Limerick - Nenagh - Ballybrophy railway

Pete_Cavan

Deedsie wrote: »

A phased upgrade of the section between Nenagh and Limerick over a period of say 10 years could see this line turned into a valuable piece of infrastructure.

As I referred to earlier, a P&R off the M7 and removing the LCs between the R445 and R506 (inclusive) should be the initial focus. It's a short enough distance so it all could be tied together in an integrated solution. That alone could take 10 years (from planning to completion) and would cost a lot more than €14m.

Deedsie

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

As I referred to earlier, a P&R off the M7 and removing the LCs between the R445 and R506 (inclusive) should be the initial focus. It's a short enough distance so it all could be tied together in an integrated solution. That alone could take 10 years (from planning to completion) and would cost a lot more than €14m.

https://www.nenaghguardian.ie/2021/02/26/hopes-at-reviving-local-rail-line/

Thats actually what I read, it was €11 million and referred to automating the gates.

The meeting also heard from Hassard Stackpoole, a UK rail specialist, who said the crossings on the Ballybrophy line need to be upgraded so that they can be controlled through automation. This would reduce operational costs on the line, though the investment in the crossings - not including the track upgrade - would cost in the region of €11 million.

end of the road

Markcheese wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the motorway is already there, so that money is spent -

i'm sure it will require expensive upgrades down the line.
cutting road traffic ultimately makes those upgrades less necessary or puts them out for a longer time frame, ultimately saving some money.

Markcheese wrote: »

Having trains is not a goal in itself - they're a mode of transport , and if something else can do their job way efficiently then make way -

i'm sure that will happen when something comes along that can actually deliver the same benefits for low cost and little land take.
that won't be more road transport though even though there will be some efficiency improvements as time goes on in relation to that.

Markcheese wrote: »

Canals and narrow boats were replaced by rail , with good reason -
Rural rail is outdated -

hence it hasn't existed since the 1960s, so has nothing to do with this line given it's not a rural rail line, but a line that happens to pass through some rural areas, like most of the network.

Markcheese wrote: »

Maybe if there had been a decent rail service to nenagh before the motorway there'd be a core of rail users but as it ,the trains on this line ,are slow and inconvenient ..and that's not really gonna change ...

the thing is it will have to change.
spending more money on more roads and road upgrades where there is a rail line near by is going to become politically unacceptable as time goes on whether people like it or not.
i can see the same in areas where there was once a rail line which could be reinstated.

IE 222

The line is ran backwards and to a station in the middle of nowhere. A few simple changes along with some willpower would go a long way. I'd be spending any money on continuing track renewals and removing Ballybrophy from the route with a direct connection up to Portlaoise first. Upgrading / closing crossings and continuing automation up to Castleconnell would be a lot more feasible and realistic than bridge replacements. Maybe, if they could salvage that equipment from the Dart+ project it would make it cost effective.

Any time saved removing them crossings would be lost with a P&R stop.

Deedsie

IE 222 wrote: »

The line is ran backwards and to a station in the middle of nowhere. A few simple changes along with some willpower would go a long way. I'd be spending any money on continuing track renewals and removing Ballybrophy from the route with a direct connection up to Portlaoise first. Upgrading / closing crossings and continuing automation up to Castleconnell would be a lot more feasible and realistic than bridge replacements. Maybe, if they could salvage that equipment from the Dart+ project it would make it cost effective.

Any time saved removing them crossings would be lost with a P&R stop.

Presumably you would build the park and ride at an existing station?

Castleconnell?

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Cloon,+Castleconnell,+Co.+Limerick/@52.712931,-8.4976435,227m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x485b5f9097276357:0xa00c7a99731e750!8m2!3d52.7156553!4d-8.4932473

Seems to be plenty of space around to add a park and ride car park.

You could possibly remove the crossing on station road as part of such works.

Agree with the rest of your suggestions. The line should join straight up to the Cork line just North of Ballybrophy.

