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

LXFlyer

dowlingm wrote: »

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.

Limerick Junction is still 25mph.

I'm not sure more direct Dublin/Limericks are needed - the off-peak direct services (0925/1125/1325 ex-Dublin and return workings) were carrying thin air much of the time when they ran before.

I'd suggest bi-hourly semi-fast Cork services would be better (taking connections from Dublin/Portlaoise stopping services).

paulm17781

Sponge Bob wrote: »

http://www.railusers.ie/passenger_issues/not_getting_there.php

In 1928 the best time for Portlaoise Dublin was 51 minutes in 2006 after close on a billion euro of investment it's 55 minutes non stop. Has Portlaoise moved ?

**** Them! Decades of ****e, Billions spent and NOTHING to show for it!

Thanks for that. I was discussing the Sligo line with a friend earlier and can't remember exactly but I think it was 3 hours Dub - Sligo when it first opened, maybe 3.30 hours. Nice to see with 100+ years of technology it's either 5 minutes slower or 25 minutes faster. Not great by any stretch.

Also quite shocking to see Cork used to be faster than today. Quite embarrassing really.

LXFlyer

To be fair the main problem on the Sligo route is that every train has to pass at least three trains coming in the other direction on single track - therefore they have to add recovery time into the schedule to avoid knock-on delays right through the day - if that were not the case you could probably shave at least 10 minutes off the schedule.

100 years ago there certainly was not eight trains a day between Dublin and Sligo!

L1011

100 years ago there was also more double track between Dublin and Sligo was there not?

Sponge Bob

Not really they added some in recent years .....on balance.

dubhthach

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Not really they added some in recent years .....on balance.

As far as I recall it was double tracked to Inny Junction where the old branch to Cavan separated out. Obviously back in the day the mainline of the MGWR to Galway went via Mullingar.

I also believe there was double tracking from Colloney to Sligo, this was removed in the 1920's basically all double track past Clonsilla was removed on the MGWR route, this included the stretch from Oranmore to Galway.

BluntGuy

Article by Frank McDonald...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0915/1224304137356.html

French rail system thrived as we took the wrong track

THE SNCF website has been in a celebratory mood this year, with colourful balloons and clinking glasses of champagne to celebrate “TGV-30 ans!” – the 30th anniversary of the Train à Grande Vitesse, which revolutionised passenger transport in France and inspired other countries to follow its example, most recently China.

I’ll never forget being on board one of the earlier TGVs as it whizzed through the French countryside like an orange streak from the Gare de Lyon in Paris to Le Creusot, more than half way to Lyon. As everyone who has used high-speed trains in France knows, it’s an exhilarating experience that puts Irish railways in the ha’penny place.

The TGV network has expanded considerably since then, with entirely new railway lines running to the north, south, east and west. Travel times from Paris have been dramatically reduced – to less than two hours to Lyon, just over two hours to Lille, slightly more to Bordeaux, and less than 3½ hours to Marseille.

In Ireland we have put our faith in motorways rather than railways. With the major inter-urban road network completed, it is now quicker to get around by car than it is by train. A recent trip from Cork to Dublin in a congested people-carrier took just two hours and 10 minutes from the Jack Lynch Tunnel to the Central Bank on Dame Street. The fastest train would have taken 2½ hours.

Similarly, the M1 has bled the Dublin-Belfast Enterprise “express” of passengers, particularly in first-class, because it’s just as quick – if not quicker – to drive between the two cities. The same phenomenon is being repeated for journeys between Dublin and Galway, Limerick and Waterford.

In the US, Broadway and Hollywood stars used to travel by train between New York and Los Angeles; Union Station in Chicago was then the great meeting point. But the interstate highway programme championed by Dwight Eisenhower and, later, the availability of intercity air travel reduced the railways to residual services.

Perhaps the danger of us repeating what happened in the US occurred to someone in Iarnród Éireann before it put forward a modest proposal that the Government should invest an additional €175 million to deliver journey times of under two hours for services between Dublin and Belfast, Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford.

