Limerick - Nenagh - Ballybrophy railway

Deedsie

Economics101 wrote: »

Apart from User-operated crossings, there is a big problem with CX-type crossings, namely the expense of a crossing keeper's salary, for. what might be as few as four gate opening operations a day. Added to this is the standard for "modern" crossings to replace CX types is 4-barrier, signal-protected CCTV monitored crossing, monitored and operated from a central control point (usually Athlone of Mallow). The capital cost of these crossings is quite high.

Other countries (including the UK) often use AHB (automatic half-barrier) crossings, which are much cheaper to install, but our health and safety culture (i.e our litigious culture) seems to rule out the AHB.

Thats very interesting. What would the estimated cost for one of those crossings be? The section between Kilonan and Castleconnell would need 5 or 6 of them by the looks of the map. Would probably be better to opt for a bridge or tunnel for some of them.

goingnowhere

Deedsie wrote: »

Thats very interesting. What would the estimated cost for one of those crossings be? The section between Kilonan and Castleconnell would need 5 or 6 of them by the looks of the map. Would probably be better to opt for a bridge or tunnel for some of them.

Either way it about a million a go

If you want a bridge it might be cheaper but then there is likely land costs and construction of new access.

L1011

Economics101 wrote: »

It's not just the half versus full barriers: there is the signalling as well. AHB crossings are operated automatically when a train passes a certain point about a minute or two before crossing. There a tens of thousands of them in Europe and North America.

Maybe the problem would be with Irish drivers misusing them.

There may be tens of thousands of them, but nowhere with modern safety standards is installing them new.

Deedsie

KILONAN SIGNAL BOX

XN184 Scart Public Rd (CX)
XN177 Annacotty Public Rd (CX)
XN174 Clyduff Public Rd. (CX)
XN170 Richill Public Rd. (CCTV)
XN168 Lisnagry (CX)
XN167 Reilly Mrs./Kiely E./Enright D
XN166 Quinn S.
XN165 Lisnagry Automatic (HB4-1995)
XN164 Sallymount Public Rd (CX)
XN163 Stradbally Public Rd. (CX)

CASTLECONNELL Station

XN160 Castleconnell Public Rd (CX)
XN159 Spa Public Rd. (CX)
XN152 Coolready (U) (CCTV monitored)
XN141 Birdhill (U)
XN139 Francis Ryan

BIRDHILL Station

XN131 Cappanakeady (U)
XN125 Cappadine (U)
XN122 Ballinteenoe (U)
XZ003 Silvermines
XN095 Quill D.

NENAGH Station

XN072 Flaherty T.

CLOUGHJORDAN Station

XN057 Cavanagh T.
XN052 Cooraclaven Public Rd (A)
XN044 Cleary J.
XN043 Clonlisk No1 (U)
XN036 Bergin J./Brochick J./Kennedy N
XN035 Bergin S./Bergin J. Clonbrennan

ROSCREA Station

XN022 Ashberry Public Rd (A)
XN012 Quakers Rd Public Rd (A)
XN006 Bergin K./Kelly J./Fitzpatrick (U)

BALLYBROPHY Station

Deedsie

I think that list of level crossings listed between the stations really illuminates the extent of the problem on the Western half of the line.

What I would love to see considered is that the section between Nenagh and Limerick be closed temporarily while those level crossings are upgraded. The Nenagh to Ballybrophy section isnt that bad. The speeds could be increased on that section relatively easily.

8 CX level crossings. Obviously it would have to be reviewed on a gate by gate basis but automating some of them and bridging some of them would be the major works this line needs to become a viable line.

Close the section from Nenagh to Limerick while those works are being carried out. Would be great if it could be considered.

Any green party members reading this pass on the suggestion to Eamon Ryan :-)

tabbey

[quote="Economics101;117178223"

Other countries (including the UK) often use AHB (automatic half-barrier) crossings, which are much cheaper to install, but our health and safety culture (i.e our litigious culture) seems to rule out the AHB.[/quote]

We used A H B crossings as well, I think the first one was near Limerick junction in 1967.

As one would expect, they were abused, drivers going through on the wrong side then swerving back to the left for the opposite barrier.

For the slight additional cost, full barriers are much safer.

Economics101

tabbey wrote: »

We used A H B crossings as well, I think the first one was near Limerick junction in 1967.

As one would expect, they were abused, drivers going through on the wrong side then swerving back to the left for the opposite barrier.

For the slight additional cost, full barriers are much safer.

There were never many AHB crossings, all are gone now. I doubt that the extra cost of the 4-barrier CCTV Signalled crossings are only slightly more expensive. I haven't seen reliable estimates.

