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

Cork - Limerick Rail Link

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    NITransport
    Registered Users Posts: 66 ✭✭NITransport


    bk wrote: »
    Sigh and what does intercity rail in Ireland run on, steam?

    No it runs on the same diesel that intercity bus coaches use. Any increase in fuel prices will also lead to increases in train fares. Bus coaches are actually more fuel efficient then diesel intercity trains (per passenger mile) so they will actually be less effected.

    Also it ignores the gradual shift to electric cars and more fuel efficient hybrid cars.

    Sigh. I'm aware that the Irish trains are primarily diesel powered... that doesn't detract from the fact that we could see a modal shift away from cars to coaches and trains.

    The NR statement about managing the states railways (sorry should have stated infrastructure - thought I would have been given the benefit of the doubt that I hadn't mistaken them for a TOC) was meant to be a light-hearted joke.

    Coaches do a fantastic job of transporting the masses, there's no doubting that. However, I live in hope that one day the irish rail industry will undergo a renaissance similar to that seen in the UK from the late 90's onwards. Why so many contributors are adverse to that... I don't understand. (Please don't reply referring just to the economic situation.)


  • Options
    #63
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    Because the railways are currently slower than they were a couple of decades back and need massive investment to compete with the new shiny motorways. You have to remember that Britains Motorways are bursting at the seams whilst ours are pretty empty.


  • Options
    #64
    NITransport
    Registered Users Posts: 66 ✭✭NITransport


    corktina wrote: »
    Because the railways are currently slower than they were a couple of decades back and need massive investment to compete with the new shiny motorways. You have to remember that Britains Motorways are bursting at the seams whilst ours are pretty empty.

    Being a frequent user of the M4, M5, M6, M40, M42 and M50 I disagree that it's a capacity issue which is driving motorists onto the railways. It's mostly urban motorway sections which have the biggest issues, or were several motorways join, and big leaps have been made through introducing ATM after the trial between junctions 3a and 7 on the M42 a few years back. But on the whole interurban motorways are relatively free flowing.

    The reason rail succeeds in the UK is due to the time saving over driving. For example London - Birmingham 1hr 14mins by rail, 2hrs 5mins by road; or London - Warrington 1hr 45mins by rail, 3hrs 20mins by road. This is achieved through modest rail speeds of 125mph/200kph. Speeds which would be more than appropriate for an island of Ireland's size.


  • Options
    #65
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,491 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Unfortunately it is economics.

    Irish Rail claim it will cost 500 million to upgrade the Cork line to electric and high speed running. I'd assume another 500 million for the Belfast line and these costs don't include the costs of new trains.

    So you are looking at probably about 1.5 billion and that isn't even the whole network.

    Is spending 1.5 billion on this really worth it just so someone can get Dublin to Cork/Belfast 30 minutes faster then by car?

    I don't really see the economic justification for this.

    Even if we had the money, IMO 1.5 Billion could go to much more necessary projects like fibre optic cable to every home in Ireland or DART Underground, Metro North, etc.

    Irish Rail seems to recognise this reality themselves. They don't plan on electrifying until about 30 years from now. Instead they are looking to make much smaller and cheaper adjustments, which might give them a 30 minute advantage over the coach buses, which might be enough to keep their heads above water. Maybe.

    I think IR's focus now needs to be on reducing costs, being more competitive and making the most of the resources they have.


  • Options
    #66
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    NITransport wrote: »
    Being a frequent user of the M4, M5, M6, M40, M42 and M50 I disagree that it's a capacity issue which is driving motorists onto the railways. It's mostly urban motorway sections which have the biggest issues, or were several motorways join, and big leaps have been made through introducing ATM after the trial between junctions 3a and 7 on the M42 a few years back. But on the whole interurban motorways are relatively free flowing.

    The reason rail succeeds in the UK is due to the time saving over driving. For example London - Birmingham 1hr 14mins by rail, 2hrs 5mins by road; or London - Warrington 1hr 45mins by rail, 3hrs 20mins by road. This is achieved through modest rail speeds of 125mph/200kph. Speeds which would be more than appropriate for an island of Ireland's size.

    yiou are pushuing at an open door, Ive been saying that on here for ages. Upgrading to 100mph is 40 years too late.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    bk wrote: »
    Unfortunately it is economics.

    Irish Rail claim it will cost 500 million to upgrade the Cork line to electric and high speed running. I'd assume another 500 million for the Belfast line and these costs don't include the costs of new trains.

    So you are looking at probably about 1.5 billion and that isn't even the whole network.

    Is spending 1.5 billion on this really worth it just so someone can get Dublin to Cork/Belfast 30 minutes faster then by car?

    I don't really see the economic justification for this.