But the worst parts of the line are to the West. Its shocking to follow it on google maps to see just how many crossings/gates there are.

Pete_Cavan

A P&R wont work at any existing station, it needs easy access of the motorway. At J28, you can integrate bus services as well so it expands the destinations served to include UL and the surrounding employers. The P&R then it serves multiple journey types; park car and take train, park car and take bus, get off the train and take the bus. Of course stops add to journey time but it needs to stop to pick up more people to increase the viability of the service. Improvements and closing LCs would off-set the stop time.

I dont see how putting in a new curve east of BB would be a good investment. Is shaving a few minutes off journeys to/from Dublin really going to attract more regular passengers? If the goal is to improve journey times to Dublin, then close the BB line and invest everything in the Dublin main line improvements, which also benefits other services too. If the goal is to increase the viability of the BB line, then invest in the line, improve services and add a P&R to attract more passengers.

goingnowhere

14 million is nowhere need the cost

Automating a level crossing is 1 million each
New signaling end to end, easily 10-15 million

That solves the biggest problem is the number of people required on duty to operate a service, go from X to 0 basically and you get 24 hour operation in return.

Extras to run a service which works, basically its one train on the branch at a time today as only one public platform at Birdhill & Roscrea so you cannot operate a service with any reasonable frequency.

Passing loops at Birdhill, Nenagh and Roscrea
Upgrade second platform Birdhill, Nenagh and Roscrea (an optimum timetable analysis is required to locate the passing loops, but lets go with the 1980's setup)
Accessibility works at Birdhill, Nenagh and Roscrea for second platforms (thats the real € pain)

60 million would be a better estimate.


You can see the NTA heads clearly stating more passengers doesn't directly mean more money. You won't get 60 million past a business case review.

If you were to make this the primary Dublin Limerick route?
New direct curve at Ballybrophy (would need new SSI/CBI interlocking, so 5-10 million) with a 100mph junction (its a 100mph section to no point in slowing down, do it right)
Route all branch trains to the Mountmellick platform at Portlaoise
Close Ballybrophy as it serves no purpose (use Roscrea/Templemore/Portlaoise) but retain the loop (only passenger certified loop between Portarlington and Limerick Junction)
Platform lengths to 165m to take a 7 car ICR
Upgrade to 90mph
Stop only at Roscrea+Nenagh

Much much easier get a business case for a second track Limerick/Limerick Junction

Deedsie

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

A P&R wont work at any existing station, it needs easy access of the motorway. At J28, you can integrate bus services as well so it expands the destinations served to include UL and the surrounding employers. The P&R then it serves multiple journey types; park car and take train, park car and take bus, get off the train and take the bus. Of course stops add to journey time but it needs to stop to pick up more people to increase the viability of the service. Improvements and closing LCs would off-set the stop time.

I dont see how putting in a new curve east of BB would be a good investment. Is shaving a few minutes off journeys to/from Dublin really going to attract more regular passengers? If the goal is to improve journey times to Dublin, then close the BB line and invest everything in the Dublin main line improvements, which also benefits other services too. If the goal is to increase the viability of the BB line, then invest in the line, improve services and add a P&R to attract more passengers.

Great points re park and ride.

Well who from Castleconnell, Nenagh, Roscrea etc is travelling specifically to Ballybrophy? No one.

Plenty travel to Portlaoise though. The Ballybrophy stop doesnt make sense really apart from the fact that is where the line ended when it was designed in the 1850's.

Its just a delay now. And for anyone from ballybrophy area if they did want to travel to Limerick they could get there on the cork line or in the unlikely event they could get the train to Portlaoise change trains for Roscrea, Clough, Nenagh etc etc

Deedsie

All the talk of grand plans for the line are very interesting but they are far from realistic in the medium term.

Best case scenario for the line for the next 10/20 years, the gates and crossings are fully automated, the remaining ~30% of the track is upgraded to CWR which should increase speeds and reduce costs. And if Irish rail agree to adding an additional midday service and adjusting the timetable to be more user friendly.

