Cork - Limerick Rail Link

corktina · 18-04-2012 12:08pm

lxflyer wrote: »

For goodness sakes there is one train per hour during the day south of Portarlington - it is not that hard to path them.

Coupled with the 4 track section, and the resignalled Heuston-Cherryville, it is perfectly possible to fit extra services in.

Would you care to comment on the 2 hour schedule impossibility or are you just going to ignore that?

corktina · 18-04-2012 12:19pm

what you are proposing doesnt make sense.

the Railway is under threat from the Motorway and you talk of droping some stops on the fast trains which is a disimprovement to the service for those passengers travel to and from those stations.It might work for those travelling to Dublin but not for others who would have to change at perhaps Thurles to get where they are going. Net result: more people will use their cars.

LXFlyer · 18-04-2012 12:55pm

Well frankly, best practice is to operate a combination of fast and semi-fast services with feeder services operating ahead into them or after them depending on the direction of travel.

How else do you get faster overall journey times? That is the crux of the issue. Most of the journeys south would be reasonably covered by my suggestion. With the revised signalling the wait times at connecting stations could be kept to a minimum. Changing trains is a perfectly normal phenomen for intermediate station journeys across railways throughout Europe, why should it not be here?

What I am proposing is that you would have ex Dublin something like the following stopping patterns:

0700 Dublin, Portlaoise, Thurles, Limerick Junction, Mallow and Cork
0800, 1000, 1200, 1400, 1900, 2100 Dublin, Portlaoise, Ballybrophy, Templemore, Thurles, Limerick Junction, Charleville, Mallow and Cork
0900, 1100, 1300, 1500, 1600, 1800 Dublin, Thurles, Limerick Junction, Mallow, Cork
1700 Dublin, Limerick Junction, Mallow, Cork

Passengers from stations between Dublin and Portlaoise could get a bi-hourly stopping service to connect into the Dublin/Cork trains at Portlaoise, during the afternoon the existing Dublin-Limerick services would connect at Thurles with the Dublin/Cork trains.

Judgement Day · 18-04-2012 1:11pm

Given the threat posed by the motorway, new bus services etc. wouldn't it make sense to improve the quality of what's on offer - apart from the timings? How about trying to encourage business travel by the provision of a boardroom saloon in one or more of the Mk.IVs - NIR did this way back in the 1980s. How about making the trains more useful - i.e. Fastrack. How about bringing rail catering back unde IE control and reducing prices down to cost price so that catering can be used as a major incentive to travel by rail. I know that it's completely pointless raising these issues with CIE, the Minister or even here, as everybody seems obsessed with cutting out stops and closing 'branch' lines as means to saving the railway. :rolleyes:

LXFlyer · 18-04-2012 1:27pm

corktina wrote: »

Would you care to comment on the 2 hour schedule impossibility or are you just going to ignore that?

I wasn't ignoring it - I wanted to re-examine the report commissioned by IE. I did get my times slightly wrong. Apologies for that.

Having re-examined the report, it would leave me to believe that peak trains could be accelerated to 2 hours 15 minutes or slightly less with the modest investment proposed, and other services to a maximum of 2 hours 30 minutes and probably less through infrastructure improvements and revised stopping patterns.

2 hours would I agree require more investment that than proposed.

corktina · 18-04-2012 1:47pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

Given the threat posed by the motorway, new bus services etc. wouldn't it make sense to improve the quality of what's on offer - apart from the timings? How about trying to encourage business travel by the provision of a boardroom saloon in one or more of the Mk.IVs - NIR did this way back in the 1980s. How about making the trains more useful - i.e. Fastrack. How about bringing rail catering back unde IE control and reducing prices down to cost price so that catering can be used as a major incentive to travel by rail. I know that it's completely pointless raising these issues with CIE, the Minister or even here, as everybody seems obsessed with cutting out stops and closing 'branch' lines as means to saving the railway. :rolleyes:

Have to agree with you JD

USPs is what it's about, build on the advantages of Rail.

On-board catering is a major plus of rail. The journey from Dublin to Cork (for instance) is too short by road to make it worthwhile stopping for refreshments. To reduce prices (which always seem very high to me) to cost price is a sensible suggestion surely?. Whatever about a boardroom saloon, surely a proper Business Class with dedicated Lounges at either end and priority boarding would make sense too at small cost.

Wild Bill · 18-04-2012 11:00pm

NITransport wrote: »

I'm sorry to tell you Wild Bill, that just because rail travel is not a suitable mode of transport for you, does not mean that it is not suitable mode of transport for many Irish business and leisure travellers.

Don't be sorry! I'm not

By the time I'd get to Heuston, even by car, I'd be on the M7 Portlaoise Bypass.

Fact.

LXFlyer · 19-04-2012 8:33am

Rail does not and never did suit everyone. That's a fact of your location.

Just because it does not suit you, does not mean it doesn't suit others.

LXFlyer · 19-04-2012 8:37am

I do agree though that rail needs to differentiate itself - some First Class lounges would be a start at Dublin, Cork and Belfast.

I don't however see any point in bringing onboard catering back in house. It was run shambolically, with snack bars closed often by Ballybrophy on northbound services. At least now it is run in a professional manner.

