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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Galway Commuter Rail: Galway-Athenry

  • 24-09-2020 10:32pm
    #1
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2020-09-23a.271

    Full debate above. Feasibility study to commence on upgrading of this section of line in November and be complete by Q2 2021


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,719 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    I have a few questions:

    Could a passing loop in Oranmore happen first, before double-tracking?

    If so, would that require a second platform at Oranmore?

    Also, would a passing loop at Oranmore help much, without twin-tracking from GY to Athenry?



    Also, I hear that in general, shortage of rolling stock is an issue?

    There is a class of DMU parked up somewhere, taken out of service in 2008/2009 during Great Financial Crisis, and not returned when traffic returned, as they had deteriorated so much.

    The 2019 order for 41 coaches (not trains, coaches!!!) - is that enough?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,760 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    Isn't a commuter rail service consisting of three stops kind of pointless?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,719 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    AngryLips wrote: »
    Isn't a commuter rail service consisting of three stops kind of pointless?

    Renmore/Merlin?
    Roscam?
    Oranmore
    Athenry


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,760 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    Geuze wrote: »
    Renmore/Merlin?
    Roscam?
    Oranmore
    Athenry


    Are there proposals for additional stops?


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,395 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Geuze wrote: »
    Also, I hear that in general, shortage of rolling stock is an issue?

    There is a class of DMU parked up somewhere, taken out of service in 2008/2009 during Great Financial Crisis, and not returned when traffic returned, as they had deteriorated so much.

    The 2019 order for 41 coaches (not trains, coaches!!!) - is that enough?

    There is indeed a shortage of stock. This will be slightly eased by the order that your referenced, but only slightly.

    They looked at refurbishing the trains that were taken out of service, but it was found to be both too expensive and too late, i.e. they would have cost as much as the 41 carriages, and they wouldn't have been available significantly earlier than the 41 carriages. Same with temporarily leasing trains from elsewhere.

    Medium to long term, the DART+ projects will free up a lot of the commuter/intercity stock currently serving Dublin. Once this happens, they'll be cascaded out to other cities, such as Galway, Cork, Etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 255 ✭✭AAAAAAAAA


    AngryLips wrote: »
    Isn't a commuter rail service consisting of three stops kind of pointless?

    From the perspective that we have very limited rolling stock, probably yes. The idea itself isn't bad though. It's probably worth the money to improve the tracks and the 4 or 5 stations in anticipation of the future population growth. Plenty of opportunity for rail in the area.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    AAAAAAAAA wrote: »
    From the perspective that we have very limited rolling stock, probably yes. The idea itself isn't bad though. It's probably worth the money to improve the tracks and the 4 or 5 stations in anticipation of the future population growth. Plenty of opportunity for rail in the area.

    I think the idea would be that it makes sense to get work done to make the smaller cities have commuter viable routes in preparation for the 'hand-me-down' surplus of rolling stock that will happen when the new orders come in for Dublin.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    AngryLips wrote: »
    Isn't a commuter rail service consisting of three stops kind of pointless?

    It will allow for additional stops in the future when required. It will also help Dublin - Galway services and it would massively improve the chances of Tuam been reopened.

    It will be interesting to see if IE will try remove crossings as part of this project. There is 9 or 10 crossings (not including farmers crossings) in this section alone. Removing these will get rid of most speed restrictions and allow for the 90 or even increase to 100mph running. It will make doubling to Athlone, with less stations and crossings, look very cheap at a later date compared to this section of line.

    Hourly Dublin - Galway services are in IE's future plans but it will also need journey time improvements.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,918 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    AngryLips wrote: »
    Isn't a commuter rail service consisting of three stops kind of pointless?

    This isn’t just about an Athenry-Galway commuter service.

    It’s about delivering additional capacity on the rail network that will benefit regional and intercity rail services.

    Doubling Athenry-Galway helps deliver the ability to deliver a more resilient hourly Dublin-Galway Intercity service, increased Limerick-Galway trains, and a potential Tuam-Galway service.

