Iarnród Éireann Strategy 2027 Update

LXFlyer

Iarnród Éireann have updated their strategy document which is available here:

https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/IrishRail/media/Content/About%20Us/IE-Strategy-2027_Final_One-Page_20210114.pdf

Some of the infrastructure improvements outlined (aside from the DART+ programme) include the following up to 2040:

• 4 tracking Hazelhatch – Kildare and 3 tracking Kildare to Portarlington on Cork Line
  
• 3 or 4 tracking north of Connolly to Malahide on Belfast Line
  
• Double tracking sections of Intercity network to facilitate reliable services at increased frequencies, with second platforms at existing stations including:

• Double tracking Portarlington – Athlone
• Double tracking Maynooth – Mullingar / Longford
• Double tracking Athenry – Oranmore – Galway
• Dynamic passing Loops / additional platforms Limerick – Limerick Junction
• Additional platform at Millstreet on Tralee Line
• Additional platform at Woodlawn on Galway Line
• Passing loop between Claremorris and Westport
• Reconfiguration of Sligo station and passing loop at Ballymote
• Passing loop at Sixmilebridge on Ennis line

LXFlyer

I'm replying to this post from this Galway-Athenry thread: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058116343

AngryLips wrote: »

Frankly, it's hard to see how any more investment in the Dublin-Belfast line can be justified when the service doesn't even warrant hourly frequencies.

Dublin-Belfast certainly would warrant an hourly service, but the reason that there isn't one is that there simply isn't the rolling stock available to deliver it. There are only three Enterprise sets which limits what can be done.

The strategy document above makes it clear that an hourly service is the plan with new rolling stock.

The improvements on the line will also facilitate improved journey times for longer distance suburban services to/from Dundalk and Drogheda that DART+ may not deliver.

Rashers72

Wonder when will we finally see the southbound passing loop at Clongriffin built? Station, platform, and customers all in place over 10 years now, and IE have still not even asked TFI to fund... Northern suburban line has deteriorated so much in recent years, journey times so slow. See so many cars driving now from towns in Fingal each morning.

To be honest, rail transport is filled with so many shiny brochures in the past 20 years. We are so weak on funding and delivery.
Within Fingal for example, what has actual funding in place with delivery dates? The opening line in this brochure already indicates this was prepared 2 years ago @ this stage...
The roof in my local station is full of holes, and despite asking for it to be fixed several times, I am told there is no funding available. If we cannot get the basics right and daily maintenance is so poor, I think TFI might divert the funding elsewhere.

kc56

LXFlyer wrote: »

Iarnród Éireann have updated their strategy document which is available here:

https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/IrishRail/media/Content/About%20Us/IE-Strategy-2027_Final_One-Page_20210114.pdf

Some of the infrastructure improvements outlined (aside from the DART+ programme) include:

• 4 tracking Hazelhatch – Kildare and 3 tracking Kildare to Portarlington on Cork Line
  
• 3 or 4 tracking north of Connolly to Malahide on Belfast Line
  
• Double tracking sections of Intercity network to facilitate reliable services at increased frequencies, with second platforms at existing stations including:

• Double tracking Portarlington – Athlone
• Double tracking Maynooth – Mullingar / Longford
• Double tracking Athenry – Oranmore – Galway
• Dynamic passing Loops / additional platforms Limerick – Limerick Junction
• Additional platform at Millstreet on Tralee Line
• Additional platform at Woodlawn on Galway Line
• Passing loop between Claremorris and Westport
• Reconfiguration of Sligo station and passing loop at Ballymote
• Passing loop at Sixmilebridge on Ennis line

These projects are in the 2040 plan. The 2027 only included 4-tracking Citywest to Heuston.
The 4/3 tracking to Kildare/Portarlington will be key to enabling faster and more frequent intercity and more frequent commuter services but that is still up to 20 years away.

LXFlyer

kc56 wrote: »

These projects are in the 2040 plan. The 2027 only included 4-tracking Citywest to Heuston.
The 4/3 tracking to Kildare/Portarlington will be key to enabling faster and more frequent intercity and more frequent commuter services but that is still up to 20 years away.

Sorry - you're right - I'll amend the original post.

However I would see some of the enhancements happening far sooner than 2040.

I think you meant Parkwest and not Citywest by the way - that element is part of the DART+ programme.

LXFlyer

Rashers72 wrote: »

Wonder when will we finally see the southbound passing loop at Clongriffin built? Station, platform, and customers all in place over 10 years now, and IE have still not even asked TFI to fund... Northern suburban line has deteriorated so much in recent years, journey times so slow. See so many cars driving now from towns in Fingal each morning.

