Unfair Criticism of Irish Rail Inter-City Speeds

Propellerhead

paulm17781 wrote: »

What's the journey time between Sligo and Maynooth like now compared to 1973? No doubt services have improved but I see no reason that stretch should have gotten slower.

Maynooth station didn't reopen until the end of 1981. All services to Sligo and Galway on the Midland line in the 1970s were non-stop to Mullingar.

Ham'nd'egger

weehamster wrote: »

:cool: It is quite clear from that question that you have never had the fortune of travelling on rail in Europe. If you actually had, you would have never asked that question.

No I have not; hence me asking for examples of European trips that link a city of 1 million to town/cities of between 2,000 and 30,000 as our railways would; Belfast and Cork services excepted. Citing TGV or Eurostar type high speed services from Paris, Brussels are not doing what a Dublin-Sligo does; how well do these sort of services fare in other EU states in terms of times etc.

markpb

Hamndegger wrote: »

No I have not; hence me asking for examples of European trips that link a city of 1 million to town/cities of between 2,000 and 30,000 as our railways would; Belfast and Cork services excepted. Citing TGV or Eurostar type high speed services from Paris, Brussels are not doing what a Dublin-Sligo does; how well do these sort of services fare in other EU states in terms of times etc.

In my example earlier, Irish Rail was almost three times slower than SNCF. Apart from the absolutely huge difference in time, Irish Rail was almost 40% more expensive than booking in advance with SNCF.

Marseilles (860k) to Valence (66k) is 214km which is 28% longer than Dublin - Belfast and serves smaller towns but only takes half the time (1h6) and costs €5 less return.

Calina

Hamndegger wrote: »

No I have not; hence me asking for examples of European trips that link a city of 1 million to town/cities of between 2,000 and 30,000 as our railways would; Belfast and Cork services excepted. Citing TGV or Eurostar type high speed services from Paris, Brussels are not doing what a Dublin-Sligo does; how well do these sort of services fare in other EU states in terms of times etc.

The SNCF TGVs from Paris to Brittany stop in Auray which has a population of 10,000.

Is that good enough an example for you?

loyatemu

Calina wrote: »

The SNCF TGVs from Paris to Brittany stop in Auray which has a population of 10,000.

Is that good enough an example for you?

yeah but they actually go to Brest which has a population over 100k. Just because they stop in a smaller town along the way does not make them a valid comparison to the Sligo line. I'd imagine the population along the whole of that corridor is not far off the entire population of Ireland (it also passes through Le Mans, Rennes etc).

I'm not defending IE in any way - their journey times are shocking, but comparing them to TGV is ludicrous.

Saruman

I notice i drive faster than our trains... most obvious being on the M4 (newer section). The trains run beside the motorway for a bit and i pull ahead so they are clearly going slower than 120kph. Its faster to drive from Castleknock to Mullingar by over 30 mins (maybe 40) than to get on a train.

Calina

loyatemu wrote: »

yeah but they actually go to Brest which has a population over 100k. Just because they stop in a smaller town along the way does not make them a valid comparison to the Sligo line. I'd imagine the population along the whole of that corridor is not far off the entire population of Ireland (it also passes through Le Mans, Rennes etc).

I'm not defending IE in any way - their journey times are shocking, but comparing them to TGV is ludicrous.

No, they don't, the trains stopping in Auray go to Quimper, population 67000. In any case, there is also the issue that it is a relevant comparison for the Cork and Belfast lines which are not really fast enough either. Sligo is just being used as an extreme example.

In any case, the population of Brittany is 4.3million and their internal rail connections are still far better than ours given decent links between Rennes and Brest and Quimper, for example. Additionally, the public transport in each of these cities is far, far better than it is in any of our cities, Dublin included.

It's all too easy to look for excuses as to why our public transport - long distance rail and local - is not up to scratch. It's what we do. It would be far more in our line to build viable public transport instead of going ochon oh woe is us, we haven't the population and, the next, and in the past most popular excuse - we don't have the money.

jjbrien

paulm17781 wrote: »

I don't know about Norway or Finland but Sweden is 4 - 5 times the size or Ireland with 9 million people. If you include the North, we're about 6m, I think 4.5M if you exclude it.

There is no reason the Swede's can and we can't... Other than they're proud of things like this.

The size of Norway is massive it takes 7 hours to go from Bergen to Oslo they have a good high speed network there we dont have railway lines long enough to go high speed here.

ardmacha

Helsinki - Turku is 2km further than Dublin - Belfast but they do it in 20 mins less, this kind of improvement would be very achievable.

dereko1969

how? and at what cost?

paulm17781

jjbrien wrote: »

The size of Norway is massive it takes 7 hours to go from Bergen to Oslo they have a good high speed network there we dont have railway lines long enough to go high speed here.