    While some trains might start at Athenry, others could be from Athlone/Dublin, Ennis/Limerick or potentially Tuam.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    This isn’t just about an Athenry-Galway commuter service.

    It’s about delivering additional capacity on the rail network that will benefit regional and intercity rail services.

    Doubling Athenry-Galway helps deliver the ability to deliver a more resilient hourly Dublin-Galway Intercity service, increased Limerick-Galway trains, and a potential Tuam-Galway service.

    While some trains might start at Athenry, others could be from Athlone/Dublin, Ennis/Limerick or potentially Tuam.

    It also breaks up and makes the cost of reopening Tuam and doubling to Portarlington a lot more palatable.

    They should really consider relocating Oranmore to the business park.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Rulmeq


    IE 222 wrote: »
    It also breaks up and makes the cost of reopening Tuam and doubling to Portarlington a lot more palatable.

    They should really consider relocating Oranmore to the business park.
    Wasn't there a station there in the past(near the LC)?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,711 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    Rulmeq wrote: »
    Wasn't there a station there in the past(near the LC)?

    Yes, the origional oranmore station was on the Galway city side of the level crossing, beside the Hygeia plant.

    527986.JPG


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Rulmeq


    Yes, the origional oranmore station was on the Galway city side of the level crossing, beside the Hygeia plant.
    Was it twin tracked, or have they just completely removed the platform(s)?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,711 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    Rulmeq wrote: »
    Was it twin tracked, or have they just completely removed the platform(s)?

    You can just about see the remains of both platforms still. More info here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Rulmeq wrote: »
    Wasn't there a station there in the past(near the LC)?

    Yeah, right beside it. Not sure of the reasons as to why it wasn't rebuilt there. Maybe land for parking was an issue or there's plans for major development on the surrounding lands of the new station. Either way i think moving it would double the numbers using it.

    I presume the pre cast sections of the station can be taken apart and relocated.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,711 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    IE 222 wrote: »
    I presume the pre cast sections of the station can be taken apart and relocated.

    Recycling materials from the new station to relocate to the old site would mean no station for an extended period, if they relocate, they cannot have any down time. They can always use the material for a new station in remore or something like that


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,538 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    If it takes long enough, the reusable platforms from the existing Docklands may be going spare - although they could open Spencer Dock half-done and move them there. They were very specifically engineered for re-use


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Recycling materials from the new station to relocate to the old site would mean no station for an extended period, if they relocate, they cannot have any down time. They can always use the material for a new station in remore or something like that

    Could just keep it at 1 platform. Build the 1st new platform and open it. Transfer the current station to the new platform and don't open the second platform until the original one is relocated. Obviously it would need to be done before the double tracking is operational.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Can the sleeper plant produce these precast platform sections. I'd imagine there fairly straightforward to produce.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,538 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The sleeper plant would be at capacity making the sleepers if there was a decent amount of widening going on

    They were unable to tender for Luas contracts due to capacity issues in the past


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,037 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Even if a new Oranmore station was to open, surely it makes sense to retain the existing station as a P&R and have the new station more footpassenger/cyclist focused? I'd say there is very little worth salvaging from the existing station from the looks of it;

    DSC_4242-M.jpg

    Would a P&R with a new junction off the M18 attract enough users to justify the cost?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Even if a new Oranmore station was to open, surely it makes sense to retain the existing station as a P&R and have the new station more footpassenger/cyclist focused? I'd say there is very little worth salvaging from the existing station from the looks of it;

    DSC_4242-M.jpg

    Would a P&R with a new junction off the M18 attract enough users to justify the cost?

    I'd say keeping both would be *barely* justifiable in terms of distance (1.25 km) in a full commuter service scenario. Kishoge to Fonthill is 1.7 km and thats planned to be DART level station distances.