Judgement Day · 19-04-2012 11:32am

lxflyer wrote: »

I do agree though that rail needs to differentiate itself - some First Class lounges would be a start at Dublin, Cork and Belfast.

I don't however see any point in bringing onboard catering back in house. It was run shambolically, with snack bars closed often by Ballybrophy on northbound services. At least now it is run in a professional manner.

Yes, the catering could be shambolic but in general it was better than today's offering IMO. Anyway, just because something 'was' shambolic doesn't mean that it can't be revisited - after all the railways are still run in a shambolic way and you aren't advocating closing them down.

LXFlyer · 19-04-2012 1:10pm

JD definitely not - Network Catering was not fit for purpose.

Catering is not part of IE's core business - it is for Rail Gourmet. Better to leave IE to the actual operation of rail services. Times have changed and what might have been economically feasible in the past may not be feasible nowadays.

Far better to leave catering in the hands of an organisation that knows what it is doing, and offers the service throughout the journey as Rail Gourmet does.

What makes you think that IE could improve on Rail Gourmet's service?

pigtown · 19-04-2012 1:18pm

Not sure if this has been answered already but is there much demand for a Limerick-Cork rail link? The demand for Limerick-Galway or Limerick-Waterford doesn't appear to be there.

corktina · 19-04-2012 3:32pm

the coaches seem to do good business, a train service where you have to change en route will not be popular, but would a through service be any more so? Only one way to find out, IE should lay it on and see what happens but can we afford the outlay?

LXFlyer · 19-04-2012 3:47pm

If the waiting time at Limerick Junction was cut down between connecting trains to something reasonable then it could be competitive.

However, until all of the the temporary speed restrictions north of Limerick Junction from Dublin are eliminated that is not going to happen. Ideally northbound and southbound Cork services should be calling at Limerick Junction within minutes of one another. That would result in far more competitive timings between Limerick and Waterford and Limerick and Cork.

That is the most important work that needs to be done as all the other lines benefit from it.

pigtown · 19-04-2012 3:53pm

corktina wrote: »

the coaches seem to do good business, a train service where you have to change en route will not be popular, but would a through service be any more so? Only one way to find out, IE should lay it on and see what happens but can we afford the outlay?

I wonder if they experimented with a direct service each way on Friday and Sunday evenings for a start would that give an accurate reflection of the demand?
Also was there ever a direct service via LJ?

bk · 19-04-2012 5:50pm

lxflyer wrote: »

He/she has consistently selected the slowest trains from the timetable to base his timings on, and ignores the fastest ones.

Hmmm, it seems I go away for a few days and I end up being attacked.

The fact is, the average time for all trains between Cork to Dublin is 2h48m's (it is actually 2h49m or 168.86666 minutes, but I rounded down to avoid being accused of being unfair to Irish rail).

This is fact, I'm not picking the slowest trains are anything like that. Anyone can do this maths themselves by looking at the Irish Rail site, here are the timings for Dublin to Cork for tomorrow:

2h50m
2h45m
2h50m
2h50m
2h55m
2h45m
2h55m
2h50m
2h45m
2h45m
2h50m
2h50m
2h58m
2h55m

As you can see the vast majority are 2h50m or greater, there is only a single 2h30m service per day. This is fact. So now will you please withdraw your accusation?

Also unlike you (when you posted the above) I had actually read the recent Irish Rail consultants report, so I knew exactly what Irish rail are proposing.

For others who are interested here is what Irish Rail are proposing:

- 5 year plan, costing 250 million at 50 million a year.
- Bring the average speed of the Cork line down to 2h30m at a cost of 50m.
- Bring the average speed of the Galway, Limerick and Belfast lines down to 2 hours at a cost of 200 million.

Irish Rail do NOT plan to bring any Cork train down to 2 hours. The report says that to bring the Cork train down to 2 hours, it requires upgrading the track from 120km/h to 160km/h running. It is estimated this will cost another 250 million on top of the 250 million mentioned above, excluding the cost of electrification and new rail stock.

Irish Rail do have a plan to do this, but it is a long term plan, not expected to be possible until 2030 and isn't part of Irish Rails current proposal.

The problem I have with the above proposal, is that for the cost of 250 million, the train still ends up slower then by car (and definitely door to door) and only ends up about equaling the new direct bus services city center to city center times!!

So what exactly are we gaining for our 250 million? What benefit do we get from it.

Wild Bill · 20-04-2012 12:04am

bk wrote: »

So what exactly are we gaining for our 250 million? What benefit do we get from it.

D'oh! :rolleyes:

You get a smug warm glow from knowing you are investing in "sustainable" public rail transport instead of nasty unsustainable road facilities :cool:

NITransport · 20-04-2012 8:48am

bk wrote: »

So what exactly are we gaining for our 250 million? What benefit do we get from it.

Wild Bill wrote: »

D'oh! :rolleyes:

You get a smug warm glow from knowing you are investing in "sustainable" public rail transport instead of nasty unsustainable road facilities :cool:

Er no. Apart from saving Irish businesses upwards of €164,295,000 in wage bills over a 30 year period (a typical cost/benefit analysis period) which I arrived at through:
Assuming an increase from 2,434,000 to 2,500,000 pax over the period.
30% business travellers saving an additional 15 minutes if reduced from 2hr 30 mins to 2 hr 00 mins. The average hourly salary being €15.00 (which is obviously low and will increase over the period-Time value of money not considered).