Incidentally, what has made CX crossings such a problem is that they used to be operated by gatekeepers who were often retired railwaymen, or widows of railwaymen, who got the gatekeepers cottage for a nominal rent and who were paid a tiny nominal fee. Minimum wage legislation killed off this arrangement.

tabbey

Economics101 wrote: »

Incidentally, what has made CX crossings such a problem is that they used to be operated by gatekeepers who were often retired railwaymen, or widows of railwaymen, who got the gatekeepers cottage for a nominal rent and who were paid a tiny nominal fee. Minimum wage legislation killed off this arrangement.

And before that, they were usually the families of permanent way men. They got the cottage and the wife usually opened and closed the gates, until the husband came home.

Pete_Cavan

Deedsie wrote: »

KILONAN SIGNAL BOX

XN184 Scart Public Rd (CX)
XN177 Annacotty Public Rd (CX)
XN174 Clyduff Public Rd. (CX)
XN170 Richill Public Rd. (CCTV)
XN168 Lisnagry (CX)
XN167 Reilly Mrs./Kiely E./Enright D
XN166 Quinn S.
XN165 Lisnagry Automatic (HB4-1995)

Given the close proximity of all of this, it should be possible to close most of them with two bridges and some short sections of well placed link roads. Could also move the automatic equipment elsewhere to deal with another crossing. It would be expensive though, beyond what we are currently will to invest in rail infrastructure.

As I said before, the catchment area could be expanded by creating a P&R, while the number of destinations can be increased by providing a bus link to UL and surroundings. If the objective is just to improve services between Lim and Dub, then you may as well forget about this line and invest everything in the Dub - Cork mainline and LJ branch instead.

Deedsie

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Given the close proximity of all of this, it should be possible to close most of them with two bridges and some short sections of well placed link roads. Could also move the automatic equipment elsewhere to deal with another crossing. It would be expensive though, beyond what we are currently will to invest in rail infrastructure.

The first 12 level crossings including all the CX types are over an 8km section all around Castleconnell.

Its crazy really how one small section can be so overcrowded with gates and crosdings etc

Markcheese

Deedsie wrote: »

The first 12 level crossings including all the CX types are over an 8km section all around Castleconnell.

Its crazy really how one small section can be so overcrowded with gates and crosdings etc

I suppose the areas closer to limerick were the more prosperous , and had more proper roads ( and clout to negotiate ) when the line was installed way back ..
I suppose the money for crossings isn't that high , when factor in the annual running costs ,
But it's the passenger number projections are the big thing , if IR were to spend massively on a commuter service to nenagh ( there's not much beyond nenagh ) , they'd likely have another wrc
PR disaster to deal with , whereas as doing nothing gets little press ...
And is there capacity in the Dublin system if going for higher speed trains direct to Dublin ?

Deedsie

Markcheese wrote: »

I suppose the areas closer to limerick were the more prosperous , and had more proper roads ( and clout to negotiate ) when the line was installed way back ..
I suppose the money for crossings isn't that high , when factor in the annual running costs ,
But it's the passenger number projections are the big thing , if IR were to spend massively on a commuter service to nenagh ( there's not much beyond nenagh ) , they'd likely have another wrc
PR disaster to deal with , whereas as doing nothing gets little press ...
And is there capacity in the Dublin system if going for higher speed trains direct to Dublin ?

I really have a big issue with their projected passenger number predictions. We are supposed to be reducing carbon emmisions, reducing traffic congestion. How many people from Nenagh and Clough travel to Limerick for work, third level, medical and recreation?

Massive numbers of people. Roscrea might gravitate more towards Portlaoise but this is also on the same rail line so equally makes sense to invest and upgrade.

Someone will come along and say some ****e about a bus now. We have a bus service. Its dreadful and unreliable. I have used it as a commuter. Desperately unreliable. More often than not it often just doesnt turn up at all. Believe me I have advocated and requestdd improvements there too.

I am fully aware that the likelihood is this line will be allowed to go to the wall but it will be a very shortsighted decision if it does.

Close the Nenagh to Limerick Colbert section while the level crossings are being upgraded around Castleconnell, complete the CWR track replacement for the entire line and you would have a perfectly viable more direct Limerick to Dublin to compliment the main Cork Dublin line once that work is completed.

donvito99

IE 222 wrote: »

The line will always require funding and subsidies to operate. It's not the cost of fuel that drives the figures up. No doubt IE or whomever it was that produced previous figures likely put down every single expense they could.
Numbers and usage has risen over the last few years and some track and other upgrades have been made so unless someone has up to date figures you are arguing over out of date figures.

The key to making the line feasible is utilizing it to its full potential and removing as much manual operating functions of the line as possible.

