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

Irish rail fleet and infrastructure plans

Ireland trains

I created this thread because there is due to be alot of investment set to come in irish rail over the next few years (hopefully)
• 250 Bi-mode coaches
• 230 EMU coaches
• new enterprise fleet (possibly eletric)
• 41 new 22000 class centre coaches

The 2700 refurbishment has been scrapped
The new bi-modes and EMUs will be of the same design
The new 22k coaches will be to lenghten the sets which will increasing capacity and free up sets.
Older darts likley to be retired

Eletrification to Drogheda, Maynooth, M3 Parkway and Hazelhatch.
Quad track northern line
Dart route Docklands-Heuston
Reduce intercity journey times.
Is there anything that anyone could add.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

SeanW

Del.Monte wrote: »

I've often wondered if there was any case to be made, or reasons against, the alteration of the line from Newcomen Junction to Connolly to a burrowing tunnel to end beneath the mainline station rather than its present climb up to the suburban platforms? I'm probably missing something very obvious but it would seem to be a practical proposition.

The main use for such a line would be express services leaving/bound for Connolly that do not need to stop at Drumcondra. Especially as the Drumcondra line is starting to get slow/congested in the peak, the idea merits further thought.

I can think of a few reasons why that might not be such a good idea though.

It would have to be a new branch in addition to the existing line. That is, coming from the Midland line, cross the canal bridge, new line deviates from the existing Newcommon incline. Otherwise, you would lose the ability to run a train from Pearse to the Midland line.
Am underground station would require electric trains. No use to Sligo or Longford unless new regional and Intercity trains are ordered that can use elecricity (neither the 22ks nor the 29ks can use electricity in DART territory) the main users of said underground terminal would not be able to use it.
The Connolly area is a collection of bridges, trying to put a sub-surface platform there would be ... fun to say the least.

The only way I can see a Platform 8 happening is if the station expands towards and over Amiens St. CIE/Irish Rail would have to CPO some buildings in the immediate vicinity, including likely the office block at 110 Amiens St. It could be done but would be expensive, I suspect they're thinking of a terminal platform 8 on the suburban platforms and using it to avoid conflicts associated with sending Western services to the sheds.

L1011

uxiant wrote: »

The real solution to the bottleneck is diverting all Maynooth trains to Docklands and running them underground to Heuston via Pearse - removing all the Maynooth and Phoenix Park tunnel trains from Connolly. That will take a lot of pressure off Connolly nevermind the many other benefits.

Obviously will cost a fortune but it's the sort of investment that needs to happen.

That's the exact opposite of how the issue is intended to be sorted - Maynooth trains will run through; Northern services will run to Kylemore via DART Undeground.

uxiant

Building a fourth through platform or tunnelling under the station to create a terminus for the northwest line is likely to be highly complex and not really practical as mentioned before.

The real solution to the bottleneck is diverting all Maynooth trains to Docklands and running them underground to Heuston via Pearse - removing all the Maynooth and Phoenix Park tunnel trains from Connolly. That will take a lot of pressure off Connolly nevermind the many other benefits.

Obviously will cost a fortune but it's the sort of investment that needs to happen.

thomasj

IE 222 wrote:

Agree, I can't see the need for another terminal platform. Even with an hourly Longford/Sligo and Belfast service there will be enough with the 4 platforms. Platform 1 isn't used as far as I know unless its needed since they started terminating Maynooth services at Connolly.

It was originally used for a while but after a bit of reaction over it , most if not all Connolly maynooth services now go from platform 7

IE 222

loyatemu wrote: »

I assume it's an extra through platform they want though, or at least a terminus on the western side of the station. An extra platform in the shed would just lead to more conflicting movements, besides those platforms are not that heavily used (how often is P1 occupied?)

Agree, I can't see the need for another terminal platform. Even with an hourly Longford/Sligo and Belfast service there will be enough with the 4 platforms. Platform 1 isn't used as far as I know unless its needed since they started terminating Maynooth services at Connolly.

L1011

Vaulted structures the existing station and lines are built on. It would be possible but also hideously complex and expensive.