If all of that happens, it has a chance of surviving.

ohographite

Does anyone here know how many manned level crossings there are on the line? By manned crossings, I mean a level crossing which has a person paid to close and open the barriers when trains pass.

Would it reduce maintenance costs in the long term if the manned level crossings were replaced by automated ones?

Deedsie

ohographite wrote: »

Does anyone here know how many manned level crossings there are on the line? By manned crossings, I mean a level crossing which has a person paid to close and open the barriers when trains pass.

Would it reduce maintenance costs in the long term if the manned level crossings were replaced by automated ones?

Going on memory there are over 40 crossings/gates. Not a clue how many are automated etc

I know im repeating myself but the majority of them are between Nenagh and Limerick

ohographite

Deedsie wrote: »

All the talk of grand plans for the line are very interesting but they are far from realistic in the medium term.

Best case scenario for the line for the next 10/20 years, the gates and crossings are fully automated, the remaining ~30% of the track is upgraded to CWR which should increase speeds and reduce costs. And if Irish rail agree to adding an additional midday service and adjusting the timetable to be more user friendly.

If all of that happens, it has a chance of surviving.

I agree. I started this thread over a year ago saying that I thought the line should have 8 trains a day each way, and become passable in just an hour. I am guessing that would be much more expensive than than what you suggest in this post, but I agree that what you suggest does give the line a good chance of survival if implemented.

I think direct services to Dublin could help as well. I have said on other threads that I doubt the need to change trains would have a huge limit to passenger numbers, but I would still say direct trains to Dublin are worth it.
I would say the case for continuing trains from Ballybrophy to Dublin could be strengthened by stopping them in a handful of stations along the way(just Portlaoise, Newbridge and Sallins perhaps) because then the extra trains into Dublin would give an extra train for people travelling to Dublin from Portlaoise, Nwebridge and Sallins.
The reason I specifically suggested these three is that according to the National Heavy Rail Census(2019) they are the top 3 busiest stations between Ballybrophy and Dublin Heuston.

Another thing I think might help is building a new train station in Limerick, in Moyross, which is about a 15 minute walk from Limerick IT, so LIT students who live near the Nenagh line would be more likely to use the train to get there, but that of course would only work if trains continued from Limerick Colbert to Moyross, and if there was a timetable that allowed them to get there pre 9 am, and leave post 5 pm.
I'd say that station would cost tens of millions, but it could be used by trains to/from Ennis as well.
I don't know how many more people will permanently be doing their jobs at home once the coronavirus lockdown is fully over, but I am guessing that college students will almost fully return to campus, so I wouldn't say the demand for railway transport from college students will diminish significantly. The reason I think this is that a big part of college is enjoying the experience, and meeting new people, and these are harder to do when college students have to do college entirely from home. I am currently a college student, and have been since before the pandemic, and I have not enjoyed college from home, but I loved it back when I was on campus, and any other college students I've spoken to agree with me.

Del.Monte

goingnowhere wrote: »

14 million is nowhere need the cost

Automating a level crossing is 1 million each
New signaling end to end, easily 10-15 million

That solves the biggest problem is the number of people required on duty to operate a service, go from X to 0 basically and you get 24 hour operation in return.

Extras to run a service which works, basically its one train on the branch at a time today as only one public platform at Birdhill & Roscrea so you cannot operate a service with any reasonable frequency.

Passing loops at Birdhill, Nenagh and Roscrea
Upgrade second platform Birdhill, Nenagh and Roscrea (an optimum timetable analysis is required to locate the passing loops, but lets go with the 1980's setup)
Accessibility works at Birdhill, Nenagh and Roscrea for second platforms (thats the real € pain)

60 million would be a better estimate.


You can see the NTA heads clearly stating more passengers doesn't directly mean more money. You won't get 60 million past a business case review.