CIE are simultaneously making up the numbers AND accounting for the numbers accurately (to give an accurate idea of the cost of the service). They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

This thread's ideal public transport company is one that fudges the numbers and runs services regardless of demand, utility or opportunity cost.

Deedsie

One way you could remove a lot of those level crossings is by adding a spur to the limerick line closer to the city and going through Castletroy/UL and building a station there then rejoining the Nenagh line just West of Castleconnell.

Would take out about 8 of the current level crossings between Kilonan and Castleconnell.

IE 222

donvito99 wrote: »

CIE are simultaneously making up the numbers AND accounting for the numbers accurately (to give an accurate idea of the cost of the service). They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

This thread's ideal public transport company is one that fudges the numbers and runs services regardless of demand, utility or opportunity cost.

Not necessarily, a prime example is the current relay project. If reducing a high cost is within your powers then you make the necessary changes to reduce it. It's not as if IE never hand reusable rails before now. It suited their agenda at the time to keep the operating costs high.

As I said its pointless arguing about a figure that is now out of date and also one that doesn't give an exact breakdown of the cost along with other routes and services for comparison.

IE 222

Deedsie wrote: »

One way you could remove a lot of those level crossings is by adding a spur to the limerick line closer to the city and going through Castletroy/UL and building a station there then rejoining the Nenagh line just West of Castleconnell.

Would take out about 8 of the current level crossings between Kilonan and Castleconnell.

And that would cost many more millions. The best chance is closures along with a number of automated upgrades. The user crossings aren't really a major problem. The line speed is never going to go above 70.

Deedsie

IE 222 wrote: »

And that would cost many more millions. The best chance is closures along with a number of automated upgrades. The user crossings aren't really a major problem. The line speed is never going to go above 70.

What is the major problem with the infrastructure of the line in your opinion? Not the passenger numbers or Irish Rails lack of interest in the line. Just physical on the ground issues with the line.

If you wanted to improve the line as it is tomorrow what would be the most realistic and beneficial things Irish rail, NTA and the dept of transport could propose to do?

I dont mean fantasy suggestions like my Castletroy station or removing the Ballybrophy stop and just joining straight onto the mainline.

Realistic alterations that would make the line viable in the medium term.

I have searched the internet for information on what upgrades have been made to the line in the last 30 years. Its very hard to find any information.

Presumably the entire track will be all upgraded to CWR so suggestions other than that.

I noted that Jim Meade's response letter to a query from Limerick County Council requesting information on why the speeds had not been improved on the line after the laying of CWR. I have attached a screenshot of the letter.

The last two paragraphs:

The current speed profile on the Ballybrophy to Limerick section of the IE network is consistent with the age and condition of the track infrastructure and the great number of user worked level crossings which pose safety risks with increased speed.

I have asked our infrastructure manager to review this however, to verify that speeds are appropriate to the current asset conditions and profile, I would stress that, as detailed above, continuous welded rail is not the sole determining factor for live speeds.

DoctorPan

Main issue is the sighting distances for the majority of the level crossings, including the user operated ones.

IE 222

Deedsie wrote: »

What is the major problem with the infrastructure of the line in your opinion? Not the passenger numbers or Irish Rails lack of interest in the line. Just physical on the ground issues with the line.

If you wanted to improve the line as it is tomorrow what would be the most realistic and beneficial things Irish rail, NTA and the dept of transport could propose to do?

I dont mean fantasy suggestions like my Castletroy station or removing the Ballybrophy stop and just joining straight onto the mainline.

Realistic alterations that would make the line viable in the medium term.

I have searched the internet for information on what upgrades have been made to the line in the last 30 years. Its very hard to find any information.

Presumably the entire track will be all upgraded to CWR so suggestions other than that.

I noted that Jim Meade's response letter to a query from Limerick County Council requesting information on why the speeds had not been improved on the line after the laying of CWR. I have attached a screenshot of the letter.

The last two paragraphs:

There is no quick fix. It's a line that was designed and built to the standards to serve the needs of a different era. There is a whole host of issues with it from infrastructure to timetabling and fixing just one isn't going to resolve everything else.

You need to be realistic as well as there won't be a blank cheque thrown at it either. It will be a matter of carefully selecting what offers the best return in terms of service improvements and reducing operating costs.

As been pointed out there is a number of crossings that could be closed. No point closing crossings that are already automated. Land swap deals are another productive way of getting some of the user crossings reduced, moved to a safer location or even closed. Upgrading the signalling at the same time also.

Deedsie

Great replies, as I was saying it is very difficult to find solid information on the works that would be required to bring the line up to modern era standards.

I am totally aware that a blank cheque will not be thrown at it. Best case scenario as crossings from other lines are upgraded the older gates from those lines could be refitted on the Nenagh line.

