Should Wexford Waterford line reopen?

[Deleted User]

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I'm aware it already exists, given the impact of pollution and environmental damage I am arguing a far heavier weighting for pollution, health and other environmental damage in the code, rather than a new system.

Sure, I'd agree with that.

However, any such weighting would also apply to every other rail project so the effect on the overall ranking of a project of this type would remain more or less unchanged

JohnC.

https://waterford-news.ie/2021/03/22/waterford-wexford-line-confirmed-for-all-island-strategic-rail-review/

THE Waterford to Wexford rail link will feature in the pending all-island Strategic Rail Review, it has been confirmed.

In a statement issued this afternoon, the South East On Track (SEOT) advocacy group said this commitment was made to them by Transport Minister Eamon Ryan during a meeting held on Friday last.

More at the link

[Deleted User]

JohnC. wrote: »

https://waterford-news.ie/2021/03/22/waterford-wexford-line-confirmed-for-all-island-strategic-rail-review/



More at the link

Not sure why thats even news, every single bit of rail (open/closed) in the country is part of that review

However, SEOT welcome it now, in the same way WOT welcomed the EY report until it was published. I have a feeling SEOT are going to throw similar tantrums once this review is published

riddlinrussell

DaCor wrote: »

Not sure why thats even news, every single bit of rail (open/closed) in the country is part of that review

However, SEOT welcome it now, in the same way WOT welcomed the EY report until it was published. I have a feeling SEOT are going to throw similar tantrums once this review is published

I'm glad it is going to happen though, I hope the viability being analysed is greater than the raw economics, taking in to account the broad economic benefits of reducing climate harm. I would also like to see a genuine comparative analysis be done on all our disused rail comparing greenway benefit to railway benefit in a fair manner.

I still don't expect this line would pass muster in such an analysis, but I would hope a few of the currently out of commission lines can be revived.

Isambard

DaCor wrote: »

Not sure why thats even news, every single bit of rail (open/closed) in the country is part of that review

H snip

and if the review comes back that some open existing lines are not viable, what then?

riddlinrussell

Isambard wrote: »

and if the review comes back that some open existing lines are not viable, what then?

I would hope it would include proposals to make those routes viable, better timetabling, line improvements, more stations, passing loops etc.

With a 2:1 split of infrastructure funding there should be a rosier outlook toward rail viability since the last review

Isambard

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I would hope it would include proposals to make those routes viable, better timetabling, line improvements, more stations, passing loops etc.

With a 2:1 split of infrastructure funding there should be a rosier outlook toward rail viability since the last review

no evidence of it so far, but let's hope it isn't just buses that benefit .

[Deleted User]

Isambard wrote: »

and if the review comes back that some open existing lines are not viable, what then?

Umm, not to state the blindingly obvious but if a line is not viable then there are 2 choices, work to make it viable or shut it.

Am I missing some other option?

If it shuts the freed up capital should be redirected to improve services elsewhere on the network

Isambard

DaCor wrote: »

Umm, not to state the blindingly obvious but if a line is not viable then there are 2 choices, work to make it viable or shut it.

Am I missing some other option?

If it shuts the freed up capital should be redirected to improve services elsewhere on the network

the blindingly obvious is that I was talking about further routes being deemed unviable. There seems little effort being put into improving some of the lesser lines so far.

riddlinrussell

Isambard wrote: »

the blindingly obvious is that I was talking about further routes being deemed unviable. There seems little effort being put into improving some of the lesser lines so far.

I would like to see recommendations going as far as "To make this viable densification of population would need to be achieved at x, y and z locations" and have that inform housing strategies etc. Would there be that level of joined up thinking form the governement is a different matter...

end of the road

DaCor wrote: »

Not sure why thats even news, every single bit of rail (open/closed) in the country is part of that review

However, SEOT welcome it now, in the same way WOT welcomed the EY report until it was published. I have a feeling SEOT are going to throw similar tantrums once this review is published

WOT didn't throw any tantrums and neither will SEOT i would expect.
what they did do, is go through and point out how the report in relation to the line was all over the place, and i wouldn't be surprised if SEOT don't do the same if any report into this line was the same, in fact i would be expecting it.
as for why this line being part of the review is news, well it's news in the area just like any other local news i would imagine.