However, it could still work and provide a non conflicted path. Its not something to be dismissed out of hand

Low level / high level platforms are normal elsewhere

Del.Monte

I've often wondered if there was any case to be made, or reasons against, the alteration of the line from Newcomen Junction to Connolly to a burrowing tunnel to end beneath the mainline station rather than its present climb up to the suburban platforms? I'm probably missing something very obvious but it would seem to be a practical proposition.

loyatemu

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Only way I see P8 is they knock down the shed next to P1 and straighten up P1,2,3 and add another.

I assume it's an extra through platform they want though, or at least a terminus on the western side of the station. An extra platform in the shed would just lead to more conflicting movements, besides those platforms are not that heavily used (how often is P1 occupied?)

Jamie2k9

Only way I see P8 is they knock down the shed next to P1 and straighten up P1,2,3 and add another.

IE 222

L1011 wrote: »

There is no way P4 could be made through. Think some of the buildings that are too close to P7 to allow another through platform are listed also.

There definitely isn't the space to quad track it

Obviously major alterations would be needed but I don't mean making p4 a through platform in it's current format. My thinking would be to remove the Northern end of P4 and demolish P5 and build above the small car park accessed under the bridge on Amiens st. Widen Amiens street bridge also. P4 should still be long enough for 4-5 car train.

In terms of the far side of P7 I think if they moved a platform slightly north, beyond the office block and were able demolish the last house and the rare of the red brick building on Preston street they could build another platform overhanging the arches.

L1011

There is no way P4 could be made through. Think some of the buildings that are too close to P7 to allow another through platform are listed also.

There definitely isn't the space to quad track it

Markcheese

Has anyone ever costed going double decker with the loop line? (only slightly tongue in cheek)

IE 222

Were is the purposed platform 8 for Connolly to be located, the carriage sheds?

Is there any scope to create more through platforms onto the loop. Can work be done to alter platform 4 as a through platform. Understandably it would be costly and require serious work but surely the benefits outweighs the costs as were unlikely to see DU anytime soon.

Have new developments along the loop line been required to leave enough clearance for possible quad tracking. The section between Amiens Street and Gardenier St would require some site clearance work but between Pearse and Gardenier St. it seems enough clearance has been allocated for it.

Losty Dublin

dermo888 wrote: »

Jesus.......I knew the 22K's were good, but not THAT good!

They're better than THAT good. One of the issues with the Enterprise is the times used up on it's various stops en route. Allow a reasonable 4 minutes per stop for a train to brake, stop, depart and accelerate up to running speeds and that give 16 minutes. 22000's move off a lot quicker, they accelerate well and they brake more rapidly as well.

Certainly the fleet management office are very happy with them overall and they are the envy of other European operators.

XPS_Zero

Marcusm wrote: »

And proper order too; how else would passengers know to alight for the ferry to Dublin City and/or Howth!

Well according to Red Rock, not only is Dun Laoghaire port still open but it does services to France! At least for one transporting a bad batch of x which will floor a bunch of kids in a nightclub in order that they may do that "one last deal" that they super swear will totally be the last ever and they'll retire on this deal.

I also see that even in fiction we can't seem to get our security services to stop wearing those stupid looking baggy oversized yellow jackets... (immigration guys in this case)

dermo888

Losty Dublin wrote: »

They run about 5 minutes quicker in service assuming that all stops are made. As the last stops are in commuter areas the gains are minimal. Non stop they can better times by up to 20 minutes under optimum conditions.

Jesus.......I knew the 22K's were good, but not THAT good!

Losty Dublin

dowlingm wrote: »

Does anyone know how 22000 timings go on Dublin-Belfast vs 201/DD? I would have thought the extra driven axles would make it quicker to accelerate in both traffic and PSR situations.

They run about 5 minutes quicker in service assuming that all stops are made. As the last stops are in commuter areas the gains are minimal. Non stop they can better times by up to 20 minutes under optimum conditions.

dowlingm

Does anyone know how 22000 timings go on Dublin-Belfast vs 201/DD? I would have thought the extra driven axles would make it quicker to accelerate in both traffic and PSR situations.

tabbey

dermo888 wrote: »

The key problem with the Dublin to Belfast line is that of capacity, with DART at one end, and Belfast Suburbans at the other slowing it up.

That will cost an absolute fortune to solve.

