Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Should Wexford Waterford line reopen?

12346

Comments

  • Posts: 15,362 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    a personal interpretation that is likely to be correct.
    i would certainly believe it to be the case.

    What you believe and what you have evidence for are 2 very different things.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,323 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Mod:
    @DelMonte:
    Please do not refer to train passengers as spongers. FTP passengers and students have valid tickets and as such still passengers.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,453 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    What you believe and what you have evidence for are 2 very different things.


    the poster who made the original statements has provided as far as i'm concerned, sufficient evidence for me to agree with their viewpoint.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,453 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Del.Monte wrote: »
    @PhilOsspohy

    I'm surprised you don't preface all you contributions '"I'm pro-rail but" as I have yet to see you post anything pro-rail and as for your summary of rail passenger type south of Wicklow as:

    "3. Having occasionally got the train to-from Dublin for work, south of Wicklow town there are 2 types of users - business people working, and free travel users. The train suits the free travel brigade because they are time rich and have a free travel pass. So just because they are alighting here and getting off there, does not mean the service is in demand or making money. "

    As a frequent user of the line I can tell you that you are talking nonsense. The trains carry a huge variety of people from those awful spongers (OAPs - if you're lucky you will be one yourself some day) to students, workers, shoppers, tourists etc. but why let the truth get in the way of your story.

    100% correct del.monte as always and i can confirm the same as you have done so.
    A few general points as the thread has moved on:
    1. There is still no update on the chaos that is getting the bus in Campile or Bridgetown daily. Since I haven't heard anything, I presume the question is being dodged because everybody knows there is no problem whatsoever with the existing bus service. If anything, I would suspect that is probably also heavily subsidised per passenger.
    2. I don't see the link between the passenger numbers on the Rosslare-Dublin line. To me, that is a different discussion but if there isn't enough demand for a train between Gorey-Wexford to suit commuters, there is no demand for this line.
    3. Having occasionally got the train to-from Dublin for work, south of Wicklow town there are 2 types of users - business people working, and free travel users. The train suits the free travel brigade because they are time rich and have a free travel pass. So just because they are alighting here and getting off there, does not mean the service is in demand or making money.

    https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/business_case_for_withdrawl_of_rail_services1.pdf is the business case for the withdrawal of the service. Having scanned through it, points:
    1. There was a train which arrived in Waterford at 8.20 - people above talked about the service not being good enough - to me, that is perfect time for commuters, especially given they need time to get anywhere from the train station in Waterford. If that isn't perfect time, then when is the optimum time for a train service? If that one isn't busy, then no other one will be either.
    2. Operational costs of €1.1m per annum? For 25 passengers per day (i.e. 50 journeys). At a very generous €1.1m / (50x365) is over €60 euro per passenger journey. Crazy. (And note €1.1m opex cost will have gone up in the intervening period, and 365 could probably be 5/7ths of this.)
    3. "A load factor of more than double would be required for revenue to cover the incremental costs." That is just not realistic.
    4. They seem to have implemented most of the proposals in terms of bus services - is this not enough?

    The time to keep a service running is when you have it, if you don't keep it the horse has bolted looking for it back. I would also add that I appreciate public transport requires financial subvention - even the NY Subway is subsidised - but it can't be at enormous cost for little or no benefit.


    if you are looking for rail lines to make money then i'm afraid you are going to be hugely disappointed, they don't in this country and most and haven't done so since the actual hay day of the railways.
    the people of ennis and beyond lost their service originally, they campaigned and got it back, the people of midleton lost their service and got it back, the people of navan, possibly tuam and youghal will one day get their services.
    so your claim that the time to keep a service running is when you have it and when you don't the horse is bolted is not quite true, i'm afraid.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,667 ✭✭✭Working class heroes


    Del.Monte wrote: »
    Why don't you post something of substance instead of your usual sniping?

    No need. The arguments put forward here for opening the line are so ridiculous they would actually convince someone sitting On the fence on this mater that the line should be bulldozed.
    And again, if you have a problem with my posts, report them. It’s the little triangle thingy.

    Racism is now hiding behind the cloak of Community activism.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭PhilOssophy


    Del.Monte, let's just be VERY clear. I NOWHERE referred to anyone as a sponger.

    I don't however for one second believe that a service can work without a critical mass of paying customers.

    End of the road - what part of the last line of my previous post didn't you understand? Do you think €60 per passenger is value for money for a train service?

    Why didn't you both address all the other points I raised? Instead of picking 1 and ignoring all the rest?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72,206 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    spacetweek wrote: »
    It's about Rosslare and its freight to points west.

