Galway Commuter Rail: Galway-Athenry

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/climate-change-projects-make-waves-in-new-national-development-plan-wnzw67mh9

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

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...

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

[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

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

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.

AngryLips wrote: »

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.

You do realise that you could conceivably operate a train every 5 minutes between Galway and Athenry using double track and the line re-signalled and additional platforms provided in Galway.

Let's face it, you're looking at perhaps a fifteen minute frequency commuter service and an hourly Dublin train as well, with Limerick services added in.

That can be more than catered for using two tracks.

There are far more pressing locations for three/four tracks than the approach into Galway.

Bonkey_Donker

AngryLips wrote: »

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.

Double tracking would allow for massive capacity, well above and beyond what would be needed in Galway for a long time to come. Anything more than that would be a waste of time and resources, as well as add to the ongoing maintenance costs.

timmyntc

AngryLips wrote: »

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.

Double is more than enough. Only reason you'd want any more is if you were running a line through Galway going west (Not in my lifetime)

AngryLips wrote: »

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.

Three or four tracks into Galway is overkill. Regardless of the number of tracks, it will always be constrained by the terminating station and the inability to run through services. Heavy rail only services a portion of Galway so other solutions need to be invested in too.

Rulmeq

LXFlyer wrote: »

There are far more pressing locations for three/four tracks than the approach into Galway.

The only place I can think of is Dart, are there others?

riddlinrussell

Rulmeq wrote: »

The only place I can think of is Dart, are there others?

Ahead of Galway? Every rail approach to Dublin, Cork, Belfast and Limerick based on population...

cgcsb

Rulmeq wrote: »

The only place I can think of is Dart, are there others?

There are greater requirements for additional tracks at:
Park West to Heuston
Mallow to Cork
Clonsilla to City Centre
Limerick-Limerick Junction
Portarlington to Athlone
Maynooth to Mullingar
Bray to Greystones
Greystones to Goery
Hazelhatch to Portlaoise

There needs to be a new Dublin-Belfast intercity line between Drogheda and Dublin and between Newry and Lisburn just to make room for commuter demand on the existing line and offer a reasonable rail journey time between the 2 largest cities.

So yeah 3rd or 4th track for Galway-Athenry would be way down the list.

Rulmeq wrote: »

The only place I can think of is Dart, are there others?

Four tracking is needed:

Northern line in Dublin between Clontarf Road and Raheny to facilitate Enterprise and outer suburban services (could get away with three tracking)

From west of Inchicore to Islandbridge Junction to facilitate DART Southwest four tracking is needed

Double tracking the following:
Killonan Junction to Limerick Junction
Portarlington to Athlone (could use longer dynamic loops as a start)
Maynooth to Kilcock
Waterford West to the new station at Waterford

Additional passing capabilities at the following locations:
Clongriffin (southbound)
Dún Laoghaire (move turnback to centre to allow overtaking)
Bray-Greystones
Maynooth line between Maynooth and Connolly (to allow Sligo trains overtake)
Hill-of-Down on the Sligo line (reinstate the passing loop)
Carrick-on-Suir (to allow meaningful service on South Tipperary line)

Also a passing loop is needed at Sixmilebridge to split the Limerick-Ennis section.