If we had a German or Spanish style Rail network

corktina · 21-12-2012 5:23pm

5 times?

Losty Dublin · 21-12-2012 7:26pm

corktina wrote: »

5 times?

Density even

LivelineDipso · 21-12-2012 7:32pm

Loads of isolated towns and one off houses in Israel too. Yet they seem to know how to provide public transport. There is a fantastic bus system that serves even the most isolated communities with regular and frequent service.

Most people have cars too.

monument · 22-12-2012 12:17am

LivelineDipso wrote: »

Loads of isolated towns and one off houses in Israel too.

Population density:

Ireland: 73.4/km2
Israel: 377/km2

LivelineDipso wrote: »

Most people have cars too.

Car ownership per 1,000 people:

Ireland: 542
Israel: 342

Car use is also high in Ireland (higher than some of the countries which have higher car ownership), not sure about Israel.

Edit: car ownership figures fixed

LivelineDipso · 22-12-2012 4:41pm

Finland and Sweden have much lower population density that Ireland. They love building railways and metros there...

Losty Dublin · 22-12-2012 7:45pm

LivelineDipso wrote: »

Finland and Sweden have much lower population density that Ireland. They love building railways and metros there...

They also have a lot of long distances (Both several times the size of Ireland), snowed up roads in the during winter and more larger urban centres spread out than we do. Sweden only has one metro and Finland has none though both have tram systems around their cities.

Oh and they gladly use their taxes to help fund their public transport systems

foggy_lad · 22-12-2012 8:55pm

LivelineDipso wrote: »

Finland and Sweden have much lower population density that Ireland. They love building railways and metros there...

They also pay massive utilities charges to pay for their local transport infastructure.

LivelineDipso · 22-12-2012 9:25pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

They also have a lot of long distances (Both several times the size of Ireland), snowed up roads in the during winter and more larger urban centres spread out than we do. Sweden only has one metro and Finland has none though both have tram systems around their cities.

Oh and they gladly use their taxes to help fund their public transport systems

Helsinki has an underground system I am sure?

Your last comments said it all.

Victor · 23-12-2012 1:36am

LivelineDipso wrote: »

On a small island of 5 million people this country

6.4 million?

CIE wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by "on the cheap". The costs did not build a slow railway, did it?

The rail has a poor alignment - some of it even floods. Only a particular horizontal or vertical curve, the trains can only go so fast.

CIE · 23-12-2012 6:13am

Victor wrote: »

The rail has a poor alignment - some of it even floods. Only a particular horizontal or vertical curve, the trains can only go so fast.

I seem to recall that the Waterford train station was flooded out just back in October. Time to abandon it altogether?

Tilt trains increase effective speed in curves. There is no shortage of tilt trains on the market that I can see, even diesel-powered, and a wider track gauge only makes tilting trains more effective in curves.

Losty Dublin · 23-12-2012 10:40am

LivelineDipso wrote: »

Helsinki has an underground system I am sure?

It has an underground, yes but it isn't exactly a London Underground sized system or a Dublin Bus level of service or anything. I don't know what you would consider a Metro but it isn't that expansive compared to, say the London Underground or the Paris Metro.

monument · 23-12-2012 11:34am

CIE wrote: »

I seem to recall that the Waterford train station was flooded out just back in October. Time to abandon it altogether?

He did not say that is a reason why to abandon the line, but it, along with other things, shows how the line was poorly rebuilt very recently.

CIE wrote: »

Tilt trains increase effective speed in curves. There is no shortage of tilt trains on the market that I can see, even diesel-powered, and a wider track gauge only makes tilting trains more effective in curves.

So you want to add the expensive of buying and maintaining rolling stock unique to the line?

Losty Dublin · 23-12-2012 11:16pm

monument wrote: »

He did not say that is a reason why to abandon the line, but it, along with other things, shows how the line was poorly rebuilt very recently.

In fairness, the line is virtually level to a massive tidal river. Excessive rain and it is going to be liable to flooding.

monument · 24-12-2012 2:45pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

In fairness, the line is virtually level to a massive tidal river. Excessive rain and it is going to be liable to flooding.

Not if built to a high standard.