    Rosslare is a ro-ro port with absolutely no intention or desire to add container services. Hence it has no rail-suitable freight and will have no rail-suitable freight. Its freight is full lorries, lorry trailers and new cars.

    It is not obvious that it needs to add container services either; so it would be a gamble doing so - particularly as there is an established container port nearby with active rail freight services (and which does not need the South Wexford line to access any existing or future demand)


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,323 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Del.Monte, let's just be VERY clear. I NOWHERE referred to anyone as a sponger.

    I don't however for one second believe that a service can work without a critical mass of paying customers.

    End of the road - what part of the last line of my previous post didn't you understand? Do you think €60 per passenger is value for money for a train service?

    Why didn't you both address all the other points I raised? Instead of picking 1 and ignoring all the rest?

    FTP passengers have valid tickets and so should be considered paying customers. It is Gov policy that gives them the FTP, s if you have a problem with them being on trains, take it up with your TDs. Your local TDs will be delighted to hear from you.

    The real danger for Wexford train passengers is te shortage of them on the trains going to Rosslare from Wexford or going towards Dublin. That line is in danger.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,062 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    it has reintroduced a healthy galway to limerick service which is likely to grow even further in the coming decades, in turn allowing less reason to have to engage in massive road expansion at huge cost.
    as well as that, it allows for greater journey opportunities via rail for those who need to take those journeys via that medium.
    so it has added to the network and it has saved us an even larger cost in the long term.
    unsadly, viability is very much the case for the waterford to wexford line and the business case put forward by south east on track shows the line is viable if operated properly.
    millions and millions of tax payer's money won't be wasted, the cost of rebuild/reinstatement is small in the great scheme of things and the costs that would have once made the line costly to run such as staffed gates and manual signalling won't exist.

    Are you saying the WRC is a success?

    And it does allow for greater journey opportunities via rail, but the reality is the public isn’t interested in using the WRC as a stand alone route or part of the wider network. The figures prove this beyond all doubt.

    Yet you go on about the business case for reopening this line? Utterly bizarre.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭PhilOssophy


    FTP passengers have valid tickets and so should be considered paying customers. It is Gov policy that gives them the FTP, s if you have a problem with them being on trains, take it up with your TDs. Your local TDs will be delighted to hear from you.

    The real danger for Wexford train passengers is te shortage of them on the trains going to Rosslare from Wexford or going towards Dublin. That line is in danger.

    Where did I say I had any issue with the free travel system? You and Del Monte are the people who are saying this. Not me.

    But none the less, it is not viable to operate or propose increasing services on a line when the ratio of paying passengers to free travel passengers is miniscule. This is basic maths and just because the tax payer is paying, that means it is coming out of all of our pockets - not some fairy tree of imaginary money.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,795 ✭✭✭Isambard


    FTP passengers have valid tickets and so should be considered paying customers. It is Gov policy that gives them the FTP, s if you have a problem with them being on trains, take it up with your TDs. Your local TDs will be delighted to hear from you.

    The real danger for Wexford train passengers is te shortage of them on the trains going to Rosslare from Wexford or going towards Dublin. That line is in danger.

    Agree, if it wasn't for the subsidy for FTP passengers many lines would not be viable and might close or have a reduced service. Take away their cards and most won't travel by train.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭PhilOssophy


    Isambard wrote: »
    Agree, if it wasn't for the subsidy for FTP passengers many lines would not be viable and might close or have a reduced service. Take away their cards and most won't travel by train.

    So, how much per journey do you think is a reasonable subsidy? €5? €50? €500? Is there no point where a subsidy becomes a bad use of tax payers money?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,795 ✭✭✭Isambard


    So, how much per journey do you think is a reasonable subsidy? €5? €50? €500? Is there no point where a subsidy becomes a bad use of tax payers money?

    Bit of a moot point, there's already a payment made to IE for FTP passengers, it's not on a per journey basis. It's a backdoor subsidy, the alternative to which is higher fares or lower services.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭PhilOssophy


    Isambard wrote: »
    Bit of a moot point, there's already a payment made to IE for FTP passengers, it's not on a per journey basis. It's a backdoor subsidy, the alternative to which is higher fares or lower services.

    Its not a moot point - do you think a service which is costing IE €500 per passenger is viable and should be continued? Or where is the point at which we realise we could hire a limo to drive people around cheaper than a train?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,062 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Its not a moot point - do you think a service which is costing IE €500 per passenger is viable and should be continued? Or where is the point at which we realise we could hire a limo to drive people around cheaper than a train?

    And at which point is rail travel actually environmentally unsound when the passenger numbers are so low?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,323 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Mod: Please do not use the FTP tickets as an argument for opening or not opening the South Wexford line. The FTP is off topic.

