What Railfreight is Still Running

roundymac · 06-12-2012 12:57PM

I note that Cork is not even considered, why? The Cork line is double tracked from Limerick Jct,the Cobh line is double tracked. The docks at Tivoli were rail connected, it would'nt take much to do so again. You are talking about 200 metres of track and a few turnouts. Why not go on down the line to Marino Point. It is in NAMA, a deal could be done there there, it's an abandoned site with plenty of scope for development c/w with deepwater jetty suitable for ships up to 25k tonnes.
However this being Ireland I'm sure there are plenty of people going to tell the reasons why this cannot be done.:mad:

corktina · 06-12-2012 01:12PM

i get the feeling that the Foynes line would cost a fortune to open. If the Waterford line needs all that work, how much does the Foynes line , which hasn't been touched for years , need? Also would not shipping services to Foynes be a lot more expensive than to Waterford?
I'd rather pin my hopes on Waterford as that would ensure the survival of the passenger services, and if some of the passing loops so recklessly torn out were reinstated, maybe a proper service could be run to the towns on that line, (not least Clonmel, which is Ireland's largest inland town btw)

Losty Dublin · 06-12-2012 02:42PM

corktina wrote: »

i get the feeling that the Foynes line would cost a fortune to open. If the Waterford line needs all that work, how much does the Foynes line , which hasn't been touched for years , need? Also would not shipping services to Foynes be a lot more expensive than to Waterford?
I'd rather pin my hopes on Waterford as that would ensure the survival of the passenger services, and if some of the passing loops so recklessly torn out were reinstated, maybe a proper service could be run to the towns on that line, (not least Clonmel, which is Ireland's largest inland town btw)

The line has been examined and overall it's in good nick, good enough to cope with 30 MPH traffic which is all the speed needed for lines with crew operated crossing gates. There will be some work needed in a few places and Foynes yard will need attention but it could be reopened in a few weeks if required, save for Williamstown bridge. Foynes has handled ore traffic in the past so the gantry and monkey lifts are in situ which I gather Bellview hasn't got as of yet. It's a shorter trip than via Waterford plus it doesn't have river navigation to deal with. It's also a deep sea port which opens it up to more boats than other ports here in Ireland.

I don't think Waterford even entered the equation here to be honest.

corktina · 06-12-2012 02:58PM

and yet you seem to think the superior Waterford line needs a lot of attention? Something doesnt add up here.

Losty Dublin · 06-12-2012 03:39PM

corktina wrote: »

and yet you seem to think the superior Waterford line needs a lot of attention? Something doesnt add up here.

The faster and more used the line is, the better quality your track and PW needs to be, simply put. If Foynes or indeed Waterford needed to deal with 100MPH trains the prices would be totally different.

pigtown · 06-12-2012 03:41PM

Losty, you seem to know a lot about this. Have you any links for the rest of us to read?

I wonder would the works result in a faster journey time between Limerick and the junction? It is painfully slow.

corktina · 06-12-2012 04:26PM

whats the speed limit on the waterford line? I can't beleive it's 100 mph . How many trains a day are we talking ? One? I would have thought the current line quite adequate, given it only has (soon) two return trians on it. Loading facilities wouyld eb a factor, but is it economic to send a ship 50% of the way around this island to load?

Hungerford · 06-12-2012 04:32PM

corktina wrote: »

and yet you seem to think the superior Waterford line needs a lot of attention? Something doesnt add up here.

I think that the issue is that the costs involved in adapting the Waterford line for ore traffic would be greater because (a) it's a longer line so there are more potential points where reinforcement is necessary and (b) there are significant interactions with passenger services including Dublin-Cork, Limerick-Waterford and Dublin-Waterford.

The Foynes line is in a worse condition but the work involved is arguably less and the interactions with passenger services minimal. It appears that the main works would be possibly doubling Killonan to Boher and replacing the viaduct on the Foynes branch. Because the branch would be freight only, you would save significantly in terms of gatekeepers (you don't need any) and signalling.

Hungerford · 06-12-2012 04:34PM

corktina wrote: »

whats the speed limit on the waterford line? I can't beleive it's 100 mph . How many trains a day are we talking ? One? I would have thought the current line quite adequate, given it only has (soon) two return trians on it. Loading facilities wouyld eb a factor, but is it economic to send a ship 50% of the way around this island to load?

If you read the previous posts, you would have seen that the number of proposed extra trains is 6 per day and that the destination of the ore would be Sweden or the US, both of which are closer from Foynes than from Waterford.

The current line speed on Limerick to Waterford is 40 mph IIRC.

corktina · 06-12-2012 04:45PM

i read that, but can't see 6 trains a day materialising.

I also don't see much need for re-inforcing the line. If it can take ballast trains (which it does) then it can presumably take ore trains.

