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

Irish Rail

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 13,035 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Banjoxed wrote: »
    The logical conclusion then is that the existence of the railways is an impediment to them getting more gravy from the taxpayer. Hence the spin.

    I propose we get rid of all our god forsaken railways and use the money saved for increasing road toll subvention.


  • Options
    #93
    Banjoxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭Banjoxed


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    I propose we get rid of all our god forsaken railways and use the money saved for increasing road toll subvention.

    If we do get rid of all our railways it will undoubtedly make many stand up that bit more firmly, in delight at bringing the rest of the Twenty six counties to the same standard as Letterkenny.


  • Options
    #94
    Banjoxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭Banjoxed


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I mean that's as high as it's going to get.

    I find Irish people think of our regional towns as WAY bigger than they actually are.

    Sligo is only 20,000 which is putting into small town categories in an English context.

    Then you've got to factor in that there's really no population density along the route.

    It makes things very difficult to make infrastructure economically viable.

    It is curious that a poster pulling an assertion out of his arse about maintenance costs on the Sligo line beyond Longford, and another assuming that the urban district population of Sligo is the only source of demand at Sligo station, go unchallenged.

    Both assertions are of course bollocks of the highest order.


  • Options
    #95
    n97 mini
    Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    end of the road wrote: »
    either way its worth every penny as its a public service.

    How little patronage does a public service need to get before it's not worth spending money on?

    Attymon station averages 1 passenger a day from 7 trains that stop there. That means on average 6 trains stop and no-one gets on or off. Never mind maintenance costs on the building. Is it worth it?


  • Options
    #96
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 13,035 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Banjoxed wrote: »
    If we do get rid of all our railways it will undoubtedly make many stand up that bit more firmly, in delight at bringing the rest of the Twenty six counties to the same standard as Letterkenny.

    The Wee Swilly got it wrong all those years ago. They should have invested in turnpikes instead of Leyland road buses and tollbooths instead of Bedford lurry's.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Copyerselveson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭Copyerselveson


    n97 mini wrote: »
    How little patronage does a public service need to get before it's not worth spending money on?

    Attymon station averages 1 passenger a day from 7 trains that stop there. That means on average 6 trains stop and no-one gets on or off. Never mind maintenance costs on the building. Is it worth it?

    The intrinsic cost of allowing trains to stop at a station aren't that high. In essence a building that may originally have housed a station master, a porter, a ticket seller and signallers for sidings and junctions etc is really no longer needed to make a station operational.

    If the station consists purely as a platform with an automatic ticket barrier and a ticket machine with cctv for security then the running costs are significantly less. Electricity bills and public liability insurance would be the biggest expense. Attymon does not have a passing loop though if one were provided there then the Galway line could have extra capacity to run more frequent trains. Installing a passing loop there would be of benefit to the line and even then if only one or two passengers board at the station IÉ would get a good return on their investment.

    If we were serious about saving money and keeping the railway operational at places like Attymon the associated buildings at the station could be sold off or demolished to save maintenance costs and the station run on a bare bones level.

    Closure is presented by some here and elsewhere as a panacea to the railways problems. Closure is not a panacea, closure is just that, closure. Only beneficaries of that approach are a few anti-railway ideologues and of course the operators of toll motorways.


  • Options
    #98
    flyingsnail
    Registered Users Posts: 2,752 ✭✭✭flyingsnail


    n97 mini wrote: »
    How little patronage does a public service need to get before it's not worth spending money on?

    I dont know
    Attymon station averages 1 passenger a day from 7 trains that stop there. That means on average 6 trains stop and no-one gets on or off. Never mind maintenance costs on the building. Is it worth it?

    But we should be careful about making any decision based on the data of a single day in November, and data that is now 2 years old


  • Options
    #99
    n97 mini
    Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    flyingsnail wrote: »
    But we should be careful about making any decision based on the data of a single day in November, and data that is now 2 years old

    Until we have better data it is the best we have, but I think anyone familiar with the Galway line knows that Attymon is essentially a ghost station.