[Deleted User]

Isambard wrote: »

the blindingly obvious is that I was talking about further routes being deemed unviable. There seems little effort being put into improving some of the lesser lines so far.

Maybe because those are not viable?

The adage "good money after bad" may be appropriate here

For example, IE slashed the prices on the WRC, gave free parking, increased the timetable and for what, still has one of the highest subventions in the whole network.

It may be the case that some lines just do not have sufficient market sizes to justify continuing operations.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

WOT didn't throw any tantrums and neither will SEOT i would expect.
what they did do, is go through and point out how the report in relation to the line was all over the place, and i wouldn't be surprised if SEOT don't do the same if any report into this line was the same, in fact i would be expecting it.
as for why this line being part of the review is news, well it's news in the area just like any other local news i would imagine.

Thanks to Alan Dillion TD, we've learned since, that regardless, the report still stands and any issues with the content would not change the conclusion.

ohographite

DaCor wrote: »

Maybe because those are not viable?

The adage "good money after bad" may be appropriate here

For example, IE slashed the prices on the WRC, gave free parking, increased the timetable and for what, still has one of the highest subventions in the whole network.

It may be the case that some lines just do not have sufficient market sizes to justify continuing operations.

I accept that the two least used railways in Ireland, Limerick-Nenagh-Ballybrophy and LimerickJunction-Waterford, are not viable if they continue with the low patronage(about 100 journeys a day each) that they had before the lockdown. However, I think that both of these lines should be given a different timetable in an effort to make them viable. In the case of Limerick-Nenagh-Ballybrophy, I would give it direct trains to Dublin, and a train that arrives at Limerick before 8:30 and one that departs Limerick after 17:30, allowing people going to work/school/college in Limerick to use the train. Then in the case of LimerickJunction-Waterford, I would give it direct trains to Limerick, with one that arrives Limerick pre 8:30 and one that departs it after 17:30 which would again facilitate people working in Limerick, and to do the same for Waterford, I would also give it a train that arrives in Waterford pre 8:30 and departs it after 17:30. I would also give both lines a mid-morning train each way and an afternoon train each way.
With those timetables on those lines, I would say that the number of passenger journeys made on them would grow to the point that the lines become viable.
I would also say it is at least worth a try.

riddlinrussell

ohographite wrote: »

I accept that the two least used railways in Ireland, Limerick-Nenagh-Ballybrophy and LimerickJunction-Waterford, are not viable if they continue with the low patronage(about 100 journeys a day each) that they had before the lockdown. However, I think that both of these lines should be given a different timetable in an effort to make them viable. In the case of Limerick-Nenagh-Ballybrophy, I would give it direct trains to Dublin, and a train that arrives at Limerick before 8:30 and one that departs Limerick after 17:30, allowing people going to work/school/college in Limerick to use the train. Then in the case of LimerickJunction-Waterford, I would give it direct trains to Limerick, with one that arrives Limerick pre 8:30 and one that departs it after 17:30 which would again facilitate people working in Limerick, and to do the same for Waterford, I would also give it a train that arrives in Waterford pre 8:30 and departs it after 17:30. I would also give both lines a mid-morning train each way and an afternoon train each way.
With those timetables on those lines, I would say that the number of passenger journeys made on them would grow to the point that the lines become viable.
I would also say it is at least worth a try.

I'd agree with that as a 'short term' fix for these lines, ideally the report would also propose medium term/long term ways to improve viability on these (and all) routes. Ireland has literally never truly built for high density around stations and its utterly baffling.

Sam Russell

ohographite wrote: »

I accept that the two least used railways in Ireland, Limerick-Nenagh-Ballybrophy and LimerickJunction-Waterford, are not viable if they continue with the low patronage(about 100 journeys a day each) that they had before the lockdown. However, I think that both of these lines should be given a different timetable in an effort to make them viable. In the case of Limerick-Nenagh-Ballybrophy, I would give it direct trains to Dublin, and a train that arrives at Limerick before 8:30 and one that departs Limerick after 17:30, allowing people going to work/school/college in Limerick to use the train. Then in the case of LimerickJunction-Waterford, I would give it direct trains to Limerick, with one that arrives Limerick pre 8:30 and one that departs it after 17:30 which would again facilitate people working in Limerick, and to do the same for Waterford, I would also give it a train that arrives in Waterford pre 8:30 and departs it after 17:30. I would also give both lines a mid-morning train each way and an afternoon train each way.
With those timetables on those lines, I would say that the number of passenger journeys made on them would grow to the point that the lines become viable.
I would also say it is at least worth a try.