If you were to make this the primary Dublin Limerick route?
New direct curve at Ballybrophy (would need new SSI/CBI interlocking, so 5-10 million) with a 100mph junction (its a 100mph section to no point in slowing down, do it right)
Route all branch trains to the Mountmellick platform at Portlaoise
Close Ballybrophy as it serves no purpose (use Roscrea/Templemore/Portlaoise) but retain the loop (only passenger certified loop between Portarlington and Limerick Junction)
Platform lengths to 165m to take a 7 car ICR
Upgrade to 90mph
Stop only at Roscrea+Nenagh

Much much easier get a business case for a second track Limerick/Limerick Junction

The designation of the Ballybrophy/Limerick line as the primary route between Dublin and Limerick would be very worthwhile but only if places like Nenagh and Roscrea were earmarked as major growth centres. This, of course, is what should be done instead of trying to shoe horn the entire population of the Republic inside the M50.

donvito99

Del.Monte wrote: »

This, of course, is what should be done instead of trying to shoe horn the entire population of the Republic inside the M50.

I never realised that I and nearly 2million others are being forced to live in Dublin.

Let's string out the population across failed railways to justify their existence....

end of the road

donvito99 wrote: »

I never realised that I and nearly 2million others are being forced to live in Dublin.

Let's string out the population across failed railways to justify their existence....

no failed railways in ireland currently, only ones ran into the ground for reasons.
all failed railways closed between the 1930s and 1970s, and not all of the closures of that period were failed railways.

Deedsie

Del.Monte wrote: »

The designation of the Ballybrophy/Limerick line as the primary route between Dublin and Limerick would be very worthwhile but only if places like Nenagh and Roscrea were earmarked as major growth centres. This, of course, is what should be done instead of trying to shoe horn the entire population of the Republic inside the M50.

Nenagh is a growing town, not as fast as Portlaoise etc but it is the third major town in the midwest after Limerixk and Ennis.

Cloughjordan with the eco village really should be making a lot more noise about investing in the rail line for sustainability, a better way to move people than the single occupant vehicle etc.

Roscrea is in decline for a long time now. Its sad as it was once a thriving town. Maybe if the town is to get some investment to try turn things around targetting the railway would be money well spent.

I agree completely re your M50 comment. I have lived in and love Dublin but surely people in the midwest are as entitled to expect reliable public transport as much as people in other areas of the country.

ohographite

Deedsie wrote: »

Nenagh is a growing town, not as fast as Portlaoise etc but it is the third major town in the midwest after Limerixk and Ennis.

Cloughjordan with the eco village really should be making a lot more noise about investing in the rail line for sustainability, a better way to move people than the single occupant vehicle etc.

Roscrea is in decline for a long time now. Its sad as it was once a thriving town. Maybe if the town is to get some investment to try turn things around targetting the railway would be money well spent.

I agree completely re your M50 comment. I have lived in and love Dublin but surely people in the midwest are as entitled to expect reliable public transport as much as people in other areas of the country.

The Cloughjordan Ecovillage website( http://www.thevillage.ie/ ) doesn't seem to mention the railway at all, not even in the "visit us" section of the website. I think it should at least mention the railway in the "visit us" section.

Fortunately, the hostel in the village, Django's, gives a 10% discount to guests who travel there by train, so I admire the hostel for both mentioning the train and encouraging its guests to use it. https://www.djangoshostel.com/getting-here.html

Deedsie

ohographite wrote: »

The Cloughjordan Ecovillage website( http://www.thevillage.ie/ ) doesn't seem to mention the railway at all, not even in the "visit us" section of the website. I think it should at least mention the railway in the "visit us" section.

Fortunately, the hostel in the village, Django's, gives a 10% discount to guests who travel there by train, so I admire the hostel for both mentioning the train and encouraging its guests to use it. https://www.djangoshostel.com/getting-here.html

Ya its a bizarre oversight for a group that claims to be encouraging a more sensible and sustainable way of life in rural Ireland.

donvito99

Deedsie wrote: »

but surely people in the midwest are as entitled to expect reliable public transport as much as people in other areas of the country.

