nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Limerick-Ballybrophy line

JCX BXC

Would it be viable to run the Limerick-Dublin intercity trains via the Ballybrophy line assuming that was in good condition? I understand the Limerick-Dublin intercity don't actually stop at Limerick junction anyway.

Also, what condition is the Ballybrophy line in? Poor condition I understand?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Jamie2k9

Del.Monte wrote: »

Don't bet on contagion from BE not affecting IE and anyway IE's own strike is heading down the tracks shortly. The MkIII fiasco is symptomatic of CIE's attitude to wasting money and their answer to any question about anything is - "we're upgrading the Dublin/Cork line".....:rolleyes:

They will get their pay rise once they offer something in return!

I do agree about the endless money pouring into the Cork line, NTA should be taking a more active role in requiring adequate investment on other routes where ROI is good.

thomond2006

I might be using the evening train from Castleconnell on Monday to connect at Ballybrophy. Should I expect an empty train? Should I book the 9.99 ticket to Hueston online or is that fare available on a machine at the station?

Jamie2k9

thomond2006 wrote: »

I might be using the evening train from Castleconnell on Monday to connect at Ballybrophy. Should I expect an empty train? Should I book the 9.99 ticket to Hueston online or is that fare available on a machine at the station?

Online fare only.

Del.Monte

Asking people to use it because it would be a shame to see it close is a waste of time. The line needs investment, a timetable that serves a useful purpose and proper marketing.

n97 mini

Deedsie wrote: »

My numbers were wrong. There are about 25 people on this evenings train. The second carriage has more passengers than I thought.

How many carriages?

n97 mini

Deedsie wrote: »

2 carriages. Small enough sized carriages. I would say around 25 passengers. Seems a reasonable number for a Wednesday evening train on a dead rail line?

To put it in context there were probably more level crossing staff on duty on that line at the same time.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

To put it in context there were probably more level crossing staff on duty on that line at the same time.

most of the crossings are accommodation crossings from what i understand so there weren't more staff then passengers.

n97 mini

At least 10 crossings on that line are attended. If they'd work for €9.99 you'd only need 10 passengers to pay them.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

At least 10 crossings on that line are attended. If they'd work for €9.99 you'd only need 10 passengers to pay them.

so, a lot less crossing staff then passengers when that poster was on the train then.

n97 mini

end of the road wrote: »

so, a lot less crossing staff then passengers when that poster was on the train then.

Yeah, big difference between being utterly fcuked and completely and utterly fcuked alright.

JCX BXC

The line doesn't have to make a profit, it just doesn't have to fail spectacularly.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

Yeah, big difference between being utterly fcuked and completely and utterly fcuked alright.

there is also a big difference between 10 and 25. it's also impossible for 10 people to be more people then 25 people.

n97 mini

^ 2nd last one is automatic by the looks of it.

There are level crossings on chronically busy commuter lines that still haven't been automated either, (edit) as well as loads on busy intercity lines.

n97 mini

Some lines are an perfect example of bad planning though. Might have been ok in 1850 but not now.

Compare all the level crossings in Mayo with this stretch of the Cork line (there are very few overall between Dublin and Cork). To automate every level crossing in Mayo is putting lipstick on a pig. The reality is a lot of it needs to be rebuilt with over and under passes cutting out the need for level crossings altogether.

JCX BXC

There is a few manual open ones on the Cork line even! Such as at Buttevant railway station!

n97 mini

Deedsie wrote: »

Just compare the number of level crossings on the Limerick - Dublin (Via Nenagh) line to the Cork - Dublin line. See attached pic

There are two differences: one has very few level crossings, the other has a lot. Secondly, most of those level crossings (on the latter) are not automated.

But why has the Cork line less level crossings? For one it seems to have been better designed with a lot of bridges instead of level crossings, like this one, or this one or this one, but also if you look, some level crossings have been permanently shut.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Isambard

n97 mini wrote: »

There are two differences: one has very few level crossings, the other has a lot. Secondly, most of those level crossings (on the latter) are not automated.

But why has the Cork line less level crossings? For one it seems to have been better designed with a lot of bridges instead of level crossings, like this one, or this one or this one, but also if you look, some level crossings have been permanently shut.

Why? because it was built by a wealthier Company in the first place.

Banjoxed

Isambard wrote: »

Why? because it was built by a wealthier Company in the first place.

Would it be the Great Southern and Western Railway, who built the railway from Dublin to Cork, or the Great Southern and Western Railway, who built the line branching off the Cork line from Ballybrophy to Limerick?

Isambard

I stand corrected, but that is the reason for other lines.

edit....a map showing GSWR lines is not evidence that the GSWR built the line and without spending hours researching I can't be sure you are correct, do you have evidence that the GSWR actually built the line? It was quite common for local companies to build lines and then they were taken over by larger companies.

JCX BXC

When the timetable was temporarily enhanced a few years ago, what was the actual timetable then?

Jamie2k9

JCX BXC wrote: »

When the timetable was temporarily enhanced a few years ago, what was the actual timetable then?

05.15 Limerick-Dublin via Nenagh
06.30 Limerick-Ballybrophy
16.45 Limerick-Ballybrophy
17.45 Limerick-Ballybrophy

Limerick (05.15)
Castleconnell (05.31)
Birdhill (05.40)
Nenagh (06.04)
Cloughjordan (06.21)
Roscrea (06.38)
Ballybrophy (07.01)
Portlaoise (07.16)
Sallins (07.58)
Hazelhatch (08.07)
Adamstown (08.12)
Dublin Heuston (08.25)
Note the schedule on the direct serivce was altered once it started because of performance issues.

10.05 Ballybrophy-Limerick
13.40 Dublin-Limerick direct to position stock for 05.15
18.20 Ballybrophy-Limerick
19.15 Ballybrophy-Limerick

Costed around 20,000 per day.....

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

AngryLips

That old timetable, would it not have made more sense to timetable for a commute into Limerick instead of Dublin? Or at the very least, Limerick and Dublin.

L1011

Deedsie wrote: »

Imagine the infrastructure improvements they could have achieved with that money? :mad:

Bog all.

Your idea of closing the line to use the cash to improve would just kill it forever - and get nothing done.

L1011

And after you've driven away the few passengers during the closure and automated one gate how do you get them back on an effectively identical service? When they'll all be used to the bus.

Also the layoffs and rehiring for gate staff, drivers etc would eat every cent of savings

It's one of the worst ideas I've ever seen here.

Del.Monte

Deedsie wrote: »

Listen, I concede it might not work. Just trying to think of any proactive approaches that could be made to improve the line and make it a viable alternative to private cars for people.

The line is too slow, the Nenagh to Limerick section in particular. It needs to be upgraded and improved.

At least you're being positive unlike some on here who seem to imagine closing a few more lines will be of benefit to whatever's left of the railway.

Banjoxed

Isambard wrote: »

I stand corrected, but that is the reason for other lines.

edit....a map showing GSWR lines is not evidence that the GSWR built the line and without spending hours researching I can't be sure you are correct, do you have evidence that the GSWR actually built the line? It was quite common for local companies to build lines and then they were taken over by larger companies.

Fret not, I've done your work for you. The GSWR funded it through a proxy company. Murray and McNeill's 1976 work on the GSWR refers.

Isambard

thanks for that, always good to have the t's dotted and crossed eyes or something

Banjoxed

Isambard wrote: »

thanks for that, always good to have the t's dotted and crossed eyes or something

Heh! Thanks. Once an amateur historian, always a historian..