Irish rail fleet and infrastructure plans

goingnowhere

Dublin barely has direct services to Limerick....

Cork Limerick is 1:40 by train today (well with the normal timetable) and that will reduce as the ongoing upgrades to line speeds continues

road_high

IE 222 wrote: »

Greens are in there now so wouldn't be surprised if the bypass was to be pulled. It's not really needed to be fair. 18th century, you make it out as though the line has been closed since the 1900's.

M20 will be the biggest waste of tax payers money. I travel the N20 regularly at rush hour and apart from a few more 2 plus 1 lanes between Croom and Newtwopothouse it doesn't need much upgrading. The M9 is empty for the best part and that leads to Dublin.

This gets really tiresome. NRA traffic stats all suggest otherwise. They're easy to look up and compare with all the other motorways. If the M9 is empty then so are all the others.

road_high

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The bypass won't be pulled. The Greens have already caved in on that one in the PFG. The bigger parties want these roads built. All they've gotten is the 2:1 commitment of spending for PT over roads with another commitment to revisit the infrastructure plans. And the improved connection to Foynes is a European Ten-T route so it will be built.





I'll just leave this post from the M20 thread of the roads fourm here.



That plus the fact that the engineering team (the actual experts) have already looked at all the possible routes (6 of the 7 options involved some connection to the M8) and have already decided to follow the current M20 for the reasons stated in the above quoted post.

And I've no idea why the M9 from Waterford to Dublin is in any way relevant. The current N20 has a higher AADT that the M9. And that's on a dangerous narrow windy road with no hard shoulder for over hard the route.

Again no it doesn't. https://www.nratrafficdata.ie/c2/gmapbasic.asp?sgid=ZvyVmXU8jBt9PJE$c7UXt6

A couple of stretches of M9 and you could do the same for the M6/7/8/11

end of the road

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Old 18th century alignments are not the answer.

except again, where appropriate, as in they are going through areas of growth and potential growth, which the lines in limerick seem to be so, then they are the answer, new alinements are not going to be considered due to cost.
that is the reality of how rail operates in ireland.

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The WRC shows this where the bus is much faster using the motorway.

except the WRC doesn't show your claim really, as the bus is only faster on the motor way at certain times and not by much in my experience.
the WRC also seems to have good numbers using it, and building it on a new alinement was never going to happen, so taking the existing route, which apart from flooding issues around ballycar isn't that bad.

Cookiemunster wrote: »

If commuter rail is going to be built, then it should be done properly, not half arsed on slow winding tracks.

it is not going to be done on slow winding tracks, those lines look to be reasonable enough.
just because a line was built in the 18th century does not automatically make it winding and slow.
it's about serving as much of the potential catchment as possible, and if existing alinements do that then they will in all likely hood, and should be used.
we would all love to see brand new railways, but the reality is it won't happen, so if it is a choice between existing alinements for reopenings and getting road usage down, and continued congestion, then the existing alinements and their faults will win.

Cookiemunster wrote: »

And a direct rail connection from Cork to Limerick is part of the M20 design remit. Although a reconfiguration of Limerick Junction is probably the simplest and cheapest way to achieve this.

it may very well be, but going via limerick junction will be a longer way around.

IE 222

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The bypass won't be pulled. The Greens have already caved in on that one in the PFG. The bigger parties want these roads built. All they've gotten is the 2:1 commitment of spending for PT over roads with another commitment to revisit the infrastructure plans. And the improved connection to Foynes is a European Ten-T route so it will be built.





I'll just leave this post from the M20 thread of the roads fourm here.



That plus the fact that the engineering team (the actual experts) have already looked at all the possible routes (6 of the 7 options involved some connection to the M8) and have already decided to follow the current M20 for the reasons stated in the above quoted post.

And I've no idea why the M9 from Waterford to Dublin is in any way relevant. The current N20 has a higher AADT that the M9. And that's on a dangerous narrow windy road with no hard shoulder for over hard the route.

A motorway is not required for the level of traffic on the N20. It's over kill.

M9 as a comparison is to show it also was not needed to built as a motorway for its entirety, maybe as far a Carlow.

road_high

IE 222 wrote: »

A motorway is not required for the level of traffic on the N20. It's over kill.