    Even if we had the money, IMO 1.5 Billion could go to much more necessary projects like fibre optic cable to every home in Ireland or DART Underground, Metro North, etc.

    Irish Rail seems to recognise this reality themselves. They don't plan on electrifying until about 30 years from now. Instead they are looking to make much smaller and cheaper adjustments, which might give them a 30 minute advantage over the coach buses, which might be enough to keep their heads above water. Maybe.

    I think IR's focus now needs to be on reducing costs, being more competitive and making the most of the resources they have.

    i agree. Because Dublin is in the centre of the country more or less, most journeys are very short compared to the UK and there is little scope to better road times by enough of a margin to make a difference.


  • Options
    #68
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    corktina wrote: »
    i agree. Because Dublin is in the centre of the country more or less, most journeys are very short compared to the UK and there is little scope to better road times by enough of a margin to make a difference.

    Really not true. Dublin - Cork is quite a bit further that London - Birmingham, and Dublin - Galway and Dublin - Belfast are about the same distance.

    Intercity journeys in Ireland are the same distance or longer that in the UK, as most big cities are located in an area bounded by Liverpool, Cardiff, the English south coast, London, and Leeds -an area of similar size to Ireland, which has far more closely spaced large cities. The only three big places outside that are Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh.


  • Options
    #69
    NITransport
    Registered Users Posts: 66 ✭✭NITransport


    It was uneconomic to upgrade the London Underground until recently. Now they're undertaking a massive investment programme to play catch up. As Cool Mo D pointed out, the distance between Birmingham and London is quite a bit shortly than the distance between Cork and Dublin... by a margin of 60km.

    It may well cost 500million to upgrade the Cork Dublin route to electric and hs running however it'd probably be have that price to just upgrade the line without electrifying. Such as that seen between Bristol and London. (Unfortunately that would also be cutting corners.)

    I remember reading an interview with NIR in the Railway Gazette around this time last year that stated the De Deitrich coaches and/or the 201 loco would come to end of life around the end of the decade, and they may find it hard to find suitable diesel powered replacement. So you never know, a lot can happen to the economy in 8 years, we might finally see the necessary upgrading.

    Finally, we should all know that preventative work is better than reactive work... unfortunately it doesn't appear to be in our nation's nature. The reasons we're behind other similar sized countries in broadband/fibre optic roll out, urban transit, rail transit... the list goes on.


  • Options
    #70
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,491 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    Really not true. Dublin - Cork is quite a bit further that London - Birmingham, and Dublin - Galway and Dublin - Belfast are about the same distance.

    Here is the difference, population of Birmingham > 2.2 million, Cork population 270,000.

    Also there is the fact that Liverpool (1.4m), Manchester (2.5m) and Glasgow (2.5m) are all on the same line.

    You simply can't compare these to the Dublin - Cork line. It isn't just distance or speed, it is population size and density of the cities served.
    NITransport wrote: »
    I remember reading an interview with NIR in the Railway Gazette around this time last year that stated the De Deitrich coaches and/or the 201 loco would come to end of life around the end of the decade, and they may find it hard to find suitable diesel powered replacement. So you never know, a lot can happen to the economy in 8 years, we might finally see the necessary upgrading.

    Or they could just replace them with some 22k's on the Cork line, wouldn't surprise me at all.


  • Options
    #71
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    Really not true. Dublin - Cork is quite a bit further that London - Birmingham, and Dublin - Galway and Dublin - Belfast are about the same distance.

    Intercity journeys in Ireland are the same distance or longer that in the UK, as most big cities are located in an area bounded by Liverpool, Cardiff, the English south coast, London, and Leeds -an area of similar size to Ireland, which has far more closely spaced large cities. The only three big places outside that are Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh.

    It is certainly true and that is because most journeys are within that distance in Ireland, London to Birmingham is PART of a much longer route and many journeys on that are much longer than London to Birmingham, such as Watford to Crewe or Northampton to Liverpool or Coventry to Warrington. In Ireland very few journeys on the Cork line (for example) go beyond Dublin and Port Arlington to Cork or Charelville to Dublin (for example ) are short journeys.

    Im sure cities such as Aberdeen York Durham and many more will disagree with you about large cities north of Leeds and Liverpool! The area you quote may be the size of Ireland but it is teeming with people whereas Ireland is teeming with bogs, and there is a huge population outside it, offering potential passengers for trains. Irelands second city meanwhile is equivalent to a modest town in the UK


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    dowlingm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,312 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    There is no way the 201s are near life-ex. Now, there might be cost-benefit issues in a refit but in terms of lifespan itself there's no reason a well cared for (!) loco couldn't last 40-50 years.