These are single track lines. Have you checked the existing timetables to see if those times are possible? Are there sufficient passing loops?

ohographite

Sam Russell wrote: »

These are single track lines. Have you checked the existing timetables to see if those times are possible? Are there sufficient passing loops?

I have checked all those things, and there is enough capacity on both lines for such a service.
For example, the Limerick-Nenagh-Ballybrophy line is passable in about 2 hours, and as far as I know all the stations(except Limerick and Ballybrophy themselves) have only one platform each. Here is a timetable the line could have with one train on it at a time:

05:15 departs Dublin, 06:15 departs Ballybrophy, 08:15 reaches Limerick.
09:45 departs Dublin, 10:45 departs Ballybrophy, 12:45 reaches Limerick.
14:15 departs Dublin, 15:15 departs Ballybrophy, 17:15 reaches Limerick.
18:50 departs Dublin, 19:50 departs Ballybrophy, 21:50 reaches Limerick.

08:30 departs Limerick, 10:30 departs Ballybrophy, 11:30 reaches Dublin.
13:00 departs Limerick, 15:00 departs Ballybrophy, 16:00 reaches Dublin.
17:40 departs Limerick, 19:40 departs Ballybrophy, 20:40 reaches Dublin.

riddlinrussell

Sam Russell wrote: »

These are single track lines. Have you checked the existing timetables to see if those times are possible? Are there sufficient passing loops?

Currently 2 passing loops Limerick to LJ, and then dual track at Tipp Town, Clonmel and Carrick-On-Suir stations. Looks like space to reinstate a second track at Cahir which might be close to an optimised midway crossing point between two scheduled trains? Alternatively a fair bit of open land along that mid-point to create a good length passing loop for 'at-speed' crossover.

[Deleted User]

ohographite wrote: »

I accept that the two least used railways in Ireland, Limerick-Nenagh-Ballybrophy and LimerickJunction-Waterford, are not viable if they continue with the low patronage(about 100 journeys a day each) that they had before the lockdown. However, I think that both of these lines should be given a different timetable in an effort to make them viable. In the case of Limerick-Nenagh-Ballybrophy, I would give it direct trains to Dublin, and a train that arrives at Limerick before 8:30 and one that departs Limerick after 17:30, allowing people going to work/school/college in Limerick to use the train. Then in the case of LimerickJunction-Waterford, I would give it direct trains to Limerick, with one that arrives Limerick pre 8:30 and one that departs it after 17:30 which would again facilitate people working in Limerick, and to do the same for Waterford, I would also give it a train that arrives in Waterford pre 8:30 and departs it after 17:30. I would also give both lines a mid-morning train each way and an afternoon train each way.
With those timetables on those lines, I would say that the number of passenger journeys made on them would grow to the point that the lines become viable.
I would also say it is at least worth a try.

I'd have no issue with that, sensible proposals. I'm not familiar enough with those lines to discuss how feasible they are, but they make sense in they would capture commuter fares

Where there are existing services we should be going hell for leather to try boost them as much as possible and I mean that across the board.

However, I will add that where such measures are shown to be ineffective then we must be willing to cut the dead weight to allow funding to be redirected elsewhere in the network where it could be of more benefit.

bk

And where do you get the extra rolling stock to trial these extra services?

Plus there would be extra operational costs in terms of extra drivers, extra staff to operate level crossings, etc.

riddlinrussell

bk wrote: »

And where do you get the extra rolling stock to trial these extra services?

Plus there would be extra operational costs in terms of extra drivers, extra staff to operate level crossings, etc.

Given that this is a review we are discussing not doing these things *immediately*, I would hope that it could include recommendations of rolling stock needed to achieve this and probably recommendations for at least automating level crossing operations. With the huge order of new stock coming in the next few years we should see a cascade of extra stock available across all the lines as a result.

bk

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Given that this is a review we are discussing not doing these things *immediately*, I would hope that it could include recommendations of rolling stock needed to achieve this and probably recommendations for at least automating level crossing operations. With the huge order of new stock coming in the next few years we should see a cascade of extra stock available across all the lines as a result.