  • Options
    #100
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users Posts: 3,251 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    n97 mini wrote: »
    How little patronage does a public service need to get before it's not worth spending money on?
    I think this is something that needs to be set in stone if it hasn't already at some level.
    Copyerselveson wrote: »
    Closure is presented by some here and elsewhere as a panacea to the railways problems. Closure is not a panacea, closure is just that, closure. Only beneficaries of that approach are a few anti-railway ideologues and of course the operators of toll motorways.
    Is anyone saying that line closures are a solution to all the railways problems.
    Closing unsustainable routes is common practice in the bus and aviation industry.
    I don't see why it shouldn't be considered when it comes to the railways.


  • Options
    #101
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    n97 mini wrote: »
    How little patronage does a public service need to get before it's not worth spending money on?

    Attymon station averages 1 passenger a day from 7 trains that stop there. That means on average 6 trains stop and no-one gets on or off. Never mind maintenance costs on the building. Is it worth it?
    yes, its there anyway and better that then be shut and the building left to rot, as happened to so many other stations in the past. the station provides a service to someone who would either not get out or who would have to go on to our all ready congested roads

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Is anyone saying that line closures are a solution to all the railways problems.

    people believe it to be yes. the past proves them wrong.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Closing unsustainable routes is common practice in the bus and aviation industry.

    privately owned for the most part, so they can do what they like.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    I don't see why it shouldn't be considered when it comes to the railways.

    because it was tried all ready and it failed to solve the railways problems, if we go down that route again the end result will be eventually no railway because we'l just keep hacking away every few years, whats the point in doing the same thing that failed last time? i know its ireland but we can't be that thick surely? most of the public transport that is state run in this country will never be proffitable or sustainable, but i'm happy for my taxes to pay for it as its of benefit to someone and could be to me at sometime. the current network as it is is worth every penny and more.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #103
    Copyerselveson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭Copyerselveson


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Until we have better data it is the best we have, but I think anyone familiar with the Galway line knows that Attymon is essentially a ghost station.

    And we are talking about one station on a route that has a better level of patronage than others.


  • Options
    #104
    n97 mini
    Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    Copyerselveson wrote: »
    And we are talking about one station on a route that has a better level of patronage than others.

    Yes, but my point was how low do we go. Contrary to end of the road I don't believe keeping stations open for the sake of it is better than letting them rot. Sometimes you have to say goodbye.


  • Options
    #105
    Banjoxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭Banjoxed


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Yes, but my point was how low do we go. Contrary to end of the road I don't believe keeping stations open for the sake of it is better than letting them rot. Sometimes you have to say goodbye.

    Then, if you entirely had your way, what would be left of the railway network?


  • Options
    #106
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Yes, but my point was how low do we go. Contrary to end of the road I don't believe keeping stations open for the sake of it is better than letting them rot. Sometimes you have to say goodbye.
    not when it won't achieve anything but put more cars on the roads

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #107
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Banjoxed wrote: »
    Then, if you entirely had your way, what would be left of the railway network?
    well the part he uses of course, i'm sure he would be annoyed if it shut. just like i would be annoyed if my railway line was to shut

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #108
    Copyerselveson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭Copyerselveson


    end of the road wrote: »
    not when it won't achieve anything but put more cars on the roads

    Indeed - closing railway lines generally increases car patronage rather than buses. Something that the Mandarins at the Department of Transport aren't saying while they continue to worship at the altar of the ESRI, McCarthy etc.


  • Options
    #109
    n97 mini
    Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    Copyerselveson wrote: »
    Indeed - closing railway lines generally increases car patronage rather than buses. Something that the Mandarins at the Department of Transport aren't saying while they continue to worship at the altar of the ESRI, McCarthy etc.

    Couldn't see it causing too many traffic jams around Attymon etc.


  • Options
    #110
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    n97 mini wrote: »
    Couldn't see it causing too many traffic jams around Attymon etc.
    so what, you do realise that station is a railhead for other areas, former loughrea branch area for example. its not going anywhere

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #111
    Banjoxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭Banjoxed


    Banjoxed wrote: »
    Then, if you entirely had your way, what would be left of the railway network?