    That said from an operational perspective it would be pretty neat.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,719 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    IE 222 wrote: »
    It will be interesting to see if IE will try remove crossings as part of this project. There is 9 or 10 crossings (not including farmers crossings) in this section alone. Removing these will get rid of most speed restrictions and allow for the 90 or even increase to 100mph running. It will make doubling to Athlone, with less stations and crossings, look very cheap at a later date compared to this section of line.

    Can I ask - you are saying that trains must slow down at LC, is that correct?

    I know the following LC:

    (1) very near Oranmore station
    (2) main LC on Claregalway road
    (3) Ffrenchfort
    (4) very close to no (3)


    I think either 3 or 4 is Healy's Crossing?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,719 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Distances from Oranmore village centre to current station, and original station:

    Current = 1.7km

    Original = 1.3km

    Not that much difference.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,719 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    If LC were removed, the Claregalway road would have to be raised or lowered.

    Trickly?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    L1011 wrote: »
    The sleeper plant would be at capacity making the sleepers if there was a decent amount of widening going on

    They were unable to tender for Luas contracts due to capacity issues in the past

    I was thinking in general rather than as part of a major project. These things could be produced when there is some slack and stored in Portlaise.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Even if a new Oranmore station was to open, surely it makes sense to retain the existing station as a P&R and have the new station more footpassenger/cyclist focused? I'd say there is very little worth salvaging from the existing station from the looks of it;

    DSC_4242-M.jpg

    Would a P&R with a new junction off the M18 attract enough users to justify the cost?

    Sure most would have to drive past the new station to use the current as a Park and Ride. It would be better to move it and open a station at Roscam as well. Having this random stop in the middle will only delay services.

    I think the very point the current station is bare and basic is what make it worth salvaging. Having to demolish buildings, canovy ect would make it a costly exercise. The only lost here really is the tarmac.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Geuze wrote: »
    Can I ask - you are saying that trains must slow down at LC, is that correct?

    I know the following LC:

    (1) very near Oranmore station
    (2) main LC on Claregalway road
    (3) Ffrenchfort
    (4) very close to no (3)


    I think either 3 or 4 is Healy's Crossing?

    Yeah and user crossings as well. They will still pass at speed but not maximum line speed. Max line speed is 90mph but its frequently restricted to 70/80mph meaning 90mph isn't really achievable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Geuze wrote: »
    If LC were removed, the Claregalway road would have to be raised or lowered.

    Trickly?

    If a station was to be placed there you could leave the crossing. It wouldn't have a major effect on stopping trains. It would also reduce station costs with entrances on both sides at road/street level.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,719 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    IE 222 wrote: »
    If a station was to be placed there you could leave the crossing. It wouldn't have a major effect on stopping trains. It would also reduce station costs with entrances on both sides at road/street level.

    I get you, trains have to stop anyways, so leave the LC.

    And no need for tunnel or bridge between platforms?

    Would the same apply at Roscam? No need to remove LC, and no need for tunnel/bridge.


    The many, many one-off rural houses surely make it more difficult to deal with LC, pity.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,037 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    IE 222 wrote: »
    Sure most would have to drive past the new station to use the current as a Park and Ride. It would be better to move it and open a station at Roscam as well. Having this random stop in the middle will only delay services.

    I think the very point the current station is bare and basic is what make it worth salvaging. Having to demolish buildings, canovy ect would make it a costly exercise. The only lost here really is the tarmac.

    But there is very little there salvagable, the platform edging, some railings and poles, a couple of shelters and benches, everything is insitu concrete and tarmac which can't be moved. The cost of a new car park would likely exceed the value of the items salvaged. I don't think anyone drives past the old station to get to the current one, all the residential areas are equi-distance from either location but on different routes.

    In truth, the current station location was just a stupid place for a station, literally any point further east would have made more sense. But demolishing the station would only add to the cost of a new station regardless of a few bits salvaged, abandoning it and replicating the car park elsewhere will also cost more. The most sensible option is to leave it as a P&R and provide a more basic foot passenger/cyclist station at the old station location which has businesses and houses within walking/cycling distance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Geuze wrote: »
    I get you, trains have to stop anyways, so leave the LC.