I'm certain the review will find that it isn't worth spending that sort of money for the relatively few extra passengers these improvements would bring.

That is always the problem with these rural rail proposals. People are always saying line x would be successful and have more passengers if only we put more trains on it, cheaper fares, more advertising.

But this all costs money and greatly increases the operational costs of the service. Will it bring some extra passengers? I'd hope so. But enough extra passengers to cover the higher operational costs? Or have you just made an unviable line even more unviable by increasing the cost and thus subsidy per passenger carried.

This is why they don't just pluck passenger numbers out of the air, but do actual modelling based on how many people live near stations, the actual journey's they make, car ownership, etc.

The reality is that many of these lines simply don't have the demographics to make them work. Too few people living near stations, too low density, too many people happy out in their car. That is just the very unfortunate reality of rural Ireland.

Sam Russell

bk wrote: »

I'm certain the review will find that it isn't worth spending that sort of money for the relatively few extra passengers these improvements would bring.

The reality is that many of these lines simply don't have the demographics to make them work. Too few people living near stations, too low density, too many people happy out in their car. That is just the very unfortunate reality of rural Ireland.

Railways were successful in Ireland when the general population did not own cars, but did generally have access to the pony and trap. Most of Ireland was within a pony and trap journey distance (estimated at 7 km). Now the adverse of that is that most people in rural Ireland did not do much travelling, but many did.

For railways to be successful now, there needs to be high population of potential travellers. This exists in Dublin and its surrounds, and less so on Cork. Outside of that, it is unlikely that rail is the preferred method of getting about, but shiny trams, provision of P&R facilities, and avoiding traffic congestion, and parking restrictions, might tip take up towards rail.

Rail has a very high standing cost before running cost even start, unlike road solutions that are used universally by trucks, buses, cars, even the pony and trap.

Rail and canals have moved to niche utility.

ohographite

bk wrote: »

I'm certain the review will find that it isn't worth spending that sort of money for the relatively few extra passengers these improvements would bring.

That is always the problem with these rural rail proposals. People are always saying line x would be successful and have more passengers if only we put more trains on it, cheaper fares, more advertising.

But this all costs money and greatly increases the operational costs of the service. Will it bring some extra passengers? I'd hope so. But enough extra passengers to cover the higher operational costs? Or have you just made an unviable line even more unviable by increasing the cost and thus subsidy per passenger carried.

This is why they don't just pluck passenger numbers out of the air, but do actual modelling based on how many people live near stations, the actual journey's they make, car ownership, etc.

The reality is that many of these lines simply don't have the demographics to make them work. Too few people living near stations, too low density, too many people happy out in their car. That is just the very unfortunate reality of rural Ireland.

The two lines I mentioned(Limerick-Nenagh-Ballybrophy and Limerick-Waterford) have never had a timetable that facilitated people commuting to Limerick or Waterford, as far as I know. I think it is worth trying to give them such a timetable to see how they do.

There are some lines in Ireland which, not during the lockdown, are used by around 30 passengers per train, such as Cork-Midleton and Limerick-Ennis. This is a small amount of passengers compared to the passengers on the DART or on the main intercity routes in Ireland, but I have not heard much controversy about the continuation of Cork-Midleton or Limerick-Ennis, so it seems to me that it is widely acceptable to deploy a train to carry around 30 people. If it is widely acceptable to do this, then I do not feel it is too much to ask to deploy an additional train each on the Limerick-Waterford and Limerick-Nenagh-Ballybrophy lines, and use them to operate a timetable that facilitates people commuting to work in Limerick and Waterford.
I feel it is possible that the patronage on these lines would be higher than 40 people per train, and possible enough for it to be worth a try.

I suggested in a previous post running 4 Dublin-Nenagh-Limerick direct trains daily, and 3 Limerick-Nenagh-Dublin direct trains,so these trains could also stop in a few of the stations between Ballybrophy and Dublin(I would suggest the top 3 busiest ones), benefiting these towns too, and using the trains to carry more passengers than just those travelling on the Nenagh line.

