Derry - Letterkenny - Sligo : Rail

Annatar

El Stuntman wrote: »

interesting stat in today's paper:

% of all PAYE collected in Co. Dublin = 50%

equivalent figure for Co. Donegal = 1%

discussion over, move on

Yeah you are spot on!!!

All those you say it might be a result of unemployment, which runs at twice the national average and wages being way below Dublin levels are just plain anarchists and commies!
Booo Hisss.... burn Donegal!!
:rolleyes:

Annatar

What current restrictions are there at the moment to upgrading all existing lines to highspeed lines?

For the sake of argument, lets go mad..... sayyy TGV's across the board??!

Anyone want to have some fun guesstimating the cost of the upgrade?

Say....
Cork - Dublin
Galway - Dublin
Sligo - Dublin (maybe)
Belfast - Dublin

?

Nostradamus

Annatar wrote: »

What current restrictions are there at the moment to upgrading all existing lines to highspeed lines?

A new high-speed line between Belfast Dublin and Cork is on the agenda for the next inter-governmental North and South summit.

Nostradamus

OTK wrote: »

Dublin-Derry by rail is a ludicrous 5 hours. Tacking on more single track slow coach rubbish on to the end of the derry line to meander through donegal is hardly going to rejuvenate the region.

IF the closed line west of Belfast was reopened and rebuilt along with the Derry route - people could get a bus from Letterkenny to Derry and then an express train to Dublin within 3 hours. Seem like a simple enough and straighforward idea.

OTK

Annatar wrote: »

What current restrictions are there at the moment to upgrading all existing lines to highspeed lines?

For the sake of argument, lets go mad..... sayyy TGV's across the board??!

Anyone want to have some fun guesstimating the cost of the upgrade?

Say....
Cork - Dublin

2.6 billion

Galway - Dublin

2.2 billion

Sligo - Dublin (maybe)

2.2 billion

Belfast - Dublin

1.7 billion

(going by the €10m/km the French are paying for TGV extensions now.)

gjim

They're conservative, I'd say. My understanding was the 10 mil/km was a historical estimate? Could be wrong though. Ignoring that, given the ferociously generous farmers/land speculator jackpots ... sorry ... land aquisition costs in Ireland, I'd wouldn't be surprised if it was double that (remember the Madrid metro?). Before using the French 10 mil/km, I compare cost per km of motorway in France with that here and scale appropriately. Everything is much more expensive here than in Europe.

Annatar

Dr Mr Gates,
Good job with Microsoft. Windows is far better than Linux. Commiserations on the EU fine!

By the way, you wouldnt happen to have a spare €15 billion?
We just want to put in a few high speed trainlines, we will name one after you!

Regards
Ireland
++++++++++++++++++++++++


What restaints are there on the current infrastructure to get speeds up to a more humane level?

Calina

Cost per kilometre almost certainly depends on the terrain across which it has to be laid. Given the terrain on the Cork/Dublin line varies massively I would take no bets on a flat 10ME being right even if it's a recent figure. I've had a quick look and can't find figures immediately although I used to have the figures for the upgrade to the TGV Atlantique project handy.

Annatar, do me a favour and stay on topic. If you want serious answers to your questions you stand a better chance of getting them if people can take you seriously.

OTK

Calina, here's a recent reference to the cost of LGV Est at €5 billion
http://www.champagne-ardenne-tech.fr/-spip/article.php3?id_article=1935
I'm not sure of this covers the entire 400km or the 300km first phase of this project.

There are cheaper options than TGV such as 200kph trains. This might be more viable for Ireland.

Some of the Cork Dublin line only travels at around 60kph due to something like poor track or tight curves.

spacetweek

OTK wrote: »

There are cheaper options than TGV such as 200kph trains. This might be more viable for Ireland.

Some of the Cork Dublin line only travels at around 60kph due to something like poor track or tight curves.

+1 : people, don't get carried away. The TGV Est and all that is for new build, 300 km/h line. That would get you to Cork in 50 minutes! We don't need a speed increase of that magnitude, 200km/h is fine. Even that would be around twice as fast as the current speed, and we could probably use the existing alignment.

