard principle, adjust the shorter to work with the longest. There's no question about issues related to scheduling – they will be there! – but with the service levels that can be expected (I mean, look at the Limerick/Galway service), I do think that questioning the reality that cutting the Athenry/Galway section into two won't increase raw overall capacity is excessive.
2 -
(1) Ceannt station renovations are underway. The number of platforms will increase from two to what?
(2) the PP application for the passing loop at Oranmore has still not been submitted. The Eiffel Tower was built faster than this 1km of railway line!!
(3) "feasibility study on doubling GY-Athenry" - please elaborate. I haven't heard about this.
(4) "trains are being upgraded" - other than the extra 41 ICR coaches, I know of no other planned changes to rolling stock. I read on here that the 41 new coaches will not increase the numbers of sets, which will remain at 63
(5) given a fixed number of ICR sets, and no more DMUs until the DART+ opens, how can there be any higher frequencies out of Galway? Using existing stock more intensively?
0 -
Currently there are outbound trains from Galway at 0525, 0615, 0625 and 0730. The first inbound train leaves Athenry at 07.49. Already there's unused capacity there.
• With a passing loop at Oranmore, you could have additional inbound trains at 0645, 0705, and 0725.
The next outbound trains leave Galway at 0840 and 0930, with inbound trains at 0816 and 0905. Already there's unused capacity there.
• With a passing loop at Oranmore, you could have additional inbound trains at 0805 and 0835.
That's room for 5 additional inbound trains in the morning without impacting the 6 outbound trains that are already scheduled. You could also have 2 trains, travelling in the same direction inbound or outbound, leaving within a few minutes of eachother.
There's a decent few minutes leeway left on all of those suggested times to allow for some delays. I'm fully aware it's not that simple, but the claim there won't be capacity for additional trains doesn't stand up to basic reasoning. There is plenty of capacity.
Post edited by loco_scolo on0 -
Pete_Cavan - quotes AISRR figures to say WRC is too expensive.
Also Pete_Cavan 'The AISRR is a pile of crap'
You couldn't make it up 🤣
0 -
As I said immediately after calling the AISRR a pile of crap;
I'm happy to disregard the cost estimate but equally, the idea that it strengthens the case for reopening Athenry - Claremorris should be dropped too.
Great bit of seletive quoting from you and missing the point entirely. I am entirely consistent with what I am saying. It is others who are happy to go with AISRR when they (mistakingly) think to finds a viable case for reopening Athenry - Claremorris but dismiss the cost estimate.
Is there anything to be said for another
massreport?0 -
Nothing selective about it. You were happy to use the report only a few days ago. Now it's rubbish.
Same as you initially saying a CBA wouldn't recommend opening the line and then more recently saying there's no CBA so we don't know anything about the costs. You are anything but consistent.
0 -
There is a lot of misinformation being posted here in terms of scheduling, and I think that some clarity needs to be posted.
Galway-Athenry:
Currently this is single track, with a passing loop just outside Galway Station and a split signal just east of Oranmore. The latter allows a train to follow another train in the same direction, passing Galway loop after the first train passes the split signal.
Typical sectional running times for an ICR are:
- Galway Station to Galway loop - 2 mins
- Galway loop to Split Signal (no stop at Oranmore) - 5.5 mins (8.5 mins inbound to Galway)
- Split Signal to Athenry Station - 7.5 mins (6.5 mins inbound to Galway)
Additional journey time may be added for stops:
- If trains need to pass at Galway loop, then add the following to the train that will stop (usually the outbound service that will wait as the inbound one is the train that might possibly be delayed en route) - 60 seconds for extra deceleration/acceleration plus loop waiting time (typically 5 mins).
- If trains need to stop at Oranmore, then add 3 mins to the journey time between Galway loop and the split signal - 1 min for additional deceleration/acceleration and 2 min station stop.
Total journey time (ICR) - 15 mins non-stop / 18 mins (Oranmore stop) - Add 2 mins recovery time to this for trains in the other direction ex-Dublin.
For a 2800 DMU, sectional running times would be:
- Galway Station to Galway loop - 2 mins
- Galway loop to Split Signal (with a stop at Oranmore) - 8.5 mins
- Split Signal to Athenry Station - 8.5 mins
That's a total of 19 minutes which applies in both directions.
All of that means that there needs to be a minimum of 8 mins gap between two trains heading in the same direction.
There being only two platforms at Galway currently is a major constraint in that regard. The station expansion to five platforms will be a huge improvement as it means that multiple trains could follow one another into Galway if needs be, before a train goes back out, rather than the current maximum of two.
Clearly adding a loop at Oranmore, combined with the three extra platforms at Galway will mean far greater capacity on that section than is currently possible, especially with trains operating in different directions.
It makes scheduling much easier and adds flexibility if a train is delayed for whatever reason elsewhere along the line. Ideally the entire section needs to be doubled, but the loop is a start. It is a game changer in capacity terms.
Athenry-Tuam-Claremorris
The only thing we can revert to in terms of journey times is worst case scenario, which were the sectional running times when a passenger service last operated.
Journey times back in 1975 were:
- Athenry - Tuam: 23 mins
- Tuam - Claremorris: 24 mins
I'd certainly expect journey times to be at the very least faster than that in the event of the line ever reopening.
General comments re scheduling:
First of all, I totally agree with the comments by @TranslatorPS above on this page. He is spot on about everything.
Yes it is complicated for the layman (or those who don't have a particular interest in it) to understand how schedules are constructed, especially on single track lines where trains have to pass at loops, but as he says the principle in this case is straightforward enough:
- Schedule the Dublin-Galway & v.v services - they have at least three crossings with other trains between Portarlington and Galway, and need to also fit into the Dublin-Cork line schedule
- Schedule the Limerick-Galway & v.v services (the long single 40 minute section between Limerick and Ennis is a limiting factor)
- Schedule the rest of the trains around that
In scheduling terms, that is not rocket science and is reasonably straightforward to do. It's just coming up with the initial timings so that all the crossings with other trains work right along the line.
When comparing what is possible with the current infrastructure and what might be possible with the future infrastructure, then you have to look at the capacity rather than what it is currently operated.
9 -
Advertisement
-
Extra inbound trains to Ceannt before the existing 0749 ex Athenry. Okay.
What would be their origin?
Would they be stabled overnight somewhere?
Can this be done with existing stock?
0
