Western Rail Corridor

In fairness to the West on Track campaign, if they've put effort into drafting a genuine feasibility study it at least deserves consideration. But the response to some of the comparisons ascribed to the politicians is simply that a few miles of Dublin Metro track would probably carry more passengers, and make a greater contribution to making peoples lives more liveable.

I'd query your statement that rail lines that are slower than road are well used. Firstly, my understanding is that rail is generally not used that much in Ireland compared to other forms of transport, and that the view has been advocated that our population distribution is such that its not really suited to Irish conditions.

Secondly, I can accept that a minority of travellers might have a particular gra for rail that would mean they would use it even if it was quicker to go by bus. But I find it hard to accept that rail would be greatly preferred to bus, even if it took longer. For example, I think I'm right in saying that the Dublin-Wexford train takes forever, and, while the route might be scenic if you're on holiday, if what you are looking for is transportation road is quicker. Has anybody figures on how many people actually travel between Wexford and Dublin by train as compared to other modes?

As to the variation in cost estimates, my picture (prehaps incorrect) is that the difference was the Government estimate was on the basis of a more expensive project involving faster trains. West=on=track are suggesting slower trains, which at least some rail cognoscenti suggest would not be an attractive alternative to road. I've seen some comment on the proposal to the effect that rail travel has to be significantly quicker to be attractive as it inevitably involves additional travel to and from the station at each end of the journey.

On the cost factor, if the campaign have produced figures certainly they should be looked at and if the benefits compare well to the benefits of other projects, fine they have a case. I just wonder when some purists say that Dublin's population is too spread out to justify commuter rail, how a service aimed at a smaller population over a greater area can be justified.

In every case the fixed cost of the track maintenance has been taken over by the Regional Government. All the rail operator has to do is run the services. The massive burden of maintaining the tracks is removed from the private rail company. The pay a nominal fee for access. Can’t happen in Ireland because local authorities cannot levy taxes.

With respect to previous contributors, there doesn't seem to be much consideration of Irish conditions. Referring to services in Switzerland and Japan don't appear to be much of a guide as these countries have much higher population densities.

In considering Irish conditions, it should be possible to source some facts. I do recall seeing figures some time ago to the effect that Irish long distance rail services required a high subsidy and didn't carry as many passengers as long distance bus services, which did not require much by way of subsidy. To bring the matter to a conclusion takes a little more than pointing out that passengers can work and generally have more freedom of movement on a train. It needs consideration of whether rail can actually turn its perceived advantages into bums on seats. The contention of rail skeptics (which I am nearly convinced by) is that rail is not suited to Irish conditions, and so won't attract enough business to justify the investment.

The proof of the pudding would be either to show somewhere with a similar population distribution where it does work (remembering that relieving the train operator of responsibility for the rail network is the same as giving them a subsidy. Roads get used by all kinds of people who pay road tax which contributes to the cost of provision, but rail is only used by rail service providers.) On the other side, it is necessary to consider where a rail service is provided in parallel to bus and private car, which is the more popular route. This is does not mean saying 'look at the crowds in that station", it means saying "Dublin to Westport rail line gets X bums on seats per year, bus on the same route gets y bums on seats and private cars carry Z bums on seats." Anything less that this is wishful thinking.

Countries with near-identical populations and densities -

Good example - Finland:

http://www.vr.fi/heo/eng/index.html
http://www.saunalahti.fi/rautatie/today/ (fan page)

Carbon copy of Ireland (note photo of truck on rail operator's homepage) - New Zealand:

http://www.tranzrail.co.nz/
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~wilsong/rail/ (fan page - recognise anything)

Isamale, there is no Dublin-Westport Line. It is a branch line running off the Athlone-Ballina line. There is a Dublin-Westport service. This does not mean there is a track running from Dublin directly to Westport and serves nothing in-between as you seem to think. It also serves all the major towns in etween as well.

I suggest you actually learnabout rail transport, perhaps even travel on a train in Ireland. Stand in Heuston and Connolly and look at what is happening before you make any more comments about railways and rail transportation system which you seem to have the most biased opinion against, and yet at the same time you seem utterly ignornat of them.

You seem to think that everybody in Ireland has a car and railways are somehow surplus to Ireland's requirements (and always wil be) and that somehow the revenue derived from car/petrol sales/tax pays for the €20 Euro NRA road building programme. Not even close I am sorry to say.

What is especially depressing is the lack of understanding on the part of Government and folks such as yourself concerning an appropriate fiscal framework for both road and rail transport. Policy is currently that rail must pay its way and must cover all costs including all track/infrastructure costs. Cars, lorries and buses pay taxes on fuel and annual licenses. Do these cover the full "road" costs in terms of wear and tear on roads and also the external costs such as noise, air pollution, accidents and the time lost to the economy by people and goods being stuck in traffic jams. The Department of Finance and yourself thinks in very blinkered direct-cash terms, and never take much notice of external environmental and socio-economic costs.

One of the most common misconceptions paraded about in Irish media and Governmental circles regarding the "viability" of rail transport project outside Dublin is the old "railways can only operate in regions with high population densities". This "fact", so beloved of motorways planners and builders who seem to immune to the same scenario being applied to themselves, even though new motorways are much more expensive to construct than a new double track electrified railway route. But more importantly, one piece of logic or "fact" that is completely lost on Irish transport planners; motorways increase traffic congestion, not reduce it, However, even in the face of overwhelming international evidence to the contrary, rail is still saddled with the stigma of being an urban phenomena in Ireland.

Once you get outside of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford cities, you don't need motorways, the traffic levels don't merit it. Diverting the funds that would otherwise be spent on egotistical activities by the NRA into rail transport would work wonders for traffic congestion in Ireland. Even in Germany, the heart of the EU, they have single carriageway inter town roads with alternating overtaking lanes for a mile or so at a time. If this is good enough for the efficient Germans, why not for Ireland? But still Ireland remains obsessed with the 1950's Anglo-American discredited and socially infantile notion of the motorway being the endgame in all transport. In the more enlightened world, sensible rail and road are viewed as the binary approach to the problem.

In the Irish Times as recently as August 2003, Kevin Meyers who among his many other talents, would have us believe that his undoubted expertise regarding rail transport when he wrote "You cannot have a sensible railway system between a low-population region and a city. For a railway to make sense, traffic must essentially be generated equally at each end: otherwise, you simply have empty trains on one leg of the journey." What a pity that Mr. Meyers didn't do something called "research" into the subject matter before embarking on another round of his legendary hyperbole. The facts are, that aside from the Irish government/NRA's obsession to tarmacing the Irish countryside with mega motorways (when in nearly every case a good dual carriageway and by-passes would suffice), the reality is that over the world railways successfully serve regions of comparable and even lower population densities than many regions of rural Ireland.

"Do they serve the population and local economy?" That is the real question to be answered. In Canada, the Quebec, North Shore and Labrador. http://www.cwrr.com/Canpass/qnsl/qnsl.html Ontario Northland. http://www.ontc.on.ca/ and Algoma Central. http://www.algomacentralrailway.com/index.shtml all serve regions which fall into the category of "vast empty wilderness" and even the most remote regions of Ireland would be densely populated by comparison and yet in Canada, rail transport serves these extremely rural areas. They are funded and treated as important public services. If railways are not viable becuse they "don;t generate returns to the Department of Finance"and should be closed, then do the same to footpaths and traffic lights and cycle paths...

As one commentator on another message board stated. "the dereliction of the Western Rail Corridor has been rightfully compared to the ESB and the Rural Electrification programme of the ‘50s – had the ESB taken the same view to their infrastructure, the West would still be lit by oil-lamp. In this regard, those who have aggressively criticised others for highlighting the closure rate have missed the point, and the implication of such an outlook is that one should not consider re-opening some of the lines currently closed. The issue of the 20 Billion being spent on the roads programme is critical in that it is only the tip of the iceberg of the true costs involved. Although high taxes on vehicle imports and petrol create an economic illusion of balancing the exchequers books, the reality is that these commodities are sourced solely through importing - and hence the cash-flow in this sector is predominately exiting the country. Now if one were to add these costs up, plus the amount proportional to the CO2 emissions that shall have to be paid as fines under our Kyoto Protocol obligations …Well that could be the next interesting statistic!"

What makes the NRA megalomania even more perverse, is that along many of the proposed mega motorway routes are not only next to parallel 'N' Roads which can be upgraded to meet the current and future needs of the regions, but in many cases currently used or "mothballed" rail routes which could be restored and make a real difference to gridlock and traffic congestion as they do in many other countries. Something that huge motorways will never do, as their purpose is to channel more road traffic into towns and cities.

The only solution to less traffic and freer roads is more passengers and freight on railways as the Belgians, Swiss, Austrians, Danes and many other countries from the USA to Australia have already discovered. First-class radial rail routes with good orbital or inter-regional rail routes will make cars an option and not the only option which is the 50 year old failed Anglo-American folly which the NRA seem to believe is the only future for Ireland.

All over Ireland such rail lines area already exsists or the alignments are already in place. All of these lines could be rebuilt and put into service for less than some of the proposed over specified NRA road projects and yet, it is rail, the more economical option that has to constantly prove it's "viability". What about the millions of Irish people who don't have cars? Apparently the Irish Government ministers in their private limos don't know these people exist in Ireland either. "How about motorways and buses then and forget the railways?" What about the Kyoto agreement and Ireland already heavy emissions? One commuter trains can take 600 passengers using the same energy as a bus and one freight train can take 14 lorries off the road.

We at Platform11 has to wonder if the NRA and Irish Government were in charge of tackling obesity in Ireland would they do it by opening a McDonalds on every corner? And yet, this is the kind of methodology they use to tackle our emissions and traffic problems.

Even in Germany, the heart of the EU, they have single carriageway inter town roads with alternating overtaking lanes for a mile or so at a time.

This is what has been talked about recently and is the ideal solution on many routes. The above could be put in place with he foresight to future proof such schemes - securing the space for possible upgrade if needed.

Its the ideal solution in many instances and the one the country can afford.

Ishmale, I have lived in Austria and there I saw how amazingly useful railways can be if they are funded and work properly. You don't get the third world traffic vistas there or in Denmark you get in Ireland. Road and rail work together and your transport Dawinism based on people who buy petrol being at the top of the social preference listing is self-destructive and when the Kyoto fines start kicking in we'll see just how "viable" this car-obsessed culture really is in this country. I do believe if people are given a choice of a good rail service they leave the car at home. The bus has failed to get people out of their cars in the number rail does and will even in Ireland when a decent service is provided. All over the world it has been proven that rail is the only mode which lures car communters away from traffic jams. Buses are viewed as another form of car in which you have no control over - so what's the point. You cannot tell the bus driver to pull to the nearest toilet or coffee shop - on a train you can get coffee and use the loo. Victor and a few others have already pointed this out to you. This is why railways in Ireland remain hugly popular and are growing in ridership all the time as services improve.

If the DART concept was exported nationwide more and more people around Ireland would leave their car at home and we would have freer roads. You are living in the 1950's and the Westport train is currently made up of MKIII coches which are very nice and the Manulla transfer is being turned over the diesel railcars shortly. The changes on our rail service at the moment is rapid, working and badly needed and people are using it - even the ones with cars when they find a train which suits them.

back to the Western Rail Corridor:

http://www.platform11.org/wrc_review.html

Last time I checked we shared a land border with the UK, and there was a regular train service between the two countries. Has anything changed in the meantime? Northern Ireland floated off into the Atlantic, by any chance?

Do you know how much state funding the National Roads Authority gets? And do you know how much the local authorities get to build important non-national routes and maintain the local road network? This money is an investment in the nation, as is funding for expanding and maintaining the rail network. Funding subsidising the operation of the rail network is an investment in keeping our economy and our chances of even meeting half our Kyoto protocol agreements alive - something that forcing ever more people into cars or the unattractive option of buses will not achieve.

There are several points being missed here. Firstly, all over the world people use rail to commute medium distances because it is more comfortable and convenient than driving, or because they can sleep or work on the train, or for whatever other reason they have. The key in attracting people out of their cars is to make the alternative attractive - the service needs to be frequent, and it needs to be comfortable. Trains win that one 2-1 over buses, which are an uncomfortable way to travel.
However, in Ireland we don't have frequent trains between our cities, and they aren't particularly comfortable - it is rarely possible to actually buy a seat on a train, for example. This needs to change.
The second point being missed is that traveling by road is not something we can sustain into the future due to the inevitable increase in the fiscal and environmental cost of burning fossil fuels. Efficient electrified transport (rail again) is the only solution we have to this at the moment. If we abandon our railway infrastructure now we will probably have to rebuild it at enormous cost in the future.
The third point isn't so much one being missed as one that is just plainly incorrect - rail journey times over short to medium distances are usually shorter due to traffic congestion, and over long distance are usually much shorter due to high speeds impossible without the control supplied by rails and automatic signalling. Once again, Ireland has a defecit here in that our fastest lines are capable of only 100mph. This is likely to change in the future as Cork-Dublin-Belfast is upgraded and electrified.
This brings me to the final point. EU policy is to maximise use of existing rail infrastructure for passenger and freight service, and to provide new strategic links, of which a high-speed Cork-Dublin-Belfast service is one. Railways are here to stay.