Irish Times - Proposal to bring train journey times between cities below two hours

L1011

monument wrote: »

And at the point where you are relying on the "hidden benefits" to cover all the cost of the road network, questions have to be asked if different mixes (ie more rail along with road projects) would be better overall and reducing the overall costs of the total transport network.

Except something tells me that when you use actual reliable figures, we'll be nowhere near needing to use them. There are sufficient tax billions drained from motorists as it stands - VRT, VAT (cars, fuel), motor tax, insurance premium levy

And when you are relying on unverifiable "hidden costs" that would exist whatever network was in place, you've lost the argument.

As is dismissing out of hand the benefits provided to something you're trying to claim as a cost...

edit: you also have to consider that the state has been taking motoring taxation for near on 90 years and has only done any form of serious investment - which it appears was still covered by the taxation alone - for about 10. There's 80 years of a surplus to burn through should you ever exceed breakeven

monument

MYOB wrote: »

Except something tells me that when you use actual reliable figures, we'll be nowhere near needing to use them. There are sufficient tax billions drained from motorists as it stands - VRT, VAT (cars, fuel), motor tax, insurance premium levy

I supposed that's the problem here, even very solid research will never be seen as "actual reliable figures" by anybody who disagrees with the research even if there are no problems with it.

MYOB wrote: »

And when you are relying on unverifiable "hidden costs" that would exist whatever network was in place, you've lost the argument.

Well, I haven't lost the argument in that case.

The actual and hidden costs are lowered by a greater reliance on rail, other public transport, and making it attractive for people to walk (or, dare I say it) cycle for at the very least all the stupidly short journeys currently done by car. If you want to debate any of this it may be best to start a new thread and we can get back to talking about the costs of the current road network here?

As I said before, with for example the motorway network I'm not suggesting any kind of big bang switch from road to rail in the short term -- that'd be a waste of the investment made (even if I think the investment should have previous been split better between road rail -- that's history now).

But the investment that Irish Rail proposes over a number of years isn't that large -- a few posters earlier in the thread berated it for lacking ambition. We're talking about getting upgrading some of the main parts of the rail network to allow speeds 160km/h / 100mph, not TGV of German ICE speeds. And if Irish Rail were honest the plan really includes section of the railways which will need some kind of fixing anyway.

Sponge Bob

monument wrote: »

We're talking about getting upgrading some of the main parts of the rail network to allow speeds 160km/h / 100mph, not TGV of German ICE speeds. And if Irish Rail were honest the plan really includes section of the railways which will need some kind of fixing anyway.

But this is not an upgrade FFS It is maintenance. The intercity trains will be no faster than they were in 1968 before any 'upgrades' were done.

What happened to the 1970s upgrades and 1980s upgrades and 1990s upgrades and 2000s upgrades pray tell.??

Yahew

Sponge Bob wrote: »

monument wrote: »

We're talking about getting upgrading some of the main parts of the rail network to allow speeds 160km/h / 100mph, not TGV of German ICE speeds. And if Irish Rail were honest the plan really includes section of the railways which will need some kind of fixing anyway.

But this is not an upgrade FFS It is maintenance. The intercity trains will be no faster than they were in 1968 before any 'upgrades' were done.

What happened to the 1970s upgrades and 1980s upgrades and 1990s upgrades and 2000s upgrades pray tell.??

If the trains go faster it is an upgrade.

L1011

monument wrote: »

I supposed that's the problem here, even very solid research will never be seen as "actual reliable figures" by anybody who disagrees with the research even if there are no problems with it.

Information pulled out of a system, collated mostly by hand from differing HSE computer systems, and not designed for the purpose it was being used for = not a reliable source of research

Something credible = a reliable source of research

monument wrote: »

Well, I haven't lost the argument in that case.

Yet, if anything.

Sponge Bob

Yahew wrote: »

If the trains go faster it is an upgrade.

Theoretically yes but they are the same speed today that they were in 1948 more or less.

What upgrade are you on about ???

Yahew

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Yahew wrote: »

If the trains go faster it is an upgrade.

Theoretically yes but they are the same speed today that they were in 1948 more or less.

What upgrade are you on about ???

100mph in 1948? I doubt it.

L1011

Yahew wrote: »

100mph in 1948? I doubt it.

Average speed.

Yahew

MYOB wrote: »

Yahew wrote: »

100mph in 1948? I doubt it.

Average speed.

Would the average speed by affected by a higher achievable speed on the line?

L1011

Yahew wrote: »

Would the average speed by affected by a higher achievable speed on the line?

Only if there weren't far more lower achievable speed sections, more stops (some routes, not all), poor scheduling control plus more traffic leading to recovery time in schedules (for good reason often due to delays), and so on.

We've had 100mph running since the Mk3's arrived from memory and 90mph before that but average speed has still fallen.

NITransport

If trains didn't have to stop at every hamlet between Cork and Dublin, how quickly could the journey be done, sticking to the maximum speed limits?

dubhthach

NITransport wrote: »

If trains didn't have to stop at every hamlet between Cork and Dublin, how quickly could the journey be done, sticking to the maximum speed limits?

