Irish rail fleet and infrastructure plans

L1011 · 19-02-2019 5:11pm

The main improvements to journey times north of the border would be from general track quality improvements I'd imagine.

Jamie2k9 · 20-02-2019 12:57am

goingnowhere wrote: »

Won't make a huge difference as the section between Athenry and Galway is already split so two trains can follow each other, all you could do is run a shuttle Oranmore - Galway

To make a real difference they need two tracks Galway Athenry

TBH not sure what the point in splitting the section was as only one or two services per day actually utilize such a set up. The rest sit in Galway loop or Athenry and cross.

Markcheese · 20-02-2019 5:59pm

devnull wrote: »

Buying Pendolino trains to make a statement to look good and then running them on infrastructure that will not make the most of their technology to tilt or their high speed potential (like PKP in Poland) would be a waste of money since you could buy other well made trains that would not have anything you can't make use of whilst still having everything you could.

I suppose that was kind of my question,
Would something like a pendalino give major improvements on somewhere like the Cork Dublin line.. Especially given the relatively short distance... Or would it not be able to travel top speed very often, because of the system constraints..
And it seems fairly clear, it wouldn't be worth the cost..

devnull · 21-02-2019 8:18am

Markcheese wrote: »

I suppose that was kind of my question,
Would something like a pendalino give major improvements on somewhere like the Cork Dublin line.. Especially given the relatively short distance... Or would it not be able to travel top speed very often, because of the system constraints..
And it seems fairly clear, it wouldn't be worth the cost..

Buying a tilting high speed train on a network that can neither support it's highest speeds or the tilting mechanism is folly and is wasting taxpayers money if they were to go down that route. PKP have done that in Poland when they could have bought several more trains for the same amount of money with no effect on the services they offered, but instead they decided that looking good and having features they can never use was more important than having more new trains.

There are many products that are offered by the main rolling stock manufacturers such as Bombardier, Siemens and CAF that could easily meet Irish Rail's needs without the tilt and 140mph running that we'll never be able to use in the foreseeable future and provide hugely better value for money.

It's not even like the Pendolino is a good train, the Siemens Velaro family is far better as well as the various ICE trains in Germany that are essentially the same line to a large degree.

dermo888 · 22-02-2019 1:56pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

But a lot of the corners on the route are short and sharp in places that requires very slow speeds. Drogheda and Poyntzpass are the obvious ones but bar Grangebellow outside Drogheda most of the issues are north of the Border; Lisburn, Portadown and Newry being the three worst offenders. Barring serious investments to relocate the line there is not a lot that can be done though I would agree with you that such stock would help elsewhere en route.

The key problem with the Dublin to Belfast line is that of capacity, with DART at one end, and Belfast Suburbans at the other slowing it up.

That will cost an absolute fortune to solve.

tabbey · 22-02-2019 11:14pm

dermo888 wrote: »

The key problem with the Dublin to Belfast line is that of capacity, with DART at one end, and Belfast Suburbans at the other slowing it up.

That will cost an absolute fortune to solve.

The longer it is delayed, the more expensive it becomes.

dowlingm · 23-02-2019 11:55pm

Does anyone know how 22000 timings go on Dublin-Belfast vs 201/DD? I would have thought the extra driven axles would make it quicker to accelerate in both traffic and PSR situations.

Losty Dublin · 24-02-2019 12:18am

dowlingm wrote: »

Does anyone know how 22000 timings go on Dublin-Belfast vs 201/DD? I would have thought the extra driven axles would make it quicker to accelerate in both traffic and PSR situations.

They run about 5 minutes quicker in service assuming that all stops are made. As the last stops are in commuter areas the gains are minimal. Non stop they can better times by up to 20 minutes under optimum conditions.

dermo888 · 26-02-2019 9:18am

Losty Dublin wrote: »

They run about 5 minutes quicker in service assuming that all stops are made. As the last stops are in commuter areas the gains are minimal. Non stop they can better times by up to 20 minutes under optimum conditions.

Jesus.......I knew the 22K's were good, but not THAT good!