Presumably that will fall under the DART+ programme.

kc56

LXFlyer wrote: »

Sorry - you're right - I'll amend the original post.

However I would see some of the enhancements happening far sooner than 2040.

I think you meant Parkwest and not Citywest by the way - that element is part of the DART+ programme.

Yes - Parkwest.

Removing the 2-1 merge at Parkwest inbound will be of great benefit as so many trains, especially commuter, often have to wait or slow at that merge. I recall being on Portlaoise-Heuston trains waiting for 3 intercities to pass. Many ICs are also held at that merge. Not so bad outbound.

I also imaging they might have to change the track order to separate commuter from IC to avoid crossing overs on approach to Heuston. If the northern tracks were allocated to commuter/DART and the southern tracks to IC that would give such a separation slow/slow/fast/fast instead of the current slow/fast/fast/slow. That would give unrestricted access to DARTs to PPT and beyond.

LXFlyer

kc56 wrote: »

Yes - Parkwest.

Removing the 2-1 merge at Parkwest inbound will be of great benefit as so many trains, especially commuter, often have to wait or slow at that merge. I recall being on Portlaoise-Heuston trains waiting for 3 intercities to pass. Many ICs are also held at that merge. Not so bad outbound.

I also imaging they might have to change the track order to separate commuter from IC to avoid crossing overs on approach to Heuston. If the northern tracks were allocated to commuter/DART and the southern tracks to IC that would give such a separation slow/slow/fast/fast instead of the current slow/fast/fast/slow. That would give unrestricted access to DARTs to PPT and beyond.

That is all under DART+ as I said and yes it does involve switching the fast/slow lines around.

Bsharp

The 2027 Strategy was developed to align with committed funding under the current National Development Plan.

Irish rail is hoping to get more funding to deliver the '2040 Plan' projects as soon as possible, and meet Project Ireland 2040 ambitions in the process.

Zebra3

How do they plan to double track west of Maynooth when we've already been told that it's impossible to double track at Kilcock?

LXFlyer

Zebra3 wrote: »

How do they plan to double track west of Maynooth when we've already been told that it's impossible to double track at Kilcock?

Where has it been said that it is "impossible"?

Some info regarding kilcock

https://www.irishrail.ie/en-ie/faqs/as-the-depot-is-very-near-kilcock-station,-can-dar

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2020-11-12/4/

LXFlyer

Deleted User wrote: »

Some info regarding kilcock

https://www.irishrail.ie/en-ie/faqs/as-the-depot-is-very-near-kilcock-station,-can-dar

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2020-11-12/4/

Irish Rail aren't saying that it is impossible in that statement.

They are effectively saying that it wasn't in the original DART+ project scope and the current transport strategy, and as such wasn't considered, but that it may form part of the future strategy if it changes.

Oh and that it would require a lot of work!

That is not the same as impossible.

Thats what it sounds like, oh and that it would cost a packet and a half

Zebra3

LXFlyer wrote: »

Where has it been said that it is "impossible"?

Yep, they didn't say that, but made loads of engineering excuses not to.

Kilcock is rapidly growing and it really looks like a major mistake not bringing the DART there (even just 50% of the ones that go to/from Maynooth).

The more Kilcock grows, the more disruption the eventual works will bring.

end of the road

that's ultimately it, the work, disruption and cost will be higher when it does get done.
and realistically it will be done because chances are there will be an ultimately successful campaign by residents of the town to do it given the depot will apparently be on the door step more or less.

LXFlyer

Zebra3 wrote: »

Yep, they didn't say that, but made loads of engineering excuses not to.

Kilcock is rapidly growing and it really looks like a major mistake not bringing the DART there (even just 50% of the ones that go to/from Maynooth).

The more Kilcock grows, the more disruption the eventual works will bring.

Well they are saying it wasn't in the original project scope, the NTA Greater Dublin Transport strategy, and more importantly in the budget for DART+.

For it to happen the project would need additional funding due to the additional works. That's the bottom line.

We will have to wait and see if the NTA accept that there is a case for bringing the DART to Kilcock - personally I think it's a no-brainer, but obviously the additional cost will be the issue here.

Thrashssacre

Could they not just built two siding just west of the town so one platform could suffice?

Trains a pulls in emptys passengers and moves into siding a

Train b arrives 5 minuites later, emptys passengers and enters siding b.

Train A enters the station again fills up and heads back towards the city.

Surely this is a simple enough concept?

IE 222

LXFlyer wrote: »

Iarnród Éireann have updated their strategy document which is available here:

https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/IrishRail/media/Content/About%20Us/IE-Strategy-2027_Final_One-Page_20210114.pdf

Some of the infrastructure improvements outlined (aside from the DART+ programme) include the following up to 2040:

• 4 tracking Hazelhatch – Kildare and 3 tracking Kildare to Portarlington on Cork Line
  
• 3 or 4 tracking north of Connolly to Malahide on Belfast Line
  
• Double tracking sections of Intercity network to facilitate reliable services at increased frequencies, with second platforms at existing stations including:

• Double tracking Portarlington – Athlone
• Double tracking Maynooth – Mullingar / Longford
• Double tracking Athenry – Oranmore – Galway
• Dynamic passing Loops / additional platforms Limerick – Limerick Junction
• Additional platform at Millstreet on Tralee Line
• Additional platform at Woodlawn on Galway Line
• Passing loop between Claremorris and Westport
• Reconfiguration of Sligo station and passing loop at Ballymote
• Passing loop at Sixmilebridge on Ennis line

Was Ballinasloe - Athlone not double track before. I know Ballinasloe - Athenry was always single track. It's a very long section to leave as single line if going to the expense of doubling and possibly electrifying the rest. Ballinasloe - Athlone must the longest straight section of line in the country but its riddled with speed restrictions. I would've thought doubling and improving this section of line to bring it up to maximum line speed would be key to journey time reductions.


How would the treble track south of Kildare work?

An extra down line between Kildare and Monasterevin and an extra up between Portarlington and Monasterevin?

It would be good if the Waterford line could be extended form Cherryville to Kildare and remove the need to slow and often wait to enter or exit the line at Cherryville. Most Waterford services stop at Kildare so switching lines there would be a lot more practical. A bi-directional third line which would also back up as a slow down line for commuter trains would benefit all services.

Pete_Cavan

IE 222 wrote: »

Was Ballinasloe - Athlone not double track before. I know Ballinasloe - Athenry was always single track.

What??

IE 222

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

What??

Im open to correction but I'm pretty sure I read before that a section of that line was only single track. It might of been Athenry - Woodlawn rather than Ballinasloe.

IE's published plan above is to double Portarlington - Athlone and Galway - Athenry. I presume that means Athenry- Athlone will remain single track.

GerardKeating

Zebra3 wrote: »

How do they plan to double track west of Maynooth when we've already been told that it's impossible to double track at Kilcock?

How can it be impossible when it was origionally double track, that was later singled.

The problem is the Station and/or the bridge would need "work"

IE 222

GerardKeating wrote: »

How can it be impossible when it was origionally double track, that was later singled.

The problem is the Station and/or the bridge would need "work"

All of which is rather easy to get around.

The bridge was altered when the station opened. A flat deck was put in and second track can fit under although a second platform can't.

It would be rather easy to put a turn back island to the west of the bridge leaving the current platform for Intercity services.

MyLove4Satan

wonder what they mean by reconfiguration of Sligo station?

IE 222

MyLove4Satan wrote: »

wonder what they mean by reconfiguration of Sligo station?

Modernise track layout. Likely straighten and extend the end of platform 2 so they can extend the stabling track and possibly reinstate the second one. The points for the stabling track encroach onto platform 2, well at least they use to. Unless its changed in recent years reversing the crossover points would allow them loop arriving and departing trains on the double section without needing a second empty platform.

prunudo

LXFlyer wrote: »

Iarnród Éireann have updated their strategy document which is available here:

https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/IrishRail/media/Content/About%20Us/IE-Strategy-2027_Final_One-Page_20210114.pdf

Some of the infrastructure improvements outlined (aside from the DART+ programme) include the following up to 2040:

• 4 tracking Hazelhatch – Kildare and 3 tracking Kildare to Portarlington on Cork Line
  
• 3 or 4 tracking north of Connolly to Malahide on Belfast Line
  
• Double tracking sections of Intercity network to facilitate reliable services at increased frequencies, with second platforms at existing stations including:

• Double tracking Portarlington – Athlone
• Double tracking Maynooth – Mullingar / Longford
• Double tracking Athenry – Oranmore – Galway
• Dynamic passing Loops / additional platforms Limerick – Limerick Junction
• Additional platform at Millstreet on Tralee Line
• Additional platform at Woodlawn on Galway Line
• Passing loop between Claremorris and Westport
• Reconfiguration of Sligo station and passing loop at Ballymote
• Passing loop at Sixmilebridge on Ennis line

Doesn't appear to be any mention of the southeastern line or does this fall under Dart+. Would be nice to see them upgrade as far south as Wicklow if not even further. I know its crossing threads, but as was mentioned (possibly by yourself LXflyer) part of the solution to the n11/m11 upgrade could be to build a park and ride close to Rathnew with good links to the local and national road network.