This would not “put us in the high-speed rail class like the TGV”, as the company’s spokesman admitted, but it would place Ireland “among the best of conventional railways” in the EU, with speeds of up to 160km/h. The new(ish) trains we’ve imported from Spain and South Korea could do that but sections of track still need upgrading.

The cost would work out at just over a fifth of the price we paid to run the M3 motorway through the landscape of Tara – to cater for projected traffic volumes that haven’t materialised. The ghost motorways are also costing us year on year. Because ludicrously optimistic traffic projections have not been realised, the National Roads Authority (NRA) is already paying compensation to the PPP (public-private partnership) consortiums that built these roads to make up for the paltry revenue they are currently raising from tolls.

Week after week, it seems, we learn more and more about squandermania during the boom – and its bitter legacy. The truth is that the Fianna Fáil-led government lost the run of itself in 1999 when it junked the NRA’s proposals to upgrade existing main roads and opted instead for five greenfield motorways.

Similarly, plans by the Dublin Transportation Office in Platform for Change (2000), proposing massive investment in a whole series of rail projects, including metro, Dart, suburban rail and Luas lines to create a mesh of public transport services in the capital, were approved by the same government that baulked at linking up the Luas lines.

The focus then switched from surface-running light rail to building the mainly underground Metro North – as a PPP project, naturally.

The likely cost became a closely guarded secret, but was deduced by The Irish Times to be €4.58 billion (in 2004). Some €200 million has already been spent on the project but it’s now unlikely to go ahead.

Minister for Transport Leo Varadkar is on record as saying that only one of the four “big ticket” transport projects for Dublin will proceed – Metro North, Dart Underground, the Luas link in the city centre (extended to Broombridge) or a rail spur to Dublin airport from Clongriffin (on the Dart line) serving nowhere along the way.

Varadkar has already cancelled more than 20 road plans, including a dual carriageway running right across south Wexford.

The wonder is that nobody in authority before now had the common sense to stand up to engineers with overblown projects – other than on the relatively few occasions that they were shot down by An Bord Pleanála.

But let us return, finally, to France. While we wasted money on nutty stuff like that and spent up to €22 million per acre acquiring slivers of land in yet-to-be developed Cherrywood for the Luas extension to Bride’s Glen, Bordeaux got on with building a surface-running light rail network that transformed the city into one of Europe’s finest.

dowlingm

We could push the Mark 4s to 200km/h with proper power cars, track and signalling. Just have to find a sap to buy some 201s at Celtic Tiger prices.

Sponge Bob

It is a profound tribute to McDonalds competence and to his overweening inability to notice anything that happens beyond the M50 ( and not involving Dublin Airport) that he never saw ANY of this coming until a Barry Kenny PR landed on his desk...or was he dined of a lunchtime and briefed personally. ????

The Dublin - Belfast road was largely complete by 2005 after all.

Sponge Bob

dubhthach wrote: »

As far as I recall it was double tracked to Inny Junction where the old branch to Cavan separated out.
I also believe there was double tracking from Colloney to Sligo, this was removed in the 1920's basically all double track past Clonsilla was removed on the MGWR route, this included the stretch from Oranmore to Galway.

Ah OK, there was a lot more double track between Dublin and Sligo 100 years ago so. It went to Longford I think, check the 25".

http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,613187,774905,7,9

steamengine

I'm no expert on 'conventional European railways', but on a recent Inter-City train in Portugal, which steamengine junior travelled on, the digital read-out showed 230km/hr which is just under 140 mph. The UK InterCity 125's have been around for nearly 40 years, which shows just how far behind the curve we are now. 100mph is a mid-20th century speed, we did it on our motor bikes and cars, steam trains reached it also. So they should get on and do it - stop shouting about it, and look to winding up the speeds further after that !!!