M9 as a comparison is to show it also was not needed to built as a motorway for its entirety, maybe as far a Carlow.

Read the traffic stats...by that assertion parts of the M6/7/8 and 11 shouldn't have been built either then as they're no differen to the M9 traffic levels- no doubt you'll agree

IE 222

road_high wrote: »

This gets really tiresome. NRA traffic stats all suggest otherwise. They're easy to look up and compare with all the other motorways. If the M9 is empty then so are all the others.

Yeah I'd tend to agree that other motorways are fairly empty after certain points. Beyond Portlaoise M7/8 empty out. Once you reach the large regional towns most of the motorways are fairly empty until you reach the end destination.

We got carried away with motorways here. The M8 and a M24 with a large interchange at Cahir probably would of sufficed the whole south and saved us millions on building individual roads. Wouldn't of been the fastest routing but still would of been a large improvement.

dowlingm

Returning to the Adare railway line idea. I can’t see people in Adare being thrilled about their village becoming a railhead for commuters in Limerick and cheap/quick housing being thrown up all around it. Nothing I have heard about Limerick local government makes me thing anything else would happen.

To my mind, a Limerick-Adare shuttle for the Ryder Cup is difficult because it would imply a large park and ride somewhere and I can’t identify a plot of land which is large enough (even with temporary decking over parkland) AND good enough road access to move lots of cars in and out from various directions. Maybe the P&R would have to be somewhere on the Ennis, Limerick Junction or Nenagh lines

Trying to ram heavy rail through Carey’s Park and into the station proper should be to my mind the subject of a longer term project with much better justification than the Ryder fecking Cup

IE 222

dowlingm wrote: »

Returning to the Adare railway line idea. I can’t see people in Adare being thrilled about their village becoming a railhead for commuters in Limerick and cheap/quick housing being thrown up all around it. Nothing I have heard about Limerick local government makes me thing anything else would happen.

To my mind, a Limerick-Adare shuttle for the Ryder Cup is difficult because it would imply a large park and ride somewhere and I can’t identify a plot of land which is large enough (even with temporary decking over parkland) AND good enough road access to move lots of cars in and out from various directions. Maybe the P&R would have to be somewhere on the Ennis, Limerick Junction or Nenagh lines

Trying to ram heavy rail through Carey’s Park and into the station proper should be to my mind the subject of a longer term project with much better justification than the Ryder fecking Cup

Agree but we seem to get things built for the Ryder cup rather than local needs so if it means using the Ryder cup to get the ball rolling so be it.

Park and ride wouldn't be such an issue if you get people to arrive into Limerick by train in the first place. Dublin, Cork, Galway specials with a connection or running on direct would greatly reduce this issue.

intellectual dosser

Probably the wrong thread, and possibly discussed previously - so apologies - but is anyone aware of then the Heavy Rail Census reporting on 2019 will be available? I expect it has been delayed due to Covid but it seems in the past there is no set time of the year for it to be released.

metrovick001

"Old 18th century alignments are not the answer" the funny thing is thats exactly what the new motorways have done

Cookiemunster

metrovick001 wrote: »

"Old 18th century alignments are not the answer" the funny thing is thats exactly what the new motorways have done

What? The motorways are most definitely not following old 18th century alignments. They may roughly follow the route of the old roads they replaced, but that's about it. They are completely new roads on new straighter alignments allowing for grade separation and faster travel.

How you can't see that new straighter rail alignments, grade separated from the road network allowing quicker trains aren't better than reopening old slow alignments like Ennis - Athenry is beyond me.

River Suir

I have no doubt that if the Department of Finance and the NTA gave railways the same priority as roads then money would be found immediately to build straighter alignments than the existing ones.

The biggest cost in railway construction is the purchase of the land on which to run the railway. Until Official Ireland recognises that sometimes it's more efficient to build new rail alignments the railway will always be bottom of the queue for upgrades.

bk

River Suir wrote: »

I have no doubt that if the Department of Finance and the NTA gave railways the same priority as roads then money would be found immediately to build straighter alignments than the existing ones.

I see comments like this repeated a lot and I'm really surprised that folks don't really understand how government work.

Decisions on major infrastructure projects are not made by the NTA/TII/DoT, etc.