How many crossing keepers extra would you need on the Waterford line? aren't they already there?

I can't get this to add up in my head.

Losty Dublin · 06-12-2012 05:26PM

pigtown wrote: »

Losty, you seem to know a lot about this. Have you any links for the rest of us to read?

I wonder would the works result in a faster journey time between Limerick and the junction? It is painfully slow.

I've no links as what I know is mainly from internal sources. The long and short is that resignaling works for the Limerick area are overdue along with renewal of the freight and carriage yards. The preference was to double track the line towards LJ if permitted, to eliminate any remaining staffed crossings, to facilitate a crossing loop on the WRC and to increase the speed limit on the access loop into the WRC in order to allow better timings on it.

Speed limit on the Waterford is generally 50 MPH though it's capable of up to 60 MPH in places since some it was relaid and tamped in places.

corktina · 06-12-2012 06:06PM

I can't see how you can run 6 return trips to Foynes on a speed restricted freight only route, stopping to open and shut crossing gates. I can see each trip taking at least 4 hours including loading and unloading, To run more than one train on the branch at a time, you would need quite sophisticated signalling and extensive layouts at both ends, plus possibly a passing loop halfway.

Losty Dublin · 06-12-2012 06:26PM

corktina wrote: »

I can't see how you can run 6 return trips to Foynes on a speed restricted freight only route, stopping to open and shut crossing gates. I can see each trip taking at least 4 hours including loading and unloading, To run more than one train on the branch at a time, you would need quite sophisticated signalling and extensive layouts at both ends, plus possibly a passing loop halfway.

It's intended for 3 trips in and out of Foynes, not 6. 6 would be on the Waterford branch, 5 under the proposed new timetable.

There isn't any sophisticated signal system needed on the branch under OEIS rules. The train is locked in by the controling signalman and the crew can operate it's own points if required. When Kingscourt Gypsum trains were in service, 80 minutes was allowed to and from Drogheda with 2 hours to load and it was ample. It's crews operated all but 2 gates beyond Navan, set any points required and shunted the train for the loading and unloading to take place. There won't be any need to cross trains; this can be done in Limerick yard if it's needed; it's been done before.

dowlingm · 06-12-2012 06:30PM

roundymac wrote: »

I note that Cork is not even considered, why? {snip} However this being Ireland I'm sure there are plenty of people going to tell the reasons why this cannot be done.

roundymac - here's a practical reason. Freights are generally restricted to 50mph I believe. Pathing 100mph services around 50mph services would be onerous. On the other hand the Foynes relay could be done using track panels from the Cork line relay to 40-50mph, and the Waterford line is already 50mph. See where I'm going with this? As far as Tivoli is concerned my understanding is that the Cork docks people aren't too enthused about reconnecting to the rail network, but I think part of this is because of favoured solutions to the redevelopment and relocation of Cork port. The issue with Marino Point is that it is rail connected but not well road connected. I don't say this to rain on the idea, just being practical.

Hungerford: I don't claim Pallasgreen-Waterford could be done for zero euros, but any upgrade to existing trackage or signalling in that corridor helps existing service when freight isn't running - any full or partial doubling of Killonan-Limerick Junction will help with pathing Dublin services passing over the direct curve. Foynes is only justifiable for freight - the chances of passenger service to Adare is surely remote.

As you say, some reinforcement east of Limerick Junction might be required but at least the relaying of the last few years will have given IE a good sense for the alignment's condition - there would be a question mark on Cahir viaduct given the history there obviously. You are right about freight paths impacting Waterford but surely the Waterford terminal area signalling is due for replacement as surely as Limerick. A crossover could permit double track miniCTC operations with ETS termination at Carrick on Suir (at least) while providing improvements to existing services like allowing two Cherryville Jct services to cross further out the line if there is no conflicting traffic coming in/going to the Limerick Junction direction. Surely that wouldn't break the bank.

While Foynes is unquestionably closer to the US, this Sea Lanes Calculator (using Limerick and Rosslare to Gothenburg) indicates that the most likely routings are shorter for Sweden via Waterford. I would submit the distances involved are more significant in the shorter trip to Sweden. Additionally, it is possible that existing IE Waterford staff could be used to do any IE-required duties at the terminal - Foynes is a good deal more remote from Limerick.

LivelineDipso · 06-12-2012 06:53PM

Cahir Viaduct?

corktina · 06-12-2012 08:20PM

Losty Dublin wrote: »

It's intended for 3 trips in and out of Foynes, not 6. 6 would be on the Waterford branch, 5 under the proposed new timetable.

There isn't any sophisticated signal system needed on the branch under OEIS rules. The train is locked in by the controling signalman and the crew can operate it's own points if required. When Kingscourt Gypsum trains were in service, 80 minutes was allowed to and from Drogheda with 2 hours to load and it was ample. It's crews operated all but 2 gates beyond Navan, set any points required and shunted the train for the loading and unloading to take place. There won't be any need to cross trains; this can be done in Limerick yard if it's needed; it's been done before.