    As for the DDs - assuming no structural issues again these could be refitted. Look how long the UK Mark 3s are estimated to last - I think it's into the 2030s!


  • Options
    #73
    IsaacWunder
    Registered Users Posts: 398 ✭✭IsaacWunder


    NITransport wrote: »
    I live in hope that one day the irish rail industry will undergo a renaissance similar to that seen in the UK from the late 90's onwards. Why so many contributors are adverse to that... I don't understand. (Please don't reply referring just to the economic situation.)

    The UK rail industry is a disaster. Privatisation, a money saving exercise, ended up costing a the taxpayer a multiple of what it did previously.
    When old BR executives gather at reunions the talk is always the same. What sort of railway could they have given Britain with a third bigger market, rising rail fares, access to private capital markets and four times the old level of subsidy? These were not men opposed to privatisation. They merely regarded the 1993 Act as stupid. They knew that creating a separate track company would destroy management discipline, unleash infrastructure costs and proliferate litigation and regulation. Their railway had its shortcomings, but it was the most cost-effective in Europe. Their eyes mist over at the gold-plated service they could have run with the quantities of public money available today.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/19/comment.publicservices


  • Options
    #74
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    yes, but passenger numbers over there are up hugely, more services are running than ever before and investment is going into places that need it, such as the massive re-building of the station and junctions at Reading which includes flyovers and bypasses, new bridges and about doubles the number of platforms.

    Far better that than the struggle here to update the countys premier line to 100 mph max 40 years after the UK defined 125 mph as the minimum economic crusing speed to compete with the roads.


  • Options
    #75
    NITransport
    Registered Users Posts: 66 ✭✭NITransport


    The UK rail industry is a disaster. Privatisation, a money saving exercise, ended up costing a the taxpayer a multiple of what it did previously.

    If the current UK rail industry is a disaster, I don't know how to describe the rail network of the island of Ireland, simply worse again.

    By "renaissance" I mean "rebirth" which has occurred in the UK Rail travel has exploded since the 1990's, prior to which UK rail travel appeared to be in terminal decline, as per the situation in the Republic of Ireland now.

    Rail improvements cost the UK, just like anywhere else.

    This country just appears to enjoy investing well after investment was initially required.


  • Options
    #76
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    corktina wrote: »
    yes, but passenger numbers over there are up hugely, more services are running than ever before and investment is going into places that need it, such as the massive re-building of the station and junctions at Reading which includes flyovers and bypasses, new bridges and about doubles the number of platforms.

    Far better that than the struggle here to update the countys premier line to 100 mph max 40 years after the UK defined 125 mph as the minimum economic crusing speed to compete with the roads.

    125 mph is a great speed, and was a huge advance for the UK's rail network, but it is rubbish to say it is necessary to compete with road. The vast majority of non high-speed intercity services on the Continent run nowhere near that speed.

    Ireland should be looking to countries like Austria, Finland, and Denmark to see how to run our rail service, not the UK, as they are much closer in size and population distribution to us.


  • Options
    #77
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    you may think it's rubbuish, but thats the business decison that BR(WR) made in the seventies to compete with the M4. Since then speeds have actually been increased on some lines.

    In fairness, you wouldn't expect non-high-speed inter city services to run at taht speed now would you.!Certainly though you might expect the services on the most importnat lines to run at a speed that can compete with the motorways and surely Cork to Dublin should come in that category.


  • Options
    #78
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    corktina wrote: »
    you may think it's rubbuish, but thats the business decison that BR(WR) made in the seventies to compete with the M4. Since then speeds have actually been increased on some lines.

    In fairness, you wouldn't expect non-high-speed inter city services to run at taht speed now would you.!Certainly though you might expect the services on the most importnat lines to run at a speed that can compete with the motorways and surely Cork to Dublin should come in that category.

    Yes, of course speed improvements are necessary, but if Dublin - Cork took 2 hours, that would be easily competitive with the motorway, and would only require an average speed of 85mph / 140 km/h. I would love to see 125mph services, but fairly small speed increases would also make a big difference.


  • Options
    #79
    Joko
    Closed Accounts Posts: 126 ✭✭Joko


    IsaacWunder wrote: »
    The UK rail industry is a disaster. Privatisation, a money saving exercise, ended up costing a the taxpayer a multiple of what it did previously.

    I wouldn't call the UK rail industry a disaster. From my experience it is well run and very popular, far better than Irish Rail.