    The FTP is a valid ticket for a journey, even if the user has paid zero for the particular journey. Intercity journeys require a ticket per journey for holders of the FTP, while Dart journeys do not.

    It is Gov policy to issue these FTP tickets, and it is partly a Government subsidy to public transport, or a way of filling an otherwise underused service, but it is also seen as valuable to allow and encourage the holders of the FTP to increase their social mobility and interaction, and so increase their independence. This has a positive effect on their wellbeing and reduces the cost of health support in some way that would otherwise be needed to support the holders.

    Referring users of the FTP as spongers or similar language is totally unacceptable, and will earn posters who do use that type of language a sanction.

    If you have a problem with the FTP or its users, take it to the politics forum, or your local TD. It is not an issue here.

    If you disagree with this notice PM me.

    Regards


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭PhilOssophy


    OK - adjusting to the newly changed goal posts, there just isn't the demand or the population density, to justify re-opening this line.
    Note - only 1 poster above referred to the FTP as spongers. I do not hold such a view of OAP's.
    Sorry for disputing if this is the best way of spending 100m + 1m per annum in Opex costs to carry a handful of passengers on a diesel train around south Wexford. If "who is paying for it" isn't a reasonable question, then there is no further debate to be had. A subvention of €500 per passenger journey is a sinful waste of tax payers money and if that isn't part of any debate on such services, then there is no debate. Its just coming off the invisible money tree I suppose.

    Nobody in favour of the above could defend the points I raised either about the existing bus services in Campile/Bridgetown or the points I raised on the business case for why the line was closed in the first place. So I guess that's all she wrote.

    Unfollowing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    OK - adjusting to the newly changed goal posts, there just isn't the demand or the population density, to justify re-opening this line.
    Note - only 1 poster above referred to the FTP as spongers. I do not hold such a view of OAP's.
    Sorry for disputing if this is the best way of spending 100m + 1m per annum in Opex costs to carry a handful of passengers on a diesel train around south Wexford. If "who is paying for it" isn't a reasonable question, then there is no further debate to be had. A subvention of €500 per passenger journey is a sinful waste of tax payers money and if that isn't part of any debate on such services, then there is no debate. Its just coming off the invisible money tree I suppose.

    Nobody in favour of the above could defend the points I raised either about the existing bus services in Campile/Bridgetown or the points I raised on the business case for why the line was closed in the first place. So I guess that's all she wrote.

    Unfollowing.

    I would be in full agreement with you on €500 per passenger Journey being a waste of taxpayer money, with one caveat accurate assessment of the environmental, heath and economic impact of the service. If good metrics can be gotten for these and a savings estimate can be gotten per passenger in other areas, then this new 'cost-to-benefit' should be used as a yardstick for all projects. Would make it much harder to sell a road project vs a railway, or greenway.


  • Posts: 15,362 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I would be in full agreement with you on €500 per passenger Journey being a waste of taxpayer money, with one caveat accurate assessment of the environmental, heath and economic impact of the service. If good metrics can be gotten for these and a savings estimate can be gotten per passenger in other areas, then this new 'cost-to-benefit' should be used as a yardstick for all projects. Would make it much harder to sell a road project vs a railway, or greenway.

    That would be the Public Sector Spending Code which must be used to assess all projects against the same set of criteria including greenhouse gas emissions etc

    https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/public-spending-code/
    All Irish public bodies are obliged to treat public funds with care, and to ensure that the best possible value for money is obtained whenever public money is being spent or invested.

    There are no mathematical hoops that can be jumped through which will be put this project ahead of other, more beneficial projects, simple as


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    That would be the Public Sector Spending Code which must be used to assess all projects against the same set of criteria including greenhouse gas emissions etc

    https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/public-spending-code/



    There are no mathematical hoops that can be jumped through which will be put this project ahead of other, more beneficial projects, simple as

    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.


  • Posts: 15,362 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,537 ✭✭✭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


  • Posts: 15,362 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    JohnC. 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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,795 ✭✭✭Isambard


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,795 ✭✭✭Isambard


    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 .


  • Posts: 15,362 ✭✭✭✭ [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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,795 ✭✭✭Isambard


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭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...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,453 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    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.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Posts: 15,362 ✭✭✭✭ [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.


  • Posts: 15,362 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    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.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,323 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    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.


  • Posts: 15,362 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭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.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    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.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,323 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 312 ✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,667 ✭✭✭Working class heroes


    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?

    Racism is now hiding behind the cloak of Community activism.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,453 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    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.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,323 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,453 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    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.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


Advertisement