This is why we need to build a bridge to the UK [Split from Mark 3 thread]

Stonewolf

corktina wrote: »

its a locospotter issue. Locosexuals like locos and dont like units, it doesnt matter to them that Multiple units are much more efficent, they like to have a proper loco to write its number down. I speak with authority here :-)

Freight in Ireland is insufficent in enough bulk to sustain the use of rail. Its a sad fact but most railfreight invloves road transfer at one end or the other and once its on truck for the short journeys likely here, it may as well stay on a truck for the whole journey. Basically rail has had its day and must eke out a living on the crumbs the existing infrastructure allows it to carry.

This is why we need to build a bridge to the UK, it's not like it'd be expensive compared to some of the other rubbish we've been spending our money on.

Cookie_Monster

corktina wrote: »

I don't know if thats the case. I think the manufacturer might have paid for that. If I remember rightly , the idea was to get a loco here quickly for acceptance trials in advance of the rest of the fleet. In that case, Id imagine the loco wasn't actaualy CIE proerrty at the time

I'm almost sure it was paid for by IE. I remember there being controversy about it because the cost was almost exactly the same as being able to buy another 201 with general opinion saying that was what should have happened.

centre15 wrote:

Thanks, and without a 201 would the train not be able to run?

I'm sure an 071 could fill in if required for some reason, no?

corktina wrote:

Freight in Ireland is insufficent in enough bulk to sustain the use of rail. Its a sad fact but most railfreight invloves road transfer at one end or the other and once its on truck for the short journeys likely here, it may as well stay on a truck for the whole journey. Basically rail has had its day and must eke out a living on the crumbs the existing infrastructure allows it to carry.

Freight would be sufficient for some operations if IE allowed it. Coke, Fyffes & Guinness spring to mind immediately, the volume would justify it, especially if going straight to port and shipped

corktina

I bow to your knowledge of CIE, I'm only surmising

Yes a 071 would do if it's compatible with Mk4s (don't know)

It isnt only a matter of volume, its also cost. Road Transport is often quicker and cheaper. Guinness maybe but Fyffes and Coke? These are items requiring to be distrubuted to every grocery shop in every town and village, rail can't do that. Road can.

corktina

Stonewolf wrote: »

This is why we need to build a bridge to the UK, it's not like it'd be expensive compared to some of the other rubbish we've been spending our money on.

some bridge....

foggy_lad

Stonewolf wrote: »

If we had sufficient good quality railcar or consist with power car stock then this wouldn't be the massive issue some people on here make it out to be. The major problem with loco haulage is IEs bizarre hatred of freight which is the driving force behind the mothballing of locomotives early in thier useful life which will, down the line, result in problems carrying out PW work and rescuing failed sets.

as stated before the major problem with locos is the cost of staff but this is due to having staff standing around all day doing nothing because they cant be reassigned or made redundant due to the unions.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I'm sure an 071 could fill in if required for some reason, no?

irish rail would probably prefer a bus transfer to save a few euros

Freight would be sufficient for some operations if IE allowed it. Coke, Fyffes & Guinness spring to mind immediately, the volume would justify it, especially if going straight to port and shipped

have you asked coke fyffes and guinness if they would switch to rail when it will mean double handling of most stock? this is where it becomes very costly not the actual rail freight.

moving kegs/bulk liquids/boxes of banannas from yard onto lorries then from factory to freight yard then onto trains then to destination and back onto a lorry for distribution to wholesalers etc is not just time consuming but madly expensive! it is not the middle of the last century when there were thousands employed at tuppence a day loading and unloading trains in freight yards and boats at docks.

the way it is done now is far cheaper and faster stock is loaded onto a lorry and driven to its final destination without any of the costly manhandling!

Cookie_Monster

corktina wrote: »

It isnt only a matter of volume, its also cost. Road Transport is often quicker and cheaper. Guinness maybe but Fyffes and Coke? These are items requiring to be distrubuted to every grocery shop in every town and village, rail can't do that. Road can.

these were companies mentioned in the recent news article who are looking to use the freight. Dunno about Fyffes but Coke would use it to ship the solid base out of Ireland to other countries & plants. There were a few others mentioned also that I can't remember.


And as for the DVT it is only generator power at the moment, but can be converted to motive power if another engine was added and minimal modifaction, as was planned as an option.

Stonewolf

corktina wrote: »

some bridge....

When you put it in context it's not as mad as you might think. We spent 25 billion rescuing a zombie bank and are being told we may need to spend more. We could, for that price build a road and rail bridge from Dublin to Holyhead at a height suitable for shipping to pass underneath. The economic benefits would be considerable and the improved transport links would increase attractiveness. The real question is why we haven't done it yet.

corktina

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

these were companies mentioned in the recent news article who are looking to use the freight. Dunno about Fyffes but Coke would use it to ship the solid base out of Ireland to other countries & plants. There were a few others mentioned also that I can't remember.