You will also save total passengers in the region of 36,510,000 hours.

Another point to note that this calculation doesn't include a significant rise in passenger numbers.

I think that warrants the investment. :rolleyes:

lkdsl · 20-04-2012 9:48am

Unfortunately for all of us, several long term issues create significant disadvantages for the development of rail in Ireland:
1. Size - the island is too small to justify extensive freight operations. Most goods have to be hauled to a freight depot for loading onto a train to be unloaded at another depot and loaded onto a truck.. That simply doesn't make sense for journeys that will rarely exceed 250km.
2. Lack of investment - rail went out of fashion in the 1950's and suffered almost half a century of neglect. Recent investment in track, rolling stock and infrastructure have barely brought us up to the 1970's European standards.
3. There is little habit of taking the train in Ireland (related to #2 above) except on some very well served lines e.g. Dart, Dublin commuter services
4. And most damaging of all, the planning decisions of the past decades (not just the Celtic Tiger era) have lead to a dispersal of population, which means that very few people are within an easy trip to the local station. Rail relies on population density to support its much higher fixed and variable costs. It only works when there are a lot of people or goods to move. It is interesting that bus services (lower cost per km, much greater routing flexibility) continue to expand across the country. Until we increase population densities the rail network will struggle. Cork-Dublin-Belfast are probably viable. The rest are probably not.

Sorry, but spending additional significant amounts to re-open lines between small population centres doesn't make sense. Maintaining and upgrading a smaller network that serves larger population may be feasible. But I agree that the land on the original routes should be retained, just in case. The Harcourt Street line is a case in point.

I would love a really good rail network and use rail whenever I can, but in Ireland it struggles to compete. In the UK, Germany, Switzerland, etc. they do not have the disadvantages above and rail is thriving.

corktina · 20-04-2012 11:00am

NITransport wrote: »

Er no. Apart from saving Irish businesses upwards of €164,295,000 in wage bills over a 30 year period (a typical cost/benefit analysis period) which I arrived at through:
Assuming an increase from 2,434,000 to 2,500,000 pax over the period.
30% business travellers saving an additional 15 minutes if reduced from 2hr 30 mins to 2 hr 00 mins. The average hourly salary being €15.00 (which is obviously low and will increase over the period-Time value of money not considered).

You will also save total passengers in the region of 36,510,000 hours.

Another point to note that this calculation doesn't include a significant rise in passenger numbers.

I think that warrants the investment. :rolleyes:

those savings are entirely notional and don't translate into hard cash, whereas the investment required IS hard cash and we don't have any

NITransport · 20-04-2012 5:50pm

corktina wrote: »

those savings are entirely notional and don't translate into hard cash, whereas the investment required IS hard cash and we don't have any

The savings are notional, they are just pessimistic.

I used extremely pessimistic figures for salary, stating that the average business traveller is on €27500 and that will remain constant for 30 years. I've accounted for the saving to on man wage hours based on the percentage of passengers being business travellers and the actual time that would be saved. I have used the median figure for passengers over the next thirty years. And calculated the hours saved for all passengers that would use the line as projected over the same period.

The only thing that my calculations are, are pessimistic. Investment would most likely increase passengers and in turn increase the return and business savings! I have not assumed that. To prevent people telling me I'm being optimistic.

I love how those who are against investment applaud (thank) contributors that make brash statements like "Ireland is too small" or imply that the UK has never under invested in its rail network (lkdsl's previous post) and throw out careful calculations which took some time based on maths and actual (albeit pessimistic) projections. With an electorate like some of the contributors here, it's no wonder Ireland had an inadequate road network and continue to have appalling broadband facilities, education system, water network, rail network, and planning law (as lkdsl stated in his 4th point). It's actually quite depressing.

lkdsl · 20-04-2012 6:11pm

Note that my comment about Ireland being too small was related to rail freight, not to passenger traffic. That is soundly based and has been stated in a number of reports (if you need the references, just ask).
The UK has at various times under-invested in its rail network (as well as having indulged in some unsuccessful privatisation decisions), but over the same period it has invested far more. Ireland didn't wake up to rail until the 1990's.
The key problem in Ireland is still population density - we have very few areas with sufficiently dense population to support rail. Investing in the rail network is a welcome development, but the economics of rail (cost versus fares) will remain difficult. The social gain (including externalities) may well be positive but a country that is short of cash will find it very difficult to justify investment on that basis right now.
It is also unfortunately true that the share of journeys taken by rail has fallen. There are a number of factors contributing to this (motorways, recession, cost, time) but it is noticeable that bus companies are fighting hard for customers and offer very stiff competition on some routes.

@NITransport - I think many of the people contributing to this thread would like to see a vibrant and successful rail network in Ireland. The disagreement is on whether it is feasible, viable, sensible to expend huge (and scarce) resources on rail right now.
Note that I take the train a lot. But it doesn't suit many of the journeys I need to take. Like most people in Ireland, I live some distance from the nearest mainline station, with a very occasional bus service (a couple a day) and only one car, on which others also rely. I need a lift to and from the station and for many journeys I cannot arrive by train in time for a working day and would have to travel the night before.
We are not against you - however depressed we may make you feel.

