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

Tragedy

Just in relation to a few posts about how fuel prices will increase and thus we'll need a rail network to compensate:
Most modern diesels are easily capable of high 50's MPG when cruising on a motorway. Even if diesel prices doubled to €2.60 per litre, a roundtrip to Cork would still only cost €62 per car.

Aidan1

On commuter routes, in time, they will switch to electric units

Electrification really only makes sense when you've a lot of journeys on a particular stretch of rail. It is hugely unlikely that most of the Irish rail network will ever see electrification, save in the unlikely situation that electricity becomes massively cheaper than fossil fuels. However, medium term, I'd suggest that IR will have a go at electrifying the Dublin-Belfast line, with a long term ambition to do Cork-Dublin.

invinciblePRSTV

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Related to this thread, some might find it interesting

All that is a bunch of bean counters and wannabee celebrity economists saying that there shouldn't be public subsidies for railways. These blowhards almost certainly come from the same 'roads good - rail bad' school of thought as Sean "The LUAS Will be a failure" Barrett does.

However the topic of road-pricing is quite an interesting one. I've long suggested that the state claws back what it has invested on the Mway network and eliminate the unfairness of the spread of tolls by introducing something similar to other countries whereby you either pay as you go or pay for a yearly token to allow you to use the network.

(queue outrage from the 'I've paid enough' brigade)

dubhthach

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

I've long suggested that the state claws back what it has invested on the Mway network and eliminate the unfairness of the spread of tolls by introducing something similar to other countries whereby you either pay as you go or pay for a yearly token to allow you to use the network.

(queue outrage from the 'I've paid enough' brigade)

Well isn't that how electronic Tags work. You always maintain a certain balance (minimum of €10 euro), in my case it debits me usually about €40/month, obviously in your proposal though the "Tag company" would be another state owned/run and profits would end up going into the exchequer.

invinciblePRSTV

dubhthach wrote: »

Well isn't that how electronic Tags work. You always maintain a certain balance (minimum of €10 euro), in my case it debits me usually about €40/month, obviously in your proposal though the "Tag company" would be another state owned/run and profits would end up going into the exchequer.

More like the Swiss vignette then a tag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignette_%28road_tax%29#Switzerland

Obviously it would go into the Irish exchequer. Perhaps some of it could be ring fenced for roads but of course really it would go into paying off the state's liabilities.

Back on railways, still no one apart from anti rail types have argued that decreasing journey times across pretty much all IC services for a paltry sub 200m figure is a bad thing.

Frank Black

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

More like the Swiss vignette then a tag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignette_%28road_tax%29#Switzerland

Obviously it would go into the Irish exchequer. Perhaps some of it could be ring fenced for roads but of course really it would go into paying off the state's liabilities.

Back on railways, still no one apart from anti rail types have argued that decreasing journey times across pretty much all IC services for a paltry sub 200m figure is a bad thing.

Lazily grouping together a number of people whose views you don't agree with doesn't make those views any less relevant or correct.

I've yet to hear a coherent response as to why we need an inter-city rail service at all, much less why we should throw extra money at it.

dubhthach

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

More like the Swiss vignette then a tag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vignette_%28road_tax%29#Switzerland

Obviously it would go into the Irish exchequer. Perhaps some of it could be ring fenced for roads but of course really it would go into paying off the state's liabilities.

Back on railways, still no one apart from anti rail types have argued that decreasing journey times across pretty much all IC services for a paltry sub 200m figure is a bad thing.

Well isn't this what Motor-Tax is for? It raised over €860million last year alone from motorists. The whole purpose of it's introduction was to provide funding for road system.

Decreasing travel time on Intercity rail is a good thing. However given that IÉ swallow over €150m last year in subsidy last year and still made a loss of circa €50m perhaps they should fund it out of making savings on their payroll/expenditure (which totals about €200m more then their revenue)

invinciblePRSTV

dubhthach wrote: »

Well isn't this what Motor-Tax is for?

Nope.

dubhthach wrote: »

It raised over €860million last year alone from motorists. The whole purpose of it's introduction was to provide funding for road system.

The Irish motor tax system is designed by the DoE as a local government funding mechanism and has been for years, this is basic stuff tbh.

dubhthach wrote: »

Decreasing travel time on Intercity rail is a good thing. However given that IÉ swallow over €150m last year in subsidy last year and still made a loss of circa €50m perhaps they should fund it out of making savings on their payroll/expenditure (which totals about €200m more then their revenue)

I'm all in favour of IE being reformed/reconstituted or whatever, but I doubt this will happen imminently as the politicial impetus isn't there and secondly, this kind of infrastructure upgrade is critical and should be carried out sooner or later irrespective of the faith of IE.

black francis wrote: »

Lazily grouping together a number of people whose views you don't agree with doesn't make those views any less relevant or correct.

There's been many good views from people here sceptical about this proposal.

But from you all that we've heard is bloviating, snideness, one upmanship and know it all-ism.

In otherwords nothing worth remembering.

black francis wrote: »

I've yet to hear a coherent response as to why we need an inter-city rail service at all, much less why we should throw extra money at it.

i've yet to hear a coherent response for closing IC rail except nonsense free market inspired slogans which have no substance.

bk

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

i've yet to hear a coherent response for closing IC rail except nonsense free market inspired slogans which have no substance.

Here is one for you. We save ten's if not hundred's of millions in subsidies per year.

Simple as that.

And like black francis, I'm still waiting to hear a single good reason why IC should continue to exist and be so heavily subsidised?

Judgement Day

bk wrote: »

Here is one for you. We save ten's if not hundred's of millions in subsidies per year.

Simple as that.

And like black francis, I'm still waiting to hear a single good reason why IC should continue to exist and be so heavily subsidised?

