Phoenix Park tunnel

D.L.R. · 19-05-2015 2:52pm

lxflyer wrote: »

Whether it's right or not in your mind, the reality is that there isn't the money to do it in the current funding budget. That needs to be made clear, before this thread goes that bit further.

The proposed schedule is for one train an hour to operate off-peak between the Kildare Line and Grand Canal Dock and four trains during the peak period (which probably means two each hour). That service level would not justify the level of investment being discussed.

However, were the service level to be increased in time, and with the revised DART service pattern arising from DART Underground, I think that you could see more stations added. But that is not going to happen in the medium term.

But people need to be realistic in their initial expectations.

No harm playing a bit of fantasy football, I think people are largely aware of the realities at play. In fairness, there's not much to do these days BUT speculate. Still waiting on the Fingal report for something to chew on...

My view would be that new stations should be built on the Maynooth in conjunction with Dart rollout. The PPT project is an austerity stopgap so expecting no frills there.

Monument is right though, we as a people are too meek in demanding better services. The Maynooth line is a wasted asset imo.

monument · 19-05-2015 3:07pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

Monument is right though, we as a people are too meek in demanding better services. The Maynooth line is a wasted asset imo.

In a way it's worth developing this point:

Political commentators and academics have written about how Irish rural voters seem to be a lot better at this than Irish urban voters -- and policy is often more rural focused because the voters don't demand as much from their TDs.

So motorways still get built all around the place, but talking about Dart Underground etc in a realistic way is still nearly taboo.

Even if you can't change the build-stage funding realities at the moment, you can get the issue of new stations past the city development plan stage. If you want it built in the future you need to plan now

LXFlyer · 19-05-2015 3:08pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

No harm playing a bit of fantasy football, I think people are largely aware of the realities at play. In fairness, there's not much to do these days BUT speculate. Still waiting on the Fingal report for something to chew on...

My view would be that new stations should be built on the Maynooth in conjunction with Dart rollout. The PPT project is an austerity stopgap so expecting no frills there.

Monument is right though, we as a people are too meek in demanding better services. The Maynooth line is a wasted asset imo.

I'm not against people proposing ideas, and to be fair I've done it myself over the years - in fact I've been very pro-active.

But people need to bear the the financial realities that are prevailing at the moment in mind when they are making these suggestions, as they will dictate what happens.

Service levels on the Maynooth line off-peak are what they are for one simple reason - lack of money. To increase service levels, increased PSO funding is needed.

If we were talking about a service that was a 10-15 minute frequency between Heuston and Connolly, I'd agree with the suggestions above, it, but we are not. We are talking one single train per hour in either direction.

In the medium-long term I think new stations will come, but right now I think the main priority has got to be to get this service up and running asap.

cgcsb · 19-05-2015 4:42pm

lxflyer wrote: »

I'm not against people proposing ideas, and to be fair I've done it myself over the years - in fact I've been very pro-active.

But people need to bear the the financial realities that are prevailing at the moment in mind when they are making these suggestions, as they will dictate what happens.

Service levels on the Maynooth line off-peak are what they are for one simple reason - lack of money. To increase service levels, increased PSO funding is needed.

If we were talking about a service that was a 10-15 minute frequency between Heuston and Connolly, I'd agree with the suggestions above, it, but we are not. We are talking one single train per hour in either direction.

In the medium-long term I think new stations will come, but right now I think the main priority has got to be to get this service up and running asap.

We're spending near a billion extending the M18/17 to Tuam. We can afford to electrify the Maynooth line and bring in reliable feeder bus services.

D.L.R. · 19-05-2015 4:55pm

cgcsb wrote: »

We're spending near a billion extending the M18/17 to Tuam. We can afford to electrify the Maynooth line and bring in reliable feeder bus services.

Exactly. Financial limitations are one thing, priorities are quite another.

Aard · 19-05-2015 11:43pm

In his speech to Dublin Chamber today, Paschal Donoghue referred to using the PPT to bring Kildare trains to Connolly.

I hope that he meant *through* Connolly and onwards to a higher concentration of employment – Grand Canal Dock.

veryangryman · 20-05-2015 8:53am

Aard wrote: »

In his speech to Dublin Chamber today, Paschal Donoghue referred to using the PPT to bring Kildare trains to Connolly.

I hope that he meant *through* Connolly and onwards to a higher concentration of employment – Grand Canal Dock.

GCD is a Dart station though, not a terminus for Commuter line. I think most would be able do the 10-15 min walk (or transfer to a Dart if necessary) without huge fuss

LXFlyer · 20-05-2015 9:43am

veryangryman wrote: »

GCD is a Dart station though, not a terminus for Commuter line. I think most would be able do the 10-15 min walk (or transfer to a Dart if necessary) without huge fuss

This is wrong. I'm not sure how you can have missed it as I've posted it countless times on this board, but when the city centre resignalling project is completed, Grand Canal Dock will be the terminus for Maynooth, Northern and Kildare line trains.

The current out of service platform will become the northbound platform, and the current northbound platform will become a turnback platform.

The Kildare line trains that operate through the Phoenix Park Tunnel will operate to Grand Canal Dock.

alofek · 20-05-2015 12:03pm

If we can afford to have trains like this running in Ireland, we can certainly afford to have the debate over whether the Phoenix Park Tunnel line could be put to more intensive use:
"They are the Limerick-Ballybrophy line, which carries just 23,000 people a year; Limerick Junction to Waterford, which carries 28,000; and the €160m Western Rail Corridor between Limerick and Galway, which opened in 2010 but carries just 50,000." Irish Independent, 13 Jan 2015

Sam Russell · 20-05-2015 12:09pm

The Galway bypass is expected to cost €500m. Dublin airport has over 20m passengers per year, that is over 250 times the population of Galway yet the €100m to €200m to build the Clongriffin spur cannot be found which would transport many of those passengers and the workers to and from the airport. That is before the MN is even considered.

Dublin needs much greater investment in commuter infrastructure and the PPT exists now and should be fully exploited.

Carawaystick · 20-05-2015 3:08pm

You could run a bus service from Clongriffin to the airport for the cost of some paint and signs on the r139.

Irish rail don't have enough carriages/cars to run their existing services.

LXFlyer · 20-05-2015 3:22pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

You could run a bus service from Clongriffin to the airport for the cost of some paint and signs on the r139.

Irish rail don't have enough carriages/cars to run their existing services.

In fact they do have enough rolling stock.

They just cannot afford to operate them all until their finances stabilise and the PSO payment rises again.

The_Mask · 20-05-2015 3:23pm

The cost to upgrade the Park tunnel for passenger train use is something Irish Rail don't have at the moment. The tunnel is mainly used for transporting freight and the odd special train for events.

LXFlyer · 20-05-2015 3:24pm

The_Mask wrote: »

The cost to upgrade the Park tunnel for passenger train use is something Irish Rail don't have at the moment. The tunnel is mainly used for transporting freight and the odd special train for events.

The NTA have committed to funding the project and its operation.

MJohnston · 20-05-2015 3:30pm

The_Mask wrote: »

The cost to upgrade the Park tunnel for passenger train use is something Irish Rail don't have at the moment. The tunnel is mainly used for transporting freight and the odd special train for events.

This is a good "I read the title of the thread but not the content" post

Sam Russell · 20-05-2015 4:51pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

You could run a bus service from Clongriffin to the airport for the cost of some paint and signs on the r139.

Irish rail don't have enough carriages/cars to run their existing services.

That was tried by EirDart but it did not last long. What is needed is a regular reliable fast link from the city centre to the airport. The current bus service is not reliable, nor can it carry enough people - hence the huge long term carpark.

With the spur, express trains could provide a fast non-stop service to Connolly in 15 mins or so (depending on traffic and congestion) but certainly under 20 mins.

It would only require two or three rail-car sets.

GerardKeating · 20-05-2015 6:18pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

You could run a bus service from Clongriffin to the airport for the cost of some paint and signs on the r139.

And much of the paint is already there, from before.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Irish rail don't have enough carriages/cars to run their existing services.

They have loads of cars in "storage".

lucernarian · 21-05-2015 10:20am

Sam Russell wrote: »

That was tried by EirDart but it did not last long. What is needed is a regular reliable fast link from the city centre to the airport. The current bus service is not reliable, nor can it carry enough people - hence the huge long term carpark.

With the spur, express trains could provide a fast non-stop service to Connolly in 15 mins or so (depending on traffic and congestion) but certainly under 20 mins.

It would only require two or three rail-car sets.

I know this isn't within the grounds of this thread title but I can't see many express services being likely within the constraints of the resignalled northern commuter line. There are more services expected to use Connolly itself, like when Kildare commuter trains will use the Phoenix Park Tunnel (which impacts on more than just peak time use) and the increase of DART trains running at peak times to every 10 minutes between Bray and Howth Junction (for peak times only as forseen currently). Would there be an express service every hour perhaps? There could be far more DARTs run at an interval of 15 minutes or ten minutes at peak times if they served all stations to Connolly and that would take at least 25 minutes. An express service shouldn't compromise capacity for regular users of the DART, for the sake of a 5 minute time saving.

Carawaystick · 21-05-2015 10:40am

Sam Russell wrote: »

That was tried by EirDart but it did not last long. What is needed is a regular reliable fast link from the city centre to the airport. The current bus service is not reliable, nor can it carry enough people - hence the huge long term carpark.

With the spur, express trains could provide a fast non-stop service to Connolly in 15 mins or so (depending on traffic and congestion) but certainly under 20 mins.

It would only require two or three rail-car sets.

Eirdart went from HJ. It was scuppered by a low freq of services, the weekend shutdown of the dart line for over a year to let IÉ run 8 car darts ( how's that working out?)

A PSO run service with enough busses and the cop-on not to leave the train station just as a train arrives would go a long way. Run it as an off-bus ticketing Swiftway service, with one intermediate stop at the Clarehall Crossroads.

For access to the city centre, a public transport route to the M50, either a better bus lane on the north quay or allow busses use the tramline, which would provide a city centre to Airport connection in less time than the 20 mins for a train to Connolly.
For reference a 33X takes ~35 mins from Lusk to Custom House quay.

Sam Russell · 21-05-2015 10:50am

Why in this thread are we talking about trains on the north side of Dublin when buses are clearly quicker and better?

:rolleyes:

keithclancy · 21-05-2015 4:14pm

There's a line between Heuston and Connolly .... and they don't use it ?

Swapping platforms and going from train to train is far far better than going out of Heuston Station and getting a bus/luas.

Wouldn't the plan be to eventually link Dublin Airport ?

kc56 · 22-05-2015 10:37am

keithclancy wrote: »

There's a line between Heuston and Connolly .... and they don't use it ?

Actually there isn't. The line branches off before Heuston.

Swapping platforms and going from train to train is far far better than going out of Heuston Station and getting a bus/luas.

Not possible at Heuston. Platform 10 on the Connolly branch is nearly 1km for the main station. Swapping could be possible at Parkwest or another of the commuter stations.

Wouldn't the plan be to eventually link Dublin Airport ?

Maybe - via DART Underground.

LXFlyer · 22-05-2015 12:44pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

Eirdart went from HJ. It was scuppered by a low freq of services, the weekend shutdown of the dart line for over a year to let IÉ run 8 car darts ( how's that working out?)

A PSO run service with enough busses and the cop-on not to leave the train station just as a train arrives would go a long way. Run it as an off-bus ticketing Swiftway service, with one intermediate stop at the Clarehall Crossroads.

For access to the city centre, a public transport route to the M50, either a better bus lane on the north quay or allow busses use the tramline, which would provide a city centre to Airport connection in less time than the 20 mins for a train to Connolly.
For reference a 33X takes ~35 mins from Lusk to Custom House quay.

There are 8-car DARTs operating every weekday. I'm not sure what your point is?

Did you have a crystal ball when the platform extension work was being done that could have foreseen the economic crash and recession that would subsequently happen?

Unfortunately economic realities mean that running all DARTs at eight car length isn't affordable at the moment.

LXFlyer · 22-05-2015 12:46pm

lucernarian wrote: »

I know this isn't within the grounds of this thread title but I can't see many express services being likely within the constraints of the resignalled northern commuter line. There are more services expected to use Connolly itself, like when Kildare commuter trains will use the Phoenix Park Tunnel (which impacts on more than just peak time use) and the increase of DART trains running at peak times to every 10 minutes between Bray and Howth Junction (for peak times only as forseen currently). Would there be an express service every hour perhaps? There could be far more DARTs run at an interval of 15 minutes or ten minutes at peak times if they served all stations to Connolly and that would take at least 25 minutes. An express service shouldn't compromise capacity for regular users of the DART, for the sake of a 5 minute time saving.

The plan is for an all-day 10 minute frequency on DART - not just at peak times.

The whole idea is for the service to be "turn up and go".

22-05-2015 6:11pm

kc56 wrote: »

Actually there isn't. The line branches off before Heuston.

Not possible at Heuston. Platform 10 on the Connolly branch is nearly 1km for the main station. Swapping could be possible at Parkwest or another of the commuter stations.

Maybe - via DART Underground.

A strategically placed walkway including a pedestrian bridge to link the platforms at the western end would help shorten the walk.

Realistically, Parkwest would be the best place to switch.

lucernarian · 23-05-2015 5:03pm

lxflyer wrote: »

The plan is for an all-day 10 minute frequency on DART - not just at peak times.

The whole idea is for the service to be "turn up and go".

Whether a 10 minute frequency is planned or not has nothing whatsoever to do with my point? My point was everything to do with express services and how regular express services could be run within the constraints of a ten minute DART service from Howth Junction to Bray. I think I made my point clearly in fairness.

I have no doubt and this has been discussed officially and on the forum that a ten minute frequency is what the DASH upgrade is capable of - whether at peak times or all day. I am questioning the provision of express services on top of DARTs running from Malahide and the airport alternatively every 20 minutes for a combined 10 min frequency.

LXFlyer · 23-05-2015 5:46pm

lucernarian wrote: »

Whether a 10 minute frequency is planned or not has nothing whatsoever to do with my point? My point was everything to do with express services and how regular express services could be run within the constraints of a ten minute DART service from Howth Junction to Bray. I think I made my point clearly in fairness.

I have no doubt and this has been discussed officially and on the forum that a ten minute frequency is what the DASH upgrade is capable of - whether at peak times or all day. I am questioning the provision of express services on top of DARTs running from Malahide and the airport alternatively every 20 minutes for a combined 10 min frequency.

I was merely correcting the inaccuracy in your post - that's all.

I didn't offer a comment on the rest of it.

Panda_Turtle · 24-05-2015 11:57am

If your reading this minister. Just build the metro north. London's underground opened in 1863 ie more than 150 years ago. Although the population was a bit higher at 3million at the time. But presumably a larger geographical area.

lucernarian · 24-05-2015 12:03pm

lxflyer wrote: »

I was merely correcting the inaccuracy in your post - that's all.

I didn't offer a comment on the rest of it.

As forseen currently, a plan for continuous 10 minute DARTs is a long way off and unfunded and the only recent publicly stated intentions are for a peak time service. I think the remarks were quite accurate.

Captain Chaos · 24-05-2015 12:04pm

lxflyer wrote: »

There are 8-car DARTs operating every weekday. I'm not sure what your point is?

Unfortunately economic realities mean that running all DARTs at eight car length isn't affordable at the moment.

I don't buy that reason when IE are now hiring more DART drivers to operate a 10 min frequency with all the extra sets lying around doing nothing from next year.

8 car DARTs have been needed more and more over the past year. I don't buy that it cost that much more to run extended sets.

I have watched the same DART set for the past 18 months at Fairview being tagged and re washed every week because the set is lying idle. Some guy has to keep scrubbing that one set over and over because it's not used to generate revenue and it is costing money to keep in a siding doing sweet FA.

LXFlyer · 24-05-2015 12:45pm

Captain Chaos wrote: »

I don't buy that reason when IE are now hiring more DART drivers to operate a 10 min frequency with all the extra sets lying around doing nothing from next year.

8 car DARTs have been needed more and more over the past year. I don't buy that it cost that much more to run extended sets.

I have watched the same DART set for the past 18 months at Fairview being tagged and re washed every week because the set is lying idle. Some guy has to keep scrubbing that one set over and over because it's not used to generate revenue and it is costing money to keep in a siding doing sweet FA.

Come on - do you really think IE are running shorter sets for the fun of it? Clearly they are doing so to save money.

The NTA have committed to provide additional PSO funding to finance the increase in DART frequency.

LXFlyer · 24-05-2015 12:49pm

lucernarian wrote: »

As forseen currently, a plan for continuous 10 minute DARTs is a long way off and unfunded and the only recent publicly stated intentions are for a peak time service. I think the remarks were quite accurate.

No the commitment from the NTA is to increase the core DART frequency from every 15 minutes to every 10 minutes from 2016, and to provide the funding for that.

lucernarian · 24-05-2015 10:37pm

lxflyer wrote: »

No the commitment from the NTA is to increase the core DART frequency from every 15 minutes to every 10 minutes from 2016, and to provide the funding for that.

When there is actual funding in next year's budget from the Dept. of Transport to the NTA for it, then there is funding. Though you're right, it's fair enough to say it's forseen as of right now. It's a liberal use of what we know right now to say "it will happen" however.

trellheim · 25-05-2015 1:06pm

is there a certain amount of sophistry here. Which is better - 10 minute frequency or longer sets ? If you had to pick one or the other

Sam Russell · 25-05-2015 1:23pm

trellheim wrote: »

is there a certain amount of sophistry here. Which is better - 10 minute frequency or longer sets ? If you had to pick one or the other

Frequency wins out.

The Dart takes about an hour to get from one end to the other so a 10 min service will have 12 trains or 48 coaches while a fifteen min service will 8 trains or 64 coaches. Outside of peak times, the 8 coach trains appear empty, and few 4 coach trains appear full.

So a 10 min service with 4 coaches costs less than a service of 8 coaches every 15 mins, while giving a more frequent service. It is unlikely that the more frequent service will have full trains, even if they have 4 coaches.

lucernarian · 25-05-2015 1:49pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Frequency wins out.

The Dart takes about an hour to get from one end to the other so a 10 min service will have 12 trains or 48 coaches while a fifteen min service will 8 trains or 64 coaches. Outside of peak times, the 8 coach trains appear empty, and few 4 coach trains appear full.

So a 10 min service with 4 coaches costs less than a service of 8 coaches every 15 mins, while giving a more frequent service. It is unlikely that the more frequent service will have full trains, even if they have 4 coaches.

How does it necessarily cost less? I mean, there is the cost of more drivers with a ten minute service?

Sam Russell · 25-05-2015 4:54pm

lucernarian wrote: »

How does it necessarily cost less? I mean, there is the cost of more drivers with a ten minute service?

Does a driver cost more than a train costs per hour?

If a carriage cost €10 per km, and it is 25km from one end of the line to the other, then a single train consisting of 8 coaches will cost €250 to travel from one end to the other, €250 per hour. A 4 coach will cost half that, saving €125 per hour. Running a 15 min service requires 4 trains to pass a given point per hour, and 10 min service requires 6 trains per hour or 50% more. So running 4 coaches @ 10 min vs 8 coaches @ 15 mins means that 10 min service cost €1,500 per hour versus €2,000 for the 15 min service. (Both ways)

The 10 min service is 25% cheaper, unless the driver earns a lot more than I think he does. A driver would need to be earning more than €125 per hour.

alofek · 25-05-2015 4:57pm

I can't see how it would be that simple. Surely the cost would decrease as you add more carriages, due to economies of scale. Presumably, there's also a base cost to running a train without carriages - then as you add one carriage and as you continue adding, the cost per carriage reduces.

Sam Russell · 25-05-2015 5:10pm

A train without carriages is not a train. I am talking about the actual marginal cost of running a train, not the cost of running a railway service.

An empty train without passengers is just an expense.

A train of 4 carriages is not even full at present for much of the day, adding carriages does not add revenue, just cost. (By full, I mean no standing passengers - by overfull, I mean no-one can fit into the carriage and some passengers choose to wait for the next train).

I think there are few instances each day when 4 coach trains are overfull. There are many instances per day when a 4 coach train is too much, and perhaps even a 2 coach is too much.

I also think IR should do more about revenue protection.

alofek · 25-05-2015 5:13pm

My point was that a train with 8 carriages surely cannot cost exactly eight times that a train with one carriage. There are too many variables at work to start basing calculations on cost and frequency without knowing more about the real figures at issue.

Sam Russell · 25-05-2015 5:34pm

I am using sort-of numbers that are of the order of costs of running carriages. Diesel trains cost more than Darts. An unused carriage does cost, but not close to that of a moving one. The major cost, I would assume, is energy cost which certainly are of per-carriage nature for a railcar based train. All Dart trains are based on a two car trainset, whether configure as a two car set as the original ones, or a four car set as the later ones are.