Not when it costs 700 quid a head. That's called corruption.

Meanwhile Galway mired in traffic and an empty 2800 trundles along between Birdhill and Roscrea. The real incompetence at CIE has been to allocate resources to this expensive joke and not where rail might actually be responsible for a counterbalance to Dublin.

ohographite

donvito99 wrote: »

Not when it costs 700 quid a head. That's called corruption.

Meanwhile Galway mired in traffic and an empty 2800 trundles along between Birdhill and Roscrea. The real incompetence at CIE has been to allocate resources to this expensive joke and not where rail might actually be responsible for a counterbalance to Dublin.

I'd say the cost per passenger can be brought down, by a lot.

end of the road

donvito99 wrote: »

Not when it costs 700 quid a head. That's called corruption.

Meanwhile Galway mired in traffic and an empty 2800 trundles along between Birdhill and Roscrea. The real incompetence at CIE has been to allocate resources to this expensive joke and not where rail might actually be responsible for a counterbalance to Dublin.

again trotting out a figure claimed by CIE constantly doesn't make that figure accurate.
galway's traffic problems are the fault of the local authority and the government, removing 1 2800 is going to do absolutely sweet FA for anything, and the deliberately made to be slightly more expensive non-joke of a line shutting tomorrow would do nothing for nowhere no matter how much you keep trying to blame it for nonsense decisions elsewhere.

Del.Monte

donvito99 wrote: »

I never realised that I and nearly 2million others are being forced to live in Dublin.

Let's string out the population across failed railways to justify their existence....

You must be about the only person in the country that doesn't think that Dublin has become a disaster zone on many fronts while the rest of the country has been drained by it. As for 'stringing out the population across failed railways' it's called properly planned decentralisation along transport corridors that don't depend on road transport.

IE 222

Deedsie wrote: »

Presumably you would build the park and ride at an existing station?

Castleconnell?

https://www.google.ie/maps/place/Cloon,+Castleconnell,+Co.+Limerick/@52.712931,-8.4976435,227m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x485b5f9097276357:0xa00c7a99731e750!8m2!3d52.7156553!4d-8.4932473

Seems to be plenty of space around to add a park and ride car park.

You could possibly remove the crossing on station road as part of such works.

Agree with the rest of your suggestions. The line should join straight up to the Cork line just North of Ballybrophy.

But the worst parts of the line are to the West. Its shocking to follow it on google maps to see just how many crossings/gates there are.

I don't think there is a need for P&R facilities at all. P&R needs regular frequent services and the M7 isn't exactly bumper to bumper.

The train will be stopping at the station either way so will offer little to no benefit going to the expense of removing that crossing in particular.

The key is reducing the operating costs as cheaply as possible while also improving services. The line isn't going to demand much more than 5/6 trains each way per day.

IE 222

goingnowhere wrote: »

14 million is nowhere need the cost

Automating a level crossing is 1 million each
New signaling end to end, easily 10-15 million

That solves the biggest problem is the number of people required on duty to operate a service, go from X to 0 basically and you get 24 hour operation in return.

Extras to run a service which works, basically its one train on the branch at a time today as only one public platform at Birdhill & Roscrea so you cannot operate a service with any reasonable frequency.

Passing loops at Birdhill, Nenagh and Roscrea
Upgrade second platform Birdhill, Nenagh and Roscrea (an optimum timetable analysis is required to locate the passing loops, but lets go with the 1980's setup)
Accessibility works at Birdhill, Nenagh and Roscrea for second platforms (thats the real € pain)

60 million would be a better estimate.


You can see the NTA heads clearly stating more passengers doesn't directly mean more money. You won't get 60 million past a business case review.