Closest service that would be "express" which only stops at Limerick Junction and Mallow. Looking at timetable for Monday I see it does the trip in 2hours and 30minutes from Heuston to Kent. (7pm train on Monday)

NITransport

dubhthach wrote: »

Closest service that would be "express" which only stops at Limerick Junction and Mallow. Looking at timetable for Monday I see it does the trip in 2hours and 30minutes from Heuston to Kent. (7pm train on Monday)

If they dropped the Mallow, and kept LJ for passengers travelling to Limerick, surely they could save an additional 5 - 10minutes, making it just as quick as the road. But any improvement without investment would be worth it, if they managed to upgrade an additional couple of miles to 160kph surely they would then be able to market the journey as "still quicker than a car" and average joe public might fall for it...

L1011

NITransport wrote: »

If they dropped the Mallow, and kept LJ for passengers travelling to Limerick, surely they could save an additional 5 - 10minutes, making it just as quick as the road. But any improvement without investment would be worth it, if they managed to upgrade an additional couple of miles to 160kph surely they would then be able to market the journey as "still quicker than a car" and average joe public might fall for it...

Mallow is needed for connections to Tralee surely?

dubhthach

It would be interesting to see the non-stop time that would be possible. I know the original proposal for KRP was to have quad track as far as Kildare town. If this was in place you would at least be able to segerate out the bulk of the commuter rail coming/going from Dublin along the old GS&WR mainline.

What I would be curious is what our Iarnród Éireann's proposals at the moment it just sounds like a bit of PR puff put out in the run up to the Budget.

Judgement Day

NITransport wrote: »

If trains didn't have to stop at every hamlet between Cork and Dublin, how quickly could the journey be done, sticking to the maximum speed limits?

It's not the 1960s and Dublin/Cork trains don't stop at every 'hamlet' as you so quaintly put it - they were closed progressively during the 1960/70s - Blarney, Rathduff, Emly, Buttevant, Knocklong, Killmallock, Dundrum, Goold's Cross, Lisduff, Mountrath etc. If the trains call at any fewer stations they will become even more irrelevant.

NITransport

If the trains call at any fewer stations they will become even more irrelevant.

I couldn't disagree more. The less stops between urban centres means a decrease in journey time between them, thus you're more likely you'll attract more passengers from these high population centres.

When the intercity routes stopped calling at Blarney, Rathduff, Emly, Buttevant, Dundrum, Goold's Cross, Lisduff, did this mean that the route became relevant, or did it actually begin to provide what it was meant to provide, an intercity route?

Edit - Don't get me wrong, these hamlets and towns should also be served, but by slow services, with express services attracting intercity transport. They can not be served together.

Judgement Day

NITransport wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more. The less stops between urban centres means a decrease in journey time between them, thus you're more likely you'll attract more passengers from these high population centres.

When the intercity routes stopped calling at Blarney, Rathduff, Emly, Buttevant, Dundrum, Goold's Cross, Lisduff, did this mean that the route became relevant, or did it actually begin to provide what it was meant to provide, an intercity route?

If you are only interested in providing an intercity service between Dublin and the other terminus stations (Cork, Limerick, Galway etc) with no other stops, a subsidised internal air service would be a better option.

Judgement Day

The 07.00 ex.Heuston with 4 stops takes 2 hours 50 minutes to Cork and the 15.00 ex.Heuston with 3 stops takes 2 hours 45 minutes and, bar running non-stop, shows there's little to be gained by cutting out stops. It is the numerous permanent and semi-permanent speed restrictions that have far more affect on schedules.

dubhthach

Judgement Day wrote: »

The 07.00 ex.Heuston with 4 stops takes 2 hours 50 minutes to Cork and the 15.00 ex.Heuston with 3 stops takes 2 hours 45 minutes and, bar running non-stop, shows there's little to be gained by cutting out stops. It is the numerous permanent and semi-permanent speed restrictions that have far more affect on schedules.

Specifically on the Cork route where and what are the main permanent/semi-permanent restrictions? eg. What are the causes for them what would be needed to be done to sort them out etc?

NITransport

Yes I know that the problem is speed restrictions on the line. What I said however was:

If they dropped the Mallow, and kept LJ for passengers travelling to Limerick, surely they could save an additional 5 - 10minutes, making it just as quick as the road. But any improvement without investment would be worth it, if they managed to upgrade an additional couple of miles to 160kph surely they would then be able to market the journey as "still quicker than a car" and average joe public might fall for it...

The line needs investment, that's a given. But to save money, there could be a number of express non stop services at particular parts of the day, that would be quicker than car, station to station. (Granted not house to house). But with the correct PR (which is all about spin/lies), people that don't take the extra time between origin station and destination into account, people that don't contribute to the infrastructure section of boards.ie might fall for the spin. Helping bolster/improve patronage.

And as I said on my edit on my previous post, I don't think rail is only about intercity transport. But I don't think regional and intercity travellers should be served by the same train. The intercity traveller will lose out. And who is to say that an intercity service can't depart Heuston, 5 minutes before a slow train serving the same route. It happens between Birmingham and London. People wanting to travel between stations on the rail line would be served and people who just want to get home to Cork, Limerick or Galway for tea quickly will also be provided for.