    No response so it can be reasonably assumed the lot then.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    jackofalltrades
    Registered Users Posts: 3,251 ✭✭✭jackofalltrades


    end of the road wrote: »
    because it was tried all ready and it failed to solve the railways problems
    I had a look at the routes that have been closed over the decades and if they hadn't of been closed then Irish Rails finances would be an absolute disaster now.
    I don't get this argument that closures didn't work and that they won't work in the future.
    Irish rails current issues stem from the fact that they have not responded to the current markets conditions.
    The has been no credible response to the motorway network and the quicker cars journeys and cheap express buses that come with them.
    if we go down that route again the end result will be eventually no railway because we'l just keep hacking away every few years
    That's not going to happen though, do you really think someone is going to come along and suggest cutting the Dublin-Cork route.
    Routes carrying 73 passengers are completely unsustainable for a train service.
    I think we need to decide what is sustainable for the long-term and close the routes that aren't. Taking away the threat of further closures.
    most of the public transport that is state run in this country will never be proffitable or sustainable
    Yes, but there are degrees of sustainability.
    73 passengers a day is never going to meet that.
    but i'm happy for my taxes to pay for it as its of benefit to someone and could be to me at sometime. the current network as it is is worth every penny and more.
    It's not just your taxes though, were currently borrowing on the backs of future taxpayers to fund a % our current services.


  • Options
    #113
    n97 mini
    Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    Banjoxed wrote: »
    No response so it can be reasonably assumed the lot then.

    It's reasonable to assume I don't spend all day on boards.ie.

    I've stated a few posts back that I would close anything that was seriously under performing after a concerted effort to increase patronage to a level that justifies keeping it open.
    end of the road wrote: »
    well the part he uses of course, i'm sure he would be annoyed if it shut. just like i would be annoyed if my railway line was to shut

    I chose to live somewhere with good services and my local station is on one of the busiest routes in the country, so it's not likely there'll be any closures soon, but I'm not a NIMBY either, and would accept that just because it's my local station is not a reason enough to keep it


  • Options
    #114
    Banjoxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭Banjoxed


    n97 mini wrote: »
    It's reasonable to assume I don't spend all day on boards.ie.

    I've stated a few posts back that I would close anything that was seriously under performing after a concerted effort to increase patronage to a level that justifies keeping it open.



    I chose to live somewhere with good services and my local station is on one of the busiest routes in the country, so it's not likely there'll be any closures soon, but I'm not a NIMBY either, and would accept that just because it's my local station is not a reason enough to keep it

    Well you're all right Jack so.


  • Options
    #115
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    jackofalltrades the analogy of a tree having too many of its branches lopped off comes to mind. The railways long ago had many branches ruthlessly pruned and now there's little left to chop off without killing the whole tree. Too much surgery will kill this patient and the closure of the generally accepted list of target lines would have little impact on the dire state of CIE's finances.


  • Options
    #116
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    I had a look at the routes that have been closed over the decades and if they hadn't of been closed then Irish Rails finances would be an absolute disaster now.

    large suades of railway were shut and ripped up, not small little branches which would have been little to no loss.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    I don't get this argument that closures didn't work and that they won't work in the future.

    well get it. what lines were to be shut and ripped up were all ready done back in the 60s and 70s . anything left now is non negotiable and would be pointless and undermine the rest when more supposed savings are wanted and more closures happen
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Irish rails current issues stem from the fact that they have not responded to the current markets conditions.

    yeah, and thats due to not enough investment and government using the railway as a political football and bad management by irish rail management, shutting railways isn't going to change these issues.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    The has been no credible response to the motorway network and the quicker cars journeys and cheap express buses that come with them.

    no, but then again the cheep express busses are mostly used by those who wouldn't use railways anyway, or who are very very price conscious. the amount of people who have gone from rail to them is not as much as one would think, however i agree they should have been taken into account
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    That's not going to happen though, do you really think someone is going to come along and suggest cutting the Dublin-Cork route.

    yes. many of the pro closure types usually want everything gone, or anything that isn't their rail line. so yes, many would have the dublin cork route either shut and ripped up or turned into a long engineers siding.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Routes carrying 73 passengers are completely unsustainable for a train service.

    what routes cary 73 passengers, and even if they did the line is of benefit to those passengers who otherwise would stay at home or buy a car.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    I think we need to decide what is sustainable for the long-term

    we did back in the 50s. we got bar a few idiotic closures like navan and bray harcourt street, the current network.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    close the routes that aren't.

