1. I do not object to any new bridge over the Cork Line, as far west as Sallins, being built to accommodate four tracks. The day may come when this project is worthwhile and this would be reasonable planning. Whilst Irish Rail may claim that the four tracks are to meet future demand (obviously not there presently if they are only going to run trains every 15 minutes), why did they not accept that argument when they foolishly and shortsightedly removed the connection to the Western Rail Corridor at Athenry?
2. A point worth observing is that about 90 years ago, the GNR(I) proposed quadrupling parts of the Dublin to Belfast line and built overbridges to accommodate these additional tracks in both Dublin and Belfast. The four tracking was never carried out. The existence of a bridge capable of accommodating four tracks is not a reason to install four tracks.
Archiseek
A link to my main KRP page was added to the above, the centre of knowledge of the universe (or so its contributors would have you believe). My response is below.
What happens when the Cork train is running ten minutes late?
So because IR "management" can't/wont "manage" their staff, we'll throw a shitload of money at the problem. Sure aren't we a great little country, now that we can afford to buy our way out of public sector incompetence. Let me ask you a question, What happens with the 2 track bottleneck between Le Fanu Road and Kylemore Road? This is the same "problem" referred to by this user. You lose.
Stated that control issue is not relevant re 30 year old technology.
Concorde is/was 30 year old cutting edge control technology. It fell out of the sky. (Many thanks to the engineer who brought that to my attention. For the record, this engineer is not Dr. Michael Grimes in Cork, IR's No. 1 fan). Which leads me nicely onto the ARROW safety problem.
Fuller details of this problem are here. The real reason for the Kildare line project is to separate the ARROWs from the mainline trains before someone gets killed. Note that IR do not allow ARROWs onto the Howth branch. Why is this?
The fundamental problem is that this 30 year technology is defective. It is already known that the ARROWs were not recognized by it (and may still not be for all we know). This fact was covered up by Dept of Transport. What is the fundamental difficulty in locating a train? GPS can do it on public road, why the difficulty precisely locating a train on a system involving a fixed network (the train wont be in the field beside it, unless there is a serious problem - maybe this user became confused by reading "Tootle" - ISBN 0 307 74806 5).
To answer his/her specific question, what (should) happen when a mainline train is running late is that an algorithm (rather than a human) will determine if the mainline train will catch up with the commuter train before the next loop. If not, the commuter train proceeds to the next loop. Alternatively/in addition, wrong line running if no train is coming in opposite direction, allowing the mainline train to overtake the commuter train. While this is not currently allowed, I would contend that this is due to the defective semi automated signalling system used by IR.
If this 30 year old technology is so perfect, why is the line between Heuston Station and Hazelhatch controlled from a separate base at Heuston Station and not from CTC in Connolly Station? Perhaps they ran out of space for the team of signaling staff?
If you deliberately rig your separation distances, you will create a capacity problem (5 minutes between trains - 12 trains an hour, 6 minutes between trains - 10 trains an hour, 8 minutes between trains - 7 trains per hour (15 over a 2 hour period) down to 10 minutes between trains - 6 trains an hour). This is what IR have done. What is worse is that the Department of Transport and Dept of Finance have bought this duplicity.
Look at what happened on the Maynooth Line when this was doubled some 5 years ago after a long campaign ultimately started by me. I would suggest that what will happen, assuming that IR succeed in duping the public inquiry and get their railway order, is that IR will introduce the services that they could do so now with the current infrastructure/signalling and appropriate management, but state that this was only achieveable as a result of the investment, whereas the investment was only required as a result of an inability/refusal of IR management to manage. "Sure can't we afford it, aren't we a great little country all the same!" I'd rather have the State multiple hundreds of millions less indebted than have this project. When the economic boom ends, being many hundred millions less in debt will be a better scenario.
The other unstated objective of the four tracking proposal is the closure of Inchicore Works and its sale to friends of Fianna Fail. After all, Inchicore is nothing but a prime development site in the eyes of Fianna Fail + their friends. I'm sure that this will meet with general approval on Archiseek (a few jobs for architects out of that one). Maintenance will be located in Drogheda and Portlaoise, at the end of the network rather than at the centre.
"The siting of depots on any railway system is important and needs to be given careful consideration in the planning stage. ....final locations should be not too far away from the ideal siting as 'empty running' costs and times will amount to a considerable sum over a depot lifetime." - Clifford F Bonnett, Practical Railway Engineering, London, 1996.To facilitate this, you will need additional tracks to allow for otherwise purposeless movements of empty rolling stock. It will also mean that when trains break down (as the ARROWs are wont to do), there will be no replacement unit available, except from the end of the network. Makes sense if you are a property developer or a union official creating additional jobs/union members (in CIE, the two are interchangeable). But then, the tamagotchi that is the Irish economy requires continuous and ever expanding feeding or else, as tamagotchis are wont to do, it will die and Inchicore represents one of the next pieces of the feeding schedule, alongside Dublin Port, rather than calling a halt to the growth of Dublin and moving to the regions (move the people to the regions and the maintenance depots to the city).
Another factor not considered here is the unsuitable design of the Drogheda depot, located as it is in a cul de sac (only one way in).
"Experience has shown that if a depot has just one point of entry from the running lines, extensive delays and disruption can be caused by just one train becoming immobilised or one set of points failing at the depot entrance. In bad weather also frozen points at one end can completely shut up all the trains in a depot at the commencement of a traffic day." - Clifford F Bonnett, Practical Railway Engineering, London, 1996.
Comments about my views on the interconnecter tunnel show that the the emporer's new clothes mentality still reigns on this discussion group.
Upgrade of loop line signalling to allow 12 trains per hour
Irish Rail have plans to upgrade the signalling on the Loop Line to allow for 12 trains an hour, yet require two new tracks to run only 4 trains an hour on the Kildare Line. Please explain.
Dangerous precedent at LUAS Cherrywood enquiry
Having looked at the report of the inspector for the inquiry into the RPAs request for a railway order for the extension of the LUAS to Cherrywood, his decision that certain objections were invalid as they would require the submission of a fresh application for a railway order is fundamentally flawed. If upheld, I look forward to private sector entities successfully overturning planning permission rejections on the basis that the refusal of a local authority to grant them planning permission would require them to submit a fresh application. The State is obliged to favour all equally or not at all. It cannot favour itself. This is a reminder of legal fact to Martin Cullen as he considers the report of the inspector into the State buying its way out of incompetence.
Last updated: 7th August 2006
