[Article] Speed the key to future of railways

Maskhadov

Speed the key to future of railways
Frank McDonald

The construction of a full motorway between Dublin and Cork could "cancel out" improvements in rail services on the route unless the average speed of trains is increased to 120kph (75mph), according to Prof Austin Smyth's analysis.

Noting that the two cities are 255km apart and the motorway will cut driving time by almost 40 minutes, his report said: "The fundamental concern is that rail journey time stands at around 2.5 hours and that little reduction in this time is planned."

Assuming an average speed of 90kph, driving time between Dublin and Cork would be reduced to two hours and nine minutes. This would encourage more car trips, some of which would switch from rail, and could reduce train use by about 12 per cent.

Road/rail competition "is critical to Iarnród Éireann's commercial position", but Prof Smyth said this "does not seem to have been considered in Transport 21" - even though encouraging rail use is consistent with environmental sustainability.

"Inter-city rail also has significant potential in helping to meet spatial development needs. Once again, however, under envisaged rail journey times, the extent of its contribution under this heading will be reduced significantly by the large road programme." Because of its implications for rail serving the same corridors, he warned that developing a high-quality road network "will significantly increase car travel and its market share with all of the attendant implications for greenhouse gas emissions".

Although the proposed upgrading of the N8 under the National Development Plan was not subject to cost-benefit appraisal, targets were set for achieving "level of service" and average speeds on the road network - but it was not done for the railways.

This was because Transport 21 did not consider road and rail schemes in an integrated fashion. As a result, "inter-city rail's commercial future could be undermined by road investment, just when Ireland needs a secure rail network to promote sustainability in transport".

His analysis noted that typical rail journey times of two hours 45 minutes on the Dublin-Cork route represents an average speed of 91kph - compared to typical inter-city rail speeds of up to 139kph on mainline services in Britain and 220kph in France.

Despite an increase in frequency to one train per hour in each direction, he said "the real opportunity for rail lies with higher speed [ and] there is a fundamental need for faster journey times on this inter-city route if rail market share is to be increased".

"If average speed on the Dublin-Cork line could be raised to 120kph, which is still below inter-city speeds in Britain, the journey time could be cut to two hours and five minutes. This does not feel like an ambitious target and should not need new trains," he said.

According to his calculations, the combination of higher frequency and faster operation could boost patronage by 25-30 per cent. He also concludes that more people would make use of other long-distance rail services from Dublin if trains ran faster.

Prof Smyth's report, Transporting Ireland, is to be officially launched at a Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport conference on Transport 21 in Dublin on October 18th.

© The Irish Times

Trying to increase the average speed of trains to 120kph ?? Oh my god,what a joke. Says it all really, especially when you read that typical inter-city rail speeds are 139kph on mainline services in Britain and 220kph in France.

Victor

I understand his point, but ...

"Noting that the two cities are 255km apart .... Assuming an average speed of 90kph, driving time between Dublin and Cork would be reduced to two hours and nine minutes."

255/90=2h50m

Winters

Obviously not a professor in mathematics..

road_high

Serves IE right if you ask me. They've had years to prepare and compete (we are in a free enterprise econmomy after all) with the new road. Instead they didn't bother to upgrade the rail to european standards.
And it's not like the road buidling has been a rapid process either, There has been nothing but delays in it's construction, giving IE loads of time to get their house in order. Naturally enough they didn't do this and will pay the price.