Ham'nd'egger

OTK wrote: »

Some of the Cork Dublin line only travels at around 60kph due to something like poor track or tight curves.

The main factors slowing down Dublin-Belfast trains are track capacity and local speed limits at both end. From either terminus to Malahide and Lisburn, it can take the Enterprise over 40 minutes to cover just 17 1/2 miles of track. This is primarily due to sharing track with suburban service that run in these areas. In contrast, 64 minutes is allowed for the 56 miles between Drogheda and Portadown, the first stations served en route; this includes the speed limits of the Boyne viaduct and Dundalk, a sharp curve and speed restriction at Poyntspass, 3 stops and hilly terrain. There is less stopping trains to infringe on the mainline services on this section, hence far better timings. Eliminating one stop on each service would save another 5 minutes; given it's suburban service links, Drogheda may be the one to lose out. For the record, Dublin-Belfast services take 2 hours 10 minutes with an average speed of a shade under 50MPH; one service runs non stop from Portadown and takes 1 hour 55 minutes for 113 1/2 miles.

Dublin-Cork suffers from the same obstructions but nowhere near to the same extent. There isn't many sections of the service that have specific speed limits due to curves; Portarlington is the main one but it is being eliminated. Limerick Junction would be the other slow point en route but it too will be improved and through speeds will increase. When these two are sorted along with the end of KRC works, Dublin-Cork timings can be expected to be brought down to less than 2 hours 20 minutes for 165 1/2 miles. Currently it take 2 hours 45 minutes; it can often take just 2 1/2 hours. I should note that at both ends, a departing train will meet an arriving service within 5 minutes of the station limits; thus showing that these services are easily capable of running to 150 minutes per work under current conditions.

Hence the clear lesson to help improve timings is for additional track space for suburban services.

OTK

Hamndegger wrote: »

Hence the clear lesson to help improve timings is for additional track space for suburban services.

Yes, adding capacity to suburban lines help both intercity and commuter services. Building additional branch lines betwene small towns just creates costly disused infrastructure that undermines the case for rail investment.

spacetweek

Hamndegger wrote: »

The main factors slowing down Dublin-Belfast trains are ...
Hence the clear lesson to help improve timings is for additional track space for suburban services.

Thanks for all that info Ham'n'egger. 2h20 for Dublin-Cork sounds good - when the motorway opens in 2010 this time will compare favourably with driving, which is totally essential if the railway isn't to lose passengers. So you're probably saying that 4-tracking on the Northern line out of Dublin is essential too? Do you think we need it on the Maynooth line?

Ham'nd'egger

spacetweek wrote: »

Thanks for all that info Ham'n'egger. 2h20 for Dublin-Cork sounds good - when the motorway opens in 2010 this time will compare favourably with driving, which is totally essential if the railway isn't to lose passengers. So you're probably saying that 4-tracking on the Northern line out of Dublin is essential too? Do you think we need it on the Maynooth line?

It is needed to help improve times but it needs to be done from Lurgan to Belfast more so. Most of the restrictions in speed and delays on the Enterprise happen in the North; these need to be tackled first before adding track capacity. In the case of the KRC, the land was there whereas it isn't until you get to Howth Junction. Maynooth doesn't need it as it hasn't got the amount of traffic on it; you also have Docklands to play with.

ardmacha

whereas it isn't until you get to Howth Junction.

All the same if you look at Google Earth, there is space from Connolly to Clontarf Rd, then you have mostly long gardens fronting on the line, plus Clontarf golf course. There are few if any actual buildings here close to the line. It is a bit tighter around Kilbarrack, but with the replacement of embankments with retaining walls it surely can be done. The stations too are a problem. However, when you see what the likes of the Berlin S-Bahn can do with a 4 track configuration it is an important transport project.

Annatar

Annatar wrote: »

What current restrictions are there at the moment to upgrading all existing lines to highspeed lines?

Track gauge is another issue. The contractor would need to make expensive modifications to any standard design in order for it to run on Irish railways.

