Limerick to Foynes railway reopening plan

[jhb171achill]

On 28/3/2025 at 8:17 PM, Darrman said:

https://irishbuildingmagazine.ie/2025/03/28/sisk-completes-track-laying-and-next-phase-of-works-commence-on-limerick-to-foynes-freight-line/

Tracklaying has been completed. Providing the signalling and level crossing upgrades are proposed to take 18 months from here.

Which, if that turns out to be true, will mean it's not ready for the Ryder Cup time, so no chance of the JP Express to Adare!

[Darrman]

Nothing to do with the Foynes Branch whatsoever, but I may as well post this for curiosity's sake...

https://www.bbc.com/sport/golf/articles/ce9vde77xkno

So the dates for the Ryder Cup have been confirmed as the 17th to the 19th of September 2027. Irish Rail have just over two years to put down a platform. Will they? Knowing this country, probably not. Let's assume the signalling work goes as planned and is done in 16 months from now, which would put completion at September 2026. A platform in a year sounds reasonable, but a certain planning board would drag its feet so long the Ryder Cup would be over. For what it's worth, I do think they should put a real platform in Adare - and all the way along to Limerick too.

[Mol_PMB]

That sounds very feasible to me.

If it's single track then they can avoid the need for lifts, bridges etc and simply have a ramped access to the back of the platform.

Platforms can be built quickly these days with some innovative techniques (e.g. giant polystyrene blocks) or for a temporary facility a gang of scaffolders could do it in a weekend.

Would the railway need planning approval for operational infrastructure on its own land? It wouldn't in GB but maybe the laws are different in Ireland. 

 

[jhb171achill]

On 30/5/2025 at 5:24 PM, Mol_PMB said:

That sounds very feasible to me.

If it's single track then they can avoid the need for lifts, bridges etc and simply have a ramped access to the back of the platform.

Platforms can be built quickly these days with some innovative techniques (e.g. giant polystyrene blocks) or for a temporary facility a gang of scaffolders could do it in a weekend.

Would the railway need planning approval for operational infrastructure on its own land? It wouldn't in GB but maybe the laws are different in Ireland. 

 

They practically need planning permission and endless investigations and enquiries just to make their sandwiches for their lunch break here these days! As I have said before, and again I preface by saying that I very much hope to be proven utterly wrong; I suspect this whole line is simply a white elephant, conceived to please the Green Party in the last government, then conveniently ignored by FFG in future governments, as has been their past habit.

[Louth]

On a similar issue, the rail freight connection to Dublin Port, I received the attached clarification from the EU Commission (DG-MOVE) last week. It is a ruling on whether a rail connection is required under EU Regulation TEN-T to the proposed new container terminal on the south side of the Liffey (when built, this will be the largest container terminal in Ireland). Unfortunately, the EU Commission say that the existing connection to the north side is sufficient and an extension to the south terminal is not required. You can arrive at your own conclusions!

"In accordance with Article 27 of the TEN-T Regulation (EU) 1679/2024, Dublin Port is required by 2030 to be connected with the rail and road infrastructure and, where possible, inland waterways and to offer at least one multimodal freight terminal which is open to all operators and users in a non-discriminatory way, and which applies transparent and non discriminatory charges. If a port listed in Annex II is a multi-site port, compliance with the requirements such as the rail connection at one of its sites would be sufficient, unless both or several “sites” were listed in Annex II as two or several separate ports. The definition of Port cluster is included in the methodology for the trans-European transport network (TEN-T), namely: “Maritime ports which are immediate neighbours and together fulfil the volume threshold, even if individually they would not, may be considered as a cluster, if they have common hinterland connections, except for the "last mile", or if they cooperate closely, e.g. under common management, or supplement each other in function.”

[Barl]

On 2/6/2025 at 10:56 AM, Louth said:

On a similar issue, the rail freight connection to Dublin Port, I received the attached clarification from the EU Commission (DG-MOVE) last week. It is a ruling on whether a rail connection is required under EU Regulation TEN-T to the proposed new container terminal on the south side of the Liffey (when built, this will be the largest container terminal in Ireland). Unfortunately, the EU Commission say that the existing connection to the north side is sufficient and an extension to the south terminal is not required. You can arrive at your own conclusions!

"In accordance with Article 27 of the TEN-T Regulation (EU) 1679/2024, Dublin Port is required by 2030 to be connected with the rail and road infrastructure and, where possible, inland waterways and to offer at least one multimodal freight terminal which is open to all operators and users in a non-discriminatory way, and which applies transparent and non discriminatory charges. If a port listed in Annex II is a multi-site port, compliance with the requirements such as the rail connection at one of its sites would be sufficient, unless both or several “sites” were listed in Annex II as two or several separate ports. The definition of Port cluster is included in the methodology for the trans-European transport network (TEN-T), namely: “Maritime ports which are immediate neighbours and together fulfil the volume threshold, even if individually they would not, may be considered as a cluster, if they have common hinterland connections, except for the "last mile", or if they cooperate closely, e.g. under common management, or supplement each other in function.”

I worked on the preliminary services design for the expansion of Dublin Port and I always found it strange that, not only was there no concept of a rail link, but there didn't even appear to be any serious discussion about providing one either. A major part of the scheme is the regeneration of the Ringsend area with a new bridge to allow for future expansion of the LUAS, but the idea of building a heavy rail bridge appears to have been a non-runner from the start. 

I always found it funny that a more environmentally friendly freight transport method was discarded, but yet they were pushing ahead with the concept design for a carbon capture facility just south of the new port area!