Such decisions are made right at the top, by the government cabinet. The above bodies only implement the decisions and policies made by cabinet, with funding made available to them by cabinet.

Isambard

we don't need TGV style alignments, just tweaking here and there to raise limits and tilting trains.

Losty Dublin

bk wrote: »

I see comments like this repeated a lot and I'm really surprised that folks don't really understand how government work.

Decisions on major infrastructure projects are not made by the NTA/TII/DoT, etc.

Such decisions are made right at the top, by the government cabinet. The above bodies only implement the decisions and policies made by cabinet, with funding made available to them by cabinet.

Yes the government of the day decides on what they want done but in practice Cabinet relies on their base departments to commission reports and studies and obtain stats and figures that are used to determine how their policy is implemented.

Pete_Cavan

River Suir wrote: »

The biggest cost in railway construction is the purchase of the land on which to run the railway.

That is absolutely not true. The cost of purchasing land is little compared to the cost of actual construction. Even where the land is already owned, the cost of rebuilding the railway is extremely high. Building and maintaining railways is extremely expensive.

River Suir

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

That is absolutely not true. The cost of purchasing land is little compared to the cost of actual construction. Even where the land is already owned, the cost of rebuilding the railway is extremely high. Building and maintaining railways is extremely expensive.

It would be helpful to give a breakdown of costs of such a project?

end of the road

Cookiemunster wrote: »

What? The motorways are most definitely not following old 18th century alignments. They may roughly follow the route of the old roads they replaced, but that's about it. They are completely new roads on new straighter alignments allowing for grade separation and faster travel.

How you can't see that new straighter rail alignments, grade separated from the road network allowing quicker trains aren't better than reopening old slow alignments like Ennis - Athenry is beyond me.

it's you who keeps believing that we cannot see it.
reality is very, very different.
we are well aware that brand new alinements are better, however we are the realistic ones, who recognise that if we want to get lines reopened then it's the original route or nothing, and for the main suggested reopenings the routes are actually perfectly fine for the type of service that would be operated.
i believe ennis athenry is up to 80mph in places so not exactly slow if that is the case.

bk

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Yes the government of the day decides on what they want done but in practice Cabinet relies on their base departments to commission reports and studies and obtain stats and figures that are used to determine how their policy is implemented.

Absolutely and having read dozens of NTA reports over the years, I'm pretty sure they are made up of major transport geeks who really do want to do the right thing and implement international best practice on urban planning and transport development.

They make really great plans IMO. Clearly the problem is getting those plans through cabinet, getting the funding released and the shovels in the ground.

The truth of the matter is that outside of roads, politicians in Ireland have very little interest in major capital public transport projects.

If you want to change this, then you need to convince the politicians that it is in their interest.

IE 222

Motorways = re-election

Pete_Cavan

River Suir wrote: »

It would be helpful to give a breakdown of costs of such a project?

WRC Phase 1 cost approx €1.8m per kilometre. This is the low end of the scale given the land had already been leveled, gradients set, etc. due to it having previously hosted a railway so minimal civil works required. Building a new railway on a natural landscape which is generally not level enough for rail tracks, geographical features to deal with, God knows what kind of ground conditions, etc. A new line would be multiples of that.

Lets say we want to build 50km of railway. To purchase 1km of say, 25m wide corridor for rail would be 6.18 acres. Average price of an acre nationally without a residence in 2019 was €8,823. Lets more than double that to €20,000 to allow for disruption etc caused. That would be approx. €125,000 per km if railway. If you want to build 50km of railway would cost €6.25m

Assuming on average a house has to be CPOed every 1km (unlikely to be that high but anyway). Thats 50 @ say €350k average price (current national average is €260k) so thats €17.5m.

If you want to build 50km of railway so not all is agricultural land, some will be in or near urban areas with commercial properties or other lands. Lets say another 50 properties/plots of land @ €500,000 each, thats another €25m.

All that isn't even €50m, or about half the construction cost per km of WRC Phase 1, which remember is the low end of the scale. Have you got anything to support your claim that the biggest cost in railway construction is the purchase of the land on which to run the railway?