Apparently when IÉ went to GM for new locomotives in the 1990s, the JT42 design was the only one they had which could be converted to 5'3" but it's really a freight engine designed to haul mile long freight trains. So IÉ took what they could get and requested a HEP generator and 100mph gearing to be added to the freight spec - this became the 201 class. However there have been reliability issues as the locomotives aren't really being used what they were intended for.

Annatar

Review of points...
Placing the question of Letterkenny being put on the rail map to one side, from a point of view of population connecting Derry to Galway by rail looks viable. Faster to take the bus? Would that not be true for all rail lines in the Republic?
IF.... okay big if... that was accepted and a Derry-Sligo/Galway link was highly desireable, would routing it through Letterkenny be a runner, take advantage of the situation sotaspeak.
Okay to address "crayonism"... while acknowledging that the previous donegal rail line was of a lighter gauge, would the grading of the route still not be amply sufficient to facilitate modern rolling stock of a heavier gauge?

As a previous poster mentioned, would not upgrading the engines to 200kph, which could operate on the exiting lines, reduce the "advantage" in speed buses have?

Other considerations of increasing the speed of trains. Commuting to work in any urban centre could be spead even further. Work in Dublin, live in Galway.

I mention all the above, less to argue a point, more to find out its faults.

Annatar

I think it was my sister in law that mentioned the French build motorways and rail lines at the same time, following the same route. Saving time and money.

Anyone else get the feeling there should be a bit more thinking about such things?

ga2re2t

Annatar, bare in mind that your questions are typical of someone who is far from being an expert on transport infrastructure. I'm not a transport guru either, but I can definitely spot when somebody hasn't bothered to do their homework on the issue or to maybe actually pick up a few books and reports before asking a question.

Having said that, many transport "gurus", or whatever one wants to call them, come across as being like a stuck record, saying the same thing over and over again and shouting down on the first newbie who is making an honest attempt to try and figure out how things work. Your questions, although naive (to be honest), are refreshing in that they mirror the concerns of many Irish people who dream of a better transport network in this country. Your questions have also encouraged discussions on other areas unrelated to your original Letterkenny-Sligo post.

One common theme that runs through your questions is your belief that Irish towns and cities can be compared to foreign ones and therefore that foreign transport infrastructures could be imitated in Ireland. You need to understand that Sligo is a small town, Galway is a small town, etc. I know many "towns" in Ireland that have a population of about 1000 - 2000. These are not towns but villages. In infrastructural terms, Ireland is the equivalent of a medium sized region and therefore requires regional type infrastructure, not national or international TGV's and the like.

You made the comment: "Other considerations of increasing the speed of trains. Commuting to work in any urban centre could be spead even further. Work in Dublin, live in Galway".
This is a recipe for disaster. Almost all infrastructural problems (not just transport) in the world today are in some way linked to the fact that people are living further and further away from where they work. This is particularly pandemic in Ireland thanks to decades of rubbish planning. One of the key ways to improve public transport is to reduce the need for public transport. Sounds paradoxical maybe, but it's a way of thinking that is gaining ground amongst many planners.

Anyhows, I've ranted enough and as I said earlier I'm no expert on the matter.
All the best.

Calina

Annatar wrote: »

I think it was my sister in law that mentioned the French build motorways and rail lines at the same time, following the same route. Saving time and money.

Anyone else get the feeling there should be a bit more thinking about such things?

Why? Firstly I am not convinced it is at all true but that's another day's work.

The key point is why the trains and roads should follow the same route? Presumably they should complement each other rather than compete with each other.

Annatar

ga2re2t wrote: »

Annatar, bare in mind that your questions are typical of someone who is far from being an expert on transport infrastructure. I'm not a transport guru either, but I can definitely spot when somebody hasn't bothered to do their homework on the issue or to maybe actually pick up a few books and reports before asking a question.