Jack Noble

Sponge Bob wrote: »

It is a profound tribute to McDonalds competence and to his overweening inability to notice anything that happens beyond the M50 ( and not involving Dublin Airport) that he never saw ANY of this coming until a Barry Kenny PR landed on his desk...or was he dined of a lunchtime and briefed personally. ????

The Dublin - Belfast road was largely complete by 2005 after all.

I read that rambling guff by McDonald with increasing incredulity.

Maybe I picked this up wrong but McDonald, who is bitterly opposed to Metro North on the grounds that it will cost too much (in his opinion), was singing the praises of the French TGV system and implying we should have done something similar in Ireland instead of building the motorways.

I'm all for greater investment in the railways alongside that in roads - not instead of - but inter-city TGV is way over the top for our needs. 200kmh would be the limit of what would be viable and affordable in Ireland - it works in Sweden and has actually produced an increase in rail travel.

And does anyone think Frank has the slightest clue of the debt levels incurred by the SNCF in building and operating the TGV system before the EU put an end to the French govt's off the books accounting scam? Around €25billion of that debt related to TGV has now been transferred to the new French rail intrastructure authority, RFF, which will soon beging charging SNCF to use the rail network.

And he's still obsessed with the Bordeaux-style Luas system for Dublin - despite Luas now being close to peak capacity and growing evidence that it was the wrong choice for Dublin.

If he wants to compare Dublin to other EU cities then he should use the likes of Oslo, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Helsinki or Amsterdam - not a small regional French city.

Seriously, it's getting to the point where Myers will soon make more sense than McDonald.

L1011

dowlingm wrote: »

We could push the Mark 4s to 200km/h with proper power cars, track and signalling. Just have to find a sap to buy some 201s at Celtic Tiger prices.

Eddie Stobart might want some Irish gauge freight locos...

L1011

Jack Noble wrote: »

Maybe I picked this up wrong but McDonald, who is bitterly opposed to Metro North on the grounds that it will cost too much (in his opinion), was singing the praises of the French TGV system and implying we should have done something similar in Ireland instead of building the motorways.

McDonald was in favour of an underground Luas to the Airport and for an underground heavy rail connector from Connolly to Heuston, trumpeted both in a book of his a decade or so ago.

He's now against Metro North and Dart Underground which are effectively those...

DWCommuter

Chaos at the Crossroads.

Bray Head

It's typical Frank McDonald - only considers the costs of projects he doesn't like.

Sure while Frank is on the topic of European comparisons, why doesn't he look at a few other islands with relatively low population density.

Malta: no railway
Cyprus: no railway
Corsica: a very slow railway
Sicily: Palermo - Catania takes three hours by rail, nearly an hour less by car. Sound familiar?

Greater Paris has a population twice that of Ireland.......

bg07

Bray Head wrote: »

Sure while Frank is on the topic of European comparisons, why doesn't he look at a few other islands with relatively low population density.

Malta: no railway
Cyprus: no railway
Corsica: a very slow railway
Sicily: Palermo - Catania takes three hours by rail, nearly an hour less by car. Sound familiar?

You're forgetting about Sodor though. There's a great system on that Island

Sponge Bob

MYOB wrote: »

McDonald was in favour of an underground Luas to the Airport and for an underground heavy rail connector from Connolly to Heuston, trumpeted both in a book of his a decade or so ago.

He's now against Metro North and Dart Underground which are effectively those...

Was it not then Foreign Minister Brian Lenihan Senior who alluded on live television (and under pressure from Olivia O'Leary) to "The Futility of Consistency" .

Sometimes I think of an impressionable Frank McDonald watching that program I does!