As said above Cork - Dublin (airport maybe) - Belfast. New lines.

ardmacha

As far I as know the Finns did not build new lines, they introduced the Pendolino tilting trains.

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/finland/



Now of course some improvements on the line might be needed, notably quad track on the approaches to Dublin and Belfast and signalling improvements. It seems to me that in the Irish context whole new lines are not economic generally, improved lines probably are realistic though.

serfboard

ardmacha wrote: »

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/finland/

It seems to me that in the Irish context whole new lines are not economic generally, improved lines probably are realistic though.

From that website: "The Vali 2012 project aims to push rail's market share of travel in Finland up from an already impressive 60% of internal long-distance travel".

Anyone have any idea of the comparable share of rail in Ireland now? Furthermore, would you like to hazard a guess at what it's likely to be after the motorway projects are completed making road journeys preferable to rail?

Metrobest

The distance from Cork - Belfast is not significant, ie. little over 400km. And by the way, international high speed lines benefit from EU subsidies, so that's why Cork - Belfast would actually be more economic than Cork to Dublin.

Now let's have a look at potential journey times on an Irish HST. Madrid - Barcelona is 500km and takes 2.5 hours so with a proper high speed line you would expect to travel from Cork to Belfast in 2 hours, Cork to Dublin airport in 1 hour, Belfast to dublin city centre in 45 minutes, Kilkenny to Dublin airport in 30 minutes, Drogheda to Dublin centre in 20 minutes. These figures are conservative estimates.

With such transport links in place, Dublin airport grow further and become a key hub, the Irish equivilent of Schipol. Instead of subsidies to regional airports, the focus would be on upgrading existing regional rail services into the High Speed net, for example Kerry and Limerick into the Cork line, Waterford into Kilkennny and Galway into Dublin. If Aer Lingus invested in the line (as KLM does in Holland), it would be possible to buy a train + plane codeshared ticket from the USA into any high speed station, for example San Francisco - Belfast.

Fundamentally, High Speed Rail is a political decision. Zapatero in Spain has made the decision to invest the state's money and it is already yielding benefits. He is looking beyond the short term cost (€250 Billion is a lot of money for the struggling Spanish ecomony).

Nostradamus

paulm17781 wrote: »

As said above Cork - Dublin (airport maybe) - Belfast. New lines.

Built to international gauge and operated by a North-South consortium outside the domain of CIE and Tanslink.

It would transform this country bigtime.

patrickc

Nostradamus wrote: »

The only closed station on that section I can think of between then and now is Mosney and most trains missed that. So what other stations on the Dublin-Dundalk route have closed since the 1970's? I can't think of any off hand.

Dunleer and castlebellingham, not sure what year the latter closed though.

jjbrien

ardmacha wrote: »

As far I as know the Finns did not build new lines, they introduced the Pendolino tilting trains.

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/finland/



Now of course some improvements on the line might be needed, notably quad track on the approaches to Dublin and Belfast and signalling improvements. It seems to me that in the Irish context whole new lines are not economic generally, improved lines probably are realistic though.

In order to build a high speed line on the Dublin Belfast and Dublin - Cork lines you would have to add 2 extra tracks to allow slower services like the arrow and dart to move along and the high speed trains to pass stations without having to slow down. like what they did in Norway http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/gardermoen/

paulm17781

jjbrien wrote: »

In order to build a high speed line on the Dublin Belfast and Dublin - Cork lines you would have to add 2 extra tracks to allow slower services like the arrow and dart to move along and the high speed trains to pass stations without having to slow down. like what they did in Norway http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/gardermoen/

Or build a brand new route, more direct and better quality.

jjbrien

paulm17781 wrote: »

Or build a brand new route, more direct and better quality.

they did exactly that in norway for 30km most of which a big tunnell would be nice here but could you imagin how long it would take just look at the port tunnell:rolleyes:

Ham'nd'egger

Metrobest wrote: »

The distance from Cork - Belfast is not significant, ie. little over 400km. And by the way, international high speed lines benefit from EU subsidies, so that's why Cork - Belfast would actually be more economic than Cork to Dublin.

Now let's have a look at potential journey times on an Irish HST. Madrid - Barcelona is 500km and takes 2.5 hours so with a proper high speed line you would expect to travel from Cork to Belfast in 2 hours, Cork to Dublin airport in 1 hour, Belfast to dublin city centre in 45 minutes, Kilkenny to Dublin airport in 30 minutes, Drogheda to Dublin centre in 20 minutes. These figures are conservative estimates.

With such transport links in place, Dublin airport grow further and become a key hub, the Irish equivilent of Schipol. Instead of subsidies to regional airports, the focus would be on upgrading existing regional rail services into the High Speed net, for example Kerry and Limerick into the Cork line, Waterford into Kilkennny and Galway into Dublin. If Aer Lingus invested in the line (as KLM does in Holland), it would be possible to buy a train + plane codeshared ticket from the USA into any high speed station, for example San Francisco - Belfast.

