Limerick - Nenagh - Ballybrophy railway

goingnowhere

Alan was playing to the crowd, North Tipp is a warzone and Michael Lorry has god like status for continuing to play dodge ball with the authorities 'In Dublin'

Alan was minister for public transport. There is not a single letter, email or other printed record of his communication with Irish Rail about the morning train until someone called foul on the costs, the absence of records suggests this was all done in person or by phone, i.e. try to keep it off. the books.

Alan would appear to be very aware of Irish Rail being subject to FOI

end of the road

at least kelly tried to do something to improve the service.
sure he may not have went the right wayabout it, it didn't work as hoped, but at least he gave enough of a damn to try.
so from me it's credit where credit is due.

goingnowhere

end of the road wrote: »

at least kelly tried to do something to improve the service.
sure he may not have went the right wayabout it, it didn't work as hoped, but at least he gave enough of a damn to try.
so from me it's credit where credit is due.

Great job on killing the evening post 5pm service from Limerick

end of the road

goingnowhere wrote: »

Great job on killing the evening post 5pm service from Limerick

irish rail chose to remove it from what i remember.
kelly can't be blamed for irish rail's choices.

dowlingm

goingnowhere wrote: »

Great job on killing the evening post 5pm service from Limerick

this is a great point, I forgot that balls up. They should have done enough tamping and PSO removal to have a quick enough service to turn the morning train in Roscrea but that would have taken more money than putting in a pseudo block post in Nenagh.

end of the road wrote: »

irish rail chose to remove it from what i remember.
kelly can't be blamed for irish rail's choices.

politicians involving themselves in public services can’t be a one way bet.

Deedsie

Has there ever been a feasibility study on upgrading the line? How much would it cost etc to bring it up to a useable standard?

Jamie2k9

end of the road wrote: »

irish rail chose to remove it from what i remember.
kelly can't be blamed for irish rail's choices.

Im not going to go back looking at previous and current schedule but wasn't it removed to facilitate a return evening service (earlier to allow daily commuting) from the big smoke!

You could argue they have had ample opportunity restore the old schedule.

IE 222

Would using stock and drivers from Portlaoise or base a 2800 set there not make improvements. This should allow better scheduling times and remove useless movements. The evening return is just bringing the set back to base.

dowlingm

IE 222 wrote: »

Would using stock and drivers from Portlaoise or base a 2800 set there not make improvements. This should allow better scheduling times and remove useless movements. The evening return is just bringing the set back to base.

the movements from the mainline to the loop and then onto the branch are time consuming. If there was a different layout... also there is the issue of the ETS staffs being returned. I guess the Ballybrophy-Roscrea block could be brought into CTC like Limerick Junction-Tipperary but now that’s another cost weighed against some thin benefits.

IE 222

dowlingm wrote: »

the movements from the mainline to the loop and then onto the branch are time consuming. If there was a different layout... also there is the issue of the ETS staffs being returned. I guess the Ballybrophy-Roscrea block could be brought into CTC like Limerick Junction-Tipperary but now that’s another cost weighed against some thin benefits.

Well I'd be of the idea of running direct to Portlaise instead of the bay platform in Ballybrophy. Change the connection to the mainline and reinstate the bay platform in Portlaoise, simple enough job. Could the ETS not be returned with the final Limerick - Portlaoise. I'd be thinking starting and finishing in Portlaoise. Most demand is southbound into Limerick isn't it although the operation is ran in reserve of that.

Markcheese

Deedsie wrote: »

Has there ever been a feasibility study on upgrading the line? How much would it cost etc to bring it up to a useable standard?

Would you include a cost / benefit analysis as well , ?

Deedsie

Markcheese wrote: »

Would you include a cost / benefit analysis as well , ?

Of course? It would certainly be more financially viable post any improvements. As it is now no one will use it.

The ballybrophy stop should be removed. Connect the line direct to the Cork - Dublin mainline... Limerick - Nenagh - Portlaoise makes a lot more sense than the current set up

dowlingm

IE 222 wrote: »

Well I'd be of the idea of running direct to Portlaise instead of the bay platform in Ballybrophy. Change the connection to the mainline and reinstate the bay platform in Portlaoise, simple enough job. Could the ETS not be returned with the final Limerick - Portlaoise. I'd be thinking starting and finishing in Portlaoise. Most demand is southbound into Limerick isn't it although the operation is ran in reserve of that.