And...? This is a public forum, no one said you needed a background in any subject to post a comment on a thread/comment.
I posted here to get input from others, to learn and to kick up a few questions. Maybe its a difference in how we view boards.ie
I see it as individuals just chatting about a subject, others may view it as a deadly serious forum, nearly life and death kind of stuff.

ga2re2t wrote: »

Having said that, many transport "gurus", or whatever one wants to call them, come across as being like a stuck record, saying the same thing over and over again and shouting down on the first newbie who is making an honest attempt to try and figure out how things work. Your questions, although naive (to be honest), are refreshing in that they mirror the concerns of many Irish people who dream of a better transport network in this country. Your questions have also encouraged discussions on other areas unrelated to your original Letterkenny-Sligo post.

One common theme that runs through your questions is your belief that Irish towns and cities can be compared to foreign ones and therefore that foreign transport infrastructures could be imitated in Ireland. You need to understand that Sligo is a small town, Galway is a small town, etc. I know many "towns" in Ireland that have a population of about 1000 - 2000. These are not towns but villages. In infrastructural terms, Ireland is the equivalent of a medium sized region and therefore requires regional type infrastructure, not national or international TGV's and the like.

A very good point. We do tend to, ah, "build up" what are essentially villages to town status.

ga2re2t wrote: »

You made the comment: "Other considerations of increasing the speed of trains. Commuting to work in any urban centre could be spead even further. Work in Dublin, live in Galway".
This is a recipe for disaster. Almost all infrastructural problems (not just transport) in the world today are in some way linked to the fact that people are living further and further away from where they work. This is particularly pandemic in Ireland thanks to decades of rubbish planning. One of the key ways to improve public transport is to reduce the need for public transport. Sounds paradoxical maybe, but it's a way of thinking that is gaining ground amongst many planners.

Anyhows, I've ranted enough and as I said earlier I'm no expert on the matter.
All the best.

"One of the key ways to improve public transport is to reduce the need for public transport."
Well that makes sense, kind of.
A bit like...
"One of the key ways to improve health care is to reduce the need for health care." make everyone immune to everything including injury and the standard of health care in a country would sky rocket.
Kind of.

To negate/reduce the need for transport full stop would require people working and shopping within walking distance of where they live (even then alot of people would choose the car or bus).
So either you have extremely high density, high rise accomodation at a given locale (which will probably only get you so far) or you run motorways everywhere for private transport - which will still probably give you road chaos, or you bring in proper mass delivery public transport.
(not counting the enviromental benefits of public transport).

Dublin and the whole east coast will expand, would it not be wise to place proper rail transport in there BEFORE it becomes built up and the cost of CPO's skyrocket?
To my mind, making the Galway Dublin, Cork Dublin lines 200Kph or so would act as a release valve.
Regular services of high speed trains, with minimal stops. These stops can be developed with proper sewage, educational etc needs as the line is upgraded/new services introduced. Satelite towns for the east coast. Indeed for Galway and Cork themselves.

If there is a fault with my logic by all means please tell me.

Annatar

Calina wrote: »

Why? Firstly I am not convinced it is at all true but that's another day's work.

The key point is why the trains and roads should follow the same route? Presumably they should complement each other rather than compete with each other.

Im assuming that if they are both going in a specific direction for a time they are built at the same time etc.

They could run parallel to each other for periods of time and then separate.

If I remember, Ill ask her to clarify

Ham'nd'egger

Karsini wrote: »

Track gauge is another issue. The contractor would need to make expensive modifications to any standard design in order for it to run on Irish railways.

Apparently when IÉ went to GM for new locomotives in the 1990s, the JT42 design was the only one they had which could be converted to 5'3" but it's really a freight engine designed to haul mile long freight trains. So IÉ took what they could get and requested a HEP generator and 100mph gearing to be added to the freight spec - this became the 201 class. However there have been reliability issues as the locomotives aren't really being used what they were intended for.

JT 42 is more so a designation of the engine and base chassis class than an out and out loco design itself so it is a little misleading to assume it as an loco "type" a la . It was not adapted for Head End Power at Irish Rails request; this an option available on purchase that was opted for on some of the loco's by IE. The 201 was designed for freight and passenger work; the main reason why it is considered a freight loco is due to most European railways using JT 42 units for freight. In the UK, 67's do work passenger services and are capable of working up to 125MPH on a Bo-Bo bogie. The principal of HEP is quite old and intended to replace the generator van seen on trains worldwide; indeed two of CIE'e earliest Sulzer diesels locos had HEP generators fitted.