North Cork

http://www.alankelly.ie/press/national/13164326391145230.html

New €6 million investment for Irish Rail- Minister Kelly

Issued : Monday 19 September, 2011

Investment will bring Wifi to 63 new trains, line speed improvements & fuel savings.
Public Transport Minister, Alan Kelly, has announced a €6 million investment programme for Irish Rail. The funding will go to line speed improvements, further rollout of wifi on the train service and important fuel saving technology to reduce costs.
The funding is coming from reallocated capital within the Department of Transport, Tourism & Sport and is being spent on works that will be completed by year end.
"It is vital that our limited funds are spent well and give value to the exchequer. If we want to offer people a proper level of public transport this will require investment. This funding will greatly enhance both the customer service Irish Rail offers as well as equipping them with the ability to reduce costs in the future. It's a win-win," stated Minister Kelly.
Under the initiative, an additional €1million will be spent on improving journey times between Portalington and Dublin, €1million on ticket validating machines and €300K for the additional roll-out of wifi on 63 rail cars and €600,000 for order point heaters to ensure depots are not unduly affected by a harsh winter.
"It is vitally important that public transport remains a strong option for those who commute. This Government is committed to improving the public transport system and the consumer experience. It is vital that every penny is stretched to the maximum benefit of the users of public transport," concluded Minister Kelly.

TableProject Proposed allocation Line Speed Improvement Design & WorkMajor programme to enhance railway competitiveness in terms of travel time to major urban centres. €1 MWork would commence on parts of mainline from Dublin to PortarlingtonOrder Point HeatersProgramme to reduce impact of harsh winter conditions on service €600K Provision of WiFi on the remaining ICR fleetEnhances customer experience & gives competitive advantage over other transport modes. Last section of fleet to be so equipped €300K Loco Fuel Savings EnhancementGreen alternative that also reduces operational costs €400KDevice to limit idling time to improve fuel efficiency and reduce costsSecurity Enclosures for new ATMsATMs have impact on manpower costs and provide easy access for customers (security enclosures are essential for ATMs outside stations) €860,000Protection for 91 machines to be purchased for the Non GDA, at approximately €12,500 each with the majority of expenditure this year. The remainder - €150K - would be required next year.LED SignalsMore efficient and less maintenance €900K Purchase of ticket validation machinesExit Validation is priority for manpower savings and revenue protection €1 MFor stations in key regional cities and towns. The ticket validation programme will enhance revenue protection capability on both access and egress and also improve the passenger throughput. All machines would be smart card enabled.Embankment Stabilisationreduces threats to services in high risk areas €900,000 Station Upgrades on Lightly Used LinesRequirement to keep assets on all lines in good repair €140K TOTAL €6.1 M

Amtmann

State capital spending has long been promoted as an engine of economic growth in Ireland, and the interest groups that benefit, including the construction industry, have assiduously cultivated the notion that you simply cannot have enough investment. No private shop, business or farm is run on this principle. Extra plant is acquired only if there is a clear need, since debt has to be serviced and excessive investment can destroy a viable enterprise. Investment is a cost, and excess investment can be a crippling cost. Without the benefit of careful project evaluation, or in some cases without any evaluation at all, the Government's capital budget was expanded dramatically during the Bubble. The result is some pretty dubious 'investments', with a continuing chorus of demands for more despite the improvements already built and paid for.

Examples abound. The spanking new conference centre in Dublin's docklands will drain the Exchequer for 25 years under the terms of a public-private partnership. The new rail link between Limerick and Galway, which cost €110m, offers slower journey times than the bus and is, not surprisingly, making losses and failing to attract passengers. Both Dublin and Cork airports have built too much capacity, too soon.

Ryanair announced recently that it is withdrawing from the Dublin-Cork route. Traffic has migrated to the motorway. Cork and Dublin, in a practical sense, are closer together and air service is no longer viable. Both Aer Lingus and Aer Arann had withdrawn earlier and there may now be no air service between the two cities. While the motorway network was being built no less than €2.5bn was spent on the mainline railway, the routes of which run more or less parallel to the new motorways. All of this €2.5bn is now part of the national debt, since Irish Rail cannot remunerate its capital. Train frequencies have risen and there are new stations and rolling stock as the railway spent big to increase capacity. But the new motorways are sucking passengers away from the trains just as they are hitting air services. The investment in rail will not pay for itself, and it is fair to ask whether it ever made sense to invest heavily in both road and rail. It must have occurred to somebody along the way that a proper road network, long overdue, would diminish the need for rail investment.