XPS_Zero · 26-02-2019 10:01pm

Marcusm wrote: »

And proper order too; how else would passengers know to alight for the ferry to Dublin City and/or Howth!

Well according to Red Rock, not only is Dun Laoghaire port still open but it does services to France! At least for one transporting a bad batch of x which will floor a bunch of kids in a nightclub in order that they may do that "one last deal" that they super swear will totally be the last ever and they'll retire on this deal.

I also see that even in fiction we can't seem to get our security services to stop wearing those stupid looking baggy oversized yellow jackets... (immigration guys in this case)

Losty Dublin · 27-02-2019 1:27am

dermo888 wrote: »

Jesus.......I knew the 22K's were good, but not THAT good!

They're better than THAT good. One of the issues with the Enterprise is the times used up on it's various stops en route. Allow a reasonable 4 minutes per stop for a train to brake, stop, depart and accelerate up to running speeds and that give 16 minutes. 22000's move off a lot quicker, they accelerate well and they brake more rapidly as well.

Certainly the fleet management office are very happy with them overall and they are the envy of other European operators.

IE 222 · 10-03-2019 10:31pm

Were is the purposed platform 8 for Connolly to be located, the carriage sheds?

Is there any scope to create more through platforms onto the loop. Can work be done to alter platform 4 as a through platform. Understandably it would be costly and require serious work but surely the benefits outweighs the costs as were unlikely to see DU anytime soon.

Have new developments along the loop line been required to leave enough clearance for possible quad tracking. The section between Amiens Street and Gardenier St would require some site clearance work but between Pearse and Gardenier St. it seems enough clearance has been allocated for it.

Markcheese · 10-03-2019 10:33pm

Has anyone ever costed going double decker with the loop line? (only slightly tongue in cheek)

L1011 · 11-03-2019 9:20am

There is no way P4 could be made through. Think some of the buildings that are too close to P7 to allow another through platform are listed also.

There definitely isn't the space to quad track it

IE 222 · 11-03-2019 3:24pm

L1011 wrote: »

There is no way P4 could be made through. Think some of the buildings that are too close to P7 to allow another through platform are listed also.

There definitely isn't the space to quad track it

Obviously major alterations would be needed but I don't mean making p4 a through platform in it's current format. My thinking would be to remove the Northern end of P4 and demolish P5 and build above the small car park accessed under the bridge on Amiens st. Widen Amiens street bridge also. P4 should still be long enough for 4-5 car train.

In terms of the far side of P7 I think if they moved a platform slightly north, beyond the office block and were able demolish the last house and the rare of the red brick building on Preston street they could build another platform overhanging the arches.

Jamie2k9 · 11-03-2019 3:55pm

Only way I see P8 is they knock down the shed next to P1 and straighten up P1,2,3 and add another.

loyatemu · 11-03-2019 4:28pm

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Only way I see P8 is they knock down the shed next to P1 and straighten up P1,2,3 and add another.

I assume it's an extra through platform they want though, or at least a terminus on the western side of the station. An extra platform in the shed would just lead to more conflicting movements, besides those platforms are not that heavily used (how often is P1 occupied?)

Del.Monte · 11-03-2019 6:33pm

I've often wondered if there was any case to be made, or reasons against, the alteration of the line from Newcomen Junction to Connolly to a burrowing tunnel to end beneath the mainline station rather than its present climb up to the suburban platforms? I'm probably missing something very obvious but it would seem to be a practical proposition.

L1011 · 11-03-2019 6:48pm

Vaulted structures the existing station and lines are built on. It would be possible but also hideously complex and expensive.

However, it could still work and provide a non conflicted path. Its not something to be dismissed out of hand

Low level / high level platforms are normal elsewhere

IE 222 · 11-03-2019 8:33pm

loyatemu wrote: »

I assume it's an extra through platform they want though, or at least a terminus on the western side of the station. An extra platform in the shed would just lead to more conflicting movements, besides those platforms are not that heavily used (how often is P1 occupied?)

