Galway Commuter Rail: Galway-Athenry

marno21 · 24-09-2020 10:32pm #1

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

Geuze · 27-09-2020 11:13pm

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?

AngryLips · 28-09-2020 7:18am

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

Geuze · 28-09-2020 9:17am

AngryLips wrote: »

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

Renmore/Merlin?
Roscam?
Oranmore
Athenry

AngryLips · 28-09-2020 10:49am

Geuze wrote: »

Renmore/Merlin?
Roscam?
Oranmore
Athenry

Are there proposals for additional stops?

CatInABox · 28-09-2020 11:12am

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.

AAAAAAAAA · 28-09-2020 5:17pm

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.

riddlinrussell · 29-09-2020 10:16am

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.

IE 222 · 29-09-2020 4:45pm

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.

LXFlyer · 30-09-2020 6:57pm

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.

IE 222 · 01-10-2020 1:35am

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.

Rulmeq · 01-10-2020 9:34am

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)?

GerardKeating · 01-10-2020 10:06am

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.

Rulmeq · 01-10-2020 12:36pm

GerardKeating wrote: »

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)?

GerardKeating · 01-10-2020 1:01pm

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.

IE 222 · 01-10-2020 1:22pm

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.

GerardKeating · 01-10-2020 4:32pm

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

L1011 · 01-10-2020 7:03pm

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

IE 222 · 01-10-2020 11:38pm

GerardKeating wrote: »

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.

IE 222 · 01-10-2020 11:45pm

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

L1011 · 02-10-2020 8:03am

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

Pete_Cavan · 02-10-2020 10:47am

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;

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

riddlinrussell · 02-10-2020 10:55am

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;

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.

Geuze · 02-10-2020 10:55am

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?

Geuze · 02-10-2020 10:58am

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

Current = 1.7km

Original = 1.3km

Not that much difference.

Geuze · 02-10-2020 11:00am

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

Trickly?

IE 222 · 02-10-2020 2:13pm

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.

IE 222 · 02-10-2020 2:22pm

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;

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.

IE 222 · 02-10-2020 2:26pm

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.

IE 222 · 02-10-2020 2:30pm

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.

Geuze · 02-10-2020 3:12pm

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.

Pete_Cavan · 02-10-2020 4:02pm

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.

IE 222 · 02-10-2020 5:24pm

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.

IE 222 · 02-10-2020 5:33pm

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.

LXFlyer · 02-10-2020 10:21pm

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.

IE 222 · 02-10-2020 11:29pm

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.

Geuze · 04-10-2020 10:59pm

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

IE 222 · 05-10-2020 1:29am

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.

AngryLips · 01-11-2020 7:58am

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.

marno21 · 01-11-2020 8:35pm

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

Geuze · 02-01-2021 10:58pm

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?

Pete_Cavan · 03-01-2021 1:34pm

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.

LXFlyer · 03-01-2021 2:44pm

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

Geuze · 03-01-2021 3:53pm

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.

cgcsb · 05-01-2021 11:52pm

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.

AngryLips · 06-01-2021 10:02am

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.

riddlinrussell · 06-01-2021 11:07am

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...

Geuze · 01-03-2021 4:00pm

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

01-03-2021 4:52pm

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

Pete_Cavan · 01-03-2021 10:12pm

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.

AngryLips · 02-03-2021 9:32am

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.

Galway Commuter Rail: Galway-Athenry

Comments