The explosion in government spending over the last decade must now be reversed and leftover capital spending projects are being reviewed. Provision of adequate public infrastructure is desirable of course but there is no evidence that excess provision is a spur to economic performance.

Ghost infrastructure built with borrowed money is a drag on the economy.

Projects still on the drawing board and no longer justified, if they ever were, include the grandiose Metro North scheme designed to link Dublin city centre to the airport and beyond. No firm cost estimate has ever been provided for this project, but the figure is believed to run to several billion. Substantial sums continue to be spent on planning for this project which can clearly no longer be afforded. It is not clear that it ever made economic sense, even prior to the economic downturn. There is already a road tunnel to the airport, built at enormous expense and not fully utilised. Traffic volumes generally are down and the airport is readily accessed, even at busy times, from around the city and from provincial points. Ludicrously, private bus operators are not permitted to run new routes through the tunnel, which some of them have sought to do. There is also a multi-billion East-West underground rail tunnel on the stocks in Dublin, as well as a further extension to the Luas tram system, which has already made a tidy contribution to the national debt. It is surprising that, three years into an unprecedented financial crisis, and with the country already in an IMF programme, any of these projects are still being considered.

We do not need them, and even if we did, we cannot afford them. The only reason they are still alive is the unholy alliance of construction industry lobbyists, equipment suppliers, semi-state executives, naive Green rail enthusiasts and trade union officials who have combined over the years to confuse public transport with trains. Both in cities and on inter-urban routes, bus-based public transport is the most cost-effective solution for Ireland. There are other components in existing capital investment plans which need to be reviewed. The level of economic activity in the country in a few years time will be as much as one-third below what was assumed when some of these plans were drawn up. It is a waste of money, in our case money we do not have, to invest beyond requirements, and a substantial pruning of the public capital programme is overdue.

Colm McCarthy lectures in economics at UCD. He headed an expert group examining State assets and chaired the Special Group on Public Service Numbers and Expenditure Programmes, An Bord Snip Nua. He also authored the report into the semi-state sector from the Review Group on State Assets and Liability.

- Colm McCarthy

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/getting-lost-on-a-road-to-nowhere-2886805.html

Yahew

Colm McCarthy is wrong once again. Although, I am sure his very existance is what makes Ireland a very anti-Train society. The DART was doomed, he said, due to the fact that half of it's cachement area was under water. The Luas was doomed, for other reasons. Both are packed.

This is bad economics:

" All of this €2.5bn is now part of the national debt, since Irish Rail cannot remunerate its capital."

Is it? Paying for capital projects can have a low net cost ( or even a net gain) , because the government get's the money back as tax, and wage earners spend on products with VAT, and suppliers, if Irish, pay taxes. The Gross cost to government is not the same as the net cost, and therefore can't be compared to a "normal business" just as in recession a government cant be assumed to be correct in bringing in austerity measures because a normal business, or household, would cut back.

Tragedy

Yahew wrote: »

Is it? Paying for capital projects can have a low net cost ( or even a net gain) , because the government get's the money back as tax, and wage earners spend on products with VAT, and suppliers, if Irish, pay taxes. The Gross cost to government is not the same as the net cost, and therefore can't be compared to a "normal business" just as in recession a government cant be assumed to be correct in bringing in austerity measures because a normal business, or household, would cut back.

What point are you trying to make?

Private firm invests in new railway line between Dublin & Cork(for example).

Government receives Income Tax from workers that build the line
Workers spend part of their wages on goods that results in the Government receiving a portion of that in VAT
Parts bought from Irish companies to build the railway line result in more VAT/Corporate Tax for the Government.

Government invests in new railway line = Magically different?

Colm McCarthy is arguing that money should only be invested in projects that will result in a dividend of some sort outside what is provided by construction. Dublin T2 is unlikely to provide one for the forseable future, Limerick to Galway is unlikely to ever provide one and the majority of the M9 likewise.
Your argument that any investment is a good investment is the kind of simplistic childlike view of economics that resulted in so much money being invested in, to be blunt, pointless and worthless projects.

AngryLips

Strangely enough, Colm McCarthy's argument against rail actually works in favour of the case to reduce journey times on intercity services where the cost of investment is minimal relative to the money already invested in these services. If it comes at a small relative cost compared to what has been invested so far then the argument for making rail more competitive against motorway is compelling in order to extract value from the money already spent.

murphaph

AngryLips wrote: »

Strangely enough, Colm McCarthy's argument against rail actually works in favour of the case to reduce journey times on intercity services where the cost of investment is minimal relative to the money already invested in these services. If it comes at a small relative cost compared to what has been invested so far then the argument for making rail more competitive against motorway is compelling in order to extract value from the money already spent.

Agreed, but not before CIE/IE is taken out of the equation. They have proven themselves incompetent at running the railway and should not be tasked any further with its development.

bk

AngryLips wrote: »

Strangely enough, Colm McCarthy's argument against rail actually works in favour of the case to reduce journey times on intercity services where the cost of investment is minimal relative to the money already invested in these services. If it comes at a small relative cost compared to what has been invested so far then the argument for making rail more competitive against motorway is compelling in order to extract value from the money already spent.

Interesting idea, so we have already wasted billions on rail, so we should spend a few hundred million more for little practical advantage!!

If the money was free, then fine. But it isn't. We have very little money today and that same money might be better spent on other projects like hospitals or schools or LUAS BXD or subsidised Cork/Dublin flights or extra buses, etc.

Today every cent is precious and we have to ensure we get the maximum value for money and return for every cent we spend.

I've yet to see a reason why spending this money in this way is more important then many other projects.

Sure the idea of speeding up trains and better integrating them is all nice and good. But you have to look at the bigger picture and ask if it is the best way to spend what little money we have left.

invinciblePRSTV

bk wrote: »

Interesting idea, so we have already wasted billions on rail, so we should spend a few hundred million more for little practical advantage!!

Billions you say? care to expand on that with examples?

bk wrote: »

If the money was free, then fine. But it isn't. We have very little money today and that same money might be better spent on other projects like hospitals or schools or LUAS BXD or subsidised Cork/Dublin flights or extra buses, etc.

So investing in railway infrastructure is bad, but returning to the model of subsidising internal flights on a small island is good? that's some peculiar logic.....

bk wrote: »

I've yet to see a reason why spending this money in this way is more important then many other projects.

If you don't think an investment in reducing journey times for 10m+ passengers per annum isn't a good idea, then perhaps you should consider that you have an anti-rail bias.

bk wrote: »

Sure the idea of speeding up trains and better integrating them is all nice and good. But you have to look at the bigger picture and ask if it is the best way to spend what little money we have left.

You can apply that argument of the state having little or no money to anything. Perhaps we shouldn't be building high spec bypasses of small towns? or funding upgrades to the Cork SRR, the M11 Gap & Newlands X. After all that money would be far better spent building new schools and hospitals.

Tragedy

AngryLips wrote: »

Strangely enough, Colm McCarthy's argument against rail actually works in favour of the case to reduce journey times on intercity services where the cost of investment is minimal relative to the money already invested in these services. If it comes at a small relative cost compared to what has been invested so far then the argument for making rail more competitive against motorway is compelling in order to extract value from the money already spent.

Investment relative to money already invested is irrelevant.
Investment relative to increased revenue/profit as a result of proposed investment is relevant.

bk

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Billions you say? care to expand on that with examples?

Hmm, lets see, 450 million on new carriages when the old ones were good for at least another twenty years.

Over 2 billion spent on mainline track improvement and safety work over the last 10 years, yet the trains are slower today then they were 25 years ago!!