Agree, I can't see the need for another terminal platform. Even with an hourly Longford/Sligo and Belfast service there will be enough with the 4 platforms. Platform 1 isn't used as far as I know unless its needed since they started terminating Maynooth services at Connolly.

thomasj · 11-03-2019 8:36pm

IE 222 wrote:

Agree, I can't see the need for another terminal platform. Even with an hourly Longford/Sligo and Belfast service there will be enough with the 4 platforms. Platform 1 isn't used as far as I know unless its needed since they started terminating Maynooth services at Connolly.

It was originally used for a while but after a bit of reaction over it , most if not all Connolly maynooth services now go from platform 7

uxiant · 11-03-2019 10:21pm

Building a fourth through platform or tunnelling under the station to create a terminus for the northwest line is likely to be highly complex and not really practical as mentioned before.

The real solution to the bottleneck is diverting all Maynooth trains to Docklands and running them underground to Heuston via Pearse - removing all the Maynooth and Phoenix Park tunnel trains from Connolly. That will take a lot of pressure off Connolly nevermind the many other benefits.

Obviously will cost a fortune but it's the sort of investment that needs to happen.

L1011 · 11-03-2019 10:44pm

uxiant wrote: »

The real solution to the bottleneck is diverting all Maynooth trains to Docklands and running them underground to Heuston via Pearse - removing all the Maynooth and Phoenix Park tunnel trains from Connolly. That will take a lot of pressure off Connolly nevermind the many other benefits.

Obviously will cost a fortune but it's the sort of investment that needs to happen.

That's the exact opposite of how the issue is intended to be sorted - Maynooth trains will run through; Northern services will run to Kylemore via DART Undeground.

SeanW · 11-03-2019 11:11pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

I've often wondered if there was any case to be made, or reasons against, the alteration of the line from Newcomen Junction to Connolly to a burrowing tunnel to end beneath the mainline station rather than its present climb up to the suburban platforms? I'm probably missing something very obvious but it would seem to be a practical proposition.

The main use for such a line would be express services leaving/bound for Connolly that do not need to stop at Drumcondra. Especially as the Drumcondra line is starting to get slow/congested in the peak, the idea merits further thought.

I can think of a few reasons why that might not be such a good idea though.

It would have to be a new branch in addition to the existing line. That is, coming from the Midland line, cross the canal bridge, new line deviates from the existing Newcommon incline. Otherwise, you would lose the ability to run a train from Pearse to the Midland line.
Am underground station would require electric trains. No use to Sligo or Longford unless new regional and Intercity trains are ordered that can use elecricity (neither the 22ks nor the 29ks can use electricity in DART territory) the main users of said underground terminal would not be able to use it.
The Connolly area is a collection of bridges, trying to put a sub-surface platform there would be ... fun to say the least.

The only way I can see a Platform 8 happening is if the station expands towards and over Amiens St. CIE/Irish Rail would have to CPO some buildings in the immediate vicinity, including likely the office block at 110 Amiens St. It could be done but would be expensive, I suspect they're thinking of a terminal platform 8 on the suburban platforms and using it to avoid conflicts associated with sending Western services to the sheds.

L1011 · 12-03-2019 12:22am

We are going to order dual mode 1500v DC/diesel so that solves point 2. The construction complexity is still the most difficult issue

uxiant · 12-03-2019 12:58am

L1011 wrote: »

That's the exact opposite of how the issue is intended to be sorted - Maynooth trains will run through; Northern services will run to Kylemore via DART Undeground.

Any reason for northbound trains running through the tunnel rather than Maynooth? Or is it much of a muchness?

Either way the DART Underground is badly needed.

L1011 · 12-03-2019 9:22am

uxiant wrote: »

Any reason for northbound trains running through the tunnel rather than Maynooth? Or is it much of a muchness?

Either way the DART Underground is badly needed.

Provides two city crossing routes with interchange at Pearse which has the capacity for it. Your idea would create a Kildare to Kildare route looping the city centre which would be odd to say the least!

It also reduces traffic over the loop line at least in the short term, as the Drogheda - Hazelhatch service would be busier at least at the beginning; and Maynooth - Greystones quieter than the current services

IE 222 · 12-03-2019 12:04pm

thomasj wrote: »

It was originally used for a while but after a bit of reaction over it , most if not all Connolly maynooth services now go from platform 7

I presume it's the time it takes to get across to Dart services they are complaining about. Platform 7 is fine as long it's a quick turn around.