Fundamentally, High Speed Rail is a political decision. Zapatero in Spain has made the decision to invest the state's money and it is already yielding benefits. He is looking beyond the short term cost (€250 Billion is a lot of money for the struggling Spanish ecomony).

The distances are not far off each other (circa 450KM Cork-Belfast); the populations involved and monies are light years away. €250 billion as you say. (Which is way more than our GDP) for Madrid and Barcelona; two cities each with regional populations that are not far off that on this island.

You are correct in saying that political will is essential for any large scale improvement to be made on the networks here.

parsi

BrianD wrote: »

And the polite French gentleman will go on strike for a month at the drop of a hat.

Actually as you mention it he's on strike today ! Along with a clutch of others.

de breeze

Metrobest wrote: »

The distance from Cork - Belfast is not significant, ie. little over 400km. And by the way, international high speed lines benefit from EU subsidies, so that's why Cork - Belfast would actually be more economic than Cork to Dublin.

Now let's have a look at potential journey times on an Irish HST. Madrid - Barcelona is 500km and takes 2.5 hours so with a proper high speed line you would expect to travel from Cork to Belfast in 2 hours, Cork to Dublin airport in 1 hour, Belfast to dublin city centre in 45 minutes, Kilkenny to Dublin airport in 30 minutes, Drogheda to Dublin centre in 20 minutes. These figures are conservative estimates.

With such transport links in place, Dublin airport grow further and become a key hub, the Irish equivilent of Schipol. Instead of subsidies to regional airports, the focus would be on upgrading existing regional rail services into the High Speed net, for example Kerry and Limerick into the Cork line, Waterford into Kilkennny and Galway into Dublin. If Aer Lingus invested in the line (as KLM does in Holland), it would be possible to buy a train + plane codeshared ticket from the USA into any high speed station, for example San Francisco - Belfast.

Fundamentally, High Speed Rail is a political decision. Zapatero in Spain has made the decision to invest the state's money and it is already yielding benefits. He is looking beyond the short term cost (€250 Billion is a lot of money for the struggling Spanish ecomony).

There is no way this 250 Bn figure is correct. The entire transport programme here over 10 years to 2015 is 'only' €35Bn. There was a study on upgrade options Dublin-Belfast by Booze Allen Hamilton (2006) It came up with a figure for high speed link (140mph trains) at £1.5Bn which is probably the amount we've invested in the M1 motorway.

The airline link idea is brilliant but IR have no plans at present to link to the airport.

Ham'nd'egger

de breeze wrote: »

There is no way this 250 Bn figure is correct. The entire transport programme here over 10 years to 2015 is 'only' €35Bn. There was a study on upgrade options Dublin-Belfast by Booze Allen Hamilton (2006) It came up with a figure for high speed link (140mph trains) at £1.5Bn which is probably the amount we've invested in the M1 motorway.

The airline link idea is brilliant but IR have no plans at present to link to the airport.

Irish Rail have a plan to link Dublin Airport for some years now but the powers that be won't allow them to act on this.

Metrobest

de breeze wrote: »

There is no way this 250 Bn figure is correct. The entire transport programme here over 10 years to 2015 is 'only' €35Bn. There was a study on upgrade options Dublin-Belfast by Booze Allen Hamilton (2006) It came up with a figure for high speed link (140mph trains) at £1.5Bn which is probably the amount we've invested in the M1 motorway.

The airline link idea is brilliant but IR have no plans at present to link to the airport.

It's €250bn for a vast programme of AVE high speed rail lines which will give Spain the biggest high speed network in the world, not just the Barcelona-Madrid line. I cannot give you a breakdown of what each individual line is costing because in Spain no-one discusses the cost of individual infrastrcture projects, the media never mentions it, they just identify a need and take the decision at political level to build it. It's a less consultative form of planning but it gets things done faster.

High speed as expensive though because it has to be grade and trajectory consistent, which means elevation in sections and tunnels in others.

As I said before, the infrastructure projects underway in Spain right now are light years ahead of Ireland. What needs to be realised in Ireland is that when all the Transport 21 Projects are done, all the motorway networks in place, Ireland is still going to be 20 years behind the rest of Europe in high speed and urban rail. It's a question of spend now or spend later. I say better spend now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVE

Ham'nd'egger

Metrobest wrote: »

It's €250bn for a vast programme of AVE high speed rail lines which will give Spain the biggest high speed network in the world, not just the Barcelona-Madrid line. I cannot give you a breakdown of what each individual line is costing because in Spain no-one discusses the cost of individual infrastrcture projects, the media never mentions it, they just identify a need and take the decision at political level to build it. It's a less consultative form of planning but it gets things done faster.

High speed as expensive though because it has to be grade and trajectory consistent, which means elevation in sections and tunnels in others.