    And no need for tunnel or bridge between platforms?

    Would the same apply at Roscam? No need to remove LC, and no need for tunnel/bridge.


    The many, many one-off rural houses surely make it more difficult to deal with LC, pity.

    Exactly, no lifts ect to maintain. Bare bones.

    Roscam, the crossing could just be closed without bridge replacement as there is imo reasonable alternative access via the Coast Road and Old Dublin rd without adding major diversions.

    It's better to be rid of it as I doubt intercity services will be stopping there. Good chance Intercity services wont be stopping in Oranmore if this plan comes about but one automated crossing isn't going to be a major problem.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    But there is very little there salvagable, the platform edging, some railings and poles, a couple of shelters and benches, everything is insitu concrete and tarmac which can't be moved. The cost of a new car park would likely exceed the value of the items salvaged. I don't think anyone drives past the old station to get to the current one, all the residential areas are equi-distance from either location but on different routes.

    In truth, the current station location was just a stupid place for a station, literally any point further east would have made more sense. But demolishing the station would only add to the cost of a new station regardless of a few bits salvaged, abandoning it and replicating the car park elsewhere will also cost more. The most sensible option is to leave it as a P&R and provide a more basic foot passenger/cyclist station at the old station location which has businesses and houses within walking/cycling distance.

    I'm not sure what the cost of the pre cast sections ect are. You could be right that it's not worth the effort. I'd guess it's just tied together somehow and can be easily disassembled.

    Either way keeping it will require building a second platform there as well. Most people using it would be from Oranmore or Roscam and if both were to have new stations it would be rather pointless keeping operational.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,918 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    The notion that a brand new station, where the P & R car park is heavily used, is going to be closed is poppycock.

    People need to get real here and stop coming up with harebrained notions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    The notion that a brand new station, where the P & R car park is heavily used, is going to be closed is poppycock.

    People need to get real here and stop coming up with harebrained notions.

    Its heavily used as the station is not within walking distance. The business park needs a shuttle bus.

    Bringing it to the business park would make it a more attractable & accessible option for M6 users as well Oranmore commuters.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,719 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Would all these elements have to happen in one project?

    double-tracking
    new stations
    electrification
    removal of LC



    Or might it be done in phases?

    Example: passing loop in Oranmore first


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Geuze wrote: »
    Would all these elements have to happen in one project?

    double-tracking
    new stations
    electrification
    removal of LC



    Or might it be done in phases?

    Example: passing loop in Oranmore first

    Phases. Eamonn Ryan put it into short, medium and long term plans. A loop at Oranmore is a short term along with a shuttle bus service.

    Electrification is not part of the plan. That would only happen if the whole line is been done.

    There is nothing mentioned about crossing closures but it would be a good opportunity to get rid of them. There is a few you could just simply shut imo as there's alternative routes nearby. The new Athenry link road should allow Prospect crossing to be closed. Closing others such as Healy's, Roscam and the one at the current station wouldn't cause any major traffic problems from what I can see.

    Just to add to that, if the crossing closures where to be part of the project it would be wise reuse the equipment to upgrade to automation or remove the rest of the crossings to Athlone with the exception of Ballinasloe and Woodlawn. There is only a couple of manual and user crossings in that section and many of the farmer crossings have been closed already. That would have a dramatic improvement on journey times.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,760 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    So the Sunday Times are reporting that under the Government's review of the NDP, a number of revisions will be made to the plan and it specifically mentions double tracking to Athenry. I don't have a link to the article, I think it's paywalled anyway.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    AngryLips wrote: »
    So the Sunday Times are reporting that under the Government's review of the NDP, a number of revisions will be made to the plan and it specifically mentions double tracking to Athenry. I don't have a link to the article, I think it's paywalled anyway.
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/climate-change-projects-make-waves-in-new-national-development-plan-wnzw67mh9


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,719 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Geuze wrote: »
    Would all these elements have to happen in one project?

    double-tracking
    new stations
    electrification
    removal of LC



    Or might it be done in phases?

