Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Iarnród Éireann plan to run their trains "flat out" to compete with road traffic

124»

Comments

  • #92
    thisisadamh
    Registered Users Posts: 629 ✭✭✭thisisadamh


    Is there a Draft timetable for the Westport/Galway services?


  • #93
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    trellheim wrote: »
    Hold on a second; I am eliminating all stops bar the Junction as well so Thurles Portlaoise and Mallow gone. If it doesn't make a buck after a month or two then back to the old way.

    Does anyone have an old timetable for the old Enterprise, what was the fastest Connolly-Kent ?

    I take it you are referring to the Belfast - Cork Enterprise service which operated from 1950 to 1953.

    The following times are from Patterson's history of the GNR(I). The second leg of the Belfast - Cork journey departed Amiens St at 1.30 pm arriving Cork at 5:15 pm with a seven minute stop at Limerick Jct.

    In the northbound direction the train left Cork at 1:15 pm, seven minute stop LJ, arriving Amiens St at 4.45 pm. So three and a half hours including the loop around to Amiens St.


    Interestingly also, the Enterprise departed Belfast at 10.30 am and was due into Connolly at 12.45 pm.


  • #94
    Geog1234
    Registered Users Posts: 311 ✭✭Geog1234


    trellheim wrote: »
    IF we moved one departure ( say the 0700 from Heuston) to Pearse and ran it non stop to Cork ( via the PPT of course, 1 stop at Connolly)
    and one in the other .. say the 1730 , nonstop to Heuston you could probably be in before 0900 ( just ) and 1930 in the other direction..

    Should be paths at both those times , great location and good timings ( yes I know objections etc but the rails are there to do it. For a company which is absolutely staring into the abyss it is surely worth a try )

    Interesting and worthwhile idea in my opinion.

    In a related vein the 1998-1999 train timetable had a Galway to Dundalk train on Sunday evenings. It departed Galway at 16.25, arrived Heuston 19.21 and arrived Connolly 20.00. Doesn't say the time it departed Heuston but presumably at least seven or eight minutes after arrival.

    Not sure if the train made it into the 2000s.


  • #95
    Stinicker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,102 ✭✭✭Stinicker


    People aren't using the trains not because of how slow they but because of how expensive they are.

    I think alot of people would prefer to take the train over a coach but the fact of the matter is that Irish Rail is an absolute rip-off. Then add when you have a cheaper coach service which is almost as fast people will choose the cheaper option.

    The extra few minutes gained means nothing compared to the serious chunk of change saved by travelling by coach. The fact is Irish Rail is too expensive and until they cut their fares drastically then people will move in their droves over to the cheaper bus services. If IE cut their pricing by 50% tomorrow morning they would increase their profits are more and more people would travel, fill the trains and get the people moving at an affordable price.


  • #96
    dowlingm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    Stinicker wrote: »
    The extra few minutes gained means nothing compared to the serious chunk of change saved by travelling by coach
    To you. It means nothing to you. Other people place different values on their time or their ability to work en route.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,446 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    dowlingm wrote: »
    To you. It means nothing to you. Other people place different values on their time or their ability to work en route.

    In most cases the coach is actually faster (Cork, Galway, Limerick, Belfast to Dublin City Center all certainly are) and it is also possible to work on the coach, I do.

    I admit there is a bit more space to work on the train, but it is nonsense to say that you can't.


  • #98
    CIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    bk wrote: »
    In most cases the coach is actually faster (Cork, Galway, Limerick, Belfast to Dublin City Center all certainly are) and it is also possible to work on the coach, I do.

    I admit there is a bit more space to work on the train, but it is nonsense to say that you can't.
    It's purely IE's choice to run their trains slower, either way. The technology is well along, even to the point where 230 km/h should be a given on the Dublin-Cork line.


  • #99
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,446 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    CIE wrote: »
    It's purely IE's choice to run their trains slower, either way. The technology is well along, even to the point where 230 km/h should be a given on the Dublin-Cork line.

    IE trains run slower because IE made the totally wrong investment decisions, focusing on buying expensive but underspeced new trains, when they had perfectly good, relatively young trains that just needed refurbishment and the wrong motive power, instead of investing that money in the tracks and infrastructure to remove speed restrictions.

    230 km/h would require hundreds of millions, probably more then a billion euros in investments. Not justifiable for such a small country.


  • #100
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    bk wrote: »

    IE trains run slower because IE made the totally wrong investment decisions, focusing on buying expensive but underspeced new trains, when they had perfectly good, relatively young trains that just needed refurbishment and the wrong motive power, instead of investing that money in the tracks and infrastructure to remove speed restrictions.

    230 km/h would require hundreds of millions, probably more then a billion euros in investments. Not justifiable for such a small country.


    Could be wrong , but I'd guess that IR were given the money specifically to buy shiny new trains... The idiots of the day ( government) couldn't spend money quick enough ...new trains look and sound cooler than trackwork... Plus It'd take a lot more work to design and oversea track construction than to sign for new trains ....

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • #101
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    KRP for €350m anybody? The 22000s were €400m the lot.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,981 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    bk wrote: »
    230 km/h would require hundreds of millions, probably more then a billion euros in investments. Not justifiable for such a small country.
    and spending possibly the same amount on overspecked roads is? the small country argument doesn't wash, people still want to get to where they want to go as quick as possible, which they can't get anywhere quick in this country.

    shut down alcohol action ireland now! end MUP today!



  • #103
    Ben D Bus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,110 ✭✭✭Ben D Bus


    Stinicker wrote: »
    If IE cut their pricing by 50% tomorrow morning they would increase their profits are more and more people would travel

    How much would their profits increase? How many more people would travel? You'll need to double passengers just to keep revenue the same. An approximation will be fine. I presume you've crunched the numbers?

    I'm willing to be convinced, but statements like those need to be backed up with some sort of evidence.

    Also, should there be a blanket 50% cut? Even on overloaded trains? Standard fares, students, chlidren, first class?

    Even if you are correct, it's completely by accident.


  • #104
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    230km/h (140mph) is totally unrealistic...we can't afford that simple as,...(PS can we stick to mph for Irish Rail seeing as they do...)

    125mph would be aspirational... a better goal would be 100mph max and an increase in overall AVERAGE speed. Currently the average Dublin to Cork would be around 65 I think, increase this to 80mph and a 2 hour schedule would be attractive, but only at the right price.


  • #105
    CIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    corktina wrote: »
    230km/h (140mph) is totally unrealistic...we can't afford that simple as,...(PS can we stick to mph for Irish Rail seeing as they do...)

    125mph would be aspirational... a better goal would be 100mph max and an increase in overall AVERAGE speed. Currently the average Dublin to Cork would be around 65 I think, increase this to 80mph and a 2 hour schedule would be attractive, but only at the right price.
    100 mph is not going to increase average speeds into the 80-mph range even with cutting out a lot of intermediate stops. 125 mph is something that was achieved back in the 70s with non-tilt diesels on traditional lines (and that'll probably get you close to a 70-mph average speed); 143 mph already happens with electric tilt trains on traditional lines. Of course, modernising would actually require a sea change in the government's attitude, which the electorate still has power over (right?); but if the people do nothing, the government will be happy to leave things stuck in the 1960s.


  • #106
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    Thats simply not true.in fairness, 125 in the 1970s happened on Brunels Bowling Green and later on the racing ground of Mallards world record, both superbly engineered main lines, with relief lines to keep slower trains out of the way I think a lot of engineering would be necessary in Ireland to get near that speed. Speeds over 100 are far from commonplace in the UK even now on other routes.


  • #107
    CIE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭CIE


    corktina wrote: »
    Thats simply not true.in fairness, 125 in the 1970s happened on Brunels Bowling Green and later on the racing ground of Mallards world record, both superbly engineered main lines, with relief lines to keep slower trains out of the way I think a lot of engineering would be necessary in Ireland to get near that speed. Speeds over 100 are far from commonplace in the UK even now on other routes.
    And how many lines are we talking about to increase speeds on in Ireland, and how many trains are on them today?

    I think I showed videos of the Berlin-Hamburg Railway on here before, which is a two-track main line over much of its length. If the quad-tracking of the Dublin-Cork line even to Hazelhatch (really ought to be extended to Kildare) is not enough to get 125 mph, then it's time to get the people standing in the way of at least reaching the latter half of the 20th century on the rails out of positions of power. While you still can.


  • #108
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    the fact is you can't run 125 mph trains on just any old line., Take the Berks and Hants line in the UK, operated with HSTs and limited to 110 mph between Reading and Wesdtbury (and less in several places) and less than that beyond. The same applies to the South West to Birmingham route


Advertisement