I would agree with this, but no doubt the Good People Of Ballybrophy (especially any property owners banking on Dublin commuters being pushed further and further out) would consider it An Insult To The Parish That Will Never Be Forgiven To The Seventh Generation since the need to stop passing trains for connections would also be foregone.

One option that could have been looked at a few years ago is to use the M7 construction to run an alignment down the north edge east of J21 for a few kilometres to join the line to Portlaoise, but that would have involved a spend which would have implied commitment to the line’s continuance, rather than the vague hand waving and token gestures which is preferred in Irish public life to committing completely or withdrawing completely (abandonment in this case)

https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null&lat=52.927636244685445&lon=-7.590608596801758&zoom=13&style=standard

esposito

dowlingm wrote: »

the movements from the mainline to the loop and then onto the branch are time consuming. If there was a different layout... also there is the issue of the ETS staffs being returned. I guess the Ballybrophy-Roscrea block could be brought into CTC like Limerick Junction-Tipperary but now that’s another cost weighed against some thin benefits.

Pointless introducing CTC signalling from Ballybrophy to Roscrea/Nenagh/Limerick as there are only a few trains in each direction per day. The mechanical signalling is perfectly adequate for this line.

dowlingm

esposito wrote: »

Pointless introducing CTC signalling from Ballybrophy to Roscrea/Nenagh/Limerick as there are only a few trains in each direction per day. The mechanical signalling is perfectly adequate for this line.

The staffs require, well, staffing as do the manual LCs. The desire to minimize staffing costs is the same thing which has driven down service on the Junction-Waterford line to the bare minimum (and no service on Sunday before that) - also I was only proposing the change on the section which would require work to create a service which doesn’t visit Ballybrophy bay, similar to Limerick Junction cabin being closed.

Del.Monte

Well, this CTC stuff is on the Rosslare line for years now and I've yet to see any benefit for anybody - staff or passenger. Please can some 'expert' explain?

Jamie2k9

Del.Monte wrote: »

Well, this CTC stuff is on the Rosslare line for years now and I've yet to see any benefit for anybody - staff or passenger. Please can some 'expert' explain?

One person is in charge between Graystones-R Europort and controls all movements in Graystones rather than staff based in each section controlling small parts.

Passengers only see benefits if other infrastructure is improved as well which hasn't happened on the line.

Del.Monte

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

One person is in charge between Graystones-R Europort and controls all movements in Graystones rather than staff based in each section controlling small parts.

Passengers only see benefits if other infrastructure is improved as well which hasn't happened on the line.

Most of the staff are still in place selling tickets and watching out for roving managers. There's a vast amount of new equipment in place - at an unknown cost - to get rid of some signalmen that they never got rid of and there's no tangible return on the investment.



The old 'obsolete' system required the odd bit of maintenance, tightening of wires and looking after ETS equipment that had years of life left in it. Now there are masts, containers etc taking up space all over the place which, no doubt, will all have to be replaced again in twenty years time. There's been no improvement for passengers but engineers don't think of little details like that.

IE 222

dowlingm wrote: »

I would agree with this, but no doubt the Good People Of Ballybrophy (especially any property owners banking on Dublin commuters being pushed further and further out) would consider it An Insult To The Parish That Will Never Be Forgiven To The Seventh Generation since the need to stop passing trains for connections would also be foregone.

One option that could have been looked at a few years ago is to use the M7 construction to run an alignment down the north edge east of J21 for a few kilometres to join the line to Portlaoise, but that would have involved a spend which would have implied commitment to the line’s continuance, rather than the vague hand waving and token gestures which is preferred in Irish public life to committing completely or withdrawing completely (abandonment in this case)

https://www.openrailwaymap.org/?lang=null&lat=52.927636244685445&lon=-7.590608596801758&zoom=13&style=standard

Of course the local non-users would be up in arms over this but bypassing Ballybrophy is the benefit for many more.