MarkoP11

Didn't ask Irish Rail either

Best recorded time Dublin Cork is 2:07 and that was with 90mph equipment and that was repeated numerous times in the late 1980's and early 1990's on the more difficult Cork Dublin journey, Dublin Cork in 2:29 with 6 stops was done this year

There is some dodgy track which is slowing things but the principle problem is Irish Rail not timetabling for the best performance or actually having any ambition, 200 125mph capable coaches in the fleet but not a single locomotive or inch of track capable of over 100mph, it would of course cost 200+ million to make it happen and the government are not handing over any cash more than the baseline required to prevent the network becoming a safety risk

Last time I checked its closer to 266km to Cork by rail

Rail is 266.1 km 2007 time will be 2:35 or 102km/h progressing to 2:20 or 114km/h by end T21, industry experience states for every 1% reduction in journey time you get more than 1% increase in passengers, the sweet spot is to average over 75mph end to end once that is achieved road can't compete, a a manager in British Rail sussed this all out in the 1960's, made it happen, wrote the book and lost his job as a result

Ireland will never generate the demand to support a TGV style line given the short distances and the need to stop en route the time reductions would be nowhere near those seen elsewhere, that said Dublin Limerick would take about 54 minutes hmmm

Chris_533976

Rail still has a bit of an advantage as it will pop you out near the middle of Dublin at a Luas line. Motorway is all well and good except you'll come to a grinding halt on the M50 and the bit of the N4 going into Dublin centre.

That said, the rail link is a joke, it stops at every poxy station on the way (cmon, Portarlington ffs), and goes near LIMERICK. The speed restrictions are a joke, and the train is always late.

IE need a bit of ambition and good ole kick up the arse. Sure, the new trains are nice, but they do no good when they have stupid speed limits on sections of the track.

MarkoP11

Portarlington, Kildare, Templemore, Ballybrophy and Port Laois are off the calling list for Cork next year. Much improved Limerick service will serve them. Consistent 2:35 to 2:40 is on the table with 3 stops, the press run managed 3 stops in 2:34 and that was without pushing it. Fact remains as it stands today you will be lucky get a seat. There was a time 1987-1997 when you could average 75+ mph I've experienced 81 mph start to stop then 10 minutes go added on all journeys to falsify the punctuality standards and a further 5 when the track couldn't take 100 mph any more

Zero investment over normal renewal will bring it to 2:20 in the medium term. A long list of problems have already arisen with the continued use of freight locomotives at high speed in part its GM fault since the locomotives are heavier on track in terms of track forces than agreed. To go to 125 mph would require a new fleet of locomotives, no one is currently building a 125 mph diesel power car light enough, though I believe the existing equipment could make it to Cork in 2:15 with 2 stops, in theory unbroken 100 mph would be possible Portarlington to Mallow, thats 100 miles roughly, 100 mph Clondalkin Newbridge Kildare Cherryville is coming under the KRP

This was all discussed to death here a few months back when IE made known the outline program to bring speeds to 125 mph, it of course is not funded yet, the future is going to be commuter driven thats where the business is

First move is sort out the speed restrictions eliminating them reduces journey time, reduces maintenance costs on the track, reduces fuel consumption and brake wear against a increase in passenger numbers, its the ultimate win, lower costs more revenue

Red Alert

Ever since the Mark 3's and the 071's CIE have never got it right. The track could easily be made 120mph capable, to claim anything else is a lame excuse.

Everything since the Mk3's and 071's (darts aside) has either been mechanically crap, misused/badly implemented by CIE (201's) or used on the wrong services (all the commuter railcars). The new cork train is a step in the right direction, but until IE rid themselves of the 'tincan with an engine strapped underneath' we won't be goin anywhere.

bk

I've been saying exactly this right here on these boards.

With the new Cork to Dublin roads it will be:

1) Equal or faster to drive to Cork
2) Cheaper
3) Much easier to drive (being able to cruise due to good quality separated road).
4) More conveient (trip is door to door and you get to use your car at both ends and no draging of luggage).
5) You get to decide when you leave.

with the new motorway, CIE are going to lose a lot of customers. They badly need to reduce the journey time, otherwise they are just going to be left with students, etc.

CIE's monopoly is quickly coming, they badly need to wake up and improve their service.

BTW Cork to Dublin in 2 hours and 9 minutes would be correct if you are travelling at 120km/h, which is the speed limit on a motorway and likely possible at off peak times. 90km/h is the projected speed at peak times, so 2 hours 50 minutes would be with lots of conjestion. This is still very good when you consider that this would be a door to door time, unlike with the train where you have to arrive at least 30 minutes early and still commute to and from the station.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was the journalist who got this mixed up, not the professor.

probe

bk wrote:

I've been saying exactly this right here on these boards.

With the new Cork to Dublin roads it will be:

1) Equal or faster to drive to Cork
2) Cheaper
3) Much easier to drive (being able to cruise due to good quality separated road).
4) More conveient (trip is door to door and you get to use your car at both ends and no draging of luggage).
5) You get to decide when you leave.

with the new motorway, CIE are going to lose a lot of customers. They badly need to reduce the journey time, otherwise they are just going to be left with students, etc.

CIE's monopoly is quickly coming, they badly need to wake up and improve their service.

BTW Cork to Dublin in 2 hours and 9 minutes would be correct if you are travelling at 120km/h, which is the speed limit on a motorway and likely possible at off peak times. 90km/h is the projected speed at peak times, so 2 hours 50 minutes would be with lots of conjestion. This is still very good when you consider that this would be a door to door time, unlike with the train where you have to arrive at least 30 minutes early and still commute to and from the station.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was the journalist who got this mixed up, not the professor.

Where is this new Dublin-Cork motorway please? ! Last time I looked it stopped at Portlaoise (and went on to Limerick). They recently completed a ring road around Mitchelstown which is not divided. Further South, they are building a ring road around Fermoy. From there to Cork there is a speed limit of 100 km/h - despite the fact that it is a divided highway. The same 100 km/h speed limit also applies to the new 6 lane E20 Naas Road at the Dublin end.

probe

dowlingm

re: nobody's building diesel powercars light enough.

I understood Dublin Cork is UIC54? would moving to UIC60 rail be sufficient to withstand 201 track forces as well as existing 200km/h diesel power cars?

bk

probe wrote:

Where is this new Dublin-Cork motorway please? !

To be completed in 2010. It will be motorway (or HQDC with a 120km/h speed limit) all the way from Cork to Dublin.

http://www.transport21.ie/PROJECTS/ROADS/N8_Dublin_to_Cork.html
http://www.transport21.ie/PROJECTS/ROADS/N7_Dublin_to_Limerick.html

probe wrote:

From there to Cork there is a speed limit of 100 km/h - despite the fact that it is a divided highway. The same 100 km/h speed limit also applies to the new 6 lane E20 Naas Road at the Dublin end.

These are High Quality Dual Carriageways (HQDC) they are built to motorway 120km/h standards. The government is expected to increase the speed limit of all HQDC's to 120km/h soon. There are plenty of threads about it in this forum, please do a search of the forum to learn more.

probe

bk wrote:

To be completed in 2010. It will be motorway (or HQDC with a 120km/h speed limit) all the way from Cork to Dublin.

I first came across detailed government plans for a motorway between Dublin and Cork in a reference library over 30 years ago. In the meantime I'll believe it when I can drive on it!

probe

probe

bk wrote:

These are High Quality Dual Carriageways (HQDC) they are built to motorway 120km/h standards. The government is expected to increase the speed limit of all HQDC's to 120km/h soon. There are plenty of threads about it in this forum, please do a search of the forum to learn more.

I'm aware of this crap. Why did they bother installing 100 km/h limit signs on the new six lane Naas Road? Incompetent. Inefficient. Wasteful. NRA. Idiots.