NITransport · 20-04-2012 6:25pm

Ok, I may have got a bit passionate and also misread your comment.

And personally I don't believe some lesser travelled routes are viable, as you say due to population densities, and few large population centres. What I just wish is investment on key intercity lines, to make them more viable. Yes under investment has occurred, but that doesn't mean we have to give up on it, or continue to under invest. It could be sorted, at a cost naturally. And I'll keep on about it... like a broken record.

corktina · 20-04-2012 6:48pm

im all for more investment should we be able to afford it, but whats needed on the Major routes is 125 mph running , investing in increasing some sections to 100mph is 40 years behind the times. The question is will main line rail survive long enough to be upgraded given the problems it now faces.

.

dowlingm · 20-04-2012 7:21pm

NITransport, I think the point corktina is making is that social savings don't pay crew wages or fuel bills. Even if IE expanded service and provided these savings, any attempt to get a cut by increasing fares would be bitterly challenged.

Ideally the most direct and demonstrable payback for rail (especially built infrastructure) is avoidance of road spending. However, I can't ever remember seeing the consideration of rail capacity (including non-track upgrades like signalling/electrification/platform lengthening) in a road expansion document because the NRA has no brief to consider it that I know of. If road capacity is projected to exceed existing infrastructure we generally build more road.

Wild Bill · 20-04-2012 8:04pm

lkdsl wrote: »

3. There is little habit of taking the train in Ireland (related to #2 above) except on some very well served lines e.g. Dart, Dublin commuter services

The only viable future for rail expansion in Ireland (light and heavy) is in urban transport or commuting. All but dreamers and ideologues recognize this fact.

4. And most damaging of all, the planning decisions of the past decades (not just the Celtic Tiger era) have lead to a dispersal of population, which means that very few people are within an easy trip to the local station.

Only "damaging" if you believe people exist to serve a particular mode of transport! :cool:

dowlingm · 21-04-2012 5:09pm

Wild Bill wrote: »

The only viable future for rail expansion in Ireland (light and heavy) is in urban transport or commuting. All but dreamers and ideologues recognize this fact.

Which is why those of us with heads screwed on were yelling when 106m Euro went to relaying an indirect route when Midleton was kept waiting, Kildare Route Project/Clonsilla-Navan were truncated.

My view is - don't worry about whether a route is intercity or commuter, look at whether they are competitive. Limerick-Nenagh is not competitive with road and we have no intention of spending the volume of money required to make it so. Limerick-Waterford IS competitive with road (2h30 vs 2h55) because of the N24 but IE operational decisions (the Limerick Junction split and requirement to arrive before/leave after mainline runs) make it less attractive (it could be in the 2h10 range without any track upgrades if some services ran through). In the end, Limerick Junction-Waterford is likely to get chopped first for political reasons!

LXFlyer · 21-04-2012 6:37pm

bk wrote: »

Hmmm, it seems I go away for a few days and I end up being attacked.

The fact is, the average time for all trains between Cork to Dublin is 2h48m's (it is actually 2h49m or 168.86666 minutes, but I rounded down to avoid being accused of being unfair to Irish rail).

This is fact, I'm not picking the slowest trains are anything like that. Anyone can do this maths themselves by looking at the Irish Rail site, here are the timings for Dublin to Cork for tomorrow:

2h50m
2h45m
2h50m
2h50m
2h55m
2h45m
2h55m
2h50m
2h45m
2h45m
2h50m
2h50m
2h58m
2h55m

As you can see the vast majority are 2h50m or greater, there is only a single 2h30m service per day. This is fact. So now will you please withdraw your accusation?

Also unlike you (when you posted the above) I had actually read the recent Irish Rail consultants report, so I knew exactly what Irish rail are proposing.

For others who are interested here is what Irish Rail are proposing:

- 5 year plan, costing 250 million at 50 million a year.
- Bring the average speed of the Cork line down to 2h30m at a cost of 50m.
- Bring the average speed of the Galway, Limerick and Belfast lines down to 2 hours at a cost of 200 million.

Irish Rail do NOT plan to bring any Cork train down to 2 hours. The report says that to bring the Cork train down to 2 hours, it requires upgrading the track from 120km/h to 160km/h running. It is estimated this will cost another 250 million on top of the 250 million mentioned above, excluding the cost of electrification and new rail stock.

Irish Rail do have a plan to do this, but it is a long term plan, not expected to be possible until 2030 and isn't part of Irish Rails current proposal.

The problem I have with the above proposal, is that for the cost of 250 million, the train still ends up slower then by car (and definitely door to door) and only ends up about equaling the new direct bus services city center to city center times!!

So what exactly are we gaining for our 250 million? What benefit do we get from it.

First off - I corrected myself in post 106 above re the 2 hours. Apologies again for any confusion.

However, I'm not going to change my comment regarding your anti-rail bias and your poor analysis of the causes of the longer journey times.