Working class heroes

ohographite wrote: »

The two lines I mentioned(Limerick-Nenagh-Ballybrophy and Limerick-Waterford) have never had a timetable that facilitated people commuting to Limerick or Waterford, as far as I know. I think it is worth trying to give them such a timetable to see how they do.

There are some lines in Ireland which, not during the lockdown, are used by around 30 passengers per train, such as Cork-Midleton and Limerick-Ennis. This is a small amount of passengers compared to the passengers on the DART or on the main intercity routes in Ireland, but I have not heard much controversy about the continuation of Cork-Midleton or Limerick-Ennis, so it seems to me that it is widely acceptable to deploy a train to carry around 30 people. If it is widely acceptable to do this, then I do not feel it is too much to ask to deploy an additional train each on the Limerick-Waterford and Limerick-Nenagh-Ballybrophy lines, and use them to operate a timetable that facilitates people commuting to work in Limerick and Waterford.
I feel it is possible that the patronage on these lines would be higher than 40 people per train, and possible enough for it to be worth a try.

I suggested in a previous post running 4 Dublin-Nenagh-Limerick direct trains daily, and 3 Limerick-Nenagh-Dublin direct trains,so these trains could also stop in a few of the stations between Ballybrophy and Dublin(I would suggest the top 3 busiest ones), benefiting these towns too, and using the trains to carry more passengers than just those travelling on the Nenagh line.

Can you quote a source for those numbers please?

end of the road

ohographite wrote: »

The two lines I mentioned(Limerick-Nenagh-Ballybrophy and Limerick-Waterford) have never had a timetable that facilitated people commuting to Limerick or Waterford, as far as I know. I think it is worth trying to give them such a timetable to see how they do.

There are some lines in Ireland which, not during the lockdown, are used by around 30 passengers per train, such as Cork-Midleton and Limerick-Ennis. This is a small amount of passengers compared to the passengers on the DART or on the main intercity routes in Ireland, but I have not heard much controversy about the continuation of Cork-Midleton or Limerick-Ennis, so it seems to me that it is widely acceptable to deploy a train to carry around 30 people. If it is widely acceptable to do this, then I do not feel it is too much to ask to deploy an additional train each on the Limerick-Waterford and Limerick-Nenagh-Ballybrophy lines, and use them to operate a timetable that facilitates people commuting to work in Limerick and Waterford.
I feel it is possible that the patronage on these lines would be higher than 40 people per train, and possible enough for it to be worth a try.

I suggested in a previous post running 4 Dublin-Nenagh-Limerick direct trains daily, and 3 Limerick-Nenagh-Dublin direct trains,so these trains could also stop in a few of the stations between Ballybrophy and Dublin(I would suggest the top 3 busiest ones), benefiting these towns too, and using the trains to carry more passengers than just those travelling on the Nenagh line.

i'm shocked at the midleton numbers if they are true.
i wouldn't expect over-crowded trains certainly but would have thought full.
still it was absolutely right to reopen it and it should have gone the full length to youghal.
never mind though, i'm sure billions will be thrown away to "improve" the road to only relieve things a tiny bit.

ohographite

http://www.railusers.ie/news/news.php?year=2020&no=2.html

Working class heroes wrote: »

Can you quote a source for those numbers please?

The link above is where I got the Cork-Midleton numbers from. It works out as about 1300 passengers a day, which
is about 30 passengers per train.

The 2019 heavy rail census has 47 southbound boardings and 42 northbound alightings in Sixmilebridge, and 153 southbound boardings and 127 northbound a lightings in Ennis. All together that makes 369 passenger journeys a day, or about 20 per train (2019 was less busy than the previous years, but the numbers per train haven't been far above 30 on any of the rail census days since 2013).

goingnowhere

Pre covid there were complaints of overcrowding on the morning Midelton services

end of the road

goingnowhere wrote: »

Pre covid there were complaints of overcrowding on the morning Midelton services

exactly, which is why i find it hard to believe those numbers.
not the poster's fault though, they are just quoting the information available.

bk

If I'm reading the rail census correctly, Middleton to Cork looks to be 80 passengers per train.

Of course, peak time is probably far more and packed, off peak trains are probably like 20 people or less.