dermo888 Registered User
#1

I always said - years ago that if the Western Rail Corridor was a success, I'd apologise, and say well done, considering my vehement and near militant opposition of it in the 2001 to 2010 period. 
That time, has finally - after 8 years come to pass, and while not commercially profitable, has reached a point of 'social' viability. Its with that, and with a degree of humility, I say congratulations and well done to those who pushed over the years for its reopening.
I'll remain cynical about opening further north towards Claremorris. 
Also - mush work needs to be done to improve the standard of service provision and line speeds on Waterford to Limerick Junction, a stretch of line - with higher population levels with considerably greater potential.
https://connachttribune.ie/taoiseach-may-back-rail-link-reopening-690/

6 people have thanked this post
Del2005 Registered User
#2

I wonder how many of the 350k paid for the tickets themselves? I can't see many people paying their own money for a slower service.

2 people have thanked this post
goingnowhere Registered User
#3

350k between Galway and Limerick is always the fudge
What is the number between Ennis and Athenry? Its 125k ? half of what the business case predicted and a huge amount of that has been obtained by aggressive discounting of fares and targeting the student market so the financial situation is worse not better

1 person has thanked this post
Lord Glentoran Registered User
#4

Del2005 said:
I wonder how many of the 350k paid for the tickets themselves? I can't see many people paying their own money for a slower service.


Do a survey on the trains. "Hello, I'm from The Internet and I want to see your ticket" should be absolutely fine.

4 people have thanked this post
Isambard Registered User
#5

Del2005 said:
I wonder how many of the 350k paid for the tickets themselves? I can't see many people paying their own money for a slower service.


you talk as if they aren't genuine passengers if they're on a FTP. Without the subvention that the free travel scheme brings, no line would be viable.

5 people have thanked this post
coylemj Registered User
#6

Isambard said:
you talk as if they aren't genuine passengers if they're on a FTP. Without the subvention that the free travel scheme brings, no line would be viable.


With or without the FTP subvention, no line in the country is commercially viable.

If the criteria for opening up a new route is is simply 'social viability' then surely a bus service would have sufficed? At a considerably lower cost.

2 people have thanked this post
Del.Monte Registered User
#7

Anecdotal crap - the sort of thing RTE specialise in - like allowing people to say nobody uses the Waterford/Limerick Jn without questioning the daft timetable. There are plenty of non-FTP holders using the line.

2 people have thanked this post
gozunda Registered User
#8

coylemj said:
With or without the FTP subvention, no line in the country is commercially viable.
If the criteria for opening up a new route is is simply 'social viability' then surely a bus service would have sufficed? At a considerably lower cost.


Attempting to escalate that to an anti FTP type rant? And not to mention a inflated scenario for rail when all roads and motorways are also heavily subsidised / subverted by the tax payer?

Rather than selectively quoting 'social viability' ' (is that even a thing?) this makes interesting reading which I'd take a guess you'd probably not heard about?

https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/70442/rail-expansion-essential/

2 people have thanked this post
end of the road Registered User
#9

coylemj said:
With or without the FTP subvention, no line in the country is commercially viable.

If the criteria for opening up a new route is is simply 'social viability' then surely a bus service would have sufficed? At a considerably lower cost.



not really no . there were already bus services before the line and the passengers using rail could have chosen them but didn't. the reason, because the train has more potential to meet their needs then a bus service ever could.
a lot of people will always take a train over a bus no matter what, and they won't be people who are interested in trains either.
as for the bus being lower cost, usually that's because the basic operation cost is what is quoted. not the actual cost, which should really be including the infrastructure cost like is done with rail.

1 person has thanked this post
Del2005 Registered User
#10

Isambard said:
you talk as if they aren't genuine passengers if they're on a FTP. Without the subvention that the free travel scheme brings, no line would be viable.


I've no problem with a subvention for public transport but when a line or service is run purely on subvention and FTP then it's not really a viable service. We'd be cheaper getting taxis for the FTP people than a rail line that no one else uses.

4 people have thanked this post
coylemj Registered User
#11

gozunda said:

this makes interesting reading which I'd take a guess you'd probably not heard about?

https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/70442/rail-expansion-essential/


Seriously, this is the best you can come up with? A 'report' written by a consortium of UK public transport operators.....

http://www.urbantransportgroup.org/about-us/our-members

I've no doubt it's a highly objective and balanced report and in no way biased towards railways but I'll pass, thanks all the same.

2 people have thanked this post
Lord Glentoran Registered User
#12

coylemj said:
Seriously, this is the best you can come up with? A 'report' written by a consortium of UK public transport operators.....

http://www.urbantransportgroup.org/about-us/our-members

I've no doubt it's a highly objective and balanced report and in no way biased towards railways but I'll pass, thanks all the same.


Perhaps one written by farmers who want to sell land on the basis of one house per acre, and thus expand rural sprawl with poor services, would be preferred?

2 people have thanked this post
Lord Glentoran Registered User
#13

Del2005 said:
I've no problem with a subvention for public transport but when a line or service is run purely on subvention and FTP then it's not really a viable service. We'd be cheaper getting taxis for the FTP people than a rail line that no one else uses.


Oops - an inconvenient truth from the other island turns this fallacy on its head:

(Invalid img)

1 person has thanked this post
coylemj Registered User
#14

Lord Glentoran said:
Perhaps one written by farmers who want to sell land on the basis of one house per acre, and thus expand rural sprawl with poor services, would be preferred?


No, just someone with a balanced viewpoint and who doesn't favour one form of transport over another.

Do you have a source you'd like to quote for the numbers in the graphic above? I'm curious as to how they got a figure of £54 billion as the 'cost' of air pollution caused by road transport. Congestion ..... £20 billion? Sure why not - it's a nice round number. Trump couldn't do better.

1 person has thanked this post
Del2005 Registered User
#15

Lord Glentoran said:
Oops - an inconvenient truth from the other island turns this fallacy on its head:

(Invalid img)


Where's the comparison between a railway line running on subsidies and FTP users only? Every taxpayer in the country is paying for the railway line that no one uses. The money wasted on the WRC could have improved public transport for thousands if invested in our cities, but instead we pay for a line no one uses if they have to pay with their own money.

2 people have thanked this post

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!