Your post above stated that times would be reduced by 30 minutes, which would bring Dublin to Cork to about 2h 30m. That implies they all take 3 hours which they do not. That was what I was objecting to. Apart from the morning commuter service to Dublin, only one other train takes 3 hours and that calls at 10 stations en route.

The report states the following:

Reduce Journey Times to at most 2:30hrs on all services.

Now the key words in that statement are "at most". That means that the slowest train will take 2 hours 30 minutes. Which means that the fastest trains will be faster than that.

The first fact is this. Time is not the key factor on every single train throughout the day. It is absolutely the principal factor on the key business services, but while it also needs to be competitive throughout the day, it is not the over-riding factor on every single train. For some trains price will be the key factor.

The key business trains for which time is the prime factor are the 0615 and 0730 ex-Cork, and the 1700 ex-Dublin. All of those trains do the trip in either 2 hours 30 minutes or 2 hours 35 minutes. They are likely to do the trip in 2 hours 15 minutes or so post-investment.

Many of the other trains are not as time sensitive, however the poor journey times in many cases is down to the number of station stops en route. Through a combination of revised stopping patterns (reducing the number of station stops en route by providing connecting services as outlined in a separate post above), and the proposed investment the typical journey times should come down to 2 hours 25/2 hours 30 minutes. That is with three stops or more en route.

Passengers to Tipperary, Limerick, north Cork and Kerry will all benefit from this - but from reading your posts they should seemingly not enter the equation at all and should simply be ignored. You only seem to care about Dublin/Cork, and surprisingly enough the railway line actually serves far more customers than just that market. There is in my opinion room for both coach and rail -they are not mutually exclusive as you seem to suggest.

Of course the improved journey times may not compete with door-to-door for some users, but the reality is that in certain cases it never did! It will depend on individual circumstances. However, what the train offers is the ability to work en route, something which cannot be done in a car, and is far more difficult to do in a coach (especially if it is full!).

However in my view what is needed is a combination of:

- Faster overall journey times with fewer station stops
- Improved connections for intermediate stations
- Better on board facilities with sockets and wifi throughout
- First Class lounges in Dublin and Cork, and perhaps Limerick as well
- At a minimum free tea and coffee in first class
- Better fare structures with far more cheaper fares on off-peak trains

The train needs to offer an improved product as well as improved journey times. The recent appointment of a new Commercial Manager from outside the company should see significant changes in the whole way the services are marketed and sold.

If the modest investment proposal is approved, it is up to operations to deliver the goods in terms of timetabling, and engineering to deliver the permanent way that can deliver the speeds to achieve them. This is last chance saloon and they need to deliver.

bk · 22-04-2012 3:38pm

lkdsl wrote: »

The key problem in Ireland is still population density - we have very few areas with sufficiently dense population to support rail.

...

I think many of the people contributing to this thread would like to see a vibrant and successful rail network in Ireland. The disagreement is on whether it is feasible, viable, sensible to expend huge (and scarce) resources on rail right now.

Thank you lkdsl, that accurately describes exactly how I feel.

lxflyer wrote: »

However, I'm not going to change my comment regarding your anti-rail bias and your poor analysis of the causes of the longer journey times.

For about the millionth time, I'm not anti rail. I'm not anti or pro rail, or bus or car.

I don't have any real bias, all I care about is getting people from A to B in the most efficient, cheapest, environmentally friendly and fastest way possible *. I couldn't care less if it is by bus, rail, car, boat or worm hole.

* You generally can't get all 4, they are generally a balance.

Having thought about it a lot and having looked at the specifics of Irelands geography and demographics, I'm typically very much in favour of rail for commuter travel and urban travel (Dart, Metro, Luas, etc.).

I'm also a big fan of fast intercity rail in mainland Europe between big cities where it makes sense.

I don't think intercity rail in Ireland makes much sense given our geography and demographics and that high quality coach bus services can deliver much cheaper and more flexible services at almost the same speed as rail, for far less cost to the tax payer.

I just don't see the benefit of subsidising Irish Rail to the tune of 200 million a year, plus hundreds of millions of capital grants when bus can do much the same for almost zero subsidies and much cheaper ticket prices.

I think this opinion has been played out for years on the Galway line and we are now seeing the same to Cork and Limerick with the introduction of the new direct coach services and from the reports over in the commuter forum the very big success of the service (with 100% full buses).

lxflyer wrote: »

Your post above stated that times would be reduced by 30 minutes, which would bring Dublin to Cork to about 2h 30m. That implies they all take 3 hours which they do not. That was what I was objecting to. Apart from the morning commuter service to Dublin, only one other train takes 3 hours and that calls at 10 stations en route.

No, what I object to is people taking Irish Rails marketing release to heart and believing that they plan on knocking exactly 30 minutes off every service. So that for instance the current 2h30m service becomes 2h0m.

You and others fell for a typical Irish Rail marketing trick and generalistation. Marketing types do this all the time, rounding up and pop lots of different services together to come up with generalised stats to make it sound better then it is, which fan boys and optimists take at face value.

Those of us who are more skeptical look for the truth of the matter. 30 minutes quicker makes for good press headlines. But the hard truth of the plan is to reduce the Limerick and Galway lines to 2 hours and the Cork line to 2 hour 30 minutes, as stated in the Irish Rail report.