    why bother. its only about 1 maybe 2 routes, all though if invested in at the time one of those could have been easily saved.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    Taking away the threat of further closures.

    oh dear god. taking away the threat of further closures? the closures in the 60s and 70s were supposed to prevent further closures, guess what it didn't happen. you are really mistaken if you think the threat of closures goes away once closures happen. it doesn't. read your history, ireland always repeats it.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    73 passengers a day is never going to meet that.

    but its not 73 passengers is it. you plucked that number out of thin air didn't you? these passengers would only go to the car if the rail line was shut and eventually if enough lines went it would mean more cars and extra money on roads, probably more then if the railway was kept.
    jackofalltrades wrote: »
    It's not just your taxes though, were currently borrowing on the backs of future taxpayers to fund a % our current services.

    and? removing services isn't going to stop that, it will just bring unnecessary hardship upon those who use them and mean extra money being spent on the infrastructure to replace said service, more then if the service was kept. but the truth is you just want the rail network gone apart from the bits you use isn't it.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #117
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,998 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    n97 mini wrote: »
    I've stated a few posts back that I would close anything that was seriously under performing after a concerted effort to increase patronage to a level that justifies keeping it open.

    and what level is that? you have mentioned "making a proffit"
    n97 mini wrote: »
    I chose to live somewhere with good services and my local station is on one of the busiest routes in the country, so it's not likely there'll be any closures soon.

    no line is safe, i'm not joking
    n97 mini wrote: »
    I'm not a NIMBY either

    neither is any of us here.
    n97 mini wrote: »
    and would accept that just because it's my local station is not a reason enough to keep it

    of course you wouldn't. if your station being closed brought undue hardship upon you or forced you to a method of transport you didn't want to use you wouldn't be happy and rightly so.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #118
    Copyerselveson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭Copyerselveson


    end of the road wrote: »
    and what level is that? you have mentioned "making a proffit"



    no line is safe, i'm not joking



    neither is any of us here.



    of course you wouldn't. if your station being closed brought undue hardship upon you or forced you to a method of transport you didn't want to use you wouldn't be happy and rightly so.

    Let's be absolutely clear, I have no doubt that there are people not only on this board but at the heart of the Department of Transport, who would shut the whole lot of the railway apart from Belfast-Dublin-Cork and the rail lines serving the Pale.

    That approach would no doubt satisfy the Motorway toll road operators and maybe too some right wing economists at the ESRI and other think tanks who could not forecast the present recession but whose word on public transport is taken as gospel by some officials it seems at the Department of Transport.

    The real truth is that rail infrastructure has been grossly under invested and is in dire need of money to bring it up to scratch. CIE itself is in real need of reform and has allowed itself to compete with itself. Madness.

    Limerick-Ballybrophy was allowed to rot with crazy and uneconomic speed restrictions and Limerick Junction-Waterford which was originally Rosslare Harbour-Limerick and Cork and Tralee was chopped into bits timetable wise and now only the truly determined could travel the length of the original route over two days by a mix of bus, train and B&B.

    I suspect these routes will be chopped first but if the Unions carry on striking more will follow. That is the outcome I believe is the one many people want.

    Cui bono? Who benefits from a truncated rail network? Who is pushing for a truncated rail network? Follow the money.


  • Options
    #119
    n97 mini
    Registered Users Posts: 8,295 ✭✭✭n97 mini


    end of the road wrote: »
    and what level is that? you have mentioned "making a proffit"

    TBD. I would rather the parts of the railway that were being subsidised were being done so because they're of quantifiable benefit to the whole community. I have no problem subsidising in urban areas where they reduce congestion and hence shorten travel times for everyone in that area, whether they use them or not.

    I do have a problem with throwing large amounts of taxpayers' money at something that benefits almost no-one.


  • Options
    #120
    Copyerselveson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭Copyerselveson


    How did your comments on Attymon end up in yesterday's Sunday Independent?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    Copyerselveson wrote: »
    How did your comments on Attymon end up in yesterday's Sunday Independent?

    Do tell us more? :confused:


Advertisement