Maximizing the current Rail Infrastructure

LuckyLloyd

I think most people here will want to see projects like Dart Underground, Metro North, and other such major investments in the future approved, adequately funded, and brought to completion.

However, in the world within which we live where a lack of political will for such things persists, is there a possibility of quick wins within the parameters of the current infrastructure?

In the last decade we've seen an arguably positive development with the opening of the PPT for €14m, and an arguably wasteful reopening of sections of the Western Rail Corridor. That said, projects like those are indicative of potential within what we have.

Some types of things I could think of that might be worth debating (though I'm sure those on here far more knowledgeable than me could thing of superior opportunities):

- Line / Signalling improvements to enable increase in speeds on Intercity lines
- Reopening the Athlone to Mullingar line
- Investing in the Dublin to Belfast line
- Building out Platform 10 in Houston to give it pedestrian access to the surrounding areas and linking it to the current station. Ultimately allowing Tunnel services to stop there as a "Houston West" option
- Improving Port connections?
- Passenger services from Navan?

I don't know. What would you spend €100m on I guess if it was lying around?

L1011

To be practical, Heuston P10 would need a matching P11; bridge/lifts and an entrance to Conyngham Road. Still worth doing.

Reopen commuter entrance at Connolly, deal with whatever ownership issues keep the Sheriff Street gates closed currently.

Station on the PPT line at Cabra Cement Works

Further passing loops / alignment preservation purchasing Connolly-Malahide

Close Porterstown LC just to get the risk factor away - it was only kept open due to interference by Varadkar.

goingnowhere

- Line / Signalling improvements to enable increase in speeds on Intercity lines
How long is a piece of string, signalling alone to basic modern standards is at least 100 million


- Reopening the Athlone to Mullingar line
No business case and requires second track between Maynooth and Mullingar


- Investing in the Dublin to Belfast line
Requires support for NI as the track north of the border is in poor condition while its 90mph clear that whole way from Malahide to Border bar Dundalk and Drogheda stations


- Building out Platform 10 in Houston to give it pedestrian access to the surrounding areas and linking it to the current station. Ultimately allowing Tunnel services to stop there as a "Houston West" option

Great idea but would cost 5+ million minimum and you have to get a bridge across the Liffey and deal with land issues to get access, hence why it was not done

- Improving Port connections?
Dublin Port already connected as is Waterford

- Passenger services from Navan?
450 million?

LuckyLloyd

L1011 wrote: »

To be practical, Heuston P10 would need a matching P11; bridge/lifts and an entrance to Conyngham Road. Still worth doing.

This is what I meant obv, a platform on the other side is required as a bare minimum.

I like your other suggestions.

goingnowhere wrote: »

How long is a piece of string, signalling alone to basic modern standards is at least 100 million

Surely you'd start on the Dublin / Cork and Dublin / Galway lines and take it from there?

goingnowhere wrote: »

No business case and requires second track between Maynooth and Mullingar

No business case - would the increased capacity / frequency enabled between Dublin and Galway not make it worth it?

goingnowhere wrote: »

Requires support for NI as the track north of the border is in poor condition while its 90mph clear that whole way from Malahide to Border bar Dundalk and Drogheda stations

Surely it would be worth doing given the popularity of the line? Additionally, I would have thought, considering how busy the line is between Connolly and Malahide, that there would be scope for improvements here even if it isn't a drastic overhauling of the entire line?

goingnowhere wrote: »

Great idea but would cost 5+ million minimum and you have to get a bridge across the Liffey and deal with land issues to get access, hence why it was not done

Would it be €5m well spent though? The PPT services look to have a lot of potential to me long term.

goingnowhere wrote: »

Dublin Port already connected as is Waterford

Is there scope for improvements, any quick wins that could allow Irish Rail to improve its Freight Services? Leaving aside their seeming disinterest in this sector, if you could bypass that is there some things that could almost force additional business upon them?

goingnowhere wrote: »

450 million?

:eek:

€450m to enable passenger services from Navan? Does the Tara Mines train not pass through it?

andrewfaulk

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

This is what I meant obv, a platform on the other side is required as a bare minimum.

I like your other suggestions.



Surely you'd start on the Dublin / Cork and Dublin / Galway lines and take it from there?



No business case - would the increased capacity / frequency enabled between Dublin and Galway not make it worth it?




Surely it would be worth doing given the popularity of the line? Additionally, I would have thought, considering how busy the line is between Connolly and Malahide, that there would be scope for improvements here even if it isn't a drastic overhauling of the entire line?




Would it be €5m well spent though? The PPT services look to have a lot of potential to me long term.



Is there scope for improvements, any quick wins that could allow Irish Rail to improve its Freight Services? Leaving aside their seeming disinterest in this sector, if you could bypass that is there some things that could almost force additional business upon them?



:eek:

€450m to enable passenger services from Navan? Does the Tara Mines train not pass through it?

One that ticks two of your boxes would be doubling the portarlington to Athlone line, it would benefit freight by allowing longer trains and also increased frequency on the mayo and Galway lines..

LuckyLloyd

For clarity, I'm not wedded to any particular idea. Just trying to get some discussion going on how to utilise investment from those more knowledgeable than I outside of Dart Underground or similar projects

end of the road

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

€450m to enable passenger services from Navan? Does the Tara Mines train not pass through it?

it does, but it goes via the line to droghida and then down the northern line. If droghida navan was brought up to passenger standards, which it would need to be so a passenger service could be introduced, then going via droghida and then down the northern line would mean a bit of a journey time. realistically it needs to go via clonsilla with the necessary diversions where the route has been breached (won't happen unfortunately) . i suppose if it comes to it, bringing droghida navan up to passenger standards may be better then nothing. or maybe not. it's a hard one as if the route via clonsilla was to reopen in some form years after the droghida navan line had been upgraded to passenger standards, what would you do with droghida navan?

I dont understand why there isn't a shuttle bus at Stephens Green going to Abbey street for luas transfers.

Its too late to set it up now, with BXD ready in a couple of months time, but it always seemed like a lost oppertunity to me.

The various providers, Dublin Bus, Transdev, CIE etc need to realise they aren't competitors, they are complimenting each others services.

ClovenHoof

L1011 wrote: »

To be practical, Heuston P10 would need a matching P11; bridge/lifts and an entrance to Conyngham Road. Still worth doing.

and it should be given a completely new name to distinguish it from Heuston. Call it 'Chaplelizod East' or something.

dowlingm

Third track Fairview-Howth Junction
Double track Maynooth-Enfield, electrify Connolly-Maynooth, DART storage yard in Maynooth
Third track Kildare-Cherryville
Complete original KRP scope

The above works would facilitate better timetabling of national services and provide scope to improve the commuter experience.

I can't think of any improvement outside Dublin/area which would bring many more people to the rail network BEFORE getting the above sorted.

Pete_Cavan

Completing KRP and even extending the quad-tracking to Heuston is surely the best use of any available funds. It would be beneficial to commuter services along the Kildare line and also to intercity services. It also needs to be done for DU anyway so doing it on its own improves the case for DU, which may not involve tunnelling all the way to Inchicore. As part of this, I would look at creating a station around the South Circular Road which would probably be better than the P10 location in terms of attracting passengers.

I have always wondered if using the track outside the north bound platform at Clontarf Road for commuter trains to overtake Darts could be useful. The commuter would have to be scheduled close behind a Dart coming out of Connolly and then the commuter overtakes giving it a clear run north. The same could happen south bound at Clongriffin. Surely it would squeeze more paths onto the line and for little cost?

Taytosnax

+1 on triple tracking Clongriffin/Howth Junction to Fairview.

Implement Clongriffin-Dublin Airport heavy rail as a priority once triple tracking in place.

Implement connecting shuttle buses from M3 Parkway to Navan and to Ashbourne. Time these with every single train.

Re-open Athlone-Mullingar for freight traffic

Double track Athlone-Portarlington.

Pixel Eater

There is lots of train stations surrounded by vacant sites, especially in Dublin, (Navan Road/Clondalkin/City West etc) so even in our biggest city where there is relatively good rail infrastructure, the passenger numbers are not what they could be because of bad planning.

By the simple expedient of building around such stops, these stations could become a lot busier and profitable.

dowlingm

Pixel Eater wrote: »

There is lots of train stations surrounded by vacant sites, especially in Dublin, (Navan Road/Clondalkin/City West etc) so even in our biggest city where there is relatively good rail infrastructure, the passenger numbers are not what they could be because of bad planning.

By the simple expedient of building around such stops, these stations could become a lot busier and profitable.

Build what though. Semi-ds won't move the needle. Townhouses and apartments would.

Pixel Eater

dowlingm wrote: »

Build what though. Semi-ds won't move the needle. Townhouses and apartments would.

Yes, high quality, high-density apartments clustered around the station. What's worrying me is that already the council halved the density requirements and the developers are pushing for low density semi-ds at the Clonburris site.

Jamie2k9

The only solution at minimal cost is longer loops which would enhance operations and potentially cut some delays which exist at loop crossings.

Returning a second platform to a couple of locations on the network would also help. The most immediate case is on the Sligo line.

Stephen15

Taytosnax wrote: »

Re-open Athlone-Mullingar for freight traffic

Why just for freight allow passenger trains use it too move Westport services to Connolly and let them use that line and reopen the stations on it. Also introduce Athlone-Connolly Commuter services.

thomasj

Stephen15 wrote:

Why just for freight allow passenger trains use it too move Westport services to Connolly and let them use that line and reopen the stations on it. Also introduce Athlone-Connolly Commuter services.

You make it sound as if the maynooth line has 4 tracks and plenty of space/paths for extra trains ......

loyatemu

Stephen15 wrote: »

Why just for freight allow passenger trains use it too move Westport services to Connolly and let them use that line and reopen the stations on it. Also introduce Athlone-Connolly Commuter services.

freight can already get from Athlone to Dublin via Portarlington and so could a commuter service if required. Would it be any quicker via Mullingar? The only other town on that line is Moate which is hardly a metropolis.

3 tracking the northern line should be planned for - how much would it cost I wonder? Also closing the remaining crossings south of Pearse.

re: Navan - Rail Users Ireland proposed a cheapo service some years back detailed here. Yes it would be slower than a direct line but probably still faster than the bus.

Pete_Cavan

Seeing as the thread is about "quick fixes" and maximising the limited availability of funds, I dont think 3 tracking the northern line is realistic. It would involve buying a lot of properties, rebuilding multiple bridges, carrying out major engineering work in close proximity to an operating railway, etc., it would be crazy expensive.

Like I said earlier, it should be possible for commuter trains to overtake Darts before entering the section where Darts stop but commuters don't (Clontarf Road to Howth Junction), which is the limiting factor for the existing track, at a fraction of the cost.

The best solution would be for the Metro to be built as heavy rail which effectively 4 tracks that corridor.

dowlingm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The best solution would be for the Metro to be built as heavy rail which effectively 4 tracks that corridor.

It only "four tracks" the corridor if you remove all intermediate DART service because "take the metro". Otherwise Enterprise and outer suburban are still stuck behind stopping traffic.

LXFlyer

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Seeing as the thread is about "quick fixes" and maximising the limited availability of funds, I dont think 3 tracking the northern line is realistic. It would involve buying a lot of properties, rebuilding multiple bridges, carrying out major engineering work in close proximity to an operating railway, etc., it would be crazy expensive.

Like I said earlier, it should be possible for commuter trains to overtake Darts before entering the section where Darts stop but commuters don't (Clontarf Road to Howth Junction), which is the limiting factor for the existing track, at a fraction of the cost.

The best solution would be for the Metro to be built as heavy rail which effectively 4 tracks that corridor.

Unless you have modelled how the 10 minute DART timetable could work alongside the Enterprise and Northern Line trains, which I suspect you haven't, then I don't know how you can say that.

I have examined it- the issue is firmly between Clontarf Road and Raheny - inevitably that means that you need more tracks along that section - that is going to have to happen at some point, along with an up loop at Clongriffin.

rebel456

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I think most people here will want to see projects like Dart Underground, Metro North, and other such major investments in the future approved, adequately funded, and brought to completion.

However, in the world within which we live where a lack of political will for such things persists, is there a possibility of quick wins within the parameters of the current infrastructure?

I don't know. What would you spend €100m on I guess if it was lying around?

Spent a few weeks inter-railing around Europe a few years ago. Noticed that inter-city lines in some Continental cities have a terminal city-centre station, along with a suburban station for those on the edge of the city.

In Ireland this would be stopping Inter-City trains at ParkWest for instance, here travelers could connect with a direct bus via the M50 to the airport, connect with an orbital city bus to Red Cow LUAS, Tallaght, and Blanchardstown - and even onto south Dublin/Sandyford/UCD. And use GoCar or similar short rental service to access the industrial estates for meetings.

This knocks off a number of benefits, including significant time saving on taking the train & shuttle bus to the airport, given that the 747 takes way too long to get from Heuston. Also opens up InterCity rail for those working/living in West Dublin, avoiding the trek into Heuston to catch a train. The private bus operators have already caught onto this by offering services that stop at the Red Cow LUAS.

Ideally airport services would eventually be delivered by DART Underground & Metro North connection, but that is many many years off.

A similar set up for the Sligo line as maybe Navan Road, not too well versed on those stations.

IE 222

Is the Navan line not already up to standard for the most part. A signalling upgrade would obviously be needed.

Not everyone likes the idea but a turn back and insulation of second southbound platform at Clongriffin would help ease pathing issues at Malahide.

Reconfigure Glasnevin Jct. allowing PPT services run via Newcome Jct or Docklands. More use of Newcome Jct and allowing Sligo services to terminate/depart on platform 7 would help ease Maynooth line.

In terms of Metro North im totally againts current plans of operation a cheaper Dart alternative IMO is availble and offers more. Given the news of new housing been planned for Lucan/Clondalkin surely DU is of higher importance than MN now.

Connolly quad tracking is needed regardless even starting small easy sections will offer short term solutions without committing to the whole project. 4 tracking from Connolly to Clontarf wouldnt be a massive job and wouldnt require any bridge replacements or land purchases.

In terms of freight expansion developing new hubs in Cork ect would be more of a priority. Personally I beleive Limerick Jct could play a massive part in developing new freight business by using it as transfer hub. A lot of North wall could be sold and keep 4 running/passing/ holding lines were the current through lines onto Alexandria rd are as no loading / unloading is done these days.

tabbey

loyatemu wrote: »

3 tracking the northern line should be planned for - how much would it cost I wonder? Also closing the remaining crossings south of Pearse.

Even three tracks is inadequate, four is essential.

It won't come cheap, but the longer the government waits to take action, the more difficult and costly it will become.

In the last couple of decades, Dublin City Council and Fingal Co Council have allowed development up to the track at Malahide, Portmarnock and Kilbarrack, the latter including houses built by the council.

There is no planning for the future. The last body with any foresight was the GNR

dowlingm

IE 222 wrote: »

In terms of freight expansion developing new hubs in Cork ect would be more of a priority. Personally I beleive Limerick Jct could play a massive part in developing new freight business by using it as transfer hub. A lot of North wall could be sold and keep 4 running/passing/ holding lines were the current through lines onto Alexandria rd are as no loading / unloading is done these days.

IE have successfully pared down their freight business to a steady and unimposing earner. At the same time they have disposed of yards in North Esk and the like. Any reinstatement is likely to be similar to Ballina's barebones facility.

A few points:

• Where is the freight in Cork being produced (i.e. how close to a plausible railhead) and where is it going?
• Why is Limerick Junction a logical hub when it is a good distance from the M7 and M8?
• Development pressure may move some Dublin Port activities out of North Wall, so IE would be wise to be cagey about what to commit to

If Brexit bites hard at the Border, it might be an idea for IE to try and interest NIR in employing their combined 071/111 resources for freight purposes if thereby it could offer a more seamless customs experience than individual lorries would, both for Ireland-NI flows and an intermodal yard at Larne to bring goods to/from Scotland - but a lot of things would have to line up to make it work.

IE 222

dowlingm wrote: »

IE have successfully pared down their freight business to a steady and unimposing earner. At the same time they have disposed of yards in North Esk and the like. Any reinstatement is likely to be similar to Ballina's barebones facility.

A few points:

• Where is the freight in Cork being produced (i.e. how close to a plausible railhead) and where is it going?
• Why is Limerick Junction a logical hub when it is a good distance from the M7 and M8?
• Development pressure may move some Dublin Port activities out of North Wall, so IE would be wise to be cagey about what to commit to

If Brexit bites hard at the Border, it might be an idea for IE to try and interest NIR in employing their combined 071/111 resources for freight purposes if thereby it could offer a more seamless customs experience than individual lorries would, both for Ireland-NI flows and an intermodal yard at Larne to bring goods to/from Scotland - but a lot of things would have to line up to make it work.

Im not knocking what IE have done with their freight business the last number of years. In my view they made the right decision.

I agree IE will no longer need massive freight yards anymore other than an increase in size of current Dublin Port loading should the business increase. Smaller road/rail sides with 2 - 3 lines is enough. The big cranes ect are not needed unless there is 5 or 6 train loads a day arriving.

Limerick Jct: Run Waterford - Ballina freight train daily incresed to 26 wagons via Limerick Jct and Athenry. A second train between Dublin & Cork can transfer containers here as well. This will open up Ballina, Cork, Dublin, Limerick, Galway Waterford and anywhere inbetween and allow containers travel between say Cork and Waterford without chartering a whole train. Once demand reaches the requirements for a whole train a direct service can be introduced. Its very little in terms of investment.

If custom checks become a reality after Brexit i do beleive IE will be a winner here if they are on the ball. It will be a lot easier to check a few trains in one or two locations than 100s of trucks at 100s of locations.

rebel456

IE 222 wrote: »

I
Limerick Jct: Run Waterford - Ballina freight train daily incresed to 26 wagons via Limerick Jct and Athenry. A second train between Dublin & Cork can transfer containers here as well. This will open up Ballina, Cork, Dublin, Limerick, Galway Waterford and anywhere inbetween and allow containers travel between say Cork and Waterford without chartering a whole train. Once demand reaches the requirements for a whole train a direct service can be introduced. Its very little in terms of investment.

If custom checks become a reality after Brexit i do beleive IE will be a winner here if they are on the ball. It will be a lot easier to check a few trains in one or two locations than 100s of trucks at 100s of locations.

All you are doing there is adding cost via having to transfer freight between various modes of transport. Freight coming in through our ports is not bulk for one destination, it's smaller items going to various destinations throughout the country.

In the current model, if a container load needs to go to Listowel in Kerry for instance then they ship via Dublin, change to a lorry and pop down the M7. In your model the same container would have to change from ship to train, train to train in Limerick Jct, and finally train to lorry in Limerick for onward delivery. And just think of the additional manpower needed for such movements. It just could not compete given the lower cost of truck transport - and reliability over rail, if your haulage operator goes on strike you get another one, if the road is blocked you get delayed but can go around.

Freight will sustain on Irish railways via niche markets, such as what happens in Mayo. But that's it unfortunately. And intercity motorway network makes its much quicker and cheaper to go via road - given how small Ireland is too. Hence why IR freight fell away once the roads go better.

end of the road

rebel456 wrote: »

All you are doing there is adding cost via having to transfer freight between various modes of transport. Freight coming in through our ports is not bulk for one destination, it's smaller items going to various destinations throughout the country.

In the current model, if a container load needs to go to Listowel in Kerry for instance then they ship via Dublin, change to a lorry and pop down the M7. In your model the same container would have to change from ship to train, train to train in Limerick Jct, and finally train to lorry in Limerick for onward delivery. And just think of the additional manpower needed for such movements. It just could not compete given the lower cost of truck transport - and reliability over rail, if your haulage operator goes on strike you get another one, if the road is blocked you get delayed but can go around.

Freight will sustain on Irish railways via niche markets, such as what happens in Mayo. But that's it unfortunately. And intercity motorway network makes its much quicker and cheaper to go via road - given how small Ireland is too. Hence why IR freight fell away once the roads go better.

no it wouldn't go from ship to train to train, just from ship to train and then to truck, just like how the current mayo lot does. man in a mobile fork lift/crain is all you'd need. could be competitive once the eventuality hits that the trucks will have to pay in full for their infrastructure costs. also once those carbon fines come fast and furious we will have to start encouraging a shift.
his idea could allow the road spending to go a lot further with less trucks ripping up the roads. i should think there are other bulk flows out there and yes the small stuff may continue via truck but there are customers for the railway if they want them but they have to go get them just like in relation to the passenger side.

rebel456

end of the road wrote: »

no it wouldn't go from ship to train to train, just from ship to train and then to truck, just like how the current mayo lot does. man in a mobile fork lift/crain is all you'd need. could be competitive once the eventuality hits that the trucks will have to pay in full for their infrastructure costs. also once those carbon fines come fast and furious we will have to start encouraging a shift.
his idea could allow the road spending to go a lot further with less trucks ripping up the roads. i should think there are other bulk flows out there and yes the small stuff may continue via truck but there are customers for the railway if they want them but they have to go get them just like in relation to the passenger side.

No... the idea proposed was that Limerick Junction would become a freight hub thus needing transfer from a Dub-Cork train to one that serves Limerick - or Tralee, or Waterford, or Galway, etc. Each transfer requires manpower and time. In effect though, even one extra transfer is enough to make it uneconomical given the relatively short distances in Ireland and now extensive motorway network. It simply does not make sense to load a train with containers in Dublin, only to unload them in Limerick Junction two hours later to a truck when you can save yourself that extra transfer cost - and time involved.

The 'road ripping' by trucks mostly affects our smaller roads, something train transit won't solve as it is only replacing the motorway section - vast majority of cargo still requires a truck to get to its eventual destination.

And in regards fuel costs - trains use diesel, as far as I recall. Rising fuel prices will affect rail and road.

LuckyLloyd

It is surely in the national interest to have greatly expanded rail freight volumes. From an environmental perspective it is certainly preferable.

end of the road

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It is surely in the national interest to have greatly expanded rail freight volumes. From an environmental perspective it is certainly preferable.

absolutely, and many other reasons along with that.

rebel456

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It is surely in the national interest to have greatly expanded rail freight volumes. From an environmental perspective it is certainly preferable.

Total freight volumes in Ireland is the lowest in the EU, with an historical lack of heavy industry the freight loads are domestic goods that are multi-destination as opposed to bulk freight. Distance too are small, making the transfer cost from one mode to another high and uneconomical. Trucks can reach most destinations from the port in 3/4 hours, with no major city beyond that.

The future for rail freight relies, as mentioned above, on niche markets - drinks distributors/extraction/whatever else is bulk. If we want to ensure Ireland stays competitive in freight haulage and reduces carbon output, the future is in fuel efficient HGVs.

Source: http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/research/climate/CCRP%20Report%20Series%20No.%207%20-%20Barriers%20to%20Sustainable%20Transport%20in%20Ireland.pdf

IE 222

rebel456 wrote: »

All you are doing there is adding cost via having to transfer freight between various modes of transport. Freight coming in through our ports is not bulk for one destination, it's smaller items going to various destinations throughout the country.

In the current model, if a container load needs to go to Listowel in Kerry for instance then they ship via Dublin, change to a lorry and pop down the M7. In your model the same container would have to change from ship to train, train to train in Limerick Jct, and finally train to lorry in Limerick for onward delivery. And just think of the additional manpower needed for such movements. It just could not compete given the lower cost of truck transport - and reliability over rail, if your haulage operator goes on strike you get another one, if the road is blocked you get delayed but can go around.

Freight will sustain on Irish railways via niche markets, such as what happens in Mayo. But that's it unfortunately. And intercity motorway network makes its much quicker and cheaper to go via road - given how small Ireland is too. Hence why IR freight fell away once the roads go better.

In my model the container would travel from Waterford to Limerick on one train. Im not talking about bulk loads its the opposite in fact. Basically IE sell the space on the train already making the journey. Im not saying it will be profitable in its first weeks or months but developing such services is a start.

Sorry i thought you said the ship was in Waterford.

IE 222

rebel456 wrote: »

No... the idea proposed was that Limerick Junction would become a freight hub thus needing transfer from a Dub-Cork train to one that serves Limerick - or Tralee, or Waterford, or Galway, etc. Each transfer requires manpower and time. In effect though, even one extra transfer is enough to make it uneconomical given the relatively short distances in Ireland and now extensive motorway network. It simply does not make sense to load a train with containers in Dublin, only to unload them in Limerick Junction two hours later to a truck when you can save yourself that extra transfer cost - and time involved.

The 'road ripping' by trucks mostly affects our smaller roads, something train transit won't solve as it is only replacing the motorway section - vast majority of cargo still requires a truck to get to its eventual destination.

And in regards fuel costs - trains use diesel, as far as I recall. Rising fuel prices will affect rail and road.

The customer isn't looking at what it costs IE to do it. Its about IE been able to transport the containers for same price or less as it would cost going by road. The bulk of tranfers in Limerick Jct wouldn't require lifting containers. Some pre planning would place containers that need to transfered at either end of a train and simply uncouple from the last one traveling onwards with the train. Attach any extras that need to coupled and off you go. Other than a few forklifts and little extra training and manpower there is very little cost to set it up.

Bulk full train loads can go direct using current system of chartering the train for use.

IE 222

rebel456 wrote: »

Total freight volumes in Ireland is the lowest in the EU, with an historical lack of heavy industry the freight loads are domestic goods that are multi-destination as opposed to bulk freight. Distance too are small, making the transfer cost from one mode to another high and uneconomical. Trucks can reach most destinations from the port in 3/4 hours, with no major city beyond that.

The future for rail freight relies, as mentioned above, on niche markets - drinks distributors/extraction/whatever else is bulk. If we want to ensure Ireland stays competitive in freight haulage and reduces carbon output, the future is in fuel efficient HGVs.

Source: http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/research/climate/CCRP%20Report%20Series%20No.%207%20-%20Barriers%20to%20Sustainable%20Transport%20in%20Ireland.pdf

Its not all about distance and efficiency. Cost is going to play a big part in future road haulage. Are haulage companies going to pass fuel savings onto customers? I doubt they will as the savings will only cover other increases such as price increases in fuel and carbon taxes ECT.

Its companies looking to transport 3 or 4 containers a week IE need to chase rather than a random shipment every few weeks or a full train load a day. Its a small profit of each customer that will make a big profit off each train load.

andrewfaulk

IE 222 wrote: »

Its not all about distance and efficiency. Cost is going to play a big part in future road haulage. Are haulage companies going to pass fuel savings onto customers? I doubt they will as the savings will only cover other increases such as price increases in fuel and carbon taxes ECT.

Its companies looking to transport 3 or 4 containers a week IE need to chase rather than a random shipment every few weeks or a full train load a day. Its a small profit of each customer that will make a big profit off each train load.

I can't see IE ever going back to offering less than trainload services.. they tried it, it didn't work for them.. better off sticking to what they do best which is operating trains and leaving companies like IWT and DFDS to worry about filling the trains.. you need to be a freight forwarder or similar to fully understand what customers with meaningful volumes of containerised freight want.. this is the future of container freight in Ireland, and containers are likely to form a large part of any growth in rail freight..

A lot of people posting on these threads who don't seem to know too well what they're talking about..

andrewfaulk

dowlingm wrote: »

IE have successfully pared down their freight business to a steady and unimposing earner. At the same time they have disposed of yards in North Esk and the like. Any reinstatement is likely to be similar to Ballina's barebones facility.

A few points:

• Where is the freight in Cork being produced (i.e. how close to a plausible railhead) and where is it going?
• Why is Limerick Junction a logical hub when it is a good distance from the M7 and M8?
• Development pressure may move some Dublin Port activities out of North Wall, so IE would be wise to be cagey about what to commit to

If Brexit bites hard at the Border, it might be an idea for IE to try and interest NIR in employing their combined 071/111 resources for freight purposes if thereby it could offer a more seamless customs experience than individual lorries would, both for Ireland-NI flows and an intermodal yard at Larne to bring goods to/from Scotland - but a lot of things would have to line up to make it work.

About 1/3 of the current volume carried on the DFDS liner originates in Cork about 5 mins from North Esk, it's the cost of reinstating a suitable depot and getting someone to pay that is the big problem..

Also volumes between Southern Ireland and Scotland are quite low in volume compared to the English market and the was majority of this market is carried by driver accompanied road freight as this is the market norm

andrewfaulk

IE 222 wrote: »

In my model the container would travel from Waterford to Limerick on one train. Im not talking about bulk loads its the opposite in fact. Basically IE sell the space on the train already making the journey. Im not saying it will be profitable in its first weeks or months but developing such services is a start.

Sorry i thought you said the ship was in Waterford.

The idea of using more than one train in Ireland is unfortunately unrealistic.. cost and transit wise it would make rail less attractive than road options and the volumes and distances involved are much too small.. direct trains from Dublin port to Ballina, Castlebar, Limerick and Waterford is the most ambitious scenario I could reasonably see happening for the next 10 years..

Waterford has a port but it's quite small and besides the containers sent by rail it mainly serves local business to and from Europe only.. it doesn't have deep sea services like Dublin, Cork or Belfast

IE 222

andrewfaulk wrote: »

I can't see IE ever going back to offering less than trainload services.. they tried it, it didn't work for them.. better off sticking to what they do best which is operating trains and leaving companies like IWT and DFDS to worry about filling the trains.. you need to be a freight forwarder or similar to fully understand what customers with meaningful volumes of containerised freight want.. this is the future of container freight in Ireland, and containers are likely to form a large part of any growth in rail freight..

A lot of people posting on these threads who don't seem to know too well what they're talking about..

It did work for them in the past bit for various reasons the business fell apart. Obviously full loads or chartering trains is the prefered way but there is not much risk in exploring other options. Haulage is going change over the coming years and its in IE hands if they want to get involved in the industry more.

Im not suggesting running trains from Dublin to every city with 10 or less containers loaded. Its start small and build it up.

dowlingm

andrewfaulk wrote: »

The idea of using more than one train in Ireland is unfortunately unrealistic.. cost and transit wise it would make rail less attractive than road options and the volumes and distances involved are much too small.. direct trains from Dublin port to Ballina, Castlebar, Limerick and Waterford is the most ambitious scenario I could reasonably see happening for the next 10 years..

Waterford has a port but it's quite small and besides the containers sent by rail it mainly serves local business to and from Europe only.. it doesn't have deep sea services like Dublin, Cork or Belfast

I'm confused by this post as it doesn't seem to acknowledge the existing Belview container flows.

IE 222

andrewfaulk wrote: »

The idea of using more than one train in Ireland is unfortunately unrealistic.. cost and transit wise it would make rail less attractive than road options and the volumes and distances involved are much too small.. direct trains from Dublin port to Ballina, Castlebar, Limerick and Waterford is the most ambitious scenario I could reasonably see happening for the next 10 years..

Waterford has a port but it's quite small and besides the containers sent by rail it mainly serves local business to and from Europe only.. it doesn't have deep sea services like Dublin, Cork or Belfast

Its 2 trains meeting in 1 location having the option of transferring loads from one to the other, like an airline hub, by means of uncoupling a number of wagons and attaching them onto the other train, no lifting required. If its successful add more trains or open up a direct point to point service.

There is already a number of trains running between Waterford and Ballina a simple detour and extension on train lengths would provide the foundations to build on.

andrewfaulk

IE 222 wrote: »

It did work for them in the past bit for various reasons the business fell apart. Obviously full loads or chartering trains is the prefered way but there is not much risk in exploring other options. Haulage is going change over the coming years and its in IE hands if they want to get involved in the industry more.

Im not suggesting running trains from Dublin to every city with 10 or less containers loaded. Its start small and build it up.

But the risk of exploring other options is high enough to act as a deterrent to I.E. to try something new..

A new container flow would require at the very least the hire of a reachstacker and the creation of a suitable loading/unloading area at the destination.. that's before you move one container.. I.E. don't have any business to get the service started either so until you could build up the service the losses would be colossal

andrewfaulk

dowlingm wrote: »

I'm confused by this post as it doesn't seem to acknowledge the existing Belview container flows.

Apologies I might not have been the clearest.. waterford(bel view) port is quite small when it comes to container traffic.. with the exception of the volumes carried by rail to Ballina, its business is focused on waterford and south Tipperary area.. and that's only for infra-European business to and from Rotterdam..

andrewfaulk

IE 222 wrote: »

Its 2 trains meeting in 1 location having the option of transferring loads from one to the other, like an airline hub, by means of uncoupling a number of wagons and attaching them onto the other train, no lifting required. If its successful add more trains or open up a direct point to point service.

There is already a number of trains running between Waterford and Ballina a simple detour and extension on train lengths would provide the foundations to build on.

Both the IWT and DFDS services operate in synch with the vessel schedules.. adding transit time to this would mean they would no longer serve their intended purpose of moving cargo from NW Ireland to a port for onward shipment.. If IE tried to implement this they would drive away even their existing business

Charles Babbage

tabbey wrote: »

Even three tracks is inadequate, four is essential.

It won't come cheap, but the longer the government waits to take action, the more difficult and costly it will become.

In the last couple of decades, Dublin City Council and Fingal Co Council have allowed development up to the track at Malahide, Portmarnock and Kilbarrack, the latter including houses built by the council.

The planning was disgraceful to be sure. However, there are opportunities for replacing cuttings with retaining walls, there are some gardens, golf courses etc along the line and even where property is removed suitable support from the City Council would allow its replacement with denser development (near stations especially) which might mean that the net cost was zero. A plan is needed for this, for instance by buying properties in the area a little away from the railway so that people being CPOed can be given the opportunity to just move across the street, if they wish. This is one of those things that need to be done eventually and they should just get cracking on it.

IE 222

andrewfaulk wrote: »

But the risk of exploring other options is high enough to act as a deterrent to I.E. to try something new..

A new container flow would require at the very least the hire of a reachstacker and the creation of a suitable loading/unloading area at the destination.. that's before you move one container.. I.E. don't have any business to get the service started either so until you could build up the service the losses would be colossal

I fail to see the colossal risk in providing an extra train and rerouting a second when required at the begining of setting it up. If its not needed don't run it. If its a fails pull the plug but give it a chance to develop. It wont happen overnight or on its own. It will need support from IE and customers. Most companies have a keen interest in cutting emissions these days as they know its only going to cost them in the future.

Im not suggesting running empty trains until customers come along. A few reachstackers are hardly going to brake the bank. Use current sidings and create new access to ones previoualy cut off. As mentioned gone are the days of needing large yards and high rise cranes. Simple sidings with 2 - 3 lines paved over will do and would also cater for any expansion up 2 - 3 trains a day if it was to develop. I did say an investment would be needed but where not talking 10s of millions here.

IE 222

andrewfaulk wrote: »

Both the IWT and DFDS services operate in synch with the vessel schedules.. adding transit time to this would mean they would no longer serve their intended purpose of moving cargo from NW Ireland to a port for onward shipment.. If IE tried to implement this they would drive away even their existing business

IWT would run as normal as its a full point to point train you cant add much more to it. DFDS train just needs to depart an hour or two earlier no major problems here. If it a case were thats been effected well look at introducing a new flow. If new business begins to effect DFDS timings well then there must be a case of expansion.

rebel456

IE 222 wrote: »

Its companies looking to transport 3 or 4 containers a week IE need to chase rather than a random shipment every few weeks or a full train load a day. Its a small profit of each customer that will make a big profit off each train load.

Irish Rail tried this and it didn't work, hence why they only charter whole trains to the haulage operators and let them fill the train - or not as the case may be. The time & manpower required in changing transport modes does not make it worth it. IR would always be undercut by road hauliers.

IE 222 wrote: »

Its 2 trains meeting in 1 location having the option of transferring loads from one to the other, like an airline hub, by means of uncoupling a number of wagons and attaching them onto the other train, no lifting required. If its successful add more trains or open up a direct point to point service.

Again, all you are doing is adding time & cost in terms of the transfer. The time it would take to uncouple wagons, transfer to a rail head, unload, sort out... it would be there twice as fast by sending down the motorway. Each unit of cargo will end up on a truck anyway as few companies are located near these 'hubs'. It simply would not be economical for small units of cargo to be transported this way unless the rail distance was longer - Ireland is just too small.

IE 222 wrote: »

It will need support from IE and customers. Most companies have a keen interest in cutting emissions these days as they know its only going to cost them in the future.