At least the chances of regular flooding would be limited.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

It has an underground, yes but it isn't exactly a London Underground sized system or a Dublin Bus level of service or anything. I don't know what you would consider a Metro but it isn't that expansive compared to, say the London Underground or the Paris Metro.

The same kind of nonsence was trotted out against Metro North.

The Helsinki metro has a daily ridership of around 200,000 passangers on a system just 21km in length, and just 17 stations. Around 58 million trips per year.

Dublin Bus is struggling to carry 115 million passangers with its routes covering how many KMs?

In Helsinki, the metro operates with a Y branch line, branching in the suburs at a frequency of 4/5 mins into the city peak / off peak (and a 10/8 min peak / off peak service between one end of the Y branch to the other without switching). And you're talking about that frequency with high capacity carrages -- the off-peak trains have a capacity of just under 600 passangers.

Expansion is happening, with the first new line due to open in about three years from now. Frequency on the main section will also be increased to a train ever 2.5 mins.

It currently takes just 23 mins from one end to another and the opprator claims 99.97% of trains departed as planned in 2008.

Its level of service is far higher than that provided by Dublin Bus. It's coverage is not as wide as that of a bus system like Dublin's -- but a metro's catchment area is much large than a bus route's and there's more public transport in the city besides just the metro.

Comparing it to London or Paris is strange given Helsinki does not have the need of a rail network anywhere near as large as a city the size of London or Paris. Greater Helsinki has a population of 1.3m people compared to 12m in greater Paris and 8.1m in Greater London (plus a large amount of commuters outside of those areas).

Losty Dublin · 24-12-2012 6:16pm

monument wrote: »

Not if built to a high standard.

At least the chances of regular flooding would be limited.

Errr, no, you build it higher to avoid floods.

monument wrote: »

The same kind of nonsence was trotted out against Metro North.

The Helsinki metro has a daily ridership of around 200,000 passangers on a system just 21km in length, and just 17 stations. Around 58 million trips per year.

Dublin Bus is struggling to carry 115 million passangers with its routes covering how many KMs?

In Helsinki, the metro operates with a Y branch line, branching in the suburs at a frequency of 4/5 mins into the city peak / off peak (and a 10/8 min peak / off peak service between one end of the Y branch to the other without switching). And you're talking about that frequency with high capacity carrages -- the off-peak trains have a capacity of just under 600 passangers.

Expansion is happening, with the first new line due to open in about three years from now. Frequency on the main section will also be increased to a train ever 2.5 mins.

It currently takes just 23 mins from one end to another and the opprator claims 99.97% of trains departed as planned in 2008.

Its level of service is far higher than that provided by Dublin Bus. It's coverage is not as wide as that of a bus system like Dublin's -- but a metro's catchment area is much large than a bus route's and there's more public transport in the city besides just the metro.

Comparing it to London or Paris is strange given Helsinki does not have the need of a rail network anywhere near as large as a city the size of London or Paris. Greater Helsinki has a population of 1.3m people compared to 12m in greater Paris and 8.1m in Greater London (plus a large amount of commuters outside of those areas).

I'm not comparing it to London or anywhere; I'm just saying that it's not on the same scale and it's aloof to compare it on that remit alone. In relation to comparing carriage numbers of buses and trains, that's silly as it follows that high frequency light rail will carry more than low frequency buses in most urban markets.

monument · 24-12-2012 11:07pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Errr, no, you build it higher to avoid floods.

I'm nearly sure building it to a high standard could include that approach. I can't see why not!

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I'm not comparing it to London or anywhere; I'm just saying that it's not on the same scale and it's aloof to compare it on that remit alone.

Correct me if I'm wrong: You're the one and only one who seems to have compared them.

This started with you claiming Finland does not have a metro. The other poster mentioned a metro system, they did not say a metro system on par with London or Paris. There are many smaller metro railways around.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

In relation to comparing carriage numbers of buses and trains, that's silly as it follows that high frequency light rail will carry more than low frequency buses in most urban markets.

Again, you're the one who compared the Helsinki metro to Dublin Bus, you said: "It has an underground, yes but it isn't exactly ... a Dublin Bus level of service or anything". Most if my post was about debunking that claim.

Btw, not that it matters given the lines are so blurred these days, but the Helsinki metro was build as a heavy rail metro and it is not viewed as a light rail system.

If we had a German or Spanish style Rail network

Comments