LXFlyer

prunudo wrote: »

Doesn't appear to be any mention of the southeastern line or does this fall under Dart+. Would be nice to see them upgrade as far south as Wicklow if not even further. I know its crossing threads, but as was mentioned (possibly by yourself LXflyer) part of the solution to the n11/m11 upgrade could be to build a park and ride close to Rathnew with good links to the local and national road network.

Page 33 refers to increasing services to every two hours along the line to Wexford or Rosslare.

The most immediate priority right now with the southeastern line (as outlined by IE Chairman Frank Allen yesterday) is to deal with the coastal erosion and shore up the permanent way so that it is safe.

As to your suggestion, a P & R there wouldn't be a bad idea. But it's not in the planning at the moment.

IE 222

There is also mention of 20min peek frequency to Gorey.

prunudo

IE 222 wrote: »

There is also mention of 20min peek frequency to Gorey.

That would be a welcome increase to services if that comes fruition.

IE 222

prunudo wrote: »

That would be a welcome increase to services if that comes fruition.

Wont be anytime soon. It will be a transfer at Greystones unless they plan to use the battery units for regional services. Gorey, Carlow, Mullingar and Dundalk all marked for 20min peek 30 min off peek.

LXFlyer

IE 222 wrote: »

Wont be anytime soon. It will be a transfer at Greystones unless they plan to use the battery units for regional services. Gorey, Carlow, Mullingar and Dundalk all marked for 20min peek 30 min off peek.

I think that is exactly what they would plan on using on the outer commuter services.

LXFlyer

IE 222 wrote: »

There is also mention of 20min peek frequency to Gorey.

That's longer term though.

The two hourly frequency is planned by 2027.

loyatemu

prunudo wrote: »

Doesn't appear to be any mention of the southeastern line or does this fall under Dart+. Would be nice to see them upgrade as far south as Wicklow if not even further. I know its crossing threads, but as was mentioned (possibly by yourself LXflyer) part of the solution to the n11/m11 upgrade could be to build a park and ride close to Rathnew with good links to the local and national road network.

that was my suggestion - where the M11 crosses the railway, you could build a single platform P&R station with access from the nearest junction (J17) - I submitted it to the N11 consultation but I expect they'd consider it "outside of scope"

IE 222

LXFlyer wrote: »

I think that is exactly what they would plan on using on the outer commuter services.

It would make logical sense as they all fit within the battery range of where the OHLE plans to finish initially and they'd be just withdrawing them otherwise. It wouldn't be too expensive or difficult to put charging points at each of the outer stations.

I wonder will they look at different performance specs for the battery fleet, faster speeds ect.

Think Athlone was included in that as well.

cgcsb

IE 222 wrote: »

Im open to correction but I'm pretty sure I read before that a section of that line was only single track. It might of been Athenry - Woodlawn rather than Ballinasloe.

IE's published plan above is to double Portarlington - Athlone and Galway - Athenry. I presume that means Athenry- Athlone will remain single track.

All of Galway to Athlone was double track at one point and Athlone-Mulingar was also double track. Before CIE was formed the GSWR lifted the extra track to save maintenance costs.

cgcsb

IE 222 wrote: »

There is also mention of 20min peek frequency to Gorey.

Hard to see how that could happen without being a bit of a mega project. I absolutely think that there should be rail mega projects in this country. Afterall look at what we can do with roads, see the mega bypass of the New Ross metropolis, including one of Europe's most elaborate bridge structures. There's even the M11 project to encourage more long distance car commuting. :rolleyes:

cgcsb

I'd like to see a lot more work on the NIR side such as:

New Dub-Bel line alongside the A1 between Newry and Lisburn.
An extension of commuter rail from Portadown to Armagh
An extension of intercity from Derry to Letterkenny
Electrification of the whole thing
improved line speeds on the north coast line

CatInABox

cgcsb wrote: »

Hard to see how that could happen without being a bit of a mega project.

Yes, without sorting the choke point tunnel at Bray Head, hard to see any major improvement in frequency. Don't they already have a project to reconfigure Greystones station and line, which will achieve something like a grand total of one extra train an hour through the tunnel?

Hard to see how they can sort it on the cheap, other than with turning the line into a shuttle service from Greystones onwards.

Agree that there should be a mega project for rail in Ireland, with Bray Head sorted.

bk

CatInABox wrote: »

Yes, without sorting the choke point tunnel at Bray Head, hard to see any major improvement in frequency. Don't they already have a project to reconfigure Greystones station and line, which will achieve something like a grand total of one extra train an hour through the tunnel?