L1011 · 12-03-2019 12:18pm

Going to P1 involves crossing all other paths, twice, so its a case of blocking one or crossing all. And the DART transfer time from P1, considering you now *must* change to go further South during the daytime, is very long

IE 222 · 12-03-2019 12:27pm

SeanW wrote: »

The only way I can see a Platform 8 happening is if the station expands towards and over Amiens St. CIE/Irish Rail would have to CPO some buildings in the immediate vicinity, including likely the office block at 110 Amiens St. It could be done but would be expensive, I suspect they're thinking of a terminal platform 8 on the suburban platforms and using it to avoid conflicts associated with sending Western services to the sheds.

If they build a new platform further north they can avoid 110 Amiens street. It's only Preston street were some CPO's would be required. The space is there further north, most of it is either CIE land or car parking. Pushing north would also allow for access onto Seville Place which will also help serve the Connolly redevelopment project. Reopening the old Dart entrance on Amiens street would be a good idea as well. It would be a very long walk if exiting a train at Seville Place to the main concourse.

loyatemu · 12-03-2019 3:36pm

IE 222 wrote: »

If they build a new platform further north they can avoid 110 Amiens street. It's only Preston street were some CPO's would be required. The space is there further north, most of it is either CIE land or car parking. Pushing north would also allow for access onto Seville Place which will also help serve the Connolly redevelopment project. Reopening the old Dart entrance on Amiens street would be a good idea as well. It would be a very long walk if exiting a train at Seville Place to the main concourse.

you could build a 200m elevated platform 8 between Seville Place and Preston Place - you'd probably have to demolish the redbrick warehouse and last house on Preston Place (which was badly damaged by fire a few years back but I think was recently restored):

https://pasteboard.co/I55yFDO.png

L1011 · 12-03-2019 6:08pm

It's still a burnt out shell. Or at least it was last night!

Both may be on the RPS, will check later. Obviously not insurmountable as its been overriden for national infrastructure before, but adds complexity and cost of there's objections to it

Jamie2k9 · 12-03-2019 9:50pm

Will a through platform 8 will deliver anything besides costing a fortune?

There is on siding at Pearse followed by 2 in GCD which were up for sale a few months ago (full daily now). Off peak Maynooth services scrapped and its only a matter of time before they gradually push a few peak Maynooth/N Commuter services to terminate/start at Connolly and the GCD sidings sale only confirm this.

PPT services will continue to operate to GCD so a Drumcondra interchange might be more beneficial for Maynooth services. You could in theory operate GCD bay with PPT/Maynooth/N Commuter however scheduling makes this extremely difficult.

It was originally used for a while but after a bit of reaction over it , most if not all Connolly maynooth services now go from platform 7

P4 now or at least multiple services I have saw were on P4.

end of the road · 12-03-2019 10:02pm

so they are selling off more sidings now? i presume there are no plans to replace them with new ones elsewhere?

L1011 · 12-03-2019 10:18pm

Boston Sidings which are rather short and not massively operationally useful.

The red brick warehouse abutting P7 is the former railway post office and is listed, as is the shell of 4 Preston Street. So there goes that being easy/cheap.

Jamie2k9 · 12-03-2019 10:20pm

L1011 wrote: »

Boston Sidings which are rather short and not massively operationally useful.

The red brick warehouse abutting P7 is the former railway post office and is listed. So there goes that being easy/cheap.

They are short but they hold 2 sets of 2900s everyday. Pearse holds a 7 ICR.

IE 222 · 12-03-2019 11:08pm

loyatemu wrote: »

you could build a 200m elevated platform 8 between Seville Place and Preston Place - you'd probably have to demolish the redbrick warehouse and last house on Preston Place (which was badly damaged by fire a few years back but I think was recently restored):

https://pasteboard.co/I55yFDO.png

Yeah, I made a similar suggestion yesterday regarding that side of platform 7. I still think a complete rebuild of Platforms 5,6,7 and part of 4 would be worthwhile. Straightening out the platforms would be very beneficial also.