If you were to make this the primary Dublin Limerick route?
New direct curve at Ballybrophy (would need new SSI/CBI interlocking, so 5-10 million) with a 100mph junction (its a 100mph section to no point in slowing down, do it right)
Route all branch trains to the Mountmellick platform at Portlaoise
Close Ballybrophy as it serves no purpose (use Roscrea/Templemore/Portlaoise) but retain the loop (only passenger certified loop between Portarlington and Limerick Junction)
Platform lengths to 165m to take a 7 car ICR
Upgrade to 90mph
Stop only at Roscrea+Nenagh

Much much easier get a business case for a second track Limerick/Limerick Junction

I don't think anyone is suggesting or asking for any kind of service requiring this level of investment.

Let's be realistic here. The line most certainly doesn't need 7 car ICRs operating at 90mph on an hourly intervel.

Portlaoise wouldn't need much work. I don't think the direct curve is as complex as your making it out to be. I'm pretty sure Ballybrophy is 70 or 80mph already.

Anyone traveling Dublin - Limerick will do so via the Jct. Increasing line speeds enough to get 90min Limerick - Portlaoise and 120 mins Castleconnell - Dublin with a direct curve is very achievable without breaking the bank. 2 return services a day from Limerick - Dublin, Portlaoise and Nenagh isn't going to stretch things or require extra stock.

Deedsie

donvito99 wrote: »

Not when it costs 700 quid a head. That's called corruption.

Meanwhile Galway mired in traffic and an empty 2800 trundles along between Birdhill and Roscrea. The real incompetence at CIE has been to allocate resources to this expensive joke and not where rail might actually be responsible for a counterbalance to Dublin.

Any evidence of corruption? Id advise passing it on to the correct authorities if you have.

Majority of Galwegians are more interested in building more roads. That should solve all their traffic problems.

Deedsie

ohographite wrote: »

I'd say the cost per passenger can be brought down, by a lot.

I think that figure came from an Irish rail press release intentionally spun to raise a bit of outrage from the reactionary types. "Its a disgrace Joe"

They wanted the line closed long ago.

They tried to manipulate the public to never see beyond the headline figure intentionally chosen to blind them from other relevant factors in relation to the line.

Same people will always fall for it.

Deedsie

IE 222 wrote: »

I don't think there is a need for P&R facilities at all. P&R needs regular frequent services and the M7 isn't exactly bumper to bumper.

The train will be stopping at the station either way so will offer little to no benefit going to the expense of removing that crossing in particular.

The key is reducing the operating costs as cheaply as possible while also improving services. The line isn't going to demand much more than 5/6 trains each way per day.

Ya id agree... i posted this yesterday and I think its a realistic and still ambitious approach to where the line is.

All the talk of grand plans for the line are very interesting but they are far from realistic in the medium term.

Best case scenario for the line for the next 10/20 years, the gates and crossings are fully automated, the remaining ~30% of the track is upgraded to CWR which should increase speeds and reduce costs. And if Irish rail agree to adding an additional midday service and adjusting the timetable to be more user friendly.

If all of that happens, it has a chance of surviving.

Working class heroes

end of the road wrote: »

again trotting out a figure claimed by CIE constantly doesn't make that figure accurate.
galway's traffic problems are the fault of the local authority and the government, removing 1 2800 is going to do absolutely sweet FA for anything, and the deliberately made to be slightly more expensive non-joke of a line shutting tomorrow would do nothing for nowhere no matter how much you keep trying to blame it for nonsense decisions elsewhere.

Go ahead, show us how they are not accurate.

Deedsie

Working class heroes wrote: »

Go ahead, show us how they are not accurate.

Unfortunately CIE have the data and they control the manner and presentation of its release.

Any other organisation who allowed a line to be run so badly would be mortified releasing such figures but thats another story.

Working class heroes

Deedsie wrote: »

Unfortunately CIE have the data and they control the manner and presentation of its release.

Any other organisation who allowed a line to be run so badly would be mortified releasing such figures but thats another story.

Doesn’t answer my query. If someone has information to back up that the figures been released are false by all means share it.