Hungerford said 6 extra, thats what I was going on...even three on my broadly correct timings would be pushing it, although it would get away from crossings and signalling I agree.

Sligo Quay · 06-12-2012 09:08PM

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The line has been examined and overall it's in good nick, good enough to cope with 30 MPH traffic which is all the speed needed for lines with crew operated crossing gates. There will be some work needed in a few places and Foynes yard will need attention but it could be reopened in a few weeks if required,

Don't think so, most of the line looks like this http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankcawley/3862399510/ and this http://thewandererphotos.smugmug.com/2012Photos/October-2012/25706657_D8Bt52#!i=2134879125&k=SGM5XQM&lb=1&s=A in some places you can't even find the line with all the jungle of undergrowth, whoever examined the line will need to go to specsavers, an entire new relay with major engineering works is needed.

LivelineDipso · 06-12-2012 09:26PM

The more I think about this Foynes thing the less I believe it. Makes no sense when the waterford line is ready to go. As for load handling at port - there is none at Foynes either. A couple of sidings.

Be amazed if that ore traffic is going by Foynes. It seems to be looking for an excuse to reopen an old line for the sake of it. Be nice if it happened though and either way be great to see the mine use rail. My money is on it going to Waterford.

dowlingm · 06-12-2012 09:45PM

LivelineDipso wrote: »

Cahir Viaduct?

(Interim)RSC Report (big PDF)
Cahir Viaduct Rebuild (PDF)

In brief: at 0600 7 Oct 2003 a laden cement train of 22 wagons derailed while on the Cahir Viaduct (first built 1852) en route from Castlemungret to Waterford. 12 wagons were destroyed, fortunately the locos (a 121 and a 181) and driver had reached the far side and were not taken with them.

murphaph · 06-12-2012 10:21PM

Sligo Quay wrote: »

Don't think so, most of the line looks like this http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankcawley/3862399510/ and this http://thewandererphotos.smugmug.com/2012Photos/October-2012/25706657_D8Bt52#!i=2134879125&k=SGM5XQM&lb=1&s=A in some places you can't even find the line with all the jungle of undergrowth, whoever examined the line will need to go to specsavers, an entire new relay with major engineering works is needed.

It looks fine..............in a Cassandra Crossing fine kind of way

dowlingm · 07-12-2012 05:52AM

A US shortline would send in a tractor lawn mower and run service at 10mph. :eek: Not fond of spending money they don't have to, them lads.

corktina · 07-12-2012 09:28AM

the price of scrap being what it is and there being several scrap merchants in the locality, I wonder how much is actually still there.

gozunda · 07-12-2012 09:48AM

LivelineDipso wrote: »

The more I think about this Foynes thing the less I believe it. Makes no sense when the waterford line is ready to go. As for load handling at port - there is none at Foynes either. A couple of sidings.

Be amazed if that ore traffic is going by Foynes. It seems to be looking for an excuse to reopen an old line for the sake of it. Be nice if it happened though and either way be great to see the mine use rail. My money is on it going to Waterford.

I believe that the huge estimated value of the ore load from the Caherconlish area means that The company are likely to provide significant monies towards their preferred transportation route.

They have a decent time frame for the selected route to be made ready - ore extraction ref planning, other infrastructure provision will take a number of years to put in place

The other factor is the choice of ports.
Foynes is a deep water harbour
Waterford is tidal.

Whichever route they select it will be dependant on a number of factors however atm The one I have heard being the preferred atm option is Limerick/Foynes

LXFlyer · 07-12-2012 11:58AM

corktina wrote: »

Hungerford said 6 extra, thats what I was going on...even three on my broadly correct timings would be pushing it, although it would get away from crossings and signalling I agree.

6 trains = 3 return workings

corktina · 07-12-2012 07:42PM

lxflyer wrote: »

6 trains = 3 return workings

not really the way to describe it is it? 6 extra trains gives the impression that it is 6 loaded trains.

LXFlyer · 07-12-2012 08:04PM

That's the way the industry standard terminology puts it.

corktina · 07-12-2012 08:10PM

really? it's spin as i suspected earlier then!

LXFlyer · 07-12-2012 08:28PM

Nothing to do with spin.

6 additional trains on a branch line means exactly that - 6 trains in total.

corktina · 07-12-2012 10:03PM

I would say if you told Joe Average that the Mine in Tipperary would be generating 6 trains a day, he would assume that meant 6 trainloads.

LXFlyer · 08-12-2012 12:27AM

Frankly you are nit picking in the extreme - the point is that the two posters above were referring to 3 return workings.

What Railfreight is Still Running

Comments