.

would there be enough of this solid base stuff to fill a train on a regular basis Where is it manufactired? I don't think taking it by train would be viable unless theres a long haul involved and with ports all round our coast, there are few journeys from factory to port that are over 100 miles...very few indeed. I can see Fyffes ships calling to drop off a consignment on a regualr basis but these would then be sent to all points of the compass so wouldn't be a bulk haulage job at all.

corktina

Stonewolf wrote: »

When you put it in context it's not as mad as you might think. We spent 25 billion rescuing a zombie bank and are being told we may need to spend more. We could, for that price build a road and rail bridge from Dublin to Holyhead at a height suitable for shipping to pass underneath. The economic benefits would be considerable and the improved transport links would increase attractiveness. The real question is why we haven't done it yet.

um thats 66 miles....

Stonewolf

corktina wrote: »

um thats 66 miles....

So? Length is just a matter of adding additional spans. It's in an area that's not prone to extremes of climate with minimal siesmic activity.

The major difficulties are depth (of the sea) and height (to allow shipping underneath) and there are bridges out there that conquer both of those factors. The only other big problem is the danger of ships striking the piers but there are methods of dealing with this also.

So basically, the only major obstacle is a matter of scale (It would also have to be a big bridge to accomodate a wide motorway, rail link and other useful stuff like utility interconnectors).

mickydoomsux

You're proposing the building of the second longest bridge in the World?

And which country would build this bridge?

Stonewolf

mickydoomsux wrote: »

You're proposing the building of the second longest bridge in the World?

No, I'm proposing we build a bridge between Dublin and Holyhead, if it's a really long one then that's the way it is.

mickydoomsux wrote: »

And which country would build this bridge?

See what I said above about the cost of bailing out our banks for which we get very little return. Put in that context this isn't crazy, it's physically possible and has a considerably better return.

corktina

we've no money...we have a dozen or so ships a day full of trucks and cars that MIGHT use the bridge.... some would want to drive on the road part and others might want to use the rail facility, lessening the almost toally invisible viability of both.....

come on , you're winding us up aren't you?

Oliver1985

Did the Greens not wanna build a rail tunnel?

Stonewolf

corktina wrote: »

we've no money...we have a dozen or so ships a day full of trucks and cars that MIGHT use the bridge.... some would want to drive on the road part and others might want to use the rail facility, lessening the almost toally invisible viability of both.....

come on , you're winding us up aren't you?

We're getting pretty far off topic now but a bridge should be considered not just in terms of one narrow benefit, there's a lot of traffic that would use it.

The argument that rail doesn't take produce door to door is valid but that's not the kind of freight rail should be targetting. Ships can't go door to door either but we don't see people claiming we should scuttle them all for it. Also this whole idea of hundreds of guys labouring to move stuff from one van to another is antiquated. Rail freight is all about two things: bulk and container.

Bulk is ideal for rail, so ideal it's mad to move it by road where rail is an option. You run a siding into the source and a siding into the destination and set up a number of trains at set intervals.

Container is more like the goods traffic of old except it's all standardised. You fill up your container, truck it to the rail yard and then the whole container as a unit is put on the train. At the destination it can go on a ship, or a truck, or whatever, that's the beauty of intermodal. The only thing that puts a damper on container freight by rail is whether or not your flows mesh with those offered by the railway and whether the destination is close enough to just go by truck. If you can't fill a container then you shouldn't use rail or should use a company that puts your stuff in a container with stuff going to the same place.

Ireland should be targetting container flows, running container trains from freight yard to harbour (or more rarely internal freight). Bulk needs industries to be sited not in the middle of the bog because 100 years ago some people spoke Irish there but near rail lines where they can be rail connected with thier own private yards to allow flows from producer to consumer or to/from ports.

How would the bridge benefit rail freight? The markets for bulk could be expanded allowing it to be moved across the Irish sea without transshippment twice. Container flows destined for the UK could be moved via rail onto the UK freight network and those destined fro further afield could take advantage of better connections to UK ports providing better choice of carrier and economy of scale. This would help growth in trade across the Irish sea which in turn would increase traffic over the bridge.

foggy_lad

Stonewolf wrote: »

Container is more like the goods traffic of old except it's all standardised. You fill up your container, truck it to the rail yard and then the whole container as a unit is put on the train. At the destination it can go on a ship, or a truck, or whatever, that's the beauty of intermodal. The only thing that puts a damper on container freight by rail is whether or not your flows mesh with those offered by the railway and whether the destination is close enough to just go by truck. If you can't fill a container then you shouldn't use rail or should use a company that puts your stuff in a container with stuff going to the same place.

Ireland should be targetting container flows, running container trains from freight yard to harbour (or more rarely internal freight). Bulk needs industries to be sited not in the middle of the bog because 100 years ago some people spoke Irish there but near rail lines where they can be rail connected with thier own private yards to allow flows from producer to consumer or to/from ports.

there are not enough companies that would fill a container regularly enough to get any benefit and they would still use road due to getting to the customer/destination a lot faster!

this still does not tackle the double handling of goods though which is where the issue is for most companies as even lifting a container off a lorry onto a train then lifting it onto a ship or other lorry at the other end costs and then when it reaches its final port it needs to be manhandled yet again which is just too expensive!

Stonewolf

foggy_lad wrote: »

there are not enough companies that would fill a container regularly enough to get any benefit and they would still use road due to getting to the customer/destination a lot faster!

You're still thinking too small. They type of freight flows that rail targets these days are not a half dozen chairs from paddy joes carpentry to the furniture shop 50 miles way. Trucks are very good at that kind of thing and that's their place in the grand scheme of things.

Rail freight targets larger flows with fixed origin and destination points. An example of which might be:
Factory A produces chair legs
Factory B produces chair seats
Factory C produces chair backs
Factory D assembles chairs

Bulk flows from sawmills bring wood to A, B and C which ship thier produce to D via container. D sends out the completed chairs via container to its distributors who truck it to shops.

mickydoomsux

A lot of what you describe with producer owned rail depots and lines was implemented before in Ireland with varying degrees of success.

The country is simply too small both landmass wise and population wise for there to be enough of a demand for bulk freight by rail. A lot of companies who used to use IE to transport their goods gave up on the idea years ago because you were still trucking it to the loading point for the train,loading it, transporting it by rail, and then unloading it to a truck on the other side to put it on a ferry or bring it to its final destination. IE got cut out as the un-needed middleman. Just leave it on the truck and drive it the whole way. The roads have improved greatly in recent times so it's probably quicker than running it on even the quietest rail line in the country.

It all comes down to poor planning on behalf of IE and the county councils. Nothing joins up properly at all in this country.

foggy_lad

Stonewolf wrote: »

You're still thinking too small. They type of freight flows that rail targets these days are not a half dozen chairs from paddy joes carpentry to the furniture shop 50 miles way. Trucks are very good at that kind of thing and that's their place in the grand scheme of things.

Rail freight targets larger flows with fixed origin and destination points. An example of which might be:
Factory A produces chair legs
Factory B produces chair seats
Factory C produces chair backs
Factory D assembles chairs

Bulk flows from sawmills bring wood to A, B and C which ship thier produce to D via container. D sends out the completed chairs via container to its distributors who truck it to shops.

ireland just does not have this type of industry in large enough quantities to make railfeight an option. and with irish rail there would be two months supply of legs or chair seats or backs arrive all at once but the legs or other parts would take months to find!

mickydoomsux

There's already a full trains worth of timber beng moved into Waterford every weekday as it is.

And where does it go? On to trucks and onto the ferry. There's no demand for it here.

foggy_lad

and back on topic loco hauled passenger trains are a thing of the past so the future for all those rotting mark3 carriages is bleak! they will rot because they will NEVER sell.

they may be used to keep a viaduct from washing out to sea someday?

corktina

mickydoomsux wrote: »

There's already a full trains worth of timber beng moved into Waterford every weekday as it is.

And where does it go? On to trucks and onto the ferry. There's no demand for it here.

That is an extreme and marginal flow which just about goes far enough to be just viable (with cross subsidy from the passenger trains paying for the track maintennce etc.) The fact is a dozen ships a days worth of traffic is not enough by a long way to justify a 66 mile bridge and thats before we even discuss the break of gauge on the railways.we do not have a manufacturing base or long hauls to the port. We have a population scattered all over the place with only one real concentration (conveniantly by the docks...)

There IS no flow of freight out there for the railways to exploit.Its a myth, What there is is all small flows which Road transport can do it quicker and cheaper and more efficently.

Judgement Day

Why stop at a bridge to England, why not bypass it and head straight for Europe? When are people in Ireland going to wake up to the fact that we are a sparsely populated rock on the extremity of Europe with virtually no industry, and no reason to need a tunnel or bridge to anywhere?:rolleyes:

corktina

Judgement Day wrote: »

Why stop at a bridge to England, why not bypass it and head straight for Europe? When are people in Ireland going to wake up to the fact that we are a sparsely populated rock on the extremity of Europe with virtually no industry, and no reason to need a tunnel or bridge to anywhere?:rolleyes:

or a railway line up the west of ireland to scatter the sheep

center15

Judgement Day wrote: »

Why stop at a bridge to England, why not bypass it and head straight for Europe? When are people in Ireland going to wake up to the fact that we are a sparsely populated rock on the extremity of Europe with virtually no industry, and no reason to need a tunnel or bridge to anywhere?:rolleyes:

Sorry to say to you're right!

Run_to_da_hills

Judgement Day wrote: »

Why stop at a bridge to England, why not bypass it and head straight for Europe? When are people in Ireland going to wake up to the fact that we are a sparsely populated rock on the extremity of Europe with virtually no industry, and no reason to need a tunnel or bridge to anywhere?:rolleyes:

It would help with the forthcoming flood of emigration.

corktina

a one-way bridge would be cheaper of course...

Stonewolf

I thought we'd finished this conversation?