Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Limerick - Nenagh - Ballybrophy railway

Options
13567…25

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,433 ✭✭✭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 , ?

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Options
    #63
    Deedsie
    Registered Users Posts: 5,272 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #64
    dowlingm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,326 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #65
    esposito
    Registered Users Posts: 1,352 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #66
    dowlingm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,326 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Del.Monte
    Registered Users Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭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?

    ****



  • Options
    #68
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users Posts: 10,682 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #69
    Del.Monte
    Registered Users Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭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.

    ****



  • Options
    #70
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #71
    esposito
    Registered Users Posts: 1,352 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Lord Glentoran
    Closed Accounts Posts: 876 ✭✭✭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”...


  • Options
    #73
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,000 ✭✭✭✭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.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #74
    Deedsie
    Registered Users Posts: 5,272 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #75
    Del.Monte
    Registered Users Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭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.

    ****



  • Options
    #76
    tabbey
    Registered Users Posts: 1,943 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #77
    Last Stop
    Registered Users Posts: 920 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #78
    thewexman93
    Registered Users Posts: 25 ✭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


  • Options
    #79
    Deedsie
    Registered Users Posts: 5,272 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #80
    thewexman93
    Registered Users Posts: 25 ✭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


  • Options
    #81
    Deedsie
    Registered Users Posts: 5,272 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #83
    thewexman93
    Registered Users Posts: 25 ✭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


  • Options
    #84
    Isambard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #85
    Del.Monte
    Registered Users Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭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.

    ****



  • Options
    #86
    Deedsie
    Registered Users Posts: 5,272 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #87
    tabbey
    Registered Users Posts: 1,943 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #88
    esposito
    Registered Users Posts: 1,352 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #89
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,000 ✭✭✭✭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?

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #90
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 13,035 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users Posts: 10,682 ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement