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

Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

[Deleted User]

Carrying on with the discussion as the other thread is full

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2055766866/1

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

L1011 wrote: »

The slower route with no spare capacity?

Can you, in detail, explain why?

It would need the line between Mullingar - Dublin improving and ideally another station to replace Broadstone as a terminus.

Sligo eye

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The trackbed and bridges were designed for two tracks, but only one was ever laid.
It would need minor earthworks to level the second line and some digging at the Tullamore cutting along the entire route there is space for the second track.

My understanding was that the GSR singled the line in the 1930s?

Losty Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

The trackbed and bridges were designed for two tracks, but only one was ever laid.
It would need minor earthworks to level the second line and some digging at the Tullamore cutting along the entire route there is space for the second track.

Tullamore is actually on the line from Portarlington to Athlone. It was built and laid as a single line track although some of the bridges on the line can accommodate two lines. The section approaching Tullamore would need significantly blasting to widen it but it could easily be retained as a single section for the 1/4 mile or so that it is.

My understanding was that the GSR singled the line in the 1930s?

The line between Mullingar and Athlone and Ballinasloe was a double track, as was the line from Athenry to Galway. The GSR singled the line from Clonsilla in the mid 1930's and used the surplus track work for relaying elsewhere along the network.

L1011

Deleted User wrote: »

It would need the line between Mullingar - Dublin improving and ideally another station to replace Broadstone as a terminus.

There is very little scope to improve the line between Mullingar and Dublin. The section from Maynooth inwards is going to have an ever increasing number of commuter trains on an appalling, effectively unchangeable alignment.

An entirely new alignment might be possible Kilcock-Mullingar at immense expense as it would be an entirely new railway, nowhere near the existing appalling (except for before Killucan where they diverge from the canal) alignment. Could get the win of serving Kinnegad; but any time savings there would not counteract the Maynooth section.

[Deleted User]

Sligo eye wrote: »

My understanding was that the GSR singled the line in the 1930s?

not the Athlone - Portarlington line, the Athlone Mullingar line was singled.

[Deleted User]

L1011 wrote: »

There is very little scope to improve the line between Mullingar and Dublin. The section from Maynooth inwards is going to have an ever increasing number of commuter trains on an appalling, effectively unchangeable alignment.

An entirely new alignment might be possible Kilcock-Mullingar at immense expense as it would be an entirely new railway, nowhere near the existing appalling (except for before Killucan where they diverge from the canal) alignment. Could get the win of serving Kinnegad; but any time savings there would not counteract the Maynooth section.

Yes, it would need major investment. The question is, would it be worth it?
With the "new Normal" of WFH and fewer commuters, it may never be viable.

goingnowhere

Mullingar Maynooth is not about straight line, going double will end the pain of waiting at stations for the section to be clear, even at current line speeds you could see 10-15 minutes saved at peak.

Getting rid of the level crossings on the Maynooth line will save several minutes as will new signalling as Clonsilla - Connolly is 1970's its not really setup for the high frequency we need today

Sam Russell

Sligo eye wrote: »

My understanding was that the GSR singled the line in the 1930s?

Deleted User wrote: »

not the Athlone - Portarlington line, the Athlone Mullingar line was singled.

Lines were singled so the track could be reused to repair other bits around he network. The country and the train companies were broke and it was the best that they could do to keep the trains running. We were on our own.

ezstreet5

Sam Russell wrote: »

Lines were singled so the track could be reused to repair other bits around he network. The country and the train companies were broke and it was the best that they could do to keep the trains running. We were on our own.

Beware the modern-day scavengers of our rail system.

Muckyboots

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Beware the modern-day scavengers of our rail system.

You can only scavenge broken down wrecks. If it's not worth fixing -it's just not worth fixing. I loved my Renault 4 with go faster stripes, but...... sorry, there's me going on about cars again.

Losty Dublin

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Beware the modern-day scavengers of our rail system.

I remember it when they were that short that they borrowed track off the WRC to use on the mainline :pac:

westtip

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I remember it when they were that short that they borrowed track off the WRC to use on the mainline :pac:

Who mentioned the WRC for one moment I thought that is what this thread is about but I guess there is nothing left to be said until we we see that report:D

L1011

goingnowhere wrote: »

Mullingar Maynooth is not about straight line, going double will end the pain of waiting at stations for the section to be clear, even at current line speeds you could see 10-15 minutes saved at peak.