IMO that isn't good enough, won't make a significant difference as it will still be slower then by car and only equal the much cheaper bus city center to city center and therefore IMO a waste of 250 million.

lxflyer wrote: »

They are likely to do the trip in 2 hours 15 minutes or so post-investment.

It doesn't state this anywhere in the report. If I'm wrong please give me the relevant page number.

It is my opinion that the current 2h 30min services are pretty much as good as it can get without much more significant investment in high speed track then Irish Rail is currently looking for. (as an aside, I've been on the 5pm 2h 30min service ex Dublin many times and it never took 2h 30m, the best it ever did it was 2h 38m, mostly it took 2h 40m, so I remain unconvinced 2h 15m is possible without much more significant investments).

It is my opinion that the plan is to bring the majority of other, much slower services down to the same 2h 30m time. I very much doubt there will be any 2h 15min trains.

Of course the report doesn't go into this level of detail, so the reality is we are both just guessing and we will never know until Irish Rail brings out a more detailed report on what they are actually planning.

I hope I'm wrong and that you are correct, but given Irish Rails history of promises on speed improvements, I doubt I'm wrong.

lxflyer wrote: »

However in my view what is needed is a combination of:

- Faster overall journey times with fewer station stops
- Improved connections for intermediate stations

Sounds great, but will that not require more trains and staff?

How much will that cost us in subsidies? Could the same services be delivered at zero cost to the tax payer by licensing private Coach operators to service these intermediate stops?

BTW I'm not saying they could, I'm asking an honest question, the reality each town/location needs should be studied and if bus coach can satisfy the need or not might differ per location. But I wouldn't just assume rail can do it best, it needs to be a cost benefit analysis with direct comparison with coach.

lxflyer wrote: »

- Better on board facilities with sockets and wifi throughout

I've been arguing this for at least the past 8 years. Agree completely. Maximise the benefit of the train (being able to work/play onboard) for a minimum of cost.

lxflyer wrote: »

- First Class lounges in Dublin and Cork, and perhaps Limerick as well
- At a minimum free tea and coffee in first class

I'm really not sure there is much demand for first class services. The reality is that the quality of second class is pretty good and there is little benefit to first class. In these recessionary times few businesses are willing to pay out for the extra cost of first class. I see many business people (myself included) in standard class, in fact the majority of people on the Cork route are business people. I don't think many are really interested in first class.

I think most are interested in faster times and cheaper tickets. Normally I only see Irish Rail staff and some civil servants in first class. I might argue we should be reducing the first class services while improving standard class service (free wifi and power sockets).

I would agree with improving the quality of services at stations, but I think that should be open to all who are willing to pay for it and not just a first class lounge.
- Better fare structures with far more cheaper fares on off-peak trains

lxflyer wrote: »

This is last chance saloon and they need to deliver.

I agree, I just wonder if it is already too late. I think they should have been doing all this 8 years ago, when there was loads of money around and the motorways and direct bus services weren't around yet.

Now there is no money * and they are already losing many customers, possibly forever to the direct coach bus services. It just feels like it is too late to me.

* Don't kid yourself, Irish Rail won't get the 250 million for this plan of theirs, we jut don't have it. Either Irish Rail will have to get a loan for the money themselves (like they did for the DART back in the 70's) or find ways to reduce the times without the money.

LXFlyer · 23-04-2012 9:47am

bk,

I'm not going to get into a lengthy discussion on this as I've more things to do, but I'll reply as follows:

I didn't fall for any marketing trick - I just misread a post and I subsequently corrected myself.

The report states that all trains on the Dublin-Cork route will take at most 2 hours 30 minutes. The use of the words "at most" would imply to me quite strongly that some trains will be faster than that.

Given that the 1700 and 0615 have fewer stops and no recovery time built into them, I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that they will be accelerated as a result of the infrastructure improvements, and will remain faster than the other trains that have more stops and have recovery time built into their schedule. That difference is currently 15 minutes, made up of approximately 10 minutes recovery and at least one station stop. Hence if the stopping trains are accelerated by 15 minutes but do not have stops changed, it is not unreasonable to expect the two trains mentioned above will also be accelerated by 10-15 minutes. But you don't seem to follow that basic principle?

Additional trains will not cost anything in subsidies - the subsidy is being cut and is fixed in its amount - it is not increasing. There would be an additional cost, but that is purely the operational cost of running the train, which would hopefully by offset by additional marginal revenue. Given additional trains are being commissioned currently, it's fairly inevitable there will be some additional services introduced - or are you in favour of mothballing brand new intercity rolling stock?

While I've no doubt the new coach services will do well, and I wish them good luck in their venture, I still firmly believe that there are sufficient numbers of people who frankly would never be tempted to use coach services (onboard toilet or not), to justify this modest investment proposal in the intercity rail network.

We'll just have to wait and see what changes the recently appointed Commercial Manager makes in the face of the new competition.

bk · 23-04-2012 11:40am

lxflyer wrote: »

While I've no doubt the new coach services will do well, and I wish them good luck in their venture, I still firmly believe that there are sufficient numbers of people who frankly would never be tempted to use coach services (onboard toilet or not), to justify this modest investment proposal in the intercity rail network.