probe

westtip

Interesting one this - no doubt the improvements in roads is reducing travel times - This weekend I took a train from Collooney on the Sligo line to Connolly and then Dart to Greystones - On saturday morning my total journey time from home in West Sligo was 8 in the morning till 2.00 pm on arrival at my destination - I did the same journey by car recently in three hours at non peak times (I guess Saturday am is off peak). However I wasn't knackered when I got to my destination, or stressed out, managed to play with my son on the train (he is three), whereas in the back of the car he would have been agony, and read the Satruday Irish Times more or less from cover to cover, I also enjoyed some fine coffee (which I had prepared before hand and taken a flask of with me) however I did have a back ache from the new crap trains they have put on the sligo line which are only fit for short distance commuting. As a committed driver I will probably make this train journey the exception as opposed to the rule, however, despite the new M4, if I want to to travel into Dublin on business, say to the IFSC, I still find it a much more efficient journey to drive as far as say Edgeworthstown on the N4, and therefore cut out the still slow and crap journey on the train from Collooney to Longford - a section on which the Sligo trains seem to slow to a crawl, and jump on a train which will take me into Connolly and cut out the equally slow and crap car journey through Lucan and the City - and have plenty of choice of trains back to the park and drive facilty at Edgeworthstown, it is a good balance in terms of using public transport to my best advantage combined with the efficiency of my private vehicle.

BTW, I think it is unfair to criticise the performance of IE when the under investment in the rail service for so many years is the real reason for the demise of the service on any of our mainline services, combined with the instrasigence of the rail unions on flexible working practices - its a bit of both in my view.

Chris_533976

I also enjoyed some fine coffee (which I had prepared before hand and taken a flask of with me)

haha that made me laugh Was about to quote the Irony Bus until the brackets

MarkoP11

Neither the track or signalling is suitable for above 100 mph, in places it is not suitable for more than 90 mph, it was designed for 90 mph on a 17 ton axle load not 100 mph on 18.7 tons, its neither designed nor safe for anything faster, not enough space between signals to slow in time. There are many many other reasons why 100+ running is not permitted, level crossings for one as well as clearances from structures both of which are being dealt with. Platforms need to be wider etc its no way simple. They are regulatory requirements laid down by the RSC similar apply across Europe, hence my desire to invest in the removing the speed restrictions first since its a quick gain not to mention such an approach effects all trains not just those with 125 mph capability, the return on speed increases reduces as speed increases.

To go faster the depth of ballast needs to be increased the number of sleepers per given length needs to be increased, in some cases bridges will need to be strengthened its not trivial.

The power car would have to meet certain specifications, its must have a 17-18 ton axle load, i.e. weigh no more than 72 tons would have to have at least 2500 hp, be no more than 2.8m wide and no longer than 23m. I have yet to find such a locomotive built in recent times. General Motors tried and came up with a 90 ton machine that ate track it was basically a 201 class with go faster stripes

The cost issue is interesting, 330 mile round trip at say 35 mpg at its 1.25 a litre,

330/35 = 9.42 gallons = 42.82 litre @ €1.25 = €53.52 + depreciation + parking etc
Its €56.50 by train and fuel is less than 20% of IE's bottom line and they dont pay duty so a increase effects them less

Petrol is only going to go up and rail fares in fact at off peak are going to come down. Fact is not everyone drives, when you are driving you cant do anything while in the train I can eat drink read write etc it can be productive time

To be fair to Irish Rail to average journey time Dublin Cork was fallen significantly, the best time may be static and a once a week headline time means nothing its the average, one train sped up by 30 minutes another by 20 last year. When all the money was sunk into the network in recent years it all went on secondary routes on asset renewal none was spent on Dublin Cork and none was spent on speeding things up anywhere

There is clearly an investment problem and its fairly easy to show that persistent attempts to obtain funding have been blocked or cut back and the unions had a hand in that. Simple fact is given the current setup you could chop up to 10 minutes of most Dublin Cork times today, thats called not pushing it

bk

probe wrote:

I first came across detailed government plans for a motorway between Dublin and Cork in a reference library over 30 years ago. In the meantime I'll believe it when I can drive on it!

True, but these road projects have actually started and road projects have been coming in under budget and before time. So it is happening. Already the bypasses have already made a big difference in removing the worst bottlenecks.

probe wrote:

I'm aware of this crap. Why did they bother installing 100 km/h limit signs on the new six lane Naas Road? Incompetent. Inefficient. Wasteful. NRA. Idiots.