One extra train an hour would get you down to a 20 minute frequency to Greystones.

If they electrify out to Gorey, or more realistically a bimode train that can run on batteries beyond Greystones, then you just have the Greystones trains carry onto Gorey and thus a 20 minute frequency to their.

Or alternatively have Diesel trains continue operate Gorey to Greystones and have folks transfer onto DART at Greystones.

IE 222

cgcsb wrote: »

Hard to see how that could happen without being a bit of a mega project. I absolutely think that there should be rail mega projects in this country. Afterall look at what we can do with roads, see the mega bypass of the New Ross metropolis, including one of Europe's most elaborate bridge structures. There's even the M11 project to encourage more long distance car commuting. :rolleyes:

Wouldn't necessarily need a 'mega project' to achieve 20min frequency. Extending the double track to the first tunnel either side of Bray Head would massively increase capacity.

roadmaster

I wonder long term instead of bimode trains for intercity would Hydrogen powered trains be a better fit for us. They are starting to roll out in Germany but are still very early in development

https://fortune.com/2021/04/23/hydrogen-train-transport-europe-green-rail/

bk

roadmaster wrote: »

I wonder long term instead of bimode trains for intercity would Hydrogen powered trains be a better fit for us. They are starting to roll out in Germany but are still very early in development

https://fortune.com/2021/04/23/hydrogen-train-transport-europe-green-rail/

Hydrogen might be suitable for longer distance like intercity. But for the relatively short distance of Gorey to Greystones of 62km, that would be ideal for batteries.

Generally, if batteries have sufficient range, they are preferable hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel is much more costly then electricity (for a given distance), plus it's environmental benefits are much more limited and questionable.

Basically you only want to consider using Hydrogen, when batteries won't work.

EDIT:
LOL, I hadn't actually read the above article before posting above, but after posting, I went and read it and the article says almost exactly the same:

“For longer distances and areas where we need more power, hydrogen has an advantage,” he said. “It seems that battery trains could have an advantage for short distances, but we need to sort this out.”

The costs to an owner of a regional passenger train are cheapest when it is powered by electric batteries, followed by diesel, hydrogen and then electric lines, according to clean energy research group BloombergNEF. The choice between batteries or fuel cells to replace diesel depends on factors like the length of the tracks, frequency of service and number of stops.

cgcsb

Hydrogen might be a long term solution for Dublin to Westport services but I'd say the rest of the network will end up being electric or a mix of electric and battery

patrickbrophy18

I noticed a turn back facility is proposed for somewhere between Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire. Is this for the Maynooth/Drogheda Commuters currently operating to Bray?

Also, are the new fleet additions to the DART still going to be fitted with toilets?

IE 222

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I noticed a turn back facility is proposed for somewhere between Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire. Is this for the Maynooth/Drogheda Commuters currently operating to Bray?

Also, are the new fleet additions to the DART still going to be fitted with toilets?

It was for Dun Laoghaire. It was more in need to reduce the number of trains to be turned back in Bray rather than a terminating point for a particular route. Also demand beyond Dun Laoghaire wouldn't require 18 train per hour.

Reading between the lines there will be toilets onboard. New trains will cover longer distance routes. The new depot has toilet discharge points in the service areas ect. According to the CEO their only a matter of weeks away from placing an order of 100 bi-mode trains expected to arrive in 2024.

Deedsie

Does anyone know the full extents of the works that have been carried out and are currently being carried out on the Limerick - Nenagh - Ballybrophy line?

I notice the line wasnt included in the IE strategy document update. Was it just because of covid and the line being closed they decided to do some work on the line?

Murph85

Think there is a typo in the thread title... surely it's meant to be 2057 ?

patrickbrophy18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117069136#Comment_117069136

The DART+ fleet wont be fitted with toilets according to the following link:

https://www.dartplus.ie/en-ie/faqs/fleet?page=3

Not the end of the world. However, those travelling the entirety of the longer jouneys are screwed if they have a particularly weak or sensitive bladder. So, they'll still have to alight at Pearse and Connelly for use of the facilities and resume their journey.

L1011

That FAQ also states Fairview is to close (as main maintenance depot at least - 8500s to be moved to Kilcock along with all new ones).

That gives a lot more wiggle room for design for extra tracks, redesign of Clontarf Road etc.

Although I can see it just being sold off for apartments!

DoctorPan

Fairview is closing as the main maintenance depot but there's to be no scaling back of services, all it removes really is the empty transfers between Fairview and Drogheda.

L1011

Fairview is an EMU depot and Drogheda a DMU depot, why would there be transfers between them?

If all 8100s are gone and 8500s moved to Maynooth, what other work is left to be done in Fairview?