Modest, that is where you and I differ. There is nothing "modest" about 200 million in operational subsidies per year, plus hundreds of millions more in capital grants.

And for what, because some people might refuse to switch to cheaper bus services?

Cut the subsidies and let those who want to continue to use rail pay for the full price. I don't see any good reason why we should continue to so heavily subsidise Irish Rail. No one has yet given me a good economic reason why we should.

lkdsl · 23-04-2012 1:51pm

bk wrote: »

Modest, that is where you and I differ. There is nothing "modest" about 200 million in operational subsidies per year, plus hundreds of millions more in capital grants.

And for what, because some people might refuse to switch to cheaper bus services?

Cut the subsidies and let those who want to continue to use rail pay for the full price. I don't see any good reason why we should continue to so heavily subsidise Irish Rail. No one has yet given me a good economic reason why we should.

Then you are at odds with most Western European countries that subsidise their rail networks on the basis of a social return.

Wild Bill · 23-04-2012 10:14pm

lkdsl wrote: »

Then you are at odds with most Western European countries that subsidise their rail networks on the basis of a social return.

Any facts and figures to support that?

What countries subsidize railways more per person (train-user) than Ireland?

And what Western European countries less?

You may even surprise yourself while you research my question. (I'd reckon you are constantly surprised by facts!) :cool:

lkdsl · 23-04-2012 10:58pm

Wild Bill wrote: »

Any facts and figures to support that?

What countries subsidize railways more per person (train-user) than Ireland?

And what Western European countries less?

You may even surprise yourself while you research my question. (I'd reckon you are constantly surprised by facts!) :cool:

SBB - Sfr2.63 billion (2010)
DB - Euro4.8 bilion (2010)
SNCF is slightly less obvious. In 2009, the French state took over pension commitments to save the company. SNCF has debts of 17 billion guaranteed by the French state as well as sources of funding (billets de trésorerie programme) worth about 3 billion as well as 3.7 billion funding via CDP.

I don't have the time to trawl through the other European rail companies, but that is three of the largest. Note that due to EU state aid rules, the subsidies are not as overt as they once were. Much like the WTO spat between Boeing and Airbus, governments are much more creative in how they support key state commercial enterprises.

Also, I made no reference to subsidy per rail user, merely that other countries routinely subsidise their rail networks. The facts are as stated.

Wild Bill · 23-04-2012 11:30pm

lkdsl wrote: »

Also, I made no reference to subsidy per rail user, merely that other countries routinely subsidise their rail networks.

I never said you did.

I merely asked you a relevant question which you are unable and apparently unwilling to answer.

Ireland also routinely subsidizes it's rail network.

If you are not prepared to compare subsidies then what is your point?

lkdsl · 24-04-2012 8:58am

@ Wild Bill - maybe if you re-read the exchanges starting with post #132 by bk, who suggested removing all subsidies and making rail passengers pay the full cost. My response was that most European countries subsidise their rail networks. That is all! You are arguing with a straw man, not with anything I actually said.

Wild Bill · 24-04-2012 10:33pm

lkdsl wrote: »

You are arguing with a straw man, not with anything I actually said.

Nope. I asked a question. I'm not getting a reply.

(For the record - I think "remove all rail subsidies" is not a good idea; and, yes, I didn't read the full exchange)

Shoot me!

bk · 25-04-2012 9:58am

lkdsl wrote: »

@ Wild Bill - maybe if you re-read the exchanges starting with post #132 by bk, who suggested removing all subsidies and making rail passengers pay the full cost.

First of all, let me point out I was only suggesting removing subsidies for intercity travel, not for Dart and Commuter rail.

Stop and think about it for a moment, why does a government given any service a subsidy?

A government usually gives a subsidy because a service is needed for social or economic reasons, but can't be delivered by private companies at a reasonable cost.

A government decides to subsidise a service for the greater good by spreading some of the cost over all tax payers, even if they don't use the service, rather then putting the burden of the full cost directly on the user of the service.

Dart, commuter rail and city bus services are all subsidised because they are very expensive services to run, but if we didn't have them it would lead to total gridlock chaos on the streets as everyone drives instead and thus the economy would suffer badly.

In the past the government rightly subsidised intercity rail travel, as in the past the roads between our cities were awful. Intercity rail was significantly faster (up to 2 hours faster) and much safer, thus it offered a good social and economic return on it's subsidies.

However times have changed, we now have excellent, high quality, safe motorways between our cities. It is now significantly faster to drive then to take the train and direct coach buses are faster then rail city center to city center.

So now IMO intercity rail offers no economic or social justification for it's subsidies. It isn't faster and it isn't any safer. So what is the justification for subsidising intercity rail?

Please don't say environmental, because that ignores the fact that bus coaches use less diesel and are less polluting per passenger km then diesel trains.