There may be other costs that I am not aware of, but energy use must be the largest component.

sdanseo · 27-05-2015 4:45pm

The cost of running a 4-car diesel set is directly proportional to running an 8-car. The figure is simply doubled. It's not like an aircraft or a bus where a unit with 50 seats almost never weighs exactly half of the one with 100 seats. There's no energy saving because both 2-car or 4-car units weigh identical amounts.

I haven't first hand experience of running costs for EMUs but one would imagine the principle is the same, the laws of physics don't change just because the source of power is electrical rather than diesel.

alofek · 28-05-2015 1:57pm

There is a logical flaw in this as the engine does not transport itself. So if as you say the fuel bill for each carriage is identical, a longer train becomes progressively cheaper.

Carawaystick · 28-05-2015 2:16pm

alofek wrote: »

There is a logical flaw in this as the engine does not transport itself. So if as you say the fuel bill for each carriage is identical, a longer train becomes progressively cheaper.

Each carriage has 1 or 2 engines, to power that carriage.
Or a motor, if its a dart.

Captain Chaos · 28-05-2015 2:17pm

DARTs are a bit different in that they have regenerative braking to an extent so under some braking conditions they are giving back electrical power to the grid. Longer trains are also more efficient at braking than shorter trains up to a certain extent. Drivers prefer driving longer trains during leaf fall season for this reason.

On a DART half the train is powered and half unpowered. All the 81xx cars are powered, 83xx are trailers. In the new DARTs the 85xx number cars are powered while 86xx number cars are the trailers.

lucernarian · 28-05-2015 2:46pm

sdanseo wrote: »

The cost of running a 4-car diesel set is directly proportional to running an 8-car. The figure is simply doubled.

This has already been shown to be incorrect, as the cost of the driver's wages is the same for driving a 4-car and 8-car train.

loyatemu · 28-05-2015 2:49pm

lucernarian wrote: »

This has already been shown to be incorrect, as the cost of the driver's wages is the same for driving a 4-car and 8-car train.

In fairness, the unions did try to make the drivers wages proportional to the length of the train as well. :pac:

Sam Russell · 28-05-2015 2:50pm

Captain Chaos wrote: »

DARTs are a bit different in that they have regenerative braking to an extent so under some braking conditions they are giving back electrical power to the grid. Longer trains are also more efficient at braking than shorter trains up to a certain extent. Drivers prefer driving longer trains during leaf fall season for this reason.

On a DART half the train is powered and half unpowered. All the 81xx cars are powered, 83xx are trailers. In the new DARTs the 85xx number cars are powered while 86xx number cars are the trailers.

I think you mean the first carriage provides the motive power while the second carriage provides the compressor and other ancillaries. The result is Dart trains are made up of two car sets, whether joined permanently as two car or four car sets. They can only be used in multiple of two, or in multiples of four for the later trains. The only saving to be derived from running one eight car train over two four car trains is the drivers wages for the second train.

The reason longer trains are better in slippery conditions is that they have more driving wheels are so can sustain more loss of friction on particular wheels.

Sam Russell · 28-05-2015 2:52pm

loyatemu wrote: »

In fairness, the unions did try to make the drivers wages proportional to the length of the train as well. :pac:

... until that was shown to be ridiculous and could be used to reduce the wages for running shorter trains.

sdanseo · 28-05-2015 3:51pm

Captain Chaos wrote: »

DARTs are a bit different in that they have regenerative braking to an extent so under some braking conditions they are giving back electrical power to the grid. Longer trains are also more efficient at braking than shorter trains up to a certain extent. Drivers prefer driving longer trains during leaf fall season for this reason.

On a DART half the train is powered and half unpowered. All the 81xx cars are powered, 83xx are trailers. In the new DARTs the 85xx number cars are powered while 86xx number cars are the trailers.

Correct, but the principle of running costs would be that which I mentioned above would still apply, at least for basic calculation (and the same for railcars) because there is no combination of sets which does not have the same number of unpowered cars as powered cars. Even the 22k series which run in three or six car sets aren't exempt from this principle.

You're correct in saying a longer train generates more power when braking but not disproportionately to that of a shorter train. It takes more power to accelerate the longer train. Any benefits are negligible except perhaps when it comes for ease of operation as mentioned above.

Sorry, I was referencing simple fuel costs, not inclusive of wages.

Phoenix Park tunnel

Comments