River Suir

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

WRC Phase 1 cost approx €1.8m per kilometre. This is the low end of the scale given the land had already been leveled, gradients set, etc. due to it having previously hosted a railway so minimal civil works required. Building a new railway on a natural landscape which is generally not level enough for rail tracks, geographical features to deal with, God knows what kind of ground conditions, etc. A new line would be multiples of that.

Lets say we want to build 50km of railway. To purchase 1km of say, 25m wide corridor for rail would be 6.18 acres. Average price of an acre nationally without a residence in 2019 was €8,823. Lets more than double that to €20,000 to allow for disruption etc caused. That would be approx. €125,000 per km if railway. If you want to build 50km of railway would cost €6.25m

Assuming on average a house has to be CPOed every 1km (unlikely to be that high but anyway). Thats 50 @ say €350k average price (current national average is €260k) so thats €17.5m.

If you want to build 50km of railway so not all is agricultural land, some will be in or near urban areas with commercial properties or other lands. Lets say another 50 properties/plots of land @ €500,000 each, thats another €25m.

All that isn't even €50m, or about half the construction cost per km of WRC Phase 1, which remember is the low end of the scale. Have you got anything to support your claim that the biggest cost in railway construction is the purchase of the land on which to run the railway?

Sure, Google HS2. Plenty there.

Cookiemunster

River Suir wrote: »

Sure, Google HS2. Plenty there.

Lands costs in the densely populated England (432 people per square km) are a tad higher than land costs in the sparsely populated Ireland (71 people per square km).

River Suir

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Lands costs in the densely populated England (432 people per square km) are a tad higher than land costs in the sparsely populated Ireland (71 people per square km).

So in that case the Department of Transport and NTA’s policy of only building railways on existing or previous alignments makes no sense. After all land being so cheap and all that means that railways could and should be expanded. The cost for the Ennis to Athenry extension without land purchase was quite cheap compared to the cost of the Tuam bypass which was five times that of the railway.

But it seems that roads aren’t subject to so much scrutiny and anger by keyboard engineers.

Cookiemunster

River Suir wrote: »

So in that case theDepartment of Transport and NTA’s policy of only building railways on existing or previous alignments makes no sense.

Preaching to the converted here.

River Suir wrote: »

After all land being so cheap and all that means that railways could and should be expanded. The cost for the Ennis to Athenry extension without land purchase was quite cheap compared to the cost of the Tuam bypass which was five times that of the railway.

But it's not that simple. Ennis to Athenry didn't have any over/under bridges, culverts, etc to construct, which the largest expense in road building. It didn't have to blast any rock or build embankments as the track bed was already there. These would also be costs in any new line that was to be build. Comparing Ennis to Athenry to the Gort to Tuam scheme is comparing apples to oranges.

River Suir wrote: »

But it seems that roads aren’t subject to so much scrutiny and anger by keyboard engineers.

Actually there was plenty of scrutiny and anger over the Gort to Tuam scheme, from routing to cost and actual necessity of the scheme. And actually every thread for a major scheme on the Roads forum has scrutiny and anger by keyboard engineers. Usually of the green persuasion.

tabbey

River Suir wrote: »

So in that case the Department of Transport and NTA’s policy of only building railways on existing or previous alignments makes no sense. After all land being so cheap and all that means that railways could and should be expanded. The cost for the Ennis to Athenry extension without land purchase was quite cheap compared to the cost of the Tuam bypass which was five times that of the railway.

But it seems that roads aren’t subject to so much scrutiny and anger by keyboard engineers.

The Athenry - Ennis infrastructure was already there, having been built in the Victorian era. It only needed new track and signalling etc.
To build a new railway would be a vastly more expensive exercise, but in many instances would be worth it.

Pete_Cavan

River Suir wrote: »

So in that case the Department of Transport and NTA’s policy of only building railways on existing or previous alignments makes no sense. After all land being so cheap and all that means that railways could and should be expanded. The cost for the Ennis to Athenry extension without land purchase was quite cheap compared to the cost of the Tuam bypass which was five times that of the railway.

But it seems that roads aren’t subject to so much scrutiny and anger by keyboard engineers.

The cost of land purchase is not cheap, although it may be relatively so compared to the cost of constructing a railway which is incredibly expensive.

You can't just compare costs. The benefits of the M17/18 scheme are probably more than five times that of the railway given it carries more than ~100 people a day and facilitates the movement of goods also. The PPP also includes maintenance and operating costs for 25 years, would be interesting to see what these costs are for WRC Phase one for 25 years from opening.