Getting rid of the level crossings on the Maynooth line will save several minutes as will new signalling as Clonsilla - Connolly is 1970's its not really setup for the high frequency we need today

Still wouldn't make it competitive to the existing Galway route, not that it diminishes the purpose of doing that for Sligo/Longford/Mullingar purposes

Dynamic loops to start with wouldn't be too dear as the track was also singled

Isambard

L1011 wrote: »

Still wouldn't make it competitive to the existing Galway route, not that it diminishes the purpose of doing that for Sligo/Longford/Mullingar purposes

Dynamic loops to start with wouldn't be too dear as the track was also singled

certainly if you could contrive it to merge two existing station loops into a dynamic loop, the cost would be very small as signalling alterations would be minimal.

Sam Russell

What is a dynamic loop? I understand a passing loop, as at a station, say.

91wx763

Sam Russell wrote: »

What is a dynamic loop? I understand a passing loop, as at a station, say.

It's more less where a single line turns into double track for a distance so two train can cross without either stopping completely. The "loop" would have to be very long and I would assume there would be a signal half way along to doubly protect the exit.

[Deleted User]

91wx763 wrote: »

It's more less where a single line turns into double track for a distance so two train can cross without either stopping completely. The "loop" would have to be very long and I would assume there would be a signal half way along to doubly protect the exit.

How does that work if the line has already been singled.

Isambard

it's re-doubling a section of line between two stations or signals, say, 2 to 5 miles (preferably more) where two trains can pass each other without either stopping

[Deleted User]

Isambard wrote: »

it's re-doubling a section of line between two stations or signals, say, 2 to 5 miles (preferably more) where two trains can pass each other without either stopping

That makes sense, that what I thought dynamic loops meant, so got a bit confused when another poster said it could be cheaply implemented.
Laying track isn't cheap!

[Deleted User]

91wx763 wrote: »

It's more less where a single line turns into double track for a distance so two train can cross without either stopping completely. The "loop" would have to be very long and I would assume there would be a signal half way along to doubly protect the exit.

Sounds nice but we can't even manage this on the major intercity routes, what are the chance of it happening on a route serving small regional towns and villages

L1011

Deleted User wrote: »

That makes sense, that what I thought dynamic loops meant, so got a bit confused when another poster said it could be cheaply implemented.
Laying track isn't cheap!

It's cheap compared to having to buy land and widen the right of way (embankments, bridges etc)

Isambard

Deleted User wrote: »

Sounds nice but we can't even manage this on the major intercity routes, what are the chance of it happening on a route serving small regional towns and villages

we're talking about doing this on the Galway to Dublin intercity line aren't we? Maybe I'm wrong.

Isambard

L1011 wrote: »

It's cheap compared to having to buy land and widen the right of way (embankments, bridges etc)

the route was formerly double track so land and bridges not an issue. Done right, signalling should be simple so it's just a question of preparing the formation and laying the track. Huge benefits from a modest outlay I think

Sam Russell

How much of the Tuam Athenry alignment was originally dual track, or built for dual track (bridges, embankments, stations)?

I accept that if it is rebuilt, it will not be dual track. Galway Athenry would make dense to dual track, and a few dynamic loops put in on the way to Dublin.

[Deleted User]

Isambard wrote: »

we're talking about doing this on the Galway to Dublin intercity line aren't we? Maybe I'm wrong.

My bad, thought this was the WRC/WRT thread.....

Pete2k

Sam Russell wrote: »

How much of the Tuam Athenry alignment was originally dual track, or built for dual track (bridges, embankments, stations)?

I accept that if it is rebuilt, it will not be dual track. Galway Athenry would make dense to dual track, and a few dynamic loops put in on the way to Dublin.

Ballyglunin had a passing loop and for a short section was 3 tracks wide with a goods shed siding. If the line is reinstated I think it would make sense to rebuild the passing loop here.

ezstreet5

Sam Russell wrote: »

How much of the Tuam Athenry alignment was originally dual track, or built for dual track (bridges, embankments, stations)?

I accept that if it is rebuilt, it will not be dual track. Galway Athenry would make dense to dual track, and a few dynamic loops put in on the way to Dublin.

I believe all of the road over rail stone bridges on this segment were designed for double tracking. The ROW is wide enough for double tracking, but the excavation/embankment, rail over road stone bridges, and culverts are were built for a single track. I could be wrong.

Isambard

Deleted User wrote: »

My bad, thought this was the WRC/WRT thread.....

it is but surely no one will be suggesting double track on the Tuam branch!

Hotblack Desiato

A few years back on the WRC Wikipedia page the illustration of the 'proposed' WRC was a line drawing of a 25kV Ligne à Grande Vitesse, no less!

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

My bad, thought this was the WRC/WRT thread.....

Well, if the WRC is ever built as a railway, it would strengthen the case for Athenry Galway line to be double tracked. Therefore double tracking, passing loops and dynamic loops all become relevant.

Dumping passengers from Tuam or Ennis at Athenry waiting for the delayed train to arrive because of the late arrival of the other train is not going to help the passengers.