Ideally straightening the line at Borris in Ossory to Ashbrook, roughly 5km, would suffice although I think the cost of that would probably deliver 60mph running for a good chunk of the line which would be a lot more beneficial.

Ideally changing the operation would make massive improvements in my opinion by using a mix of Portlaoise and Limerick based stock.

Advance the 5:30 ex Limerick to 5:15am via Neagh for 8:30am arrival in Dublin. Use Portlaoise ICR and depart Portlaoise at 6:20am for Limerick arrival of 8:30am. Use this set for the 8:50am Ex Limerick. Use limerick 2800 set to run a midday service to Ballybrophy and early evening Limerick - Neagh service. Split the 17:25 in Portlaoise and run one half via Neagh. Send the via Thurles set back to Portlaoise via Neagh 20:00 to cover the morning return from Portlaoise.

esposito

Del.Monte wrote: »

Well, this CTC stuff is on the Rosslare line for years now and I've yet to see any benefit for anybody - staff or passenger. Please can some 'expert' explain?

Another line that did not need CTC

Lord Glentoran

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

One person is in charge between Graystones-R Europort and controls all movements in Graystones rather than staff based in each section controlling small parts.

Passengers only see benefits if other infrastructure is improved as well which hasn't happened on the line.

Sufferin’ Jayzus lads but it’s bad enough having “Center” and “Color” and all the Americanisms casually dropped onto Boards without having the relic of auld dacency Greystones turned “Gray”...

end of the road

esposito wrote: »

Another line that did not need CTC

did any line need ctc in your book?


if lines didn't get ctc you can be guaranteed staffed signal boxes would have been used as an excuse to shut them down.

Deedsie

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Sufferin’ Jayzus lads but it’s bad enough having “Center” and “Color” and all the Americanisms casually dropped onto Boards without having the relic of auld dacency Greystones turned “Gray”...

Someone else changed Nenagh to Neagh several times on a thread with Nenagh in the actual title.

Del.Monte

end of the road wrote: »

did any line need ctc in your book?


if lines didn't get ctc you can be guaranteed staffed signal boxes would have been used as an excuse to shut them down.

Probably agree with you on this point but it does not mean CTC was a good/necessary idea for our lightly used lines. The renewal of all the new equipment in x years time will also be used as an excuse to bring on closure.


What are the running costs of the CTC on the Rosslare line? I haven't a clue but there seems to be a vast amount of lineside equipment, masts, containers etc. in use.

tabbey

Del.Monte wrote: »

What are the running costs of the CTC on the Rosslare line? I haven't a clue but there seems to be a vast amount of lineside equipment, masts, containers etc. in use.

And ongoing maintenance by guys who arrive by road vehicles at great expense compared to traditional railwaymen using the train.

Last Stop

thewexman93 wrote: »

Only irish rail could think its a good idea to head from dublin to limerick via tipperary town (limerick junction) it was a foolish way to develop the dublin to limerick route.

Not just Irish Rail.
Any improvements to the Cork line between Ballybrophy and Limerick Junction leads to improves to journey times to Limerick and also Tralee. That makes a lot of sense from a maintenance and operational point of view.

I do however believe that the Ballybrophy branch should be improved. Running a Limerick - Dublin service on this branch in the morning and evening peak would be a massive addition.

I also agree with the issues around Ballybrophy station. Could they move the entire station a few hundred metres to the east?? This would allow a train to travel to/from Limerick without reversing.

thewexman93

Would a Dublin to limerick train via Nenagh line really gain much time if the station at ballybrophy was moved? Currently all the driver has to do is walk from one end of the train to the other and continue on. A very minor inconvenience really

Deedsie

thewexman93 wrote: »

Would a Dublin to limerick train via Nenagh line really gain much time if the station at ballybrophy was moved? Currently all the driver has to do is walk from one end of the train to the other and continue on. A very minor inconvenience really

Why is there a need for any Limerick to Dublin via Nenagh train to stop in Ballybrophy at all? Balyybrophy station is already serviced by the Cork line

Surely Limerick, Castleconnell, Birdhill, Nenagh, Cloughjordan, Roscrea, Portlaoise, Heuston direct makes more sense. The Ballybrophy stop being removed entirely would make a significant reduction in journey times.

I am no expert, far from it but to me the priorities for this line should be:

Upgrading the line and improving speeds/journey times between Nenagh and Limerick. Removing accomodation gates, straightening the line etc etc

Joining the current line up to the main Cork - Dublin line somewhere between Ballybrophy and Portlaoise possibly following alongside the route of the M7.

I know it would cost a lot of money to do this but we spend billions upon billions on roads.

Surely saving a rail line that could be very beneficial to the people living along it would be money well spent.

thewexman93

As long as the line remains in it's current location, stopping at ballybrophy would not be a major delaying factor. I agree, the line should be straightened and Portlaoise should become the exchange point, especially considering the regularity of the Portlaoise to heuston commuter services. If Limerick to Portlaoise via Nenagh was able to connect with these services you'd have a pretty comprehensive service

Deedsie

thewexman93 wrote: »

As long as the line remains in it's current location, stopping at ballybrophy would not be a major delaying factor. I agree, the line should be straightened and Portlaoise should become the exchange point, especially considering the regularity of the Portlaoise to heuston commuter services. If Limerick to Portlaoise via Nenagh was able to connect with these services you'd have a pretty comprehensive service

Exactly that... It wouldnt take a huge amount to make it a very attractive line for users.

IE 222

thewexman93 wrote: »

As long as the line remains in it's current location, stopping at ballybrophy would not be a major delaying factor. I agree, the line should be straightened and Portlaoise should become the exchange point, especially considering the regularity of the Portlaoise to heuston commuter services. If Limerick to Portlaoise via Nenagh was able to connect with these services you'd have a pretty comprehensive service

A simple change of the points to bypass the bay platform and skipping Ballybrophy altogether would knock at least 10 mins of a direct trains journey time. I reckon they could do it for less than €5k. A few more track upgrades should allow 50/60MPH throughout. All in all that should reduce travel time on the branch by 40 mins.

thewexman93

Simple change of the points? I think you are confusing the layout of the junction at ballybrophy. In order to skip the station altogether, a new loop would have to be built to meet the main line heading north. The Nenagh branch currently converges facing south

Isambard

what about potential passengers wishing to head south?

I'd suggest concentrating on improving the line and the service and maintaining and improving connections at BB would be best

Del.Monte

thewexman93 wrote: »

Simple change of the points? I think you are confusing the layout of the junction at ballybrophy. In order to skip the station altogether, a new loop would have to be built to meet the main line heading north. The Nenagh branch currently converges facing south

And that's precisely what needs to be done as nothing else will save the branch.

Deedsie

What would have been the last investment on this line? Outside of annual running etc? As in the last physical infrastructure upgrade to the line?

tabbey

Del.Monte wrote: »

And that's precisely what needs to be done as nothing else will save the branch.

It is only part of what is needed to save the branch; raising the speed limit also must be done as road vehicles whiz past on the motorway at twice the speed.

A generation ago, heavy locomotives ran here at 70 mph, on jointed track of lighter rails. There has to be scope for raising the speeds immediately, with further improvement following track work.

esposito

end of the road wrote: »

did any line need ctc in your book?

.

Yes. The busier lines required CTC of course.

However the lighter used lines such as Rosslare to Wicklow being upgraded to CTC and most of the branch lines did not warrant this changeover.

Limerick to Ballybrophy via Nenagh should remain as mechanical signalling as should lines such as Tipperary to Waterford.

end of the road

esposito wrote: »

Yes. The busier lines required CTC of course.

However the lighter used lines such as Rosslare to Wicklow being upgraded to CTC and most of the branch lines did not warrant this changeover.

Limerick to Ballybrophy via Nenagh should remain as mechanical signalling as should lines such as Tipperary to Waterford.

and your justification for this is?

Losty Dublin

esposito wrote: »

Yes. The busier lines required CTC of course.

However the lighter used lines such as Rosslare to Wicklow being upgraded to CTC and most of the branch lines did not warrant this changeover.

Limerick to Ballybrophy via Nenagh should remain as mechanical signalling as should lines such as Tipperary to Waterford.

Rosslare line is not actually under CTC control. It's controlled by a signalman in Greystones and is what's referred to as Mini CTC.

Jamie2k9

esposito wrote: »

Yes. The busier lines required CTC of course.

However the lighter used lines such as Rosslare to Wicklow being upgraded to CTC and most of the branch lines did not warrant this changeover.

Limerick to Ballybrophy via Nenagh should remain as mechanical signalling as should lines such as Tipperary to Waterford.

Lines may be lightly used however it doesn't mean they shouldn't have been upgraded. The full upgrade isn't been felt because all stations should have PIS and CTC ability to make announcements like in GDA. I suspect most CCTV isn't connected to Dublin either. We shall see if they all changes once the new control centre is built and technology used to its full potential.

Ideally this would have happened before unmanned stations became a thing.

Not upgrading Tip-Waterford means the case for automating crossings and reducing over costs doesn't become viable. This line is also capable of higher speeds however they have zero chance of happening until mechanical signalling is dropped.

Jamie2k9

IE 222 wrote: »

A simple change of the points to bypass the bay platform and skipping Ballybrophy altogether would knock at least 10 mins of a direct trains journey time. I reckon they could do it for less than €5k. A few more track upgrades should allow 50/60MPH throughout. All in all that should reduce travel time on the branch by 40 mins.

You are probably closer to 1m-1.6m than 5k.

IE 222

thewexman93 wrote: »

Simple change of the points? I think you are confusing the layout of the junction at ballybrophy. In order to skip the station altogether, a new loop would have to be built to meet the main line heading north. The Nenagh branch currently converges facing south

Might be a bit different but the current track and frame work will do the job. The land is already cleared. It really isn't a big job.

IE 222

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

You are probably closer to 1m-1.6m than 5k.

To move and rearrange track work already in place.

goingnowhere

1-1.6M is a fair estimate, probably on the low side...

Would need major changes to the legacy CTC interlocking and need Roscrea made a fringe to CTC or otherwise you would have to stop anyway to find the manual staff

Jamie2k9

goingnowhere wrote: »

1-1.6M is a fair estimate, probably on the low side...

Would need major changes to the legacy CTC interlocking and need Roscrea made a fringe to CTC or otherwise you would have to stop anyway to find the manual staff

Before I posted I said 1.8-2.5m but revised down because I didn't know enough!

Isn't the current access to mainline from the bay, you have to pass the signal at danger. Remember reading on here a movement around there where you must pass on red with permission.

IE 222

goingnowhere wrote: »

1-1.6M is a fair estimate, probably on the low side...

Would need major changes to the legacy CTC interlocking and need Roscrea made a fringe to CTC or otherwise you would have to stop anyway to find the manual staff

How can they not use the current interlocking. Can the staff not be handled in Ballybrophy?

L1011

IE 222 wrote: »

To move and rearrange track work already in place.

Yes. This isn't Transport Tycoon.

goingnowhere

IE 222 wrote: »

How can they not use the current interlocking. Can the staff not be handled in Ballybrophy?

You cannot access the Ballybrophy branch or the bay from Portlaoise

So you need a new facing crossover installed, its a 100mph section so thats 60kg/m P&C on concrete bearers, easily 500k job

Move the signals around, alter the 1976 interlocking etc. SET would probably opt to replace the 1976 gear with a SSI/CBI and tie it into the SSI/CBI at the Port Laois depot to eliminate the 1976 gear over the entire section. Its made worse as Ballybrophy station is the point where the 1986/7 equipment joins the 1976 equipment.

If you want a direct curve then the point is not to stop, the current train staff allows only a single train so if two trains in the same direction you have to taxi the staff back, so again easier just fringe Roscrea with CTC, if you introduced ETS would have to stop and collect a token,

Deedsie

It really does require significant investment to improve the line. Of course this should have been going on over the last few decades.

Would €10m investment have it at comporable speeds and usefullness to rail users to other lines in the country?

91wx763

There's overlap discussion of this in the photo thread which is worth reading alongside. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056341985&page=214