Rumours of Waterford station downgrade

[Jamie2k9]

Presumably the installation of railings there is more of a safety issue and one that is affordable, until funding can be found to carry out the necessary works to facilitate the use of the main platform for passenger services again.

I'm not sure the main platform could be reopened to passenger use without putting in some form of barrier such as a retaining wall between the cliff face and the railway to stop incursions in the event of any further rock falls. That would presumably cost more money than railings on a platform.

Rubbish, if i was safety related then platforms 3/4 and 7/8 in Heuston wouldn't be allowed...

As for a wall before reopening, according to the report the rock is in good condition and it doesn't state the may platform cannot be reopened or issue recommendations of works required before it can.

What we should know is the total amount IE received as they got two installments of which the first was 1 million and whatever is December 2014 and how they have or plan to spend it on in Waterford.

[berneyarms]

Originally Posted by Jamie2k9

Rubbish, if i was safety related then platforms 3/4 and 7/8 in Heuston wouldn't be allowed...

As for a wall before reopening, according to the report the rock is in good condition and it doesn't state the may platform cannot be reopened or issue recommendations of works required before it can.

What we should know is the total amount IE received as they got two installments of which the first was 1 million and whatever is December 2014 and how they have or plan to spend it on in Waterford.

It's nothing to do with the platform having two faces - rather I would imagine it is the company being seen to be safety conscious regarding the risk of the cliff moving again.

Whether you think it rubbish or not is beside the point, I suspect that the company would have that concern - if that rock face were to subsequently move again there would be all hell to pay if the main platform were back in use without retaining walls being installed, and I'd imagine that you would be among the first to say that they should have put in protective measures.

What the risk of something happening is and what public opinion may be are often entirely different, and sometimes the latter can override the former.

[ACustomer]

Judging by a photo I have seen of the Platform 5 extension, the "permanent" fence is only on the last few meters. There is probably no platform face on the old "main" platform 4 track at that point, hence the fence.

Whatever about bringing a second platform back into service, it would be nice to see the second running line to Waterford West back in some kind of use as either a passing loop (like Galway and Sligo) or a convenient storage for a second train at busy periods. Operationally Waterford seems very awkward at the moment.

[Jamie2k9]

Judging by a photo I have seen of the Platform 5 extension, the "permanent" fence is only on the last few meters. There is probably no platform face on the old "main" platform 4 track at that point, hence the fence.

Whatever about bringing a second platform back into service, it would be nice to see the second running line to Waterford West back in some kind of use as either a passing loop (like Galway and Sligo) or a convenient storage for a second train at busy periods. Operationally Waterford seems very awkward at the moment.

No it was that first now all the way down, will upload a pic lather.

[Inniskeen]

Don't know what the final plan for Waterford is but it appears that there is no intention of re-instating the double line on the approach from Waterford West. I think it was the intention to re-instate at least the Dublin end of platform 3/4 and to put a barrier in place between the cliff face and the station.

I am not a geologist but I imagine the risk of further rock fall is no different to that during the last 110 years of passenger operation.

There is a great inclination nowadays to subject passengers/customers/users to disruption rather than expose the responsible authorities to a kick up the rear if something goes wrong. To a great extent the public, the media, the judiciary are to blame for the current approach to safety issues and the disruption and costs associated with it.

Safety is vital and railways have historically had a very good safety record for passengers before the blossoming of the modern safety industry. I am not at all dismissing the many initiatives that have made the railway a safer place for employees but something tells me common sense is sometimes lacking.

[James Howard]

You can also end up in the ridiculous situation where safety concerns drive up costs or inconvenience people to the extent where they end up travelling by more dangerous means. The overall risk of the journey ends up being higher than it would have been with the original unsafe practices in place.

There is an oft-quoted statistic where more people died in the US after 9-11 in car accidents due to avoiding air travel than actually died in 9-11.

On the other hand even with all of the much-vaunted safety practices, Irish Rail have had a few near misses and one in particular where only blind luck prevented massive loss of life.

[Jamie2k9]

Don't know what the final plan for Waterford is but it appears that there is no intention of re-instating the double line on the approach from Waterford West. I think it was the intention to re-instate at least the Dublin end of platform 3/4 and to put a barrier in place between the cliff face and the station.

It was lifted a few weeks ago, a set of points just after West (as if coming from Dublin/Limerick side)

I am not a geologist but I imagine the risk of further rock fall is no different to that during the last 110 years of passenger operation.

Agree and regular inspections would go a long way!

There is a great inclination nowadays to subject passengers/customers/users to disruption rather than expose the responsible authorities to a kick up the rear if something goes wrong. To a great extent the public, the media, the judiciary are to blame for the current approach to safety issues and the disruption and costs associated with it.

Safety is vital and railways have historically had a very good safety record for passengers before the blossoming of the modern safety industry. I am not at all dismissing the many initiatives that have made the railway a safer place for employees but something tells me common sense is sometimes lacking.

Agree about safety but the current set up isn't ideal and to be honest it put people under pressure to clear the platform.

The real issue is they have had almost a year and a half and to be honest they don't seem to have a clue what they plan to do.

Anyway here is the pic....

[berneyarms]

Originally Posted by Jamie2k9

It was lifted a few weeks ago, a set of points just after West (as if coming from Dublin/Limerick side)

Agree and regular inspections would go a long way!

Agree about safety but the current set up isn't ideal and to be honest it put people under pressure to clear the platform.

The real issue is they have had almost a year and a half and to be honest they don't seem to have a clue what they plan to do.

Anyway here is the pic....

I think it is more the fact that there is damn all money available to spend on projects like that.

As Inniskeen states, my understanding was that a barrier wall between the tracks and the cliff face was to be built, but at the moment there is no money to do it and whatever associated trackwork/resignalling would be needed.