Why done't we close down the road system and save millions in road related injuries and deaths every year, millions in road maintenance, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions etc.etc. - equally realistic IMO. Is there anywhere else in the Western World that has abandoned inter-city rail travel - even the US is gradually rediscovering the railway for passengers.

Pete_Cavan

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Back on railways, still no one apart from anti rail types have argued that decreasing journey times across pretty much all IC services for a paltry sub 200m figure is a bad thing.

But the only reason I see here from the pro-rail types have put forward for decreasing journey times across pretty much all IC services is because IR claim they can do so for "a paltry sub 200m" and comparing this to the cost of the road network. Of course this is totally irrelevant because you are comparing one thing on which money has already been spent to other thing we can not afford.

I very much doubt IR would be able to achieve the targets they have set for the figure they have stated. Realistically, I think they would do well to negotiate the planning process (EIS, consultations, etc.), acquire land, complete detailed design and get to tender stage for all the works that would be required to allow 160km/h travel on our inter-city rail network for that amount of money. If IR could really achieve sub 2 hour journeys from Dublin to Cork and Galway for €35 million a year over five years, they could have done so within their existing funding structure.

I am not one of the "anti rail types", I am a QS for a civil engineering contractor and am only concerned with cost v return. I dont see the justification for pumping money into the rail network when similar (or in some cases, superior) services can be provided using the existing road network, which not only saves money on the capital costs, but also reduces running costs (ie. subsidies).

coolperson05

Judgement Day wrote: »

Why done't we close down the road system and save millions in road related injuries and deaths every year, millions in road maintenance, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions etc.etc. - equally realistic IMO. Is there anywhere else in the Western World that has abandoned inter-city rail travel - even the US is gradually rediscovering the railway for passengers.

Very true. Closing the railways shouldn't be an option. There's improvements to be made granted! In Timetabling...Any station with a commuter service (Particularly Maynooth inward and Kildare inward) should not have Intercities stopping at them (or the bare 1/2 services). Thats why it's a commuter service. This improves time straight away.

And also trains and buses aren't comparable, they're very different forms of transport. I've been on intercity buses and trains and I see demand there for both. The trains are still doing well (and with fare-paying customers) despite the infrastructures shortcomings. Imagine what saving extra minutes could do to the demand? People will pay for convenience and time.

bk

Regardless here are the facts:

1) Irish Rail will not get this 175 million
2) Subsidies will be cut this year and over the next few years.

Assumption:

- Direct non stop bus coach services will eventually be licensed on all motorways.

Given this reality, if Irish Rail want to do this, they will need to fund it themselves and also deal with the drop in subsidies and likely continued lose of customers to the motorways.

Frank Black

Judgement Day wrote: »

Why don't we close down the road system and save millions in road related injuries and deaths every year, millions in road maintenance, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions etc.etc. - equally realistic IMO. Is there anywhere else in the Western World that has abandoned inter-city rail travel - even the US is gradually rediscovering the railway for passengers.

Most other countries are larger and/or have overland links to other countries - the single biggest factors affecting the viability of a rail system are population and distances - both of which are too small in Ireland.

Mike 1972

bk wrote: »

I don't think making the train a little faster is going to make it competitive with the road. Take Cork to Dublin (I'm a Corkonian living in Dublin) as an example.

- Train takes 2:20
- Car takes 2:20 but door to door (obviously varies where you live, but IME of a few friends they all say the same).

A very good point. If trains want to be competitive with motorways its not good enough for them to get one there as fast a driving. They need to get one there much faster.

But your solution........

bk wrote: »

So I would argue, instead license direct non stop bus services between all our cities (doesn't require any subsidy)

If a train cant get you there faster than driving how is a bus going to manage it given that it uses the same roads as cars, gets stuck in the same traffic and is inheriently slower (even when they use direct non stop routes busses have to contend with lower speed limits and less accelleration and suffer the same drawbacks as trains in not offering a door to door service) ?

Mind you if such a service can operate viably without public subsidy then there is no reason why it shouldnt be licenced immediately regardless of all other considerations.

invinciblePRSTV

bk wrote: »

Here is one for you. We save ten's if not hundred's of millions in subsidies per year.

Simple as that

And like black francis, I'm still waiting to hear a single good reason why IC should continue to exist and be so heavily subsidised?

You, like blackie, clearly ignore the simple fact that the world over, railways of both the IC and commuter variety are very often "heavily" subsidised.

this is why i'm calling your free market inspired solution simplistic, because you seem to operate under the assumption that railways must be profitable in order for them to be useful.

This clearly isn't the case.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

But the only reason I see here from the pro-rail types have put forward for decreasing journey times across pretty much all IC services is because IR claim they can do so for "a paltry sub 200m" and comparing this to the cost of the road network. Of course this is totally irrelevant because you are comparing one thing on which money has already been spent to other thing we can not afford.

As already mentioned, bad as IE can be, they still have a quite decent record in building infrastructure projects such as this in the alloted time and budget.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I very much doubt IR would be able to achieve the targets they have set for the figure they have stated. Realistically, I think they would do well to negotiate the planning process (EIS, consultations, etc.), acquire land, complete detailed design and get to tender stage for all the works that would be required to allow 160km/h travel on our inter-city rail network for that amount of money.

Why would you doubt IE's figures? they built the KRP, re-opened the WRC, PACE and Midleton lines amongst many other examples of decent infrastructure builds over the past two decades without major cost increases or time over runs over what was anticipated.

Compare that to the severe wastage and sweet heart toll contracts the NRA negotiated over the past decade or so.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If IR could really achieve sub 2 hour journeys from Dublin to Cork and Galway for €35 million a year over five years, they could have done so within their existing funding structure.

how do you know that then? you have knowledge of IE's funding structure?

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I am not one of the "anti rail types", I am a QS for a civil engineering contractor and am only concerned with cost v return. I dont see the justification for pumping money into the rail network when similar (or in some cases, superior) services can be provided using the existing road network,

As a QS have you ever worked on a railway or road construction project?

As for you not seeing justification for investing in this project, well clearly you must have a distorted opinion of what constitutes value for money. This project will deliver decreased journey times for effectively all IC journies IE operate as well as delivering improvements to Dublin outer suburban services.

That's a ballpark figure of at least 10m journies per annum which will see journey times reduced. How you can't see the justification of this project is strange to say the least.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

which not only saves money on the capital costs, but also reduces running costs (ie. subsidies).

Strongly disagree, it costs the guts of a couple of hundred million to build one piece of one motorway to reduce journey times between place x and place y.

For the same money this project will deliver decreases journey times to effectively every corner of the country. For a relatively minor capital cost this projects will deliver benefits far in excess of pretty much any road project the state has on the drawing board.

invinciblePRSTV

black francis wrote: »

Most other countries are larger and/or have overland links to other countries - the single biggest factors affecting the viability of a rail system are population and distances - both of which are too small in Ireland.

If this is the case then why do operators internationally also require public subsidies in order to operate?

using your criteria, mighty large countries like the the USA or Australia wouldn't require public subsidies for their railway operations.

Guess what? they do.

Frank Black

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

If this is the case then why do operators internationally also require public subsidies in order to operate?

using your criteria, mighty large countries like the the USA or Australia wouldn't require public subsidies for their railway operations.

Guess what? they do.

I have previously acknowledged that rail may offer other benefits when distances increase to over 400km. In countries you have mentioned, distances are so great between population centres that car travel is impratical leaving rail with only air travel to compete with.

Regardless of the above, your argument could basically be interpreted as 'if other countries are not making correct decisions then we shouldn't either'
There are plenty of people in those countries who hold negative view regarding the subsidisation of rail.

invinciblePRSTV

black francis wrote: »

I have previously acknowledged that rail may offer other benefits when distances increase to over 400km. In countries you have mentioned, distances are so great between population centres that car travel is impratical leaving rail with only air travel to compete with.

400km? what an arbitrary number to pick. But nonetheless it still doesn't give credence to your viewpoint, if Irish IC Railway is so useless then why are 10m journies made on it? why are people still using it despite the increased competition from bus and car? How many more people would use it once journey times went down?

You and BKs simplistic proposals to scrap Ic rail and replace with convulated solutions ignores the simple fact that Irish people still want to use a railway and where decent railway connections exist they will be used.

And it also ignores that the Irish state subsidy to railways, like the rest given to public transport in this country by the Irish state which afair is far smaller a % then what other european countries give to their railways (like the UK, another small island which gives over 5 billion sterling a year in subsidies to their privately owned operations), so this line that IR's subvention is too high is frankly bunkum tbh.

black francis wrote: »

Regardless of the above, your argument could basically be interpreted as 'if other countries are not making correct decisions then we shouldn't either'

So it's the "correct decision" then for there to be no public subsidies for railways anywhere in the world? A revealing insight into your flawed worldview if ever there were one.

Pete_Cavan

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

As already mentioned, bad as IE can be, they still have a quite decent record in building infrastructure projects such as this in the alloted time and budget.

Why would you doubt IE's figures? they built the KRP, re-opened the WRC, PACE and Midleton lines amongst many other examples of decent infrastructure builds over the past two decades without major cost increases or time over runs over what was anticipated.

Compare that to the severe wastage and sweet heart toll contracts the NRA negotiated over the past decade or so.

The cost overrun on building a motorway through hills/valleys/rock/bogs/whatever happens to be in the ground and the cost of reinstating a railway line in a dedicated alignment on a previously prepared track bed are not comparable. And please stop bringing the NRA into this, investment in rail should be justifiable on its own merits, the 'look at all the money NRA got, now give us' argument does not work. BTW, when defending rail, it is best not to mention WRC.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

how do you know that then? you have knowledge of IE's funding structure?

Dubhthach has me overed.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

As for you not seeing justification for investing in this project, well clearly you must have a distorted opinion of what constitutes value for money. This project will deliver decreased journey times for effectively all IC journies IE operate as well as delivering improvements to Dublin outer suburban services.

That's a ballpark figure of at least 10m journies per annum which will see journey times reduced. How you can't see the justification of this project is strange to say the least.

Spending a couple of hundred million euro of taxpayers money to build infrastructure to provide a service which will require heavy subsidies from the taxpayer is not justifiable when we have existing infrastructure which can do provide similar (or in some cases, superior) services faster.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Strongly disagree, it costs the guts of a couple of hundred million to build one piece of one motorway to reduce journey times between place x and place y.

For the same money this project will deliver decreases journey times to effectively every corner of the country. For a relatively minor capital cost this projects will deliver benefits far in excess of pretty much any road project the state has on the drawing board.

The economic benefits from roads in terms of moving people and goods far outweigh the benefits of any rail project in this country. The costs of rail may be lower, but so are the benefits.

Frank Black

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

400km? what an arbitrary number to pick..

Not really, studies I have read vary somewhat but tend to be between 350km - 500km depending on the methodologies used.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

But nonetheless it still doesn't give credence to your viewpoint, if Irish IC Railway is so useless then why are 10m journies made on it? why are people still using it despite the increased competition from bus and car? How many more people would use it once journey times went down?

You and BKs simplistic proposals to scrap Ic rail and replace with convulated solutions ignores the simple fact that Irish people still want to use a railway and where decent railway connections exist they will be used.

And it also ignores that the Irish state subsidy to railways, like the rest given to public transport in this country by the Irish state which afair is far smaller a % then what other european countries give to their railways (like the UK, another small island which gives over 5 billion sterling a year in subsidies to their privately owned operations), so this line that IR's subvention is too high is frankly bunkum tbh. .

Irish people probably still want a hot-tub in their back garden - this is a question of affordabilty and economy.

- and how other countries spend their money is of little concern to me.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

So it's the "correct decision" then for there to be no public subsidies for railways anywhere in the world? A revealing insight into your flawed worldview if ever there were one.

Wouldn't be familiar with local factors in other countries that may pertain - so nope, wouldn't say that.

No harm in asking the question though.

dubhthach

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The cost overrun on building a motorway through hills/valleys/rock/bogs/whatever happens to be in the ground and the cost of reinstating a railway line in a dedicated alignment on a previously prepared track bed are not comparable. And please stop bringing the NRA into this, investment in rail should be justifiable on its own merits, the 'look at all the money NRA got, now give us' argument does not work. BTW, when defending rail, it is best not to mention WRC.

Dubhthach has me overed.

Spending a couple of hundred million euro of taxpayers money to build infrastructure to provide a service which will require heavy subsidies from the taxpayer is not justifiable when we have existing infrastructure which can do provide similar (or in some cases, superior) services faster.

The economic benefits from roads in terms of moving people and goods far outweigh the benefits of any rail project in this country. The costs of rail may be lower, but so are the benefits.

Iarnród Éireann's "Profit and Loss" and "Balance Sheet" can be view in their Annual Report for 2010. Found here:
http://www.irishrail.ie/about_us/pdf/IE%20Annual%20Report%202010.pdf

According to Note 8 they received a total of €587.7m in state Grants in 2010. Of that €382.5m was NDP related grants.

Yahew

black francis wrote: »

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

400km? what an arbitrary number to pick..

Not really, studies I have read vary somewhat but tend to be between 350km - 500km depending on the methodologies used.

Link? Clearly rail is popular in small to medium sized european countries and not in the US.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

But nonetheless it still doesn't give credence to your viewpoint, if Irish IC Railway is so useless then why are 10m journies made on it? why are people still using it despite the increased competition from bus and car? How many more people would use it once journey times went down?

You and BKs simplistic proposals to scrap Ic rail and replace with convulated solutions ignores the simple fact that Irish people still want to use a railway and where decent railway connections exist they will be used.

And it also ignores that the Irish state subsidy to railways, like the rest given to public transport in this country by the Irish state which afair is far smaller a % then what other european countries give to their railways (like the UK, another small island which gives over 5 billion sterling a year in subsidies to their privately owned operations), so this line that IR's subvention is too high is frankly bunkum tbh. .

Irish people probably still want a hot-tub in their back garden - this is a question of affordabilty and economy.

- and how other countries spend their money is of little concern to me.

The most important thing here then is you? I am thinking that if rail is popular on the rich hinterlands of Europe and unpopular with a minority of quasi-libertarian car fetishists in Ireland we shod go with expert and educated opinion.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

So it's the "correct decision" then for there to be no public subsidies for railways anywhere in the world? A revealing insight into your flawed worldview if ever there were one.

Wouldn't be familiar with local factors in other countries that may pertain - so nope, wouldn't say that.

No harm in asking the question though.

that's a telling admission of a supreme lack of knowledge about the rest of the world. an admission you know nothing about rail outside Ireland but an expert within it.

Embarrassing thread.

Frank Black

Yahew wrote: »

Link? Clearly rail is popular in small to medium sized european countries and not in the US.



The most important thing here then is you? I am thinking that if rail is popular on the rich hinterlands of Europe and unpopular with a minority of quasi-libertarian car fetishists in Ireland we shod go with expert and educated opinion.




that's a telling admission of a supreme lack of knowledge about the rest of the world. an admission you know nothing about rail outside Ireland but an expert within it.

Embarrassing thread.

Congratulations.
With that kind of thinking you should be able to advance through life without the hassle of having to think for yourself.

I envy you.

All my links are in work, but I might post some stuff up tomorrow if I get time.

Yahew

black francis wrote: »

Yahew wrote: »

Link? Clearly rail is popular in small to medium sized european countries and not in the US.



The most important thing here then is you? I am thinking that if rail is popular on the rich hinterlands of Europe and unpopular with a minority of quasi-libertarian car fetishists in Ireland we shod go with expert and educated opinion.




that's a telling admission of a supreme lack of knowledge about the rest of the world. an admission you know nothing about rail outside Ireland but an expert within it.

Embarrassing thread.

Congratulations.
With that kind of thinking you should be able to advance through life without the hassle of having to think for yourself.

I envy you.

All my links are in work, but I might post some stuff up tomorrow if I get time.

The ability to "think for oneself" ignoring expert opinion was something my great aunt fidelma, who believed the moon was made of cheese, indulged in. She was committed.

Anybody of limited intelligence can think his own thoughts, or poor them incoherently on forums. What the rest of us are looking for however, is not evidence of one mans bias, however self-thought, but actual evidence, facts and sense.

It could be that you are right and Ireland is the only country in the world which wouldn't benefit from high speed rail, despite expert opinion in the rest of the world, and it might be that we should ignore the rest of the world, but I doubted the moon was made if cheese and I doubt you.

Frank Black

Yahew wrote: »

The ability to "think for oneself" ignoring expert opinion was something my great aunt fidelma, who believed the moon was made of cheese, indulged in. She was committed.

Anybody of limited intelligence can think his own thoughts, or poor them incoherently on forums. What the rest of us are looking for however, is not evidence of one mans bias, however self-thought, but actual evidence, facts and sense.

It could be that you are right and Ireland is the only country in the world which wouldn't benefit from high speed rail, despite expert opinion in the rest of the world, and it might be that we should ignore the rest of the world, but I doubted the moon was made if cheese and I doubt you.

I believe in facts all right.
Stuff that can be measured - like carbon emissions or average maintenance cost per km of track

The stuff you rely on is merely political decisions - and look where that got us.

bk

Mike 1972 wrote: »

A very good point. If trains want to be competitive with motorways its not good enough for them to get one there as fast a driving. They need to get one there much faster.

Agreed, for rail to be effective it must be much faster. No point in being the same speed as by car, as people will then take the car due to the time it takes to get too and from the station.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

If a train cant get you there faster than driving how is a bus going to manage it given that it uses the same roads as cars, gets stuck in the same traffic and is inheriently slower (even when they use direct non stop routes busses have to contend with lower speed limits and less accelleration and suffer the same drawbacks as trains in not offering a door to door service) ?

Absolutely correct. But I support buses based on two points:

1) As an alternative to trains for people who require public transport between our cities (due to not owning a car or wanting to work during the commute), but without the necessary 200 million subsidy every year plus more in capital costs that the train requires.

2) Buses can compete with cars in one way that trains can't, cost.
Dublin to Cork by car costs about €50 in Petrol and tolls. Train €74.
But the bus would only be about €25, thus it has the potential to attract people out of their cars to save money.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Mind you if such a service can operate viably without public subsidy then there is no reason why it shouldnt be licenced immediately regardless of all other considerations.

Exactly, there is simply no justification for not immediately licensing direct bus services.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

You, like blackie, clearly ignore the simple fact that the world over, railways of both the IC and commuter variety are very often "heavily" subsidised.

this is why i'm calling your free market inspired solution simplistic, because you seem to operate under the assumption that railways must be profitable in order for them to be useful.

This clearly isn't the case.

That isn't true, I've no problem subsidising something when it is in the public interest and achieve some goal of national importance.

For instance I've no problem with subsidising Dublin Bus or Dart and Commuter Rail.

I even had no problem subsidising intercity rail in the past, when it was the fastest way to travel between our cities and the safest.

But that is no longer the case, we now have these fantastic, fast, safe roads. I just don't see any point or need to intercity rail anymore and therefore I don't see why it is in the public interest to continue subsidising it.

That is the heart of my question, what national benefit is gained in continuing to subsidise intercity rail in Ireland, I just don't see it?

I don't see why I should be paying €74 every time I go to Cork, when I could be spending just €25 on a bus.

And I don't see why my tax money should be going to subsidising Irish Rail to the tune of 200 million per year plus other capital costs.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

You and BKs simplistic proposals to scrap Ic rail and replace with convulated solutions ignores the simple fact that Irish people still want to use a railway and where decent railway connections exist they will be used.

There is nothing convoluted about it. You just license private bus operators to operate routes, just like they have already very successfully done on the Galway to Dublin route. Very simple.

Judgement Day

bk - can you provide a link that shows where motorists have been enticed from their cars into buses for inter-city travel? I think you'll be a long time googling that one. Buses are for the poor, the OAPs and students - not for motorists.

bk

Judgement Day wrote: »

bk - can you provide a link that shows where motorists have been enticed from their cars into buses for inter-city travel? I think you'll be a long time googling that one. Buses are for the poor, the OAPs and students - not for motorists.

LOL, from what I've seen, traveling Cork to Dublin once a month, the only people using trains anymore are the poor, the OAPs and students.

All of my professional colleagues now drive. Faster and cheaper and get to use the car at both ends.

So given that only the poor, the OAPs and students are left using trains and you yourself admit buses are better suited to them, then why do we continue to subsidise intercity rail to the tune of 200 million a year?

Judgement Day

bk wrote: »

LOL, from what I've seen, traveling Cork to Dublin once a month, the only people using trains anymore are the poor, the OAPs and students.

All of my professional colleagues now drive. Faster and cheaper and get to use the car at both ends.

So given that only the poor, the OAPs and students are left using trains and you yourself admit buses are better suited to them, then why do we continue to subsidise intercity rail to the tune of 200 million a year?

You miss my point - you and 'all your professional colleagues' are unlikely to switch from cars to buses but feel free to recommend that everybody else - the little people - should be forced onto them.

antoobrien

Judgement Day wrote: »

You miss my point - you and 'all your professional colleagues' are unlikely to switch from cars to buses but feel free to recommend that everybody else - the little people - should be forced onto them.

Google Galway - Dublin routes, there are 2 private, unsubsidized bus companies running 30 direct services daily (with more on certain days). It can't all be "the little people" as you so offensively put it.

Citylink Timetable
Go Bus time table

I'm far more likely to use gobus or citylink than get the train again for reasons of speed, comfort and price.

Frank Black

Yahew wrote: »

Link? Clearly rail is popular in small to medium sized european countries and not in the US.



.

Have a look at EC Communication 2007 Logistics: Keeping Freight Moving, Memo.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/415&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

There's a graph about halfway down (if you select the pdf version of the file) which compares the costs of rail and road freight transport.

Now, how about you post up a few links to back of some of your half-baked theories?
Strange how it's only the people opposed to further subsidisation of IE that are expected to post links to back up their arguments.:rolleyes:

Judgement Day

antoobrien wrote: »

Google Galway - Dublin routes, there are 2 private, unsubsidized bus companies running 30 direct services daily (with more on certain days). It can't all be "the little people" as you so offensively put it.

Citylink Timetable
Go Bus time table

I'm far more likely to use gobus or citylink than get the train again for reasons of speed, comfort and price.

You obviously have a defective sarcasm detector! My reply was aimed at bk and 'all his professional colleagues'. My point being that there is a certain type of motorist who won't use public transport unless there's no alternative and pontificate that buses are cheaper than trains and good enough for the rest of us. What about bk's in depth analysis of rail users as being poor, OAPs and students - I wonder how he ascertained people's financial status?

Yahew

Judgement Day wrote: »

You miss my point - you and 'all your professional colleagues' are unlikely to switch from cars to buses but feel free to recommend that everybody else - the little people - should be forced onto them.

In any case it is highly dubious that it is true. I dont know as I dont live in Ireland, but the train I take to London twice a week is packed with young and middle aged ( and clearly well off) business people. It takes about the same time as Cork-Dublin, and makes more stops.

So why the difference? Do people prefer driving around before a business meeting in Ireland, heading into uncertain rush hour traffic, and looking for parking. Or is it that you want to go to the centre of London in most cases, and to the outskirts of Dublin. Or is it air travel? ( I doubt it, as the time in the Airport and getting from the Airport makes the train just as fast).

I dont get the "drive to Dublin from Cork" malarky for business men. You can work on a train, there are power sockets. You dont have to drive for 4 hours. you gain 4 hours a day for work, at least some of it. Its insane to drive, except to prove you can.

Yahew

black francis wrote: »

Have a look at EC Communication 2007 Logistics: Keeping Freight Moving, Memo.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/07/415&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

There's a graph about halfway down (if you select the pdf version of the file) which compares the costs of rail and road freight transport.

You produced one article which actually wants to champion rail in the future, and which is about freight, not passenger journeys. Not unsurprisingly people dont take van loads of containers on trains, but take vans. The costs equalise about 300KM+ . However, this discussion is not about freight. Its about passenger journeys.

bk

Judgement Day wrote: »

You miss my point - you and 'all your professional colleagues' are unlikely to switch from cars to buses but feel free to recommend that everybody else - the little people - should be forced onto them.

Just to point out, while I am a professional and could easily afford a car, I choose not to out of care for the environment.

I regularly take the train, but would happily switch to a direct non stop bus service equivalent to gobus/citylink if one was available to Cork, as I'd rather pay a third of the price.

Having asked my friends, about 40% of them said they would switch to bus from car if the bus took less then 3 hours and cost €25.

Non of them said they would switch back to train, even if it was 30 minutes faster, as it would still be more expensive then by car and the door to door time of car still beats it.

Yahew wrote: »

I dont get the "drive to Dublin from Cork" malarky for business men. You can work on a train, there are power sockets. You dont have to drive for 4 hours. you gain 4 hours a day for work, at least some of it. Its insane to drive, except to prove you can.

You can also do the same work for 4 hours on the bus. But at least then it doesn't require a massive 200 million per year subsidy.

Here is the reality folks, the government needs to cut the deficit by €3.6 billion this year and the ESRI is warning they might have to do it by more.

We need to find inventive ways to cut cost, while trying to maintain and perhaps even expand services.

Licensing private bus operators costs the tax payer nothing, so it should be done immediately.

As for Irish Rail, there is zero chance that they will get this 175 million and in fact the subsidy is likely to be cut this year and over the next few years.

Irish Rail will need to get use to this new reality and that means pay cuts and reducing staff numbers. The government hand outs are coming to an end.

Yahew

bk wrote: »

You can also do the same work for 4 hours on the bus. But at least then it doesn't require a massive 200 million per year subsidy.

Here is the reality folks, the government needs to cut the deficit by €3.6 billion this year and the ESRI is warning they might have to do it by more.

We need to find inventive ways to cut cost, while trying to maintain and perhaps even expand services.

Licensing private bus operators costs the tax payer nothing, so it should be done immediately.

As for Irish Rail, there is zero chance that they will get this 175 million and in fact the subsidy is likely to be cut this year and over the next few years.

Irish Rail will need to get use to this new reality and that means pay cuts and reducing staff numbers. The government hand outs are coming to an end.

I would be surprised if that were true. One legitimate use of Government money, beyond everything else, is capital investment which we are talking about here.

And no you cant work comfortably on a bus, a bus which would hit rush hour traffic as it enters a city, for these reasons people in the rest of the world take the train.

Judgement Day

bk wrote: »

Just to point out, while I am a professional and could easily afford a car, I choose not to out of care for the environment.

I regularly take the train, but would happily switch to a direct non stop bus service equivalent to gobus/citylink if one was available to Cork, as I'd rather pay a third of the price.

Having asked my friends, about 40% of them said they would switch to bus from car if the bus took less then 3 hours and cost €25.

Non of them said they would switch back to train, even if it was 30 minutes faster, as it would still be more expensive then by car and the door to door time of car still beats it.

You can also do the same work for 4 hours on the bus. But at least then it doesn't require a massive 200 million per year subsidy.

Here is the reality folks, the government needs to cut the deficit by €3.6 billion this year and the ESRI is warning they might have to do it by more.

We need to find inventive ways to cut cost, while trying to maintain and perhaps even expand services.

Licensing private bus operators costs the tax payer nothing, so it should be done immediately.

As for Irish Rail, there is zero chance that they will get this 175 million and in fact the subsidy is likely to be cut this year and over the next few years.

Irish Rail will need to get use to this new reality and that means pay cuts and reducing staff numbers. The government hand outs are coming to an end.

If you're so concerned for the environment I'm surprised that you favour road based transport solutions. I also think you're being economical with the truth about your friends switching from car to bus rather than the train. It would be going against the trend but I haven't the time to go searching for links right now. I know amongst my friends that most would opt for the train every time if driving isn't an option. As I'm sick of stating, just because CIE cannot organise a piss-up in a brewery doesn't mean that trains are bad per se. Allowing uncontrolled bus competition against those routes not already subjected to same will only see the railways killed off and the country the poorer for it in the long term. The powers that be in CIE won't give a damn as they get golden handshakes or move off to wreak havoc in some other State company.

bk

Yahew wrote: »

And no you cant work comfortably on a bus, a bus which would hit rush hour traffic as it enters a city, for these reasons people in the rest of the world take the train.

Bull, I've worked no problem on buses, the seats are much the same size and can fit a laptop, plus you have the free wifi. Absolutely no different then the train.

Judgement Day wrote: »

If you're so concerned for the environment I'm surprised that you favour road based transport solutions.

As has been pointed out multiple times, with evidence, bus coaches are the greenest form of intercity travel. So yes, I do support them over diesel intercity trains.

Note I support rail for public mass transport (dart, luas), commuter and yes even intercity rail across mainland Europe (where you have much further distances and it is thus competitive) and freight in the US.

But being an engineer I also bring a certain level of pragmatism to my environmental outlook. I don't just assume that rail is the greenest, instead I look for evidence and see what is really the greenest option and also take into account the other costs involved.

Judgement Day wrote: »

I also think you're being economical with the truth about your friends switching from car to bus rather than the train.

So now you are calling me a liar :mad:

In the past few days, due to this conversation, I took the oppurtunity to ask 7 of my friends over lunch and while out for drinks and gien the option 3 of them said they would switch from car to bus if you could do Cork to Dublin in 3 hours for €25.

Judgement Day wrote: »

It would be going against the trend but I haven't the time to go searching for links right now. I know amongst my friends that most would opt for the train every time if driving isn't an option.

Even if the bus is as fast or faster the the train and costs €25 versus €74 ??

Now I find that very hard to believe and it certainly isn't true on the Galway line where the Galway train service is in serious trouble.

Sure if money wasn't a concern then train might be preferable, but for most people money is a big concern and that is what we are talking about here.

Judgement Day wrote: »

As I'm sick of stating, just because CIE cannot organise a piss-up in a brewery doesn't mean that trains are bad per se.

Then why in gods name should we chuck more money at Irish Rail, so they can carry on as is.

Surely we should be reforming CIE and IR first, before we give them anymore money?

Judgement Day wrote: »

Allowing uncontrolled bus competition against those routes not already subjected to same will only see the railways killed off and the country the poorer for it in the long term.

So you are admitting now that bus coaches are a superior product and that given the option most people would take direct buses over rail?

Then what justification is there for continuing rail if most people are happy with buses?

Frank Black

Yahew wrote: »

You produced one article which actually wants to champion rail in the future, and which is about freight, not passenger journeys. Not unsurprisingly people dont take van loads of containers on trains, but take vans. The costs equalise about 300KM+ . However, this discussion is not about freight. Its about passenger journeys.

Nope, it's actually about the continued viability of hugely subsidising a parallel inter-city railway service when we already have a motorway inter-city network that can do the same job, in the same time, for less cost and less environmental impact.

I’ve actually linked 3 relevant articles now over the course of this thread – all of which were produced by ‘champions of rail’, to avoid any claims that I was selectively producing articles from ‘crackpot rail-haters’.

How much evidence have you produced again?


Oh yeah, that's right - nothing.

Judgement Day

bk - you keep on trying to twist what I'm saying:

Originally Posted by Judgement Day
Allowing uncontrolled bus competition against those routes not already subjected to same will only see the railways killed off and the country the poorer for it in the long term.

Your response:
So you are admitting now that bus coaches are a superior product and that given the option most people would take direct buses over rail?

Then what justification is there for continuing rail if most people are happy with buses?

Clearly what I'm saying is that a free for all benefits nobody. Some bus operators will get rich, others will fall by the wayside and the railway will lose business. The more options you have in a small market the more difficult it becomes to operate anything in a profitable way. How much damage has been done to IE by subsidising regional air services?

Anyway, on one point I will agree with you, and that is that CIE/IE should not be given any further funding for anything. I'm against DART Underground for this reason rather than the project itself. Remove CIE from the equation and things can change. Will any politician have the balls - I think not.

PS I didn't call you a liar - just economical with the truth.

Frank Black

Yahew wrote: »

I would be surprised if that were true. One legitimate use of Government money, beyond everything else, is capital investment which we are talking about here.

And no you cant work comfortably on a bus, a bus which would hit rush hour traffic as it enters a city, for these reasons people in the rest of the world take the train.

Ha! Only read this after my last post - you really need to make up your mind what it is you think 'we're talking about here'.

And I honestly don't want to sound patronising - but it's clear from your posts, that you've no background in the field and have conducted no research of your own.

antoobrien

Judgement Day wrote: »

You obviously have a defective sarcasm detector! My reply was aimed at bk and 'all his professional colleagues'.

Aware of that, and aware that I'd fall into the rough categorization of professional (don't know bk, so I won't claim to be a colleague). Regardless you undermine your point with the arrogant classification of "little people"

Judgement Day wrote: »

My point being that there is a certain type of motorist who won't use public transport

I've met plenty of people in Dublin that won't use buses but will use the dart and I've often been told by them that buses are only for "skangers". How does the attitude of a "certain type of rail user" reflect on all our rail users?

Judgement Day wrote: »

What about bk's in depth analysis of rail users as being poor, OAPs and students - I wonder how he ascertained people's financial status?

This appears to be an observation about whom bk believes the majority of users of intercity rail are. What's wrong with stating such an observation?

There's another thing you're missing - all the people bk mentioned have their travel either discounted or subsidized. Based on this it could be argued that the service is too expensive for normal mortals who have to subsidize all this though extortionate fares and taxes.

Judgement Day

antoobrien wrote: »

Aware of that, and aware that I'd fall into the rough categorization of professional (don't know bk, so I won't claim to be a colleague). Regardless you undermine your point with the arrogant classification of "little people"



I've met plenty of people in Dublin that won't use buses but will use the dart and I've often been told by them that buses are only for "skangers". How does the attitude of a "certain type of rail user" reflect on all our rail users?



This appears to be an observation about whom bk believes the majority of users of intercity rail are. What's wrong with stating such an observation?

There's another thing you're missing - all the people bk mentioned have their travel either discounted or subsidized. Based on this it could be argued that the service is too expensive for normal mortals who have to subsidize all this though extortionate fares and taxes.

Sadly, as a non-professional (whatever that is) I have to admit to not understanding any of the above. I have already made it clear that my reference to 'little people' was sarcastic and if you troubled to read the rest of my post you would see that I clearly identify myself as being among them in bk's 'professional' eyes. :rolleyes:

dowlingm

Clearly some small European countries - Holland, Switzerland for two - can make rail work without vast distances and even in the latter case terrain far more challenging than the WRC. Also, I think distance is not so important as time - Kerry is not that far from Dublin or Cork in the context of larger countries and yet I would think their airport is seen as indispensible. For intercity the optimum journey length is in the 2hr range - long enough that a bus is tiresome with its lack of space and facilities but short enough that air travel (particularly terminal time and time from terminal to final destination) is fighting to compete.

As I understand it a lot of improvement work is already happening with the replacement of 1980s track with UIC60 - IE needs to get a project page going detailing nationwide upgrades not issuing easily dismissed PR fluff from the Information Minister.

Something like this for example
http://www.gotransit.com/public/en/improve/projects.aspx

steamengine

Interesting reading the fore-going posts. AFAIK rail is the greenest form of travel - some figures gleaned from the net gives the average mpg for a passenger train as between 8 and 12, which is approximately the same as a coach/bus. Clearly the average passenger train can carry a lot more passengers than 1 coach. However this economy does depend on the train being reasonably full of passengers.

This due to the more frictionless nature of rail and even though on acceleration there is high inertia to be overcome, once it's rolling it takes less power to maintain speed. Motor vehicles are constantly shedding power through tyre deformation and shock absorber losses, and are exposed generally to more severe gradients than trains.

Reading around info pertaining to rail in the UK, shows that currently there is a year on year increase in rail freight which has been welcomed by goverment there as this is having a concrete effect on reducing the country's overall CO2 emissions. Again it is reckoned shifting freight by road costs 70% more than by rail in fuel costs.

The notion of abandoning rail altogether is a bit previous in light of the overall economies in both consumption and emissions, but having said that, they need to get up to speed (literally) in this country and get bums on seats at an affordable price to survive. People should also remember things like the big freeze last year where roads across the country became impassable and the only reliable mode of travel during that period was rail.

Frank Black

steamengine wrote: »

Interesting reading the fore-going posts. AFAIK rail is the greenest form of travel - some figures gleaned from the net gives the average mpg for a passenger train as between 8 and 12, which is approximately the same as a coach/bus. Clearly the average passenger train can carry a lot more passengers than 1 coach. However this economy does depend on the train being reasonably full of passengers.

Reading around info pertaining to rail in the UK, shows that currently there is a year on year increase in rail freight which has been welcomed by government there as this is having a concrete effect on reducing the country's overall CO2 emissions. Again it is reckoned shifting freight by road costs 70% more than by rail in fuel costs.

The notion of abandoning rail altogether is a bit previous in light of the overall economies in both consumption and emissions, but having said that, they need to get up to speed (literally) in this country and get bums on seats at an affordable price to survive. People should also remember things like the big freeze last year where roads across the country became impassable and the only reliable mode of travel during that period was rail.

Look - seeing as I'm always getting asked to post links to back up my statements, can you post up where you're pulling these figures from, because I've read literature which would dispute this.

Your argument regarding freight is a different matter. Most European railways are actively looking into expanding their take of the freight transport market. The previous link posted by myself examines this. Unfortunately Ireland is unable to do likewise.
Quite simply an island which is 200miles wide and 350miles long, with a reasonably small population will never be able compete with road in this market. At present we transport less than 1% of our fright by rail (and yes I can provide a link tomorrow if necessary - or just check CSA website if you like). So we cannot hope to generate additional revenue from this market.

Your last point regarding inclement weather has previously been answered by both myself and bk and doesn't require further discussion.

monument

black francis wrote: »

Look - seeing as I'm always getting asked to post links to back up my statements, can you post up where you're pulling these figures from, because I've read literature which would dispute this.

You're right, he's wrong. Rail is only the greenest form of transport after the bicycle.

Since you're asking him for a link, can I ask what literature did you read? Do you have a link?

black francis wrote: »

Your argument regarding freight is a different matter. Most European railways are actively looking into expanding their take of the freight transport market. The previous link posted by myself examines this. Unfortunately Ireland is unable to do likewise.
Quite simply an island which is 200miles wide and 350miles long, with a reasonably small population will never be able compete with road in this market. At present we transport less than 1% of our fright by rail (and yes I can provide a link tomorrow if necessary - or just check CSA website if you like). So we cannot hope to generate additional revenue from this market.

The statement "never be able compete with road" is wrong given that non-state commercial is already competing and they have plans to expand.

And "1% of our fright by rail" is a reason why there is hope to generate additional revenue from this market.

Frank Black

monument wrote: »

You're right, he's wrong. Rail is only the greenest form of transport after the bicycle.

Since you're asking him for a link, can I ask what literature did you read? Do you have a link?


Yep, can do in work tomorrow but let's see his first

The statement "never be able compete with road" is wrong given that non-state commercial is already competing and they have plans to expand.

And "1% of our fright by rail" is a reason why there is hope to generate additional revenue from this market.

Nope, it's merely a reflection of the uncompetitive nature of the Market.

Your 'hope' that this Market will increase is sadly likely to be incorrect.

Perhaps you could post up some detailed info as to why you have this 'hope'?

L1011

black francis wrote: »

Perhaps you could post up some detailed info as to why you have this 'hope'?

Irish Rail are known to resist all but the most doggedly resilient requests to run rail freight; they're quite specifically trying to get OUT of rail freight and would have if it wasn't for those pesky kids... sorry, IWT and Dublin Port.

Shannon Foynes Port Co. have been attempt to get the port reconnected to the rail network for the best part of a decade if not more as they have actual rail freight traffic that Irish Rail do not want.

Rail freight is extremely competitive if its not being arranged by Irish Rail and run on a full cost accounting basis (where the freight is expected to cover the total running costs of the lines it uses - ignoring the fact that passenger traffic also uses them...)