Irish Rail has a dreadful record of investment in mainline rail over the past ten years, with the money going in completely the wrong places. Irish Rail has built a railway system for the 1980's, not a network suitable for the reality of the competition it faces today.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

If you don't think an investment in reducing journey times for 10m+ passengers per annum isn't a good idea, then perhaps you should consider that you have an anti-rail bias.

My bias is towards putting in place infrastructure that will move people from A to B in the most cost effective, efficient and environmentally friendly manner possible.

I frankly couldn't care less if it is rail, air, car, bus or bloody horse and cart, as long as we get the right balance of the three above.

Sure if we had unlimited money or could do it for free, then reducing journey times would be a very good idea.

But this is the real world, money is tight now and we have to ensure what little money we have left is spent on the project or projects that will give us the maximum social and economic return for our money.

I just don't think spending 175 million to knock a mere 30 minutes off a three hour train journey is going to make any major economic difference.

Reducing the Cork to Dublin train from 3 hours to 2:30 would still make it slower then driving to Cork, which is about 2:15 to 2:30 and that is door to door and cheaper then the train.

I believe you need to get the Cork to Dublin train under 2 hours in order to make it competitive, but of course that would cost a lot more then 175 million.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

You can apply that argument of the state having little or no money to anything. Perhaps we shouldn't be building high spec bypasses of small towns? or funding upgrades to the Cork SRR, the M11 Gap & Newlands X. After all that money would be far better spent building new schools and hospitals.

You can and I do.

Every project should be carefully analysed for it's social and economic return.

Then the projects with the top economic and social value should be completed with whatever money is available.

Do you honestly believe spending 175 million to knock just 30 minutes off the Cork to Dublin train would be better then building LUAS BXD?

bk

Thinking about it further, if people really want to build the best public transport infrastructure between Cork and Dublin, then these are the first two things I would do:

1) License at least one private bus operator to operate a high quality direct non stop coach service between Cork and Dublin.

This will benefit the people who want to travel between Cork and Dublin in the cheapest way possible.

2) Issue a dedicated license (so no one else can fly the route) to operate a Cork to Dublin air route to someone like Aer Arann or another company with similar sized aircraft.

This will benefit the (mostly business) people who want to make the journey in the quickest way possible.

Both of these steps would significantly improve peoples public transport options between Cork and Dublin and best of all it wouldn't cost us anything to do as they would both be operated by private operators.

Anyone who disagrees with these ideas and instead thinks it is better to spend 175 million knocking a mere 30 minutes off the 3 hour Cork to Dublin train journey obviously has a major bias for rail and doesn't have the best interests of the people of Ireland and people like me who regularly take this journey at heart.

BTW I say all of this as a Corkonian living in Dublin who makes this journey by train at least once a month and has lots of friends who also use to do the same, but who almost all have now switched to the car for the same journey.

Personally I'd see little benefit in having my journey reduced from 3 hours to 2.5 hours (I find once it isn't over 3 hours it doesn't really matter too much). But leave me take the bus in three hours for a third of the price of the train and I would jump at that opportunity.

Interestingly I got the train at the weekend and it had free wifi. This is great, with free wifi the time flies by without you even noticing, that is why I say 30 minutes difference hardly matters. IR need to roll out the free wifi as quickly as possible and preferably put power at every seat.

I've been saying this for at least 5 years, glad to see Irish Rail finally start to listen. This initiative will probably have a more positive impact then reducing journey times by 30 minutes and probably cost just a fraction of the 175 million.

AngryLips

bk wrote: »

2) Issue a dedicated license (so no one else can fly the route) to operate a Cork to Dublin air route to someone like Aer Arann or another company with similar sized aircraft.

This will benefit the (mostly business) people who want to make the journey in the quickest way possible

This is the barmiest alternatively I've heard. For a start air travel is in no way the quickest way to travel between Dublin and Cork plus your suggestion is totally anti-competitive ...not to mention entirely un-environmentally friendly