As the line has received so little funding over the decades I think it would be a fair use of resources to start the process of dealing with sightlines and closing gates where possible.

If they could even improve the speeds on sections of the line it would help a lot.

I know people look at the line as a bit of a joke. But people who live locally on the line definitely dont want it to close.

It would be great if the line was taken seriously for a change by the powers that be and a 20 year plan for improving the sightlines, signalling and closing or upgrading the level crossings to be automatic.

Deedsie

Just found this link to a radio interview on Tipp FM discussing the line from back in February

[Tipp FM Radio] North Tipp Community Rail Partnership - Brendan Sheahan #tippFmRadio
https://podcastaddict.com/episode/119685961

Markcheese

Honestly, imo the best thing that could be done for the line is increased connectivity.
Find out where people along the line or using the motorway go to , ( and come from ) , and improve the access .. shuttle buses and new stations probably necessary..
But if you've got to get in your car to get to the station , to then get a shuttle at the far end , then you're probably going to just drive the whole way ...

IE 222

Bridges and other earth works could be another costly obstacle and impede line speeds.

Deedsie

IE 222 wrote: »

Bridges and other earth works could be another costly obstacle and impede line speeds.

What would the usual issues be around older bridges? There are quite a few of them along the line. I count 13 bridges on the live Map all are West of Cloughjordan.

But I know this number to be innacurate. There is a bridge at Tullaheady, Nenagh not included on the map. Nor is the bridge beside Nenagh train station.

Or a bridge just East of the Nenagh station behind the swimming pool over the Nenagh river.

There is another bridge where the line goes under the R445 just outside Nenagh that is also not on the live map.

The bridges where the line passes beneath the M7 are not present either.

Why would those bridges be left off the Irish rail live map?

What type of earth works would you be thinking? Embankment removal to improve sightlines? That kind of thing?

Deedsie

https://www.tipperarycoco.ie/news/nenagh-transport-hub-public-consultation

Tipperary County Council (Nenagh Municipal District) is seeking the views of the public on the proposed development of a Transport Hub at Nenagh Railway Station.

The proposal may include the following measures:

Provision of a fully integrated transport hub at Nenagh Railway Station serving rail and bus passengers

Relocation of the existing bus stops from Kickham Street to Nenagh Railway Station for all Dublin, Limerick and other local bus services – including those provided by Bus Éireann, private operators and Local Link
services

Deedsie

Just drove by Nenagh Railway Station and there seems to be a bit of activity just North East of the rail yard. The trains that The_Wanderer had photographed recently were there and a large truck looked to be delivering a large amount of broken stone. Assume that is for ballast?

Wouldnt guess what volume of stone was being delivered. A large dump trailer full to the top.

The_Wanderer

Deedsie wrote: »

Just drove by Nenagh Railway Station and there seems to be a bit of activity just North East of the rail yard. The trains that The_Wanderer had photographed recently were there and a large truck looked to be delivering a large amount of broken stone. Assume that is for ballast?

Wouldnt guess what volume of stone was being delivered. A large dump trailer full to the top.

CWR train on the branch today and also last Tuesday dropping rails for forthcoming relaying about half way between Nenagh and Cloughjordan.

Deedsie

The_Wanderer wrote: »

CWR train on the branch today and also last Tuesday dropping rails for forthcoming relaying about half way between Nenagh and Cloughjordan.

Great stuff.

Is there anyway to find out which section remains to be upgraded to CWR after the current works are completed. I think its around 20km (12 miles) of track that still has to be upgraded. Just curious as to wear abouts on the line it is. Might not be a single section I suppose.

The_Wanderer

Deedsie wrote: »

Great stuff.

Is there anyway to find out which section remains to be upgraded to CWR after the current works are completed. I think its around 20km (12 miles) of track that still has to be upgraded. Just curious as to wear abouts on the line it is. Might not be a single section I suppose.

The majority of Killonan to Nenagh is done with CWR. There is a section around Cappadine which is jointed on modern timber sleepers.

After the current works, the last remaining substantial section of jointed track is Cloughjordan to Roscrea. I think there may be one short enough section of jointed track left around Borris in Ossary. Since COVID hit, my daily commutes on the route have ceased so not 100% sure on the Roscrea to Bally section.

tabbey

The_Wanderer wrote: »

The majority of Killonan to Nenagh is done with CWR. There is a section around Cappadine which is jointed on modern timber sleepers.

After the current works, the last remaining substantial section of jointed track is Cloughjordan to Roscrea. I think there may be one short enough section of jointed track left around Borris in Ossary.

Where is Cappadine? As in milepost or section.