    Example: passing loop in Oranmore first

    The local Galway papers have news that IE and the Co. Co. are applying to a central Govt fund for 12m in funding for a passing loop, second platform.


    Costs seem high??

    120m platform
    Bridge? / Tunnel?
    Maybe 500m of track?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,037 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Geuze wrote: »
    The local Galway papers have news that IE and the Co. Co. are applying to a central Govt fund for 12m in funding for a passing loop, second platform.


    Costs seem high??

    120m platform
    Bridge? / Tunnel?
    Maybe 500m of track?

    Could they look to remove the level crossing at the same time? It should be straightforward enough to do, continue with the elevated road level from the bridge over the N67, could even incorporate some of the existing station access road and put a junction for the station.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,918 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Geuze wrote: »
    The local Galway papers have news that IE and the Co. Co. are applying to a central Govt fund for 12m in funding for a passing loop, second platform.


    Costs seem high??

    120m platform
    Bridge? / Tunnel?
    Maybe 500m of track?

    You are underestimating what is involved.

    You’re talking about:
    1km new loop including 2 points
    Re-signalling of the railway associated with above
    A 175m additional platform (same length as current one)
    A footbridge with either accessible ramps or lifts


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,719 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    You are underestimating what is involved.

    You’re talking about:
    1km new loop including 2 points
    Re-signalling of the railway associated with above
    A 175m additional platform (same length as current one)
    A footbridge with either accessible ramps or lifts

    Thanks.

    Still seems high to me..........

    I found this:

    https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/assess_unit_cost_rail_en.pdf

    See figure 2 to 7.

    This seems to be yet another of many examples where costs here are out of line with other countries.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,753 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    This is great for Galway. It perplexes me that there's pressure groups advocating for a restoration of single line rail service on the old Tuam line but things that would make a massive difference to rail services in the West get ignored. There's nobody out campaigning for this, level crossing closure or for double tracking Portarlington to Athlone. All of which could dramatically improve rail services in the region on the existing lines.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,760 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    cgcsb wrote: »
    This is great for Galway. It perplexes me that there's pressure groups advocating for a restoration of single line rail service on the old Tuam line but things that would make a massive difference to rail services in the West get ignored. There's nobody out campaigning for this, level crossing closure or for double tracking Portarlington to Athlone. All of which could dramatically improve rail services in the region on the existing lines.


    That's because, as we've seen with other successful "save the railways" campaigns on other under-used lines, the people doing all the campaigning have zero intention of actually using it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    AngryLips wrote: »
    That's because, as we've seen with other successful "save the railways" campaigns on other under-used lines, the people doing all the campaigning have zero intention of actually using it.

    Ironically the more 'profit making' improvements made to city services etc the more 'loss-making' intercity/town lines can be supported...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,719 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    If the line from GY to Oranmore or Athenry is doubled, is there room to fit a cycle path alongside the second track?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Geuze wrote: »
    If the line from GY to Oranmore or Athenry is doubled, is there room to fit a cycle path alongside the second track?

    I wouldn't see why not and I've made representations for exactly this to ER & others in govt


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,037 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    From measuring at what I assume to be the IÉ boundary on Google Earth, it looks close to 20m most of the way to Oranmore with very little adjoining development preventing further landtake were it needed. Same exercise on the Dublin - Cork mainline suggests a c.10m wide ballast footprint. Very basic I know but even allowing for a few metres separation, it looks like a parallel greenway is possible.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,760 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    Wouldn't it make more sense to put three or four tracks into Galway if any work is going to be carried out? Surely double tracking into the city is just cause for a future bottleneck.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement