Irish rail fleet and infrastructure plans

IE 222

Motorways = re-election

Pete_Cavan

River Suir wrote: »

It would be helpful to give a breakdown of costs of such a project?

WRC Phase 1 cost approx €1.8m per kilometre. This is the low end of the scale given the land had already been leveled, gradients set, etc. due to it having previously hosted a railway so minimal civil works required. Building a new railway on a natural landscape which is generally not level enough for rail tracks, geographical features to deal with, God knows what kind of ground conditions, etc. A new line would be multiples of that.

Lets say we want to build 50km of railway. To purchase 1km of say, 25m wide corridor for rail would be 6.18 acres. Average price of an acre nationally without a residence in 2019 was €8,823. Lets more than double that to €20,000 to allow for disruption etc caused. That would be approx. €125,000 per km if railway. If you want to build 50km of railway would cost €6.25m

Assuming on average a house has to be CPOed every 1km (unlikely to be that high but anyway). Thats 50 @ say €350k average price (current national average is €260k) so thats €17.5m.

If you want to build 50km of railway so not all is agricultural land, some will be in or near urban areas with commercial properties or other lands. Lets say another 50 properties/plots of land @ €500,000 each, thats another €25m.

All that isn't even €50m, or about half the construction cost per km of WRC Phase 1, which remember is the low end of the scale. Have you got anything to support your claim that the biggest cost in railway construction is the purchase of the land on which to run the railway?

River Suir

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

WRC Phase 1 cost approx €1.8m per kilometre. This is the low end of the scale given the land had already been leveled, gradients set, etc. due to it having previously hosted a railway so minimal civil works required. Building a new railway on a natural landscape which is generally not level enough for rail tracks, geographical features to deal with, God knows what kind of ground conditions, etc. A new line would be multiples of that.

Lets say we want to build 50km of railway. To purchase 1km of say, 25m wide corridor for rail would be 6.18 acres. Average price of an acre nationally without a residence in 2019 was €8,823. Lets more than double that to €20,000 to allow for disruption etc caused. That would be approx. €125,000 per km if railway. If you want to build 50km of railway would cost €6.25m

Assuming on average a house has to be CPOed every 1km (unlikely to be that high but anyway). Thats 50 @ say €350k average price (current national average is €260k) so thats €17.5m.

If you want to build 50km of railway so not all is agricultural land, some will be in or near urban areas with commercial properties or other lands. Lets say another 50 properties/plots of land @ €500,000 each, thats another €25m.

All that isn't even €50m, or about half the construction cost per km of WRC Phase 1, which remember is the low end of the scale. Have you got anything to support your claim that the biggest cost in railway construction is the purchase of the land on which to run the railway?

Sure, Google HS2. Plenty there.

Cookiemunster

River Suir wrote: »

Sure, Google HS2. Plenty there.

Lands costs in the densely populated England (432 people per square km) are a tad higher than land costs in the sparsely populated Ireland (71 people per square km).

River Suir

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Lands costs in the densely populated England (432 people per square km) are a tad higher than land costs in the sparsely populated Ireland (71 people per square km).

So in that case the Department of Transport and NTA’s policy of only building railways on existing or previous alignments makes no sense. After all land being so cheap and all that means that railways could and should be expanded. The cost for the Ennis to Athenry extension without land purchase was quite cheap compared to the cost of the Tuam bypass which was five times that of the railway.

But it seems that roads aren’t subject to so much scrutiny and anger by keyboard engineers.

Cookiemunster

River Suir wrote: »

So in that case theDepartment of Transport and NTA’s policy of only building railways on existing or previous alignments makes no sense.

Preaching to the converted here.

River Suir wrote: »

After all land being so cheap and all that means that railways could and should be expanded. The cost for the Ennis to Athenry extension without land purchase was quite cheap compared to the cost of the Tuam bypass which was five times that of the railway.

But it's not that simple. Ennis to Athenry didn't have any over/under bridges, culverts, etc to construct, which the largest expense in road building. It didn't have to blast any rock or build embankments as the track bed was already there. These would also be costs in any new line that was to be build. Comparing Ennis to Athenry to the Gort to Tuam scheme is comparing apples to oranges.

River Suir wrote: »

But it seems that roads aren’t subject to so much scrutiny and anger by keyboard engineers.

Actually there was plenty of scrutiny and anger over the Gort to Tuam scheme, from routing to cost and actual necessity of the scheme. And actually every thread for a major scheme on the Roads forum has scrutiny and anger by keyboard engineers. Usually of the green persuasion.

tabbey

River Suir wrote: »

So in that case the Department of Transport and NTA’s policy of only building railways on existing or previous alignments makes no sense. After all land being so cheap and all that means that railways could and should be expanded. The cost for the Ennis to Athenry extension without land purchase was quite cheap compared to the cost of the Tuam bypass which was five times that of the railway.

But it seems that roads aren’t subject to so much scrutiny and anger by keyboard engineers.

The Athenry - Ennis infrastructure was already there, having been built in the Victorian era. It only needed new track and signalling etc.
To build a new railway would be a vastly more expensive exercise, but in many instances would be worth it.

Pete_Cavan

River Suir wrote: »

So in that case the Department of Transport and NTA’s policy of only building railways on existing or previous alignments makes no sense. After all land being so cheap and all that means that railways could and should be expanded. The cost for the Ennis to Athenry extension without land purchase was quite cheap compared to the cost of the Tuam bypass which was five times that of the railway.

But it seems that roads aren’t subject to so much scrutiny and anger by keyboard engineers.

The cost of land purchase is not cheap, although it may be relatively so compared to the cost of constructing a railway which is incredibly expensive.

You can't just compare costs. The benefits of the M17/18 scheme are probably more than five times that of the railway given it carries more than ~100 people a day and facilitates the movement of goods also. The PPP also includes maintenance and operating costs for 25 years, would be interesting to see what these costs are for WRC Phase one for 25 years from opening.

Losty Dublin

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

WRC Phase 1 cost approx €1.8m per kilometre. This is the low end of the scale given the land had already been leveled, gradients set, etc. due to it having previously hosted a railway so minimal civil works required. Building a new railway on a natural landscape which is generally not level enough for rail tracks, geographical features to deal with, God knows what kind of ground conditions, etc. A new line would be multiples of that.

Lets say we want to build 50km of railway. To purchase 1km of say, 25m wide corridor for rail would be 6.18 acres. Average price of an acre nationally without a residence in 2019 was €8,823. Lets more than double that to €20,000 to allow for disruption etc caused. That would be approx. €125,000 per km if railway. If you want to build 50km of railway would cost €6.25m

With respect but you appear to be ignorant of the extent of work undertaken to have the line reopened.

• The old track was lifted while the old track ballast was dug up and removed from site. All old signalling was removed, along with trackside signage. New CWT track and ballast was laid with new colour light signalling to control train movements.
• The base of the trackbed was cleaned, with over a century of debris of underlying muck removed. Once this was done excavation teams came in to dig out and to remove some of the steeper cambers and dips en route Where possible curves were eased; again excavation teams were involved for same.
• Embankments along the route were examined, repaired and strengthened to deal with faster trains. As with the trackbed, some were eased to level off the route as much as possible. Cuttings were also cleared and reengineered as appropriate.
• The entire route had membranes laid. This will assist the long term drainage and stability of the route.
• All bridges and culverts en route were surveyed and inspected and either strengthened or rebuild as required. Drains and overflows along the route were cleared and improved or replaced as required.
• Some private level crossings were closed and replaced with bridges or shared crossing points. Others had their layouts improved and widened to allow for safer use, and in many instances cattle grids and matting was provided. Road crossings had automatic monitored barriers installed. Fencing was also renewed.
• New stations were provided along with car parking. Gort, a crossing point, also had a wheelchair assessable footbridge provided.

This list isn't by any means exhaustive but it is entirely fair to say that the line was not far from rebuilt. While you are correct to say that there won't be much in the way of new civil engineering, it is but one factor to allow for.

Pete_Cavan

Losty Dublin wrote: »

With respect but you appear to be ignorant of the extent of work undertaken to have the line reopened.

• The old track was lifted while the old track ballast was dug up and removed from site. All old signalling was removed, along with trackside signage. New CWT track and ballast was laid with new colour light signalling to control train movements.
• The base of the trackbed was cleaned, with over a century of debris of underlying muck removed. Once this was done excavation teams came in to dig out and to remove some of the steeper cambers and dips en route Where possible curves were eased; again excavation teams were involved for same.
• Embankments along the route were examined, repaired and strengthened to deal with faster trains. As with the trackbed, some were eased to level off the route as much as possible. Cuttings were also cleared and reengineered as appropriate.
• The entire route had membranes laid. This will assist the long term drainage and stability of the route.
• All bridges and culverts en route were surveyed and inspected and either strengthened or rebuild as required. Drains and overflows along the route were cleared and improved or replaced as required.
• Some private level crossings were closed and replaced with bridges or shared crossing points. Others had their layouts improved and widened to allow for safer use, and in many instances cattle grids and matting was provided. Road crossings had automatic monitored barriers installed. Fencing was also renewed.
• New stations were provided along with car parking. Gort, a crossing point, also had a wheelchair assessable footbridge provided.

This list isn't by any means exhaustive but it is entirely fair to say that the line was not far from rebuilt. While you are correct to say that there won't be much in the way of new civil engineering, it is but one factor to allow for.

I'm not ignorant of the extent of work undertaken to have the line reopened but building a new line from scratch requires far more work. A new line across a virgin landscape would require major earthworks to provide a stable and sufficiently level base on which to build the railway. Anywhere you go to build it would require extensive cut and/or fill to give a suitable vertical alignment and even favourable ground conditions would require significant works to give sufficient bearing capacity, nevermind soft and/or wet ground. Building a new line from scratch would cost multiples of what reopening Athenry - Ennis cost, to believe otherwise is being ignorant of the extent of works required.

Losty Dublin

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I'm not ignorant of the extent of work undertaken to have the line reopened but building a new line from scratch requires far more work. A new line across a virgin landscape would require major earthworks to provide a stable and sufficiently level base on which to build the railway. Anywhere you go to build it would require extensive cut and/or fill to give a suitable vertical alignment and even favourable ground conditions would require significant works to give sufficient bearing capacity, nevermind soft and/or wet ground. Building a new line from scratch would cost multiples of what reopening Athenry - Ennis cost, to believe otherwise is being ignorant of the extent of works required.

It does require some more work but not much more work, on site in any case. If anything a lot of work undertaken by Irish Rail to ready the WRC or Middleton would have been fairly similar to a new line. M3 Parkway would be one such example of a new route. Although it largely follows the route of a former line it was working from the base up and it followed much of the same work patterns on site.

Pete_Cavan

Losty Dublin wrote: »

It does require some more work but not much more work, on site in any case. If anything a lot of work undertaken by Irish Rail to ready the WRC or Middleton would have been fairly similar to a new line. M3 Parkway would be one such example of a new route. Although it largely follows the route of a former line it was working from the base up and it followed much of the same work patterns on site.

Not much more work! Our undulating country is generally not conducive to railways is its natural state. If you could pick any two points, even a relatively short distance of 10km apart, there is certainly going to be major level changes along the line. In order to smooth it out to create a sufficiently level surface on which to run a train, major cut and fill earthworks would be required to reshape the landscape. You can't just follow the flattest land either as that would leave a meandering route which restricts speeds. On the former rail lines the cuttings and embankments are already there, the cost of repairing or strengthening them is nothing compared to the cost of the heavy earthworks which would be required to create them now. Those existing alignments also already have a solid foundation underneath to carry the heavy trains of the past, creating that would require excavating down to good bearing (which can be very deep) and huge quantities of imported stone.

The cost of the M17/18 project was mentioned earlier, strip out the operation/maintenance/financing costs and a new rail line would be of a similar order of cost, adjusting for the width of the corridor depending on double or single track.

AMKC

This is what Irish Rail should be doing.


https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/14/in-austria-a-hydrogen-train-is-set-to-travel-on-challenging-routes-.html

Would it be cheaper to just buy one of these trains instead of trying to electrify lines that are not electrified? Maybe we could have the H.R.C.T.S or Hydrogen rapid country transport System.

IE 222

I think this is the answer to our intercity network but not high frequency services such as Dart. The current technology wouldn't be too far off what we require now. It should also be possible to convert current fleet to hydro power saving on the need to purchase a new fleet.

loyatemu

IE 222 wrote: »

I think this is the answer to our intercity network but not high frequency services such as Dart. The current technology wouldn't be too far off what we require now. It should also be possible to convert current fleet to hydro power saving on the need to purchase a new fleet.

Looking at the promotional video for the iLint I doubt our existing stock could be retrofitted. There's a lot of proprietary tech in there -fuel cells, hydrogen storage, LiOn batteries, energy recovery. Looks like a pretty good system though, I wonder how the price compares to diesel.

tabbey

AMKC wrote: »

This is what Irish Rail should be doing.


https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/14/in-austria-a-hydrogen-train-is-set-to-travel-on-challenging-routes-.html

Would it be cheaper to just buy one of these trains instead of trying to electrify lines that are not electrified? Maybe we could have the H.R.C.T.S or Hydrogen rapid country transport System.

This is a trial.
Hydrogen technology is merely another form of storing energy, it is produced using electric power. Up to now, battery technology is usually considered more efficient.
In years or decades to come, hydrogen may indeed be useful, but for now it's irrelevant.

IE 222

loyatemu wrote: »

Looking at the promotional video for the iLint I doubt our existing stock could be retrofitted. There's a lot of proprietary tech in there -fuel cells, hydrogen storage, LiOn batteries, energy recovery. Looks like a pretty good system though, I wonder how the price compares to diesel.

I don't know the full ins and outs of it but read somewhere conversion is possible and cost effective. I think the UK tested a converted EMU. Maybe EMU are better suit than DMUs for conversion.

IE 222

tabbey wrote: »

This is a trial.
Hydrogen technology is merely another form of storing energy, it is produced using electric power. Up to now, battery technology is usually considered more efficient.
In years or decades to come, hydrogen may indeed be useful, but for now it's irrelevant.

It seems to be gaining momentum. The Germans see its usefulness now and look to be buying into after a successful 18 month trial in Saxony. Scotland recently announced plans to trial it also.

Del.Monte

AMKC wrote: »

This is what Irish Rail should be doing.


https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/14/in-austria-a-hydrogen-train-is-set-to-travel-on-challenging-routes-.html

Would it be cheaper to just buy one of these trains instead of trying to electrify lines that are not electrified? Maybe we could have the H.R.C.T.S or Hydrogen rapid country transport System.

In case you haven't noticed, CIE don't do innovation - at least not since O V Bulleid left the company in the late 1950s.

bk

I'm somewhat dubious about Hyrdrogen technology.

Obviously it does work, but the issue is cost and it's environmental impact.

People always talk about Hydrogen being produced using excess wind and solar power, but in reality 95% of the worlds Hydrogen is produced using natural gas steam reformation or coal/oil gasification. This sort of production unfortunately releases large amounts of greenhouse gases. It is slightly better then Diesel, but far from zero emissions and typically much worse then overhead power or EV.

It is also about 3 times more expensive then Diesel and that is for the "cheap" gas reforming approach, using Wind and electrolysis greatly increases the cost. It also comes with difficult and expensive handling, transport, safety and storage costs. I don't think you would be able to store hydrogen in any of the city or town centre stations, rural locations only.

I wouldn't underestimate the difficulties and downsides of this technology.

I don't think it has any place in cars, vans, city buses, etc. It might have a place in heavier vehicles, intercity trains, coaches, trucks, etc. but only if the battery tech doesn't develop fast enough and overtake it.

And for intercity trains you would definitely want to be doing a careful cost benefit analysis of the cost of overhead cables versus the much higher fuel and handling costs of Hydrogen over a decently long period.

A hybrid approach of trains with batteries + partial electrification for topup of the batteries along the way is also an approach worth considering.

I'm not dismissing hydrogen tech at all, but just FYI it is much more complicated then the glossy brochures suggest.

IE 222

bk wrote: »

I'm somewhat dubious about Hyrdrogen technology.

Obviously it does work, but the issue is cost and it's environmental impact.

People always talk about Hydrogen being produced using excess wind and solar power, but in reality 95% of the worlds Hydrogen is produced using natural gas steam reformation or coal/oil gasification. This sort of production unfortunately releases large amounts of greenhouse gases. It is slightly better then Diesel, but far from zero emissions and typically much worse then overhead power or EV.

It is also about 3 times more expensive then Diesel and that is for the "cheap" gas reforming approach, using Wind and electrolysis greatly increases the cost. It also comes with difficult and expensive handling, transport, safety and storage costs. I don't think you would be able to store hydrogen in any of the city or town centre stations, rural locations only.

I wouldn't underestimate the difficulties and downsides of this technology.

I don't think it has any place in cars, vans, city buses, etc. It might have a place in heavier vehicles, intercity trains, coaches, trucks, etc. but only if the battery tech doesn't develop fast enough and overtake it.

And for intercity trains you would definitely want to be doing a careful cost benefit analysis of the cost of overhead cables versus the much higher fuel and handling costs of Hydrogen over a decently long period.

A hybrid approach of trains with batteries + partial electrification for topup of the batteries along the way is also an approach worth considering.

I'm not dismissing hydrogen tech at all, but just FYI it is much more complicated then the glossy brochures suggest.

It's still very early days for hydrail.

The majority of electricity is still produced from fossil fuel and likely to remain that way for the foreseeable. If demand is high enough and hydrogen is cost effective no doubt we'll find cheaper and cleaner ways to produce it. We also have the ability to produce our own fuel whether we can do it at an affordable rate is different matter.

In terms of logistics, costs and safety it will be interesting to see how Energia and Translink get on with the hydro bus albeit at much lower scale but it will give us a good indication as to how good or bad such a system will work in Ireland.

We only envision electrifying Belfast, Cork and Galway and even that is only a motion. Hydrogen could serve the entire network. We have another 10-15 years before needing to look at our future fleet and this will give us plenty of time to see how hydrail develops.

dowlingm

The only places where a hydrogen fuelling setup might make sense is Whitegate with pipelines to refuel at Midleton and Cobh. In theory an isolated sub fleet might make sense but then you have to create all that training and safety cases for what amounts to a gadgetbahn.

The Germans have massive chemical industry to draw workers and expertise from in handling what is a very difficult molecule to store and transport without leaks. Ireland doesn’t have massive nuclear plants with nowhere to sink their excess base load over night where you could electrolyse water instead.

The thing about electric traction is yes the OHLE and transformer work is expensive and difficult but the traction itself is well understood, you can have a multiplicity of sources, the grid is always going to be a national priority both for domestic and data centres, and now with batteries and supercapacitors you can bridge the gap more easily between unwired/unwireable/depowered sections.

L1011

Energia have an electrolysis plant to use excess wind energy overnight don't they?

dowlingm

L1011 wrote: »

Energia have an electrolysis plant to use excess wind energy overnight don't they?

So they do

https://www.energia.ie/blog/future-of-energy

They admit themselves it’s small scale but marrying it to a wind plant makes some sense. The thing about producing for a large scale system with 7x52 demand is that you have to be able to either have steady production or a lot of storage to cover lulls or you end up buying market rate power (or reformed H2 from a chemical vendor) to cover your contract, no? Translink could sit three buses out at weekends and the like. Harder when it’s 33, or 133.

IE 222

dowlingm wrote: »

So they do

https://www.energia.ie/blog/future-of-energy

They admit themselves it’s small scale but marrying it to a wind plant makes some sense. The thing about producing for a large scale system with 7x52 demand is that you have to be able to either have steady production or a lot of storage to cover lulls or you end up buying market rate power (or reformed H2 from a chemical vendor) to cover your contract, no? Translink could sit three buses out at weekends and the like. Harder when it’s 33, or 133.

That's why it's been trialled first. Lets see how it all works out before denouncing it. They obviously have belief in its possibilities and success otherwise it ain't worth the investment.

bobbyy gee

With covid it might all be put on hold as less people travel

bk

IE 222 wrote: »

That's why it's been trialled first. Lets see how it all works out before denouncing it. They obviously have belief in its possibilities and success otherwise it ain't worth the investment.

BTW The NTA will also be trialling 3 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Double Decker buses with BE:

https://www.dublininquirer.com/2020/06/17/hydrogen-buses-set-to-be-trialled-in-dublin-early-next-year-says-nta

But this already shows some of the challenges. Each bus to cost 800k, versus 350k for Diesel and 450k for plugin hybrid. In another report I read it costs about 1 million euro of the fuel pumping station for each depot. And hydrogen fuel cost roughly 3 times Diesel.

So it isn't so much that it doesn't work, but that currently at least, it massively increases costs all round.

Of course well worth trialling and hopefully in time the costs would come down. But it also shows why people haven't rushed to it yet.

Sorry I know this is the rail forum, but all the same cost challenges would be there for hydrail too.

Jamie2k9

NTA to carry out a feasiblity study to upgrade Galway-Athenry to double track. Study scheduled to commence in November and be complete by Q2 2021.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2020-09-23a.271

Pixel Eater

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

NTA to carry out a feasiblity study to upgrade Galway-Athenry to double track. Study scheduled to commence in November and be complete by Q2 2021.

https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2020-09-23a.271

This was mooted months ago but a feasibility might only be completed by next summer; I thought it was a lot more advanced than this. Weclome but I wish things would move far quicker.

Geuze

Is there anything to stop IE simply doing this themselves?

If they own the land, can they cut back growth, slew existing track, and lay new track?

Do they need permission from central/local Govt, and NTA?

GerardKeating

Geuze wrote: »

Do they need permission from central/local Govt,
and NTA?

They would need a railway order (railway equilivant of planning permission).

There are a few bridges on the line which might need work, it's not as simple as clearing a few weeds away and laying down a few rails.

Origionally the Athlone/Ballinasloe section was double track, and later singled.
And the Galway-Athenry section was also double, and later singled, but the bit inbetween was always single track.

Also a road bridge was built over the track, just after Oranmore, not sure if the left room for two tracks.

IE 222

bk wrote: »

BTW The NTA will also be trialling 3 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Double Decker buses with BE:

https://www.dublininquirer.com/2020/06/17/hydrogen-buses-set-to-be-trialled-in-dublin-early-next-year-says-nta

But this already shows some of the challenges. Each bus to cost 800k, versus 350k for Diesel and 450k for plugin hybrid. In another report I read it costs about 1 million euro of the fuel pumping station for each depot. And hydrogen fuel cost roughly 3 times Diesel.

So it isn't so much that it doesn't work, but that currently at least, it massively increases costs all round.

Of course well worth trialling and hopefully in time the costs would come down. But it also shows why people haven't rushed to it yet.

Sorry I know this is the rail forum, but all the same cost challenges would be there for hydrail too.

I wouldn't be worried about costs right now. These things are all about economies of scale. It will likely cost the same to produce, transport and store small batches as it would large batches. If interest and demand grows manufacturers will increase production lines and productivity accordingly which will slash the costs. Same with the fuel itself. It's a very small and limited industry currently and I think it's a bit premature to compare the costs of both at this stage.

Jamie2k9

GerardKeating wrote: »

They would need a railway order (railway equilivant of planning permission).

There are a few bridges on the line which might need work, it's not as simple as clearing a few weeds away and laying down a few rails.

Origionally the Athlone/Ballinasloe section was double track, and later singled.
And the Galway-Athenry section was also double, and later singled, but the bit inbetween was always single track.

Also a road bridge was built over the track, just after Oranmore, not sure if the left room for two tracks.

Looking at Google maps would say the N67 bridge should just about accomidate doubling but they were not generous with space. When was it buit do you know?

The big issues will be closing crossings, I cannot see any non CCTV controlled staying if its doubled. Ideally all would go but might not be possible.

The speed limits on the section are terrible now, should be 80mph minimun but the aim should be 100mph.

bk

IE 222 wrote: »

I wouldn't be worried about costs right now. These things are all about economies of scale. It will likely cost the same to produce, transport and store small batches as it would large batches. If interest and demand grows manufacturers will increase production lines and productivity accordingly which will slash the costs. Same with the fuel itself. It's a very small and limited industry currently and I think it's a bit premature to compare the costs of both at this stage.

The issue you have, prices will only drop if it scales up, but it will only scale up if the demand is there.

And increasingly it is looking like widespread, large scale demand for Hydrogen simply isn't going to develop.

Cars, vans, city buses, etc. all look to be going battery, not hydrogen. Even heavier vehicles like intercity coaches * and trucks look borderline to be going battery too.

* South Korea already has a very nice looking, double decker intercity battery EV coach!

It looks like batteries are getting the scale, not hydrogen. If all those go battery, they were does the scale for hydrogen come from? You aren't going to get the scale if you are producing hydrogen just for a small number of trains and a few other odds and ends.

This is why the Japanese government had been pushing Toyota so hard to go Hydrogen over battery. They knew they needed the scale that comes with cars. But it looks to have failed and even Toyota are getting ready to go battery now too.

I will say however, there is one possibility for scale. In the UK, they are thinking about converting the natural gas network for home heating to Hydrogen! That would give you scale in terms of hydrogen production obviously.

But a word of warning, this idea in the UK is highly controversial with lots of major question marks, massive disruption and cost. And we don't seem to be going down that route here in Ireland. So I'd be cautious on relying on this.

Oh Airbus seem to be thinking of going Hydrogen too for aircraft, it that happens, it would help trains too.

Again, not saying it can't be Hydrogen, just that it is complicated.

IE 222

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Looking at Google maps would say the N67 bridge should just about accomidate doubling but they were not generous with space. When was it buit do you know?

The big issues will be closing crossings, I cannot see any non CCTV controlled staying if its doubled. Ideally all would go but might not be possible.

The speed limits on the section are terrible now, should be 80mph minimun but the aim should be 100mph.

I think IE will look at this as been an opportunity to close crossings, closures are high on the list of priorities. They know and plan for the line to doubled in the future but there is more important upgrades they need fundIng for first. Letting the councillors trash this out as a Galway commuter project will work well for them. In the grand scheme off doubling the line this would be the most expensive section as there is 9 or 10 crossings in this section. As we've seen with DART, Navan and WRC doubling the line would likely be done in phases to disguise the overall cost. It will make the rest of the phases look like great value in comparison.

Closures should bring line speeds up to 100mph. Max speed currently is 90mph but with the amount restrictions your averaging around 70mph.

How does Healy's Crossing fair in comparison to manual, user and automated crossings.
Are speeds maintained,
Does it offer major cost savings over automated barrier crossings and does it cost much more than a simple user crossing,
Is safety much improved over user crossings.

IE 222

bk wrote: »

The issue you have, prices will only drop if it scales up, but it will only scale up if the demand is there.

And increasingly it is looking like widespread, large scale demand for Hydrogen simply isn't going to develop.

Cars, vans, city buses, etc. all look to be going battery, not hydrogen. Even heavier vehicles like intercity coaches * and trucks look borderline to be going battery too.

* South Korea already has a very nice looking, double decker intercity battery EV coach!

It looks like batteries are getting the scale, not hydrogen. If all those go battery, they were does the scale for hydrogen come from? You aren't going to get the scale if you are producing hydrogen just for a small number of trains and a few other odds and ends.

This is why the Japanese government had been pushing Toyota so hard to go Hydrogen over battery. They knew they needed the scale that comes with cars. But it looks to have failed and even Toyota are getting ready to go battery now too.

I will say however, there is one possibility for scale. In the UK, they are thinking about converting the natural gas network for home heating to Hydrogen! That would give you scale in terms of hydrogen production obviously.

But a word of warning, this idea in the UK is highly controversial with lots of major question marks, massive disruption and cost. And we don't seem to be going down that route here in Ireland. So I'd be cautious on relying on this.

Oh Airbus seem to be thinking of going Hydrogen too for aircraft, it that happens, it would help trains too.

Again, not saying it can't be Hydrogen, just that it is complicated.

I completely understand but I think your delving too deeply into this idea. It's not about where it is now but where it will be in 10-15 years time. Hydrogen rail has realistically only come to fruition in the last 5 years. Trials are only beginning and if early trials show positives more advanced trials will be experimented. It'll be at least another 5-10 years before anyone really knows its full potential which lines up perfectly with our next fleet and network renewal time scale.

bk

IE 222 wrote: »

I completely understand but I think your delving too deeply into this idea. It's not about where it is now but where it will be in 10-15 years time. Hydrogen rail has realistically only come to fruition in the last 5 years. Trials are only beginning and if early trials show positives more advanced trials will be experimented. It'll be at least another 5-10 years before anyone really knows its full potential which lines up perfectly with our next fleet and network renewal time scale.

Oh absolutely. All just interesting speculation on my part. I've been following the development of battery and hydrogen tech closely over the last few years.

I'd assume that Battery trains will also be a strong contender too.

With the news of Bombardier competing for the Dart+ project, their TALENT 3 regional train with batteries could be an interesting future option too. It currently has 100km range, but 15 years from now, given the rate of improvement in battery capacity, you'd be looking at 210 to 270km range. Plus the ability to topup from overhead cables. Could be quiet an attractive option for the commuter lines into the other cities.

Of course all far off in the future. Will be more interesting to see what they decide to go for for Dart+ in the short term.

IE 222

bk wrote: »

Oh absolutely. All just interesting speculation on my part. I've been following the development of battery and hydrogen tech closely over the last few years.

I'd assume that Battery trains will also be a strong contender too.

With the news of Bombardier competing for the Dart+ project, their TALENT 3 regional train with batteries could be an interesting future option too. It currently has 100km range, but 15 years from now, given the rate of improvement in battery capacity, you'd be looking at 210 to 270km range. Plus the ability to topup from overhead cables. Could be quiet an attractive option for the commuter lines into the other cities.

Of course all far off in the future. Will be more interesting to see what they decide to go for for Dart+ in the short term.

Still all very new systems. IE will be one of the first of a small number BEMU customers. There is very little performance data out there at the moment to aid IE in a decision. BEMU even on the lower end of range does offer massive potential and cost benefits to the network. Regional services will fall well within the range expectation from the OHLE end points. It would need to the examined further but if BEMU can simply operate with just a quick charge at a terminal I could see these also been a quick and cheap replacement for Cork local services.

I'm not sure the Talent 3 can operate high floor. I believe the new design of wider bodies is based on low floor design. The Talent is also restricted to 6 car lengths. Any brochure trains will need to be adapted for Irish rails either way so maybe design enhancements are possible.

The Mireo looks to be another interesting option also. This will also come in 3 variants EMU, BEMU & HMU. This would be a massive advantage in terms of fleet commonality and completely slash maintenance, servicing ect costs. Having an identical fleet that operated with 3 different power modes would be a game changer. Sets will be designed to allow them to be change between variants (power) modes. I believe this is a requirement for IE as they only plan to keep the battery packs until full electrification is completed. Should BEMU prove to be too costly or a failure for whatever reason it would be very easy to just run them as EMUs. I'm not sure if the Talnet offers this simplicity and ability to operate without batteries.

tabbey

Will talent fit the Irish loading gauge?

Markcheese

Is the battery power idea really only for when trains are in station ? ,And diesel electric most of the rest of the time ?

goingnowhere

Battery all the way

IE 222

tabbey wrote: »

Will talent fit the Irish loading gauge?

Not sure but one of the big selling points over the Talent 2 is wider bodies.

IE 222

Markcheese wrote: »

Is the battery power idea really only for when trains are in station ? ,And diesel electric most of the rest of the time ?

Supposedly the battery units are only envisioned to run DART services in advance of OHLE been completed. IE are bringing them in to bring forward DART expansion plans and as a back up plan should the government delay or pull out of funding any electrification projects.

It does seem rather wasteful and stupid not to use them beyond the OHLE network to serve the likes of Dundalk, Mullingar, Portlaoise/Carlow, Arklow/Gorey and even Navan if built.

bk

IE 222 wrote: »

I'm not sure the Talent 3 can operate high floor. I believe the new design of wider bodies is based on low floor design. The Talent is also restricted to 6 car lengths. Any brochure trains will need to be adapted for Irish rails either way so maybe design enhancements are possible.

Ah right, I totally forgot about that!!

I did read that the Aventra can take the same battery packs as the Talent 3, modular design, so perhaps shorter BEMU Aventra's for the regional services like Cork would make more sense. Would help that 15 years from now, we would have lots of experience with the Aventra and it's batteries if they were too win the Dart+ contract.

Of course, by then hopefully lots similar options from other manufacturers too like Mireo as you say.

goingnowhere

Irish Rail spec is 4 car + 8 car, 20m train, non articulated

There are 6 qualified bidders, the usual suspects of Rotem and Mitsui are NOT on the shortlist...

Bombardier Aventra is the closest to spec from current production trains and has the advantage of UK approvals which helps as IE standards are similar. However the Aventra is far from reliable

Jamie2k9

goingnowhere wrote: »

Irish Rail spec is 4 car + 8 car, 20m train, non articulated

There are 6 qualified bidders, the usual suspects of Rotem and Mitsui are NOT on the shortlist...

Bombardier Aventra is the closest to spec from current production trains and has the advantage of UK approvals which helps as IE standards are similar. However the Aventra is far from reliable

Aventra sounds like a perfect match, join the list of screw ups..

The usual suspects have more sense not making the cut and saving themselves lot of trouble down the line.

sdanseo

Why on earth is the IÉ spec non articulated? Walkthrough design greatly increases capacity and capacity is a key problem.

goingnowhere wrote: »

Irish Rail spec is 4 car + 8 car, 20m train, non articulated

There are 6 qualified bidders, the usual suspects of Rotem and Mitsui are NOT on the shortlist...

Bombardier Aventra is the closest to spec from current production trains and has the advantage of UK approvals which helps as IE standards are similar. However the Aventra is far from reliable

Any source or details?

IE 222

bk wrote: »

Ah right, I totally forgot about that!!

I did read that the Aventra can take the same battery packs as the Talent 3, modular design, so perhaps shorter BEMU Aventra's for the regional services like Cork would make more sense. Would help that 15 years from now, we would have lots of experience with the Aventra and it's batteries if they were too win the Dart+ contract.

Of course, by then hopefully lots similar options from other manufacturers too like Mireo as you say.

Aventra hasn't exactly been a roaring success in the UK. I'd also be sceptical that Bombardier have designed and launched a new series Talent for BEMU markets and only have it as optional extra in Aventra via MITRAC. The Talent is designed wholly on BEMU capabilities rather than just having MITRAC added to the Talent 2. They also claim a much larger range capability with a add on product compared to a purpose built product, not saying its impossible but I'd be wary of such claims.

goingnowhere

sdanseo wrote: »

Why on earth is the IÉ spec non articulated? Walkthrough design greatly increases capacity and capacity is a key problem.



Any source or details?

It’s suggested in the pre qualification questionnaire

will operate in both full length and half-length formations (i.e. where a full length formation will be between 160m and 168m in length) and will be required to meet other gauging requirements of the Irish Rail network.

This screams I want a 8 coach 20-21m unit made of two half sets, the 8530 mock up drawing from one vendor was a 20m regular coach.

If you had 8 coaches in 160m then you got gauging issues so need a narrower coach with articulations you also would exceed the nominal 18.9 ton axle load limit very quickly, 175 passengers at full is 10 tons and the batteries well that’s another 4 tons, add the bodyshell and some equipment and you are in trouble

So you are down to 5/10 car options so more bodyshells but again the weight issue comes into play and you have more space lost to crumple zones. Its workable if you work off the Stadler Merseyrail 777 spec but the BEMU need things get tight

For reference if you go to Drogheda 2600,2700,2800,29000 all have exactly the same jacking points so the whole train set can be lifted automatically. It’s fun to watch.


Its not impossible but having to lug the batteries around and Irish Rail's infrastructure limitations makes articulation tricky to work out.

dublinman1990

The 41 additional intercity railcars earmarked for the Intercity network has been covered in Budget 2021.