Bus Eireann's intercity express services aren't subsidised, so why should Irish Rails intercity services be subsidised?

corktina · 25-04-2012 11:59am

whilst I agree largely, there is a significant sector of the community which need to travel inter city (for hospital appointments,job seeking,college etc) and at least subsidies cater for these people, plus giving a deserved perk to our older folk (I'm not there yet, but I'm getting there to coin a phrase

)

This essential travel should be properly costed and IE paid per journey so that it is an inducement for them to attract passngers instead of a great lump of cash to fall back on without the need for them to develop a better service for the cash received from all sources.

markpb · 25-04-2012 12:08pm

corktina wrote: »

whilst I agree largely, there is a significant sector of the community which need to travel inter city (for hospital appointments,job seeking,college etc)

Do BE and private bus operators not fulfil that role?

Judgement Day · 25-04-2012 1:03pm

The question is do we want to live in a Third World country or a First World one? Many posters here seem to be advocating a free for all as far as I can see. That's what happened on the freight side things and some shambles that is now. Drivers driving too many hours, defective vehicles, tacographs being interfered with, traffic accidents, environmental pollution etc.etc.etc and no I can't be arsed to go providing links. It's as clear as the nose on your face to those who wish to see.

markpb · 25-04-2012 1:13pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

The question is do we want to live in a Third World country or a First World one?

Quality contribution there. Reductio ad absurdum springs to mind.

Would Ireland really be a third world country if we spent over €200m a year subsidising intercity bus transport (the operators, the road infrastructure and the bus stations). If journeys can be made at the same speed by bus and train, if buses can properly penetrate the city centre, if infrastructure can be shared to reduce the cost, what's the advantage in paying hundreds of millions a year to subsidise a company whose only selling point is that some people prefer the train?

Judgement Day · 25-04-2012 1:18pm

Let's have lots and lots more buses - in Dublin and inter-city - until we end up with the same shambles that taxi industry is in.

PS Thanks for the Latin - it must be great to be so edjamacated.

dowlingm · 25-04-2012 1:49pm

markpb wrote: »

Quality contribution there. Reductio ad absurdum springs to mind.

Would Ireland really be a third world country if we spent over €200m a year subsidising intercity bus transport (the operators, the road infrastructure and the bus stations). If journeys can be made at the same speed by bus and train, if buses can properly penetrate the city centre, if infrastructure can be shared to reduce the cost, what's the advantage in paying hundreds of millions a year to subsidise a company whose only selling point is that some people prefer the train?

abusus non tollit usum

markpb · 25-04-2012 2:26pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

Let's have lots and lots more buses - in Dublin and inter-city - until we end up with the same shambles that taxi industry is in.

I'm not sure which point you're trying to make.

Are you still comparing us to a third world country because some people think trains should receive less subsidy? Are you suggesting that only poor countries have/invest in bus systems? Do you want me to counter your point by posting the same kind of photos that you did?

This is my problem - you can't have a rational debate about how we spend hundreds of millions of euros every year without people reducing it to absurdities like suggesting the old people can't take the bus or that somehow buses=third world. If you have a good reason for investing that kind of money, why don't you tell us?

corktina · 25-04-2012 5:20pm

markpb wrote: »

Do BE and private bus operators not fulfil that role?

not fully, no.
BE coaches are not wheelchair/ elderley accesible as far as I know and mostly do not have toilets (and those that do have them down narrow steep stairs)

bk · 25-04-2012 11:42pm

corktina wrote: »

not fully, no.
BE coaches are not wheelchair/ elderley accesible as far as I know and mostly do not have toilets (and those that do have them down narrow steep stairs)

The idea that elderly people can't use coaches is a bit mad, given coach tours across Europe are so popular with elderly people. My mother uses them every year.

Wheel chair accessibility is the one area where you might have a point, but you can in fact get wheel chair accessible coaches:

http://www.venturebustours.com/vehicles/handicapped.php
http://www.venturebustours.com/vehicles/doubledecker.php
http://www.millstreet.ie/blog/2011/10/05/darren-kealy-introduces-splendid-new-wheelchair-accessible-coach

The new luxury double decker coaches would be particularly good for this job, given their excellent large toilets. Citylink already uses such coaches on the Galway route, however I'm not sure if these particular models have the wheelchair accessibility:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38016434@N05/4721548169/

If we were serious about cutting Irish Rails subsidy, then a fraction of that subsidy could be given to some coach operators to help finance the use of double decker wheelchair accessible coaches.

BE coaches are not wheelchair/ elderley accesible as far as I know

Not correct, Bus Eireann do have some wheelchair accessible coaches on a few routes:
http://www.buseireann.ie/inner.php?id=297
http://www.iwa.ie/issues/IssuesPublic.aspx

bk · 26-04-2012 12:13am

Actually here is an excellent link to an example of a wheelchair accessible double decker coach (6 spaces for accessibility needs downstairs) and it also answers the needs of first/business class passengers:

http://www.transtar.com.sg/premium.php
http://www.transtar.com.sg/firstclass.php

The have airline style, reclining leather seats, airline style personal entertainment systems with 10" screen at every seat and the seats even have inbuilt massage!!

They also have stewards onboard who can make and serve hot food and coffee.

While not wheelchair accessible, an interesting video about high end first class style bus services in the US:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVpvwhvFpLw&feature=youtu.be

The point being, anything that can be done by train can also be done by bus coach if you want and if the demand is there.

Cork - Limerick Rail Link

Comments