IE 222 · 12-03-2019 11:17pm

L1011 wrote: »

Boston Sidings which are rather short and not massively operationally useful.

The red brick warehouse abutting P7 is the former railway post office and is listed, as is the shell of 4 Preston Street. So there goes that being easy/cheap.

It's only the warehouse part of the red brick building that would needed. I'm sure as long as the front facade remains they could work around this. Considering the last house on the block has been fire damaged this could help with been CPO.

We seem to list and protect a lot of useless buildings in this country. Especially ones in vital areas and serve very little in terms historical importance.

IE 222 · 12-03-2019 11:34pm

Speaking of sidings, was there ever a purpose other than been sidings for the 2 on the short arch beside the Newcome curve.

There is also the strip of land along the canal bank opp Docklands station. Should get 3-4 long sidings in there should they need more within the locality of Connolly albeit the manoeuvring would not be ideal.

L1011 · 12-03-2019 11:54pm

IE 222 wrote: »

.

There is also the strip of land along the canal bank opp Docklands station. Should get 3-4 long sidings in there should they need more within the locality of Connolly albeit the manoeuvring would not be ideal.

That's the already under construction Royal Canal Greenway

loyatemu · 13-03-2019 12:00pm

IE 222 wrote: »

Speaking of sidings, was there ever a purpose other than been sidings for the 2 on the short arch beside the Newcome curve.

they used to park commuter trains there before departing from P7, but I haven't seen them used for a long time (actually there's an Intercity and a Commuter parked there in the Google aerial view, not sure when that's from).

IE 222 · 13-03-2019 4:16pm

L1011 wrote: »

That's the already under construction Royal Canal Greenway

Didn't know that was been developed.

IE 222 · 13-03-2019 4:18pm

loyatemu wrote: »

they used to park commuter trains there before departing from P7, but I haven't seen them used for a long time (actually there's an Intercity and a Commuter parked there in the Google aerial view, not sure when that's from).

It's still used as far I know. Was it built for that purpose though?

loyatemu · 13-03-2019 4:21pm

IE 222 wrote: »

It's still used as far I know. Was it built for that purpose though?

can't think what else it would be for - it's not the remnant of an old line AFAIK.

L1011 · 13-03-2019 6:24pm

IE 222 wrote: »

Didn't know that was been developed.

Started 6-8 weeks ago I believe. Will make a massive reduction in the pedestrian and cycle distance from North Strand to Sheriff Street there and assuming it's appropriately lit will probably be heavily used

Jamie2k9 · 07-04-2019 2:07pm

Apparently heavy rail renewal/maintenance in 2019 will see spend of almost €200 million up 23% on 2018.

Meanwhile Anthony Lawlor (FG Kildare North) thinks quad tracking needs to be extended from Hazelatch to Kildare.

L1011 · 07-04-2019 4:22pm

Hopefully spent primarily on addressing TSRs on core routes and/or 50kmh sections on branch routes.

Lawlor is a Senator, he represents no constituency legally.

Markcheese · 07-04-2019 7:52pm

L1011 wrote: »

Hopefully spent primarily on addressing TSRs on core routes and/or 50kmh sections on branch routes.

Lawlor is a Senator, he represents no constituency legally.

What's TSR?
(and which lines currently with a 50 limit would be economic to upgrade?)

flyingsnail · 07-04-2019 7:57pm

Markcheese wrote: »

What's TSR?

Temporary Speed Restriction

Jamie2k9 · 07-04-2019 9:48pm

So far there hasn't been anything major I can think of this year. Few points renewals on Cork, Dublin-Cork basalt cleaning, Limerick J platform, Glassnavin Relay/wiring and some of that could have been the standard yearly budget.

Interesting to see any anything major happens towards end of the year but wouldn't expect much.

Basic infrastructure such as points heaters rolled out across the network would be a start. How quad tracking at Heuston doesn't have them shows how careless those in charge are. It was the main reason during the snow last year they only worked the up/down fast lines for all services causing unnecessary disruption to customers.

Irish rail fleet and infrastructure plans

Comments