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

monument

black francis wrote: »

You're pedantic but correct -I should have said will never be able compete with road in this "market to justify retention of the inter-city services. It may well be a cheaper option to transport freight for a few minor routes in Ireland - but you quote a rail freight example on a non inter urban route to justify retentions of those routes?

Your thinking's all mixed up on this one.

I don't know what you're talking about. You're making sweeping statements and trying to row back on them by calling me pedantic and also moving the goal posts.

First there was no way to grow rail freight and now apparntly it can be grown on "minor" routes but not on other routes?

Why should rail freight "justify retention of the inter-city services"?

What's a non inter urban route? Dublin and Ballina aren't urban areas? What's so minor about the amount of trains they are running?

Frank Black

MYOB wrote: »

If you're arguing online (with the main tactic of screaming for "evidence" when anyone counters your set-in-stone view), at half eleven at night, you don't have anything more important to be doing.

There was a vague chance I'd spend the twenty seconds on Google to find some articles for you, but that's long since gone due to attitude. In the time it took you to post that reply you'd have found them.

That's ok - I googled it - and everything you said was true.

Well done, you won the whole thread.

DWCommuter

If there was a decent road route from Ballina to Waterford, IWT would be using trucks.:D

Frank Black

monument wrote: »

I don't know what you're talking about.

That’s been clear for some time now.

monument wrote: »

You're making sweeping statements and trying to row back on them by calling me pedantic and also moving the goal posts.

Nope, not really (except for the calling you pedantic part). I’m simply trying to clarify things for you, as you have admitted in point one you ‘don’t know what I’m talking about’.

monument wrote: »

First there was no way to grow rail freight and now apparntly it can be grown on "minor" routes but not on other routes?

By Jove, he’s got it!

monument wrote: »

Why should rail freight "justify retention of the inter-city services"?

Well, it can’t, but if IE could turn a profit operating a freight transport service on these route it might lessen the subvention requirements currently required.

monument wrote: »

What's a non inter urban route? Dublin and Ballina aren't urban areas?

Dublin is a significant urban area – if you want to class a town with a total population of 14,000 including surrounding hinterland as a significant urban area – you go right ahead

monument wrote: »

What's so minor about the amount of trains they are running?

It’s complete irrelevancy to the additional funding being sought by IE which as I understood was the on-going argument on this thread – that strikes me as the most ‘minor’ thing about it.

steamengine

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.

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.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/energy-efficiency-and-specific-co2-emissions/energy-efficiency-and-specific-co2-3

Why some posters here should pause and consider the negative implications of ignoring rail transport in Ireland. Any more strategic lines shut down will certainly ensure no advance on the '1% figure' you've quoted above. It is also interesting to note the current rowback concerning previous closures and how approx 60 years later the following have been partially re-instated. Harcourt St railway line and the old Dublin tram network - now Luas and to be expanded apparently re BXD. Navan line now partially reopened. Cork - Midleton.

Electrification of Inter City lines, although a long way off - if ever, is the eventual way forward IMO, as this will open up the possibilities of shedding fossil fuel power in favour of alternative green energy supplies such as wind and nuclear.

monument

black francis wrote: »

That’s been clear for some time now.

Nope, not really (except for the calling you pedantic part). I’m simply trying to clarify things for you, as you have admitted in point one you ‘don’t know what I’m talking about’.

I don't know what you're talking about because you keep moving the goal posts and you are unable to use language clearly -- you keep using sweeping statements and leaving out key words to explain what you mean (for example, you say "urban area" and it's only after you're challenged that you then say you mean "a significant urban area").

black francis wrote: »

monument wrote:

First there was no way to grow rail freight and now apparntly it can be grown on "minor" routes but not on other routes?

By Jove, he’s got it!

So now you're admitting that rail freight can grow and your first statement was a load of nonsense. Great...

black francis wrote: »

Well, it can’t, but if IE could turn a profit operating a freight transport service on these route it might lessen the subvention requirements currently required.

Great, so we can move away from your silly idea that freight should justify passenger services...

black francis wrote: »

Dublin is a significant urban area – if you want to class a town with a total population of 14,000 including surrounding hinterland as a significant urban area – you go right ahead

It’s complete irrelevancy to the additional funding being sought by IE which as I understood was the on-going argument on this thread – that strikes me as the most ‘minor’ thing about it.

In your previous post you did not say "significant urban area", you just said "urban area". It's time to start making up your mind or to write a little clearer.

And is there any chance you can answer my question rather than relying on "let's get back on topic" to try to get away from the fact you're talking nonsense?

We were talking about the Ballina route and you called it "minor" -- could you please tell me in an Irish context what is so minor about the amount of freight coming from Ballina railway yard?

Also: Keep in mind that bulk rail freight often comes from smaller places so the location's population size can have little to do with the freight output, and it's worth remembering that Ballina is not the only source of freight out of its railway yard.

monument

Also black francis --

As you talk about subventions a lot -- a switch to rail for freight and passenger would lessen the massive subventions needed in our road network.

The direct (cost of maintenance and road building) and "indirect" subventions (ie costs of congestion, road deaths and injuries, and deaths and health problems due to pollution). It would also make our towns and cities more attractive to businesses, works, and tourists.

But hey, lets only talk about the subventions which are accounted for on balance sheets all in the one place.

Frank Black

monument wrote: »

I don't know what you're talking about because you keep moving the goal posts and you are unable to use language clearly -- you keep using sweeping statements and leaving out key words to explain what you mean (for example, you say "urban area" and it's only after you're challenged that you then say you mean "a significant urban area").