LXFlyer

NITransport wrote: »

If they dropped the Mallow, and kept LJ for passengers travelling to Limerick, surely they could save an additional 5 - 10minutes, making it just as quick as the road. But any improvement without investment would be worth it, if they managed to upgrade an additional couple of miles to 160kph surely they would then be able to market the journey as "still quicker than a car" and average joe public might fall for it...

A station stop adds 3 minutes to the journey time not 5 or 10.

Why would you drop Mallow? That's where the trains connect to/from Kerry - it is a major junction station.

My own feeling is that you could operate a travel pattern of bi-hourly fast services calling at Thurles (as a major railhead in Tipperary), Limerick Junction and Mallow (both for connections), with semi-fasts every other hour calling at all stations from Portlaoise to Cork taking a connection at Portlaoise from a stopping service from Dublin.

At peak you would then have the current expresses that just serve Limerick Junction and Mallow.

dubhthach

lxflyer wrote: »

A station stop adds 3 minutes to the journey time not 5 or 10.

Why would you drop Mallow? That's where the trains connect to/from Kerry - it is a major junction station.

The stop is 3 minutes indeed but having to slow down to stop and then time to pick up speed after a stop surely adds up to longer on delay between the two endpoints (lets go with 5 minutes).

What I think NITransport is getting at is that there should be at least one non-stop service a day (in each direction) that doesn't stop at any station. It wouldn't be a case of all services during the day dropping mallow. The issue here is tied into been competive with road (on a station to station basis).

Going on the current speed limits on the track I would be interested in what would be the fastest theoretic time that could be achieved on Dublin/Cork (clear run, not needing to slow down due to other services etc.)

NITransport

What I think NITransport is getting at is that there should be at least one non-stop service a day (in each direction) that doesn't stop at any station. It wouldn't be a case of all services during the day dropping mallow. The issue here is tied into been competive with road (on a station to station basis).

Exactly what I meant dubhtach! And I agree it would be interesting to know what all the restrictions are in order to work out theoretically, the fastest time a non-stop train could travel between Cork and Dublin.

LXFlyer

dubhthach wrote: »

The stop is 3 minutes indeed but having to slow down to stop and then time to pick up speed after a stop surely adds up to longer on delay between the two endpoints (lets go with 5 minutes).

What I think NITransport is getting at is that there should be at least one non-stop service a day (in each direction) that doesn't stop at any station. It wouldn't be a case of all services during the day dropping mallow. The issue here is tied into been competive with road (on a station to station basis).

Going on the current speed limits on the track I would be interested in what would be the fastest theoretic time that could be achieved on Dublin/Cork (clear run, not needing to slow down due to other services etc.)

No a station stop adds 3 minutes including acceleration/deceleration.

NITransport

lxflyer wrote: »

No a station stop adds 3 minutes including acceleration/deceleration.

When a two stop service completes the route in 2hours 30mins, and a four stop service does it 2hours 50mins, how does a stop only add three minutes? You have to take in account that a train that is making good time, will arrive at each stop, and must wait to the specified departure time. A non stop train can make good time the entire route and doesn't matter if it arrives at Heuston or Kent early, unless there is no available platforms ofcourse.

Where have you got this 3min figure from?

LXFlyer

NITransport wrote: »

When a two stop service completes the route in 2hours 30mins, and a four stop service does it 2hours 50mins, how does a stop only add three minutes? You have to take in account that a train that is making good time, will arrive at each stop, and must wait to the specified departure time. A non stop train can make good time the entire route and doesn't matter if it arrives at Heuston or Kent early, unless there is no available platforms ofcourse.

Where have you got this 3min figure from?

The two services that run at 2 hours 30 minutes have no recovery time built into the schedule, similarly with the morning expresses from Galway and Waterford. All of the others do. That is the difference. IE took it out of those services to give a "flagship express" service.

As for how do I know the 3 minutes impact of a station stop - if you to the IRRS library and study IE internal working timetables it is quite apparent that a station stop adds 3 minutes to the timetable by comparing the intermediate running times of trains that stop at particular stations and ones that do not.

LXFlyer

dubhthach wrote: »

Specifically on the Cork route where and what are the main permanent/semi-permanent restrictions? eg. What are the causes for them what would be needed to be done to sort them out etc?

This document should answer some of those questions in terms of where the permanent speed restrictions exist - page 53 onwards contains the current speed restrictions.

dowlingm

The Limerick Junction stops not only serve Limerick and Clonmel (for now, in the latter case) but also there was a big speed restriction through there due to life expired track - accordingly the addition of a stop had much less impact than elsewhere. I *think* that since the signal cabins were taken out of service and some track replacement that is now 60mph from 25mph (can anyone confirm that?), so we might see a return to more direct Limerick services and fewer Junction stops in future years.

LXFlyer

Just to add on the Dublin/Cork mainline, since that document was published the specific restrictions at Grange and Emly level crossings have been lifted as both are now full barrier level crossings.

Grange is now subject to the 90mph restriction and Emly is now 100mph linespeed.