As I said before, the infrastructure projects underway in Spain right now are light years ahead of Ireland. What needs to be realised in Ireland is that when all the Transport 21 Projects are done, all the motorway networks in place, Ireland is still going to be 20 years behind the rest of Europe in high speed and urban rail. It's a question of spend now or spend later. I say better spend now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVE

One line, 100 lines; €250 Billion is still almost twice our GDP and we don't have a fraction of the souls to move that other countries have. Whatever about other solutions to increase speeds, the question still boils down to cash, needs and desire to solve same.

icdg

Nostradamus wrote: »

Built to international gauge and operated by a North-South consortium outside the domain of CIE and Tanslink.

It would transform this country bigtime.

It would also, if built on the same permanent way as the current rail line, mean the end of the DART north of Connolly and the Northern Commuter service as we know it. It would have to be a a greenfield project with new seperate stations etc.

Realistically, an upgrade project would involve putting in a third rail line whereever possible (it would be more like extended passing loops), and ordering in new rolling stock including HST-style power cars that can handle 125mph, and doing something with the Boyne viaduct, I don't know if it can be demolished and replaced with a two-track bridge though.

Victor

Examiner story http://www.irishexaminer.com/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=ireland-qqqm=ireland-qqqa=ireland-qqqid=63096-qqqx=1.asp

DWCommuter

I saw that story and I think its a little unfair of Nostradamus to be so totally critical of it. But in saying that, I can appreciate some of what he said. Lets look at some facts.

In the 1970s the track in Ireland was not and I stress, NOT, in a particularly poor condition. It was during the 70s that the trackwork required renewal and it was only on the Cork line that any renewal was taking place. By the 80s the track had deterioated due to lack of renewal and 100 tonne locomotives tearing the **** out of it. Journey times in the 70s were progressive as railway management in the 70s had perhaps the distinction of being the most ambitious team in the history of CIE. Plans were laid out, new timetables were devised, but all of it backfired when the Government didn't match this with investment of any noteworthy amount. Hence the network started to reach a level of real decline by the mid 80s. Speeds came down. Fast forward to today and despite renewal of the network, new and very different factors have entered the equation.

1. The padding in the Timetable prevents ambitious timings.
2. Additional commuter services, particularly in the Dublin area have slowed intercity potential. The KRP is evidence enough of how solutions need to be found. In fact the DART has deterioated uncontrollably due to the additional services forced in beside it.
3. IE have foolishly focused on increased services rather than increased speeds, despite the huge threat posed to them by the ever improving inter urban road network.

I have been very vocal about the motorway threat and I believe it will kill off intercity rail in its present form. I don't subscribe (for historically irish reasons)to the huge sums talked about here for high speed rail, but I would be hugely critical of IE for not factoring in "some vision" during On-Track 2000, that allowed for at least 125mph on the Cork line and at least 90mph on all other lines. IE, while constrained by certain factors, have no balls whatsoever.

As for my ex-colleagues comments in that article about the 70s timetable...well Im shocked actually, as its a well known fact that back then CIE were breaking many health and safety laws and trains were running at speeds and in conditions that would not be tolerated by todays modern standards, standards that were being more rigidly applied at the time, elsewhere in Europe. High speeds over poor track was a contributing factor in the Knockcroghery accident. BREL reported on Irish Railways in the early 90s and found them to be operationally unsafe due to practises. Journey times may be slightly slower now, but much of it is due to trains travelling at correct speeds in certain conditions and the congestion issues that have arisen.

I was a huge supporter of the journey time argument a few years back. So was Nostradamus. But history and real research can teach you a thing or two. Overall the article is misleading and should be dismissed as a pitiful attempt at regenerating old press releases in an attempt to stem the tide of public indifference to that organisations activities. Its a shame, but its true and Im probably in trouble now for saying it.:eek:

Ham'nd'egger

icdg wrote: »

It would also, if built on the same permanent way as the current rail line, mean the end of the DART north of Connolly and the Northern Commuter service as we know it. It would have to be a a greenfield project with new seperate stations etc.

Realistically, an upgrade project would involve putting in a third rail line whereever possible (it would be more like extended passing loops), and ordering in new rolling stock including HST-style power cars that can handle 125mph, and doing something with the Boyne viaduct, I don't know if it can be demolished and replaced with a two-track bridge though.

It was built to accommodate two trains when built but for safely reasons two trains were never allowed on it. Increasing it to two tracks would not improve speeds or times en route so there isn't any benefit in doing so; savings would be just 1-2 minutes at best.

jank

Wasnt there also a study for a higher speed link for the cork dublin route.

When the motorways are in place it will be very easy to get from a to b quicker then the train. We have a small country. Very ideal for trains but why the hell dont we use them. Is it that we are afraid of them as it might indicate that the brits actually did something for us?