Losty Dublin

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

WRC Phase 1 cost approx €1.8m per kilometre. This is the low end of the scale given the land had already been leveled, gradients set, etc. due to it having previously hosted a railway so minimal civil works required. Building a new railway on a natural landscape which is generally not level enough for rail tracks, geographical features to deal with, God knows what kind of ground conditions, etc. A new line would be multiples of that.

Lets say we want to build 50km of railway. To purchase 1km of say, 25m wide corridor for rail would be 6.18 acres. Average price of an acre nationally without a residence in 2019 was €8,823. Lets more than double that to €20,000 to allow for disruption etc caused. That would be approx. €125,000 per km if railway. If you want to build 50km of railway would cost €6.25m

With respect but you appear to be ignorant of the extent of work undertaken to have the line reopened.

• The old track was lifted while the old track ballast was dug up and removed from site. All old signalling was removed, along with trackside signage. New CWT track and ballast was laid with new colour light signalling to control train movements.
• The base of the trackbed was cleaned, with over a century of debris of underlying muck removed. Once this was done excavation teams came in to dig out and to remove some of the steeper cambers and dips en route Where possible curves were eased; again excavation teams were involved for same.
• Embankments along the route were examined, repaired and strengthened to deal with faster trains. As with the trackbed, some were eased to level off the route as much as possible. Cuttings were also cleared and reengineered as appropriate.
• The entire route had membranes laid. This will assist the long term drainage and stability of the route.
• All bridges and culverts en route were surveyed and inspected and either strengthened or rebuild as required. Drains and overflows along the route were cleared and improved or replaced as required.
• Some private level crossings were closed and replaced with bridges or shared crossing points. Others had their layouts improved and widened to allow for safer use, and in many instances cattle grids and matting was provided. Road crossings had automatic monitored barriers installed. Fencing was also renewed.
• New stations were provided along with car parking. Gort, a crossing point, also had a wheelchair assessable footbridge provided.

This list isn't by any means exhaustive but it is entirely fair to say that the line was not far from rebuilt. While you are correct to say that there won't be much in the way of new civil engineering, it is but one factor to allow for.

Pete_Cavan

Losty Dublin wrote: »

With respect but you appear to be ignorant of the extent of work undertaken to have the line reopened.

• The old track was lifted while the old track ballast was dug up and removed from site. All old signalling was removed, along with trackside signage. New CWT track and ballast was laid with new colour light signalling to control train movements.
• The base of the trackbed was cleaned, with over a century of debris of underlying muck removed. Once this was done excavation teams came in to dig out and to remove some of the steeper cambers and dips en route Where possible curves were eased; again excavation teams were involved for same.
• Embankments along the route were examined, repaired and strengthened to deal with faster trains. As with the trackbed, some were eased to level off the route as much as possible. Cuttings were also cleared and reengineered as appropriate.
• The entire route had membranes laid. This will assist the long term drainage and stability of the route.
• All bridges and culverts en route were surveyed and inspected and either strengthened or rebuild as required. Drains and overflows along the route were cleared and improved or replaced as required.
• Some private level crossings were closed and replaced with bridges or shared crossing points. Others had their layouts improved and widened to allow for safer use, and in many instances cattle grids and matting was provided. Road crossings had automatic monitored barriers installed. Fencing was also renewed.
• New stations were provided along with car parking. Gort, a crossing point, also had a wheelchair assessable footbridge provided.

This list isn't by any means exhaustive but it is entirely fair to say that the line was not far from rebuilt. While you are correct to say that there won't be much in the way of new civil engineering, it is but one factor to allow for.

I'm not ignorant of the extent of work undertaken to have the line reopened but building a new line from scratch requires far more work. A new line across a virgin landscape would require major earthworks to provide a stable and sufficiently level base on which to build the railway. Anywhere you go to build it would require extensive cut and/or fill to give a suitable vertical alignment and even favourable ground conditions would require significant works to give sufficient bearing capacity, nevermind soft and/or wet ground. Building a new line from scratch would cost multiples of what reopening Athenry - Ennis cost, to believe otherwise is being ignorant of the extent of works required.