Haulage and the wider business community companies don't give a toss about emissions - only their bottom line. Despite what their PR Departments would like to tell us. Making our HGV's more fuel efficient, along with encouraging whatever bulk cargo there is in Ireland to use rail, is the way to go. The days of sending small / multi-destination cargo by rail finished when the M7/M8/M4 opened.

Above is just mainly the time aspect. Other considerations such as manpower costs - workers would be required to drive trains, sort the cargo, uncouple trains. That all costs, especially since rail workers are largely unionised and are paid more than those employed by road hauliers. Along a similar line is strikes & rail stoppages. If the rail workers go on strike you are goosed, can't exactly hire someone else to operate your train.

end of the road

rebel456 wrote: »

Irish Rail tried this and it didn't work, hence why they only charter whole trains to the haulage operators and let them fill the train - or not as the case may be. The time & manpower required in changing transport modes does not make it worth it. IR would always be undercut by road hauliers.

not once the eventual realisation comes in to government that the road hauliers will have to pay the full infrastructure costs and the carbon fines start coming in . fuel efficient hgvs won't really cut it long term, there will have to be an encouragement of alternatives as well.

rebel456 wrote: »

Again, all you are doing is adding time & cost in terms of the transfer. The time it would take to uncouple wagons, transfer to a rail head, unload, sort out... it would be there twice as fast by sending down the motorway.

you are over complicating it. ultimately his plan is for a number of customers to buy space on a point to point train. the coupling of wagons can be done quite easily now days. ultimately it probably wouldn't really be necessary

rebel456 wrote: »

Each unit of cargo will end up on a truck anyway as few companies are located near these 'hubs'. It simply would not be economical for small units of cargo to be transported this way unless the rail distance was longer - Ireland is just too small.

it's not no . it can be perfectly economical if there are others wanting to use the service. the only problem it would cause is the outrage from a certain pampered road group.

rebel456 wrote: »

Haulage and the wider business community companies don't give a toss about emissions - only their bottom line. Despite what their PR Departments would like to tell us. Making our HGV's more fuel efficient, along with encouraging whatever bulk cargo there is in Ireland to use rail, is the way to go.

fuel efficient hgvs won't be enough. they will still cause pollution problems, hence their number needs to be cut. it will also allow our road budget to go a lot further.

rebel456 wrote: »

The days of sending small / multi-destination cargo by rail finished when the M7/M8/M4 opened.

small cargo is fine as long as there are others going to the same place on the train.

rebel456 wrote: »

Above is just mainly the time aspect. Other considerations such as manpower costs - workers would be required to drive trains, sort the cargo, uncouple trains. That all costs, especially since rail workers are largely unionised and are paid more than those employed by road hauliers. Along a similar line is strikes & rail stoppages. If the rail workers go on strike you are goosed, can't exactly hire someone else to operate your train.

a set up like in mayo has the bare basics and i believe it costs little over all. so again i reccan you are over-complicating things as some tend to do when it comes to rail freight. as for the rail strike issue, they happen only an odd time, and with better management they should actually hardly ever happen as the issues would be sorted before they get to a strike situation.

rebel456

end of the road wrote: »

not once the eventual realisation comes in to government that the road hauliers will have to pay the full infrastructure costs and the carbon fines start coming in . fuel efficient hgvs won't really cut it long term, there will have to be an encouragement of alternatives as well.

Can you please elaborate as to this ultimatum? So the Govt is going to force folks to use trains to transport goods?, how will these goods get to their eventual destinations?, especially multi-destination deliveries.

Modern technology & advancement is not going to suddenly reverse. Fuel efficient HGV's will make a significant difference - including a switch a electric trucks once battery technology advances.

10'000 trucks use Dublin Port daily, a train load (if you can even fill a train, which IR was unable to do when it pulled out from the market) would take about 40 - a drop in the ocean.

end of the road wrote: »

you are over complicating it. ultimately his plan is for a number of customers to buy space on a point to point train. the coupling of wagons can be done quite easily now days. ultimately it probably wouldn't really be necessary

it's not no . it can be perfectly economical if there are others wanting to use the service. the only problem it would cause is the outrage from a certain pampered road group.

It is uneconomical!, hence why IR pulled out from this market. I'm laying down the scenario as it would have to happen, if anything I'm simplifying the steps needed. Much cheaper & quicker to send your cargo on a truck to the destination instead of putting onto a train only to take it off again a few hours later. If Ireland had longer distances for the train portion this would work (as it does throughout Europe), but the reality is that we do not, we're a small island with a now comprehensive motorway network.
Also, can you please explain who this 'certain pampered road group' are?

99% of freight within Ireland is transported via road, our exports tend to be small in volume but high value (pharma, electrical, etc), transport via single trailer & driver makes sense as it means less time in transferring from truck>train>ferry>train>truck etc.

end of the road wrote: »

a set up like in mayo has the bare basics and i believe it costs little over all. so again i reccan you are over-complicating things as some tend to do when it comes to rail freight. as for the rail strike issue, they happen only an odd time, and with better management they should actually hardly ever happen as the issues would be sorted before they get to a strike situation.

Mayo works because you have a private operator handling the filling of the train and bearing the cost if it is not full, also the unique distance Waterford/Mayo makes it work. It is not something that could be replicated where there is a motorway alternative offering a cheaper option. Plus there is no transferring at 'hubs' required.

And finally, in regards strikes... what happened the Gypsum freight services from Kingscourt> (circa 2001)