    This site probably gives a better analysis of the privatisation of British Rail then the guardian http://fullfact.org/factchecks/taxpayer_subsidy_train_network_nationalisation-3391


  • Options
    #80
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    Yes, of course speed improvements are necessary, but if Dublin - Cork took 2 hours, that would be easily competitive with the motorway, and would only require an average speed of 85mph / 140 km/h. I would love to see 125mph services, but fairly small speed increases would also make a big difference.

    given the slow acceleration and braking characteristics of the current trains, and several stops en route. I don't beleive you could maintain an average of 85 mph even with the proposed up grades to partial 100 mph speed limits. current average speed is somewhere around 60 mph id guess.


  • Options
    #81
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    a littel research proves my point

    London to Cardiff is a little over 150 miles and the faster trains do that (with extensive cruising at 125mph) in a minute over 2 hours....lets say 76 mph average +/-....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    NITransport
    Registered Users Posts: 66 ✭✭NITransport


    Ireland should be looking to countries like Austria, Finland, and Denmark to see how to run our rail service, not the UK, as they are much closer in size and population distribution to us.

    Ireland can't really be compared with Austria, as Ireland is on the periphery of Europe with no through rail traffic, whereas Austria sits at its heart with onward connections to the likes of Switzerland, France, Germany, Italy, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.

    But Finland is an excellent country to compare ourselves with. They have over 750km's of rail capable of a minimum of 180kph running. And twice that amount again capable of a minimum of 140kph. This is alongside a fantastic motorway network for a country which is so sparsely populated.

    It's a shame that it's apparently impossible for us to have just 200km of track upgraded to be capable of even just 160kph (200mph).


  • Options
    #83
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,277 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    a 2 hour rail journey between Dublin and Cork would easily beat even the most enthusiastic of drivers. It is IÉ's intention to reduce journey times to Cork, Galway and Balfast to 2 hours, although taking the 2hour Belfast-Dublin journey time, that doesn't seem all that ambitious.


  • Options
    #84
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    cgcsb wrote: »
    a 2 hour rail journey between Dublin and Cork would easily beat even the most enthusiastic of drivers. It is IÉ's intention to reduce journey times to Cork, Galway and Balfast to 2 hours, although taking the 2hour Belfast-Dublin journey time, that doesn't seem all that ambitious.

    Door to door, rail will never compete.


  • Options
    #85
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,818 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    Door to door, rail will never compete.

    Irish Rail are probably happy to be able to compete with buses, not private cars.


  • Options
    #86
    Wild Bill
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,129 ✭✭✭Wild Bill


    MYOB wrote: »
    Irish Rail are probably happy to be able to compete with buses, not private cars.

    Even the most enthusiastic bus drivers? :cool:


  • Options
    #87
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,491 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    cgcsb wrote: »
    It is IÉ's intention to reduce journey times to Cork, Galway and Balfast to 2 hours

    Not true, they plan on reducing it by 30 minutes, which would bring Dublin to Cork to about 2h 30m. Only slightly faster then the new bus service and still slower then by car.


  • Options
    #88
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,277 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    bk wrote: »
    Not true, they plan on reducing it by 30 minutes, which would bring Dublin to Cork to about 2h 30m. Only slightly faster then the new bus service and still slower then by car.

    only 2 of the Cork-Dublin services take 3 hours. Some are as fast as 2 hours and 30 minutes, so by removing 30 minutes from the journey, some will be 2 hours, and all trains will take between 2 hours and 2 hours 30 mins depending on stopping pattern, easily faster than car.


  • Options
    #89
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,277 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Wild Bill wrote: »
    Door to door, rail will never compete.

    It can, it just needs some effective planning. Let's say you could buy a Dublin-Cork rail ticket that included a bus transfer in Cork and a Luas transfer in Dublin, with a reduced journey time of 2 hours. Let's say you got this ticket on webfare for €40, easily cheaper and faster than driving with tolls and petrol


  • Options
    #90
    Onthe3rdDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,194 ✭✭✭Onthe3rdDay


    There are other advantages to rail. If I jump on the train I can usually get 90 minutes work done, the rest of the time I'm reading the paper and relaxing.

    In the car it might be 2 hours door to door, but that's in perfect conditions, Usually not the case when you get to urban areas. It's roughly the same when everything is taken into account and there's more stress on the road, as well as not gaining that 90 minutes which means a extra 90 minutes working at the end of the day.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,557 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    bk wrote: »
    Not true, they plan on reducing it by 30 minutes, which would bring Dublin to Cork to about 2h 30m. Only slightly faster then the new bus service and still slower then by car.

    Glad to see that you are still spouting your anti-rail bias, and posting misinformation that you have been corrected on numerous times.

    As posted above the upgrades will mean some trains taking 2 hours and most taking in the region of 2 hours 15 minutes.

    With revised stopping patterns, with intermediate stops being eliminated through the introduction of other stopping trains north of Thurles, the trains currently taking 3 hours can be sped up to more like 2 hours 20 minutes.


Advertisement