On the purchase of same, the JT 42 was the only European option available in the power range required for Irish Rail. The 645 series had just been discontinued when tenders were invited by CIE in 199 and the 710 series was the successor. The bogies were probably the first fitted to it that wasn't at 4' 8.5" but it isn't strictly correct to say that it was the only model adaptable. The higher level of failures on 201 classes are attributed to it running at constant high revs when HEP kicks in; however, more Enterprise failures are down to a fault in the brakes in the carriages and not just the loco class themself. There is also an issue with the Enterprise carriages being one car longer than they initially were planned for; this puts extra strain on the loco's given the steep climbs on Dublin-Belfast trips. There is some 201's that never run HEP and never run Dublin Belfast and they have very high availability rates.

icdg

spacetweek wrote: »

Thanks for all that info Ham'n'egger. 2h20 for Dublin-Cork sounds good - when the motorway opens in 2010 this time will compare favourably with driving, which is totally essential if the railway isn't to lose passengers. So you're probably saying that 4-tracking on the Northern line out of Dublin is essential too? Do you think we need it on the Maynooth line?

Maynooth line would benifit massively from it, particularly if the Meath commuter service goes ahead which will mean more trains on less trackspace. But there's a slight, well okay, massive problem. On one side of the line you have the canal. On the other side you have houses built almost right up to the trackbed in cases. There isn't the room for four tracking (without a huge amount of CPOs of housing estates) though a couple of passing loops could be put in further out in the rural sections between Coolmine-Clonsilla, Clonsilla-Leixlip, and Leixlip-Maynooth to ease congestion. Electrification I think is the most that can be done for it at the moment.

In fairness, the Maynooth line has the advantage that there's only a handful of InterCity trains a day running to Sligo on it and practically no freight these days. The Western Commuter service otherwise has the line to itself (for now). Wheras the Kildare line has to share track space with every InterCity train running out of Hueston - thats Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford, Tralee, and Westport trains all running on the same track as the South Western Commuter service. It badly needed four-tracking (and it needs electrification too).

OTK

Annatar wrote: »

If there is a fault with my logic by all means please tell me.

OK

Annatar wrote:

To negate/reduce the need for transport full stop would require people working and shopping within walking distance of where they live (even then alot of people would choose the car or bus).

Yes

Annatar wrote:

So either you have extremely high density, high rise accomodation at a given locale (which will probably only get you so far)

You seem to equate high rise and high density yet these are two distinct things. You can have high rise without high density and low rise with high density. Once an area is at the size limit of walkability, connect it to another walkable area by public transport.

Annatar wrote:

or you run motorways everywhere for private transport - which will still probably give you road chaos, or you bring in proper mass delivery public transport.

Unfortunately, building a railway line between two towns will not cause a switch from road to rail on its own. Cars are more convenient - particularly for people who live far apart from each other in sprawling exurbs and rural isolated dwellings.

Annatar

A new report on Sligo - Letterkenny - Derry rail


http://oceanfm.ie/news/2009/05/19/750000-passengers-yearly-for-sligoderry-rail/

not sure who did the report or what exactly in contains. I just thought Id mention.

corktina

file that under "FICTION"

PLEASE....

DWCommuter

corktina wrote: »

file that under "FICTION"

PLEASE....

You mean SCIENCE FICTION.

paulm17781

That article wrote:

A rail-link between Sligo and Derry could attract up to 750,000 passenger journeys per year - a new study has revealed.

Well, it could. It pretty much definitely won't but it could.

dowlingm

Annatar wrote: »

not sure who did the report or what exactly in contains.

Brian Guckian is the Walter Mitty of rail transport, but one who is absolutely awesome at charming people into printing his press releases.

[edit to note - to be the Walter Mitty of a rail mode which brings out so many fantasists, and I say that as one who has wielded the odd crayon myself, is saying something]