Because the legislation to allow this (currently 120km/h can only be used on official motorways) has yet to be passed by the government.

bk

MarkoP11 wrote:

The cost issue is interesting, 330 mile round trip at say 35 mpg at its 1.25 a litre,

330/35 = 9.42 gallons = 42.82 litre @ €1.25 = €53.52 + depreciation + parking etc
Its €56.50 by train and fuel is less than 20% of IE's bottom line and they dont pay duty so a increase effects them less

Firstly Cork to Dublin is €59 for 5 day return, €65 monthly return.

Second depreciation is a silly argument as most people have a car either way.

Thirdly it doesn't include the cost of transport to and from train station, which is another €20 for me by taxi.

Finally is doesn't include the mental cost of how awful Heuston station is on a Friday evening, the pain of being squished on the Luas on the way to the station, standing in a massive line for 30 minutes, watching creeps jump the line in font of me.

For me this is all coming from personal experience. I've been doing the Cork to Dublin trip once a month for the last 5 years. I've been doing this with friends from Cork, who we all started out as interns. I've watched as each of them of the years buys a car and then stops taking the train, deciding to drive instead of enduring the train.

And that is when the Cork to Dublin road was awful and the trip can take over 4 hours*, they still preferred this over the horror that is the train. God help IE when the motorway opens, radically reducing the trip time and making it a much easier trip.

* BTW door to door by train takes me and most of my friends over 4 hours, so 4 hours by car isn't a big disadvantage and it makes 2hours 50 minutes look absolutely fantastic.

The thing is for many years IE had a monopoly, most people didn't have a car and the roads were awful. Now most people have a car and the roads are vastly improving. IE doesn't have a monopoly anymore, yet they haven't woken up to that yet and in the meantime people are voting with their feet, straight into their cars.

They've made a good start with the new trains and a train every hour, but they still have a long way to go.

The trip time needs to be badly decreased and the quality of service improved and they really need to sort out the mess in Heuston, people are not cattle.

mackerski

bk wrote:

Because the legislation to allow this (currently 120km/h can only be used on official motorways) has yet to be passed by the government.

Not true at all. Why are you stating as fact something you don't know to be so?

Dermot

bk

mackerski wrote:

Not true at all. Why are you stating as fact something you don't know to be so?

Dermot

Huh, I don't get you, what part isn't true?

That per current legislation, only a motorway can be 120km/h?

Or that the NRA is looking to allow 120km/h on HQDC's or alternatively regrade them as Morotrway?

There is a whole thread about this just a few threads below.

mackerski

bk wrote:

Huh, I don't get you, what part isn't true?

The sentence that I quoted is not true in any aspect.

bk wrote:

That per current legislation, only a motorway can be 120km/h?

That is untrue. The new N2 including the Ashbourne bypass has a limit of 120km/h over most of its length. The road-traffic acts that established the new limits have, from the start, allowed local authorities to apply a special limit of 120km/h to non-motorways.

Dermot

bk

mackerski wrote:

That is untrue. The new N2 including the Ashbourne bypass has a limit of 120km/h over most of its length. The road-traffic acts that established the new limits have, from the start, allowed local authorities to apply a special limit of 120km/h to non-motorways.

Then what is the problem with the NRA?

Why not make all the HQDC's 120km/h and leave them as national roads so they don't have to deal with the problem of L drivers and tractors?

A Dub in Glasgo

bk wrote:

Second depreciation is a silly argument as most people have a car either way.

Most people totally and utterly underestimate the actual cost of owning, running and maintaining a car.

Depreciation is not a silly argument as it can cost a lot. Have you considered how much your vehicle is really costing you.

Purchase price
Loan interest (if applicable)
Insurance
Fuel
Road Tax
NCT (if applicable)
Servicing
Car consumables (eg tyres, brake pads, wipers etc)
Car parts & repairs
Car parking
Depreciation
Break down membership (if applicable)

I have worked it out for me and it is huge (even though I am in the UK where nearly everything car related is a lot cheaper).

Doing a large annual mileage will affect your choice and age of the car when you get one (unless you want to have a certain type of car).