The longer it is delayed, the more expensive it becomes.

dermo888

Losty Dublin wrote: »

But a lot of the corners on the route are short and sharp in places that requires very slow speeds. Drogheda and Poyntzpass are the obvious ones but bar Grangebellow outside Drogheda most of the issues are north of the Border; Lisburn, Portadown and Newry being the three worst offenders. Barring serious investments to relocate the line there is not a lot that can be done though I would agree with you that such stock would help elsewhere en route.

The key problem with the Dublin to Belfast line is that of capacity, with DART at one end, and Belfast Suburbans at the other slowing it up.

That will cost an absolute fortune to solve.

devnull

Markcheese wrote: »

I suppose that was kind of my question,
Would something like a pendalino give major improvements on somewhere like the Cork Dublin line.. Especially given the relatively short distance... Or would it not be able to travel top speed very often, because of the system constraints..
And it seems fairly clear, it wouldn't be worth the cost..

Buying a tilting high speed train on a network that can neither support it's highest speeds or the tilting mechanism is folly and is wasting taxpayers money if they were to go down that route. PKP have done that in Poland when they could have bought several more trains for the same amount of money with no effect on the services they offered, but instead they decided that looking good and having features they can never use was more important than having more new trains.

There are many products that are offered by the main rolling stock manufacturers such as Bombardier, Siemens and CAF that could easily meet Irish Rail's needs without the tilt and 140mph running that we'll never be able to use in the foreseeable future and provide hugely better value for money.

It's not even like the Pendolino is a good train, the Siemens Velaro family is far better as well as the various ICE trains in Germany that are essentially the same line to a large degree.

Markcheese

devnull wrote: »

Buying Pendolino trains to make a statement to look good and then running them on infrastructure that will not make the most of their technology to tilt or their high speed potential (like PKP in Poland) would be a waste of money since you could buy other well made trains that would not have anything you can't make use of whilst still having everything you could.

I suppose that was kind of my question,
Would something like a pendalino give major improvements on somewhere like the Cork Dublin line.. Especially given the relatively short distance... Or would it not be able to travel top speed very often, because of the system constraints..
And it seems fairly clear, it wouldn't be worth the cost..

Jamie2k9

goingnowhere wrote: »

Won't make a huge difference as the section between Athenry and Galway is already split so two trains can follow each other, all you could do is run a shuttle Oranmore - Galway

To make a real difference they need two tracks Galway Athenry

TBH not sure what the point in splitting the section was as only one or two services per day actually utilize such a set up. The rest sit in Galway loop or Athenry and cross.

L1011

The main improvements to journey times north of the border would be from general track quality improvements I'd imagine.

Losty Dublin

Praetorian wrote: »

The Dublin to Belfast line is quite curvy...

But a lot of the corners on the route are short and sharp in places that requires very slow speeds. Drogheda and Poyntzpass are the obvious ones but bar Grangebellow outside Drogheda most of the issues are north of the Border; Lisburn, Portadown and Newry being the three worst offenders. Barring serious investments to relocate the line there is not a lot that can be done though I would agree with you that such stock would help elsewhere en route.

Praetorian

The Dublin to Belfast line is quite curvy...

devnull

Markcheese wrote: »

Are the speed constraints on for eg cork /Dublin mainly due to too many junctions / crossing point /local traffic or more curves and bends on the line.
Has anyone proposed pendilino style trains or would it give minimum speed increase for serious cost,

Buying Pendolino trains to make a statement to look good and then running them on infrastructure that will not make the most of their technology to tilt or their high speed potential (like PKP in Poland) would be a waste of money since you could buy other well made trains that would not have anything you can't make use of whilst still having everything you could.

L1011

Cork-Dublin alignment is very, very straight compared to what you would generally buy Pendolino trains for.

http://www.irishrail.ie/media/ie_2018_network_statement_(final_version).pdf shows the speed limits for each section of track - theres a lot of 145km/h sections

Markcheese

Are the speed constraints on for eg cork /Dublin mainly due to too many junctions / crossing point /local traffic or more curves and bends on the line.
Has anyone proposed pendilino style trains or would it give minimum speed increase for serious cost,

goingnowhere

Won't make a huge difference as the section between Athenry and Galway is already split so two trains can follow each other, all you could do is run a shuttle Oranmore - Galway

To make a real difference they need two tracks Galway Athenry