Cork Area Commuter Rail (CACR)

6tph per direction.

2tph will only go to Blarney and 4tph will go all the way to Mallow. I believe all 6 are meant to run through Kent to Cobh as well. (edit: all 6 are extended to Midleton, not Cobh)

Is there any scope to widen the Kent Tunnel? I assume that will always be a source of bottleneck? Although tbf it’s only 1.2km long, so not the end of the world if train have to wait at either side

I also wonder if Kent is at capacity now in terms of the number of platforms. Space is quite limited, I’d imagine, especially at the northern end. Maybe a new intercity station could be built in the western side of the city centre, around the Lee Fields, with Kent used for CACR trains only. With the Luas, you’d imagine a western city centre terminus station would be a similar distance from Patrick’s Bridge as Dublin Heuston is to O’Connell Bridge. It could connect to the mainline at Blarney

I’m not in any way questioning this statement accuracy wise, because you’re dead right: Mallow - Cobh and Kent to Midleton were the two preferred service patterns they talked about in the most recent CACR document.

I’m just wondering why they are doing it this way…? I’m sure there was a reason stated in the document but I can’t think of what it could have been… would it not make for more sense to have 2 trains an hour from Mallow to each of Cobh and Midleton, and the same for 1 train an hour from Blarney to each of them…?

Surely that makes far more sense… Is it likely that they will just switch over to that method of running anyway…? Any ideas why they are leaning more towards a ‘two-different-lines’ type approach?

I was reading through to CACR report to find why thye have done it that way, and I've realised I have swapped the Midleton and Cobh service pattern. the 6tph North of Kent will run to Midleton, not Cobh. However, the reason from the report is mostly the same eitherway.

I’m just wondering why they are doing it this way…? I’m sure there was a reason stated in the document but I can’t think of what it could have been… would it not make for more sense to have 2 trains an hour from Mallow to each of Cobh and Midleton, and the same for 1 train an hour from Blarney to each of them…?

Surely that makes far more sense… Is it likely that they will just switch over to that method of running anyway…? Any ideas why they are leaning more towards a ‘two-different-lines’ type approach?

The main reasons they give is that the balanced service pattern like that would lead to irregular intervals north of Kent. I think what that means, and I am open to correction, is that proper 10-minute frequency (xx:00, xx:10, xx:20, etc) would only be possible with sending all services to Midleton. If the services were split it would mean services to Midleton leave Blarney at xx:00, xx:20, and xx:40 but services to Cobh leave Blarney at xx:05, xx:25, and xx:45. As well as it being a simpler service pattern that is easier to understand by users.

I previously saw talk of Little Island being used as a transfer station. It would make sense to me to start building up one of the busier stations outside Kent with additional facilities and services, to better allow Cobh-Midleton interconnection. Obviously Glounthaune would be better again in terms of location, just it's not as busy. I can't see a need for direct Cobh-Midleton trains, so swapping to the ex-Kent ones somewhere East of Kent would seem more logical.

Going back to the old days, Glounthaune station was called Cobh Junction. Changing from the Mallow-Midleton to Cobh service would seem to be a logical same platform change at Cobh Junction, maybe the old name could be restored as a hint to those wanting to change train for Cobh 😉

I don't disagree, just that I've previously heard talk of Little Island being used, and they've recently upgraded Little Island at a higher priority than Glounthaune.

For context, Glounthaune has no lift and an old victorian bridge, whereas Little Island has lifts with modern bridge, a road and pedestrian bridge adjacent and the old bridge. So Glounthaune is still currently reasonably inaccessible (changing platform with a buggy is genuinely very difficult) but they somehow prioritised Little Island even though it was already fully accessible even with buggy.

So yep, agreed Glounthaune makes more sense, but doesn't seem to be the priority. Maybe the passenger volumes in Little Island are making them focus there? It would be more comfortable to change in a place with higher footfall and passive surveillance etc, so maybe that's it… we'll see!

I know all the new facilities at the Little Island Station better facilitate changing between platform 1 and platform 2.

Having said that, changing from the Midleton train to the Cobh train, or vice versa, does not require a platform change. Of course, if necessary, the change can be made at Kent Station or any of the later stations.

If mobility is an issue for a person wanting to make the Midleton to Cobh journey, Little Island station does provide a better option for changing from the up to the down line.

Yep, that's what he was saying: those few people will likely pick a transfer station based on their convenience / current timings rather than going to a common transfer location.

Good problem to have, this oversubscribed commuter service. When the twin track to Midleton is complete, will there be rolling stock and drivers to deliver more services?

I won't disagree about a lack of urgency, However, new trains will need a new depot and need to be manufactured. So the 29Ks was always going to be the fastest.

However, with the second round of consultation happening soon, things should start moving soon.

In an ideal world, application goes to ACP in may or June, permission granted at the start of 2027. Then the tendering/construction process and train order happens then.

Thanks both for bringing me back to reality. Hopefully things can get moving quicker. I do fear the lack of capacity on the trains will eventually hit the newspapers and turn people off taking it. Once people get comfortable driving, it will be harder to convince them to move back to trains. Here's hoping it all works out! And to be fair to Irish Rail, their works in the last 2-3 years (or even longer if you count the new Kent underpass) have been great for Cork. Even developing the land on Horgan's Quay has been great. Dublin, Limerick and Galway's similar lands are still laying idle