Most people are able to figure these things out without having to have every single last detail spelled out to the nth degree – I understand you’re not one of these people, but I honestly can’t be arsed getting bogged down in semantics with someone looking to poke holes in an argument I have advanced that has not been even remotely refuted.

monument wrote: »

So now you're admitting that rail freight can grow and your first statement was a load of nonsense. Great...

*yawn*

monument wrote: »

Great, so we can move away from your silly idea that freight should justify passenger services...

*facepalm*

monument wrote: »

In your previous post you did not say "significant urban area", you just said "urban area". It's time to start making up your mind or to write a little clearer.

Or you could try thinking a little clearer – honestly it would save me the typing and everyone else the reading.

monument wrote: »

And is there any chance you can answer my question rather than relying on "let's get back on topic" to try to get away from the fact you're talking nonsense?

monument wrote: »

We were talking about the Ballina route and you called it "minor" -- could you please tell me in an Irish context what is so minor about the amount of freight coming from Ballina railway yard?

Also: Keep in mind that bulk rail freight often comes from smaller places so the location's population size can have little to do with the freight output, and it's worth remembering that Ballina is not the only source of freight out of its railway yard.

I’ve already answered it – you either are incapable of understanding that answer or are in denial of it.

Frank Black

steamengine wrote: »

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/energy-efficiency-and-specific-co2-emissions/energy-efficiency-and-specific-co2-3

Why some posters here should pause and consider the negative implications of ignoring rail transport in Ireland. Any more strategic lines shut down will certainly ensure no advance on the '1% figure' you've quoted above. It is also interesting to note the current rowback concerning previous closures and how approx 60 years later the following have been partially re-instated. Harcourt St railway line and the old Dublin tram network - now Luas and to be expanded apparently re BXD. Navan line now partially reopened. Cork - Midleton.

Electrification of Inter City lines, although a long way off - if ever, is the eventual way forward IMO, as this will open up the possibilities of shedding fossil fuel power in favour of alternative green energy supplies such as wind and nuclear.

The link you've posted does not advance your argument - while it states that road transport still consumes significantly more energy per tonne-km than rail or ship freight transport - it doesn't cross reference this with distance travelled. This is a huge factor in any comparison (as admitted by yourself in your OP)

As many of my previous posts have acknowledged, rail transport may offer advantages over longer distances available in mainland Europe - but in an Irish context, the stats you've supplied aren't relevant.

monument

black francis wrote: »

Most people are able to figure these things out without having to have every single last detail spelled out to the nth degree – I understand you’re not one of these people, but I honestly can’t be arsed getting bogged down in semantics with someone looking to poke holes in an argument I have advanced that has not been even remotely refuted.

...Or you could try thinking a little clearer – honestly it would save me the typing and everyone else the reading.

It's not semantics, there's a huge difference between an urban area and a "significant" one. It's nothing to do with me thinking clearer, I'm not a mind reader and I'm not going to guess you mean something when you don't say it.

And what argument of yours is not even been remotely refuted?

black francis wrote: »

*yawn*

*facepalm*

Please do keep showing your arguments up to be nonsense.

black francis wrote: »

I’ve already answered it – you either are incapable of understanding that answer or are in denial of it.[/COLOR]

You didn't answer the question, you deflected.

black francis wrote: »

As many of my previous posts have acknowledged, rail transport may offer advantages over longer distances available in mainland Europe - but in an Irish context, the stats you've supplied aren't relevant.

You've already been proven wrong on this.

There is a non-state commercial company running freight services in Ireland.

Frank Black

monument wrote: »

It's not semantics, there's a huge difference between an urban area and a "significant" one. It's nothing to do with me thinking clearer, I'm not a mind reader and I'm not going to guess you mean something when you don't say it..

Yes there's a 'significant' difference.

monument wrote: »

You didn't answer the question, you deflected. ..

I did, you failed to understand it.

monument wrote: »

You've already been proven wrong on this.

There is a non-state commercial company running freight services in Ireland.

Keep up buddy, we were talking about CO2 emmissions - not freight viability.

monument

black francis wrote: »

Yes there's a 'significant' difference.

Well done.

black francis wrote: »

I did, you failed to understand it.

People who deflect from questions with nonsense answers don't usually admit to doing so. Anyway...

black francis wrote: »

Keep up buddy, we were talking about CO2 emmissions - not freight viability.

The viability of freight from the point of view of a non-state commercial company, compared to transporting via road, ie the fuel savings, is linked to CO2 emissions. While IWT and its clients like Coca-Cola and medical devices firms may like to say there will be less CO2 emissions, the real important thing to most of them is the interlined fuel and cost savings.

"IWT believe that the service will save up to 5.5million road kilometres every year and will reduce CO2 emissions by as much as 2,750 tonnes" - http://www.iwt-irl.com/railfreight.html

Frank Black

monument wrote: »

The viability of freight from the point of view of a non-state commercial company, compared to transporting via road, ie the fuel savings, is linked to CO2 emissions. While IWT and its clients like Coca-Cola and medical devices firms may like to say there will be less CO2 emissions, the real important thing to most of them is the interlined fuel and cost savings.

"IWT believe that the service will save up to 5.5million road kilometres every year and will reduce CO2 emissions by as much as 2,750 tonnes" - http://www.iwt-irl.com/railfreight.html

You really have an obsession with the Dublin - Ballina railway line.

Do you travel it much?:rolleyes:

monument

black francis wrote: »

You really have an obsession with the Dublin - Ballina railway line.

Do you travel it much?:rolleyes:

Not as freight, no.

But yes, I find it interesting that a non-state commercial company can do what some people claim can't be done.

Frank Black

Here's IE with thier view on Freight back in the good old days of 2007.

Wonder who's arguments are backed up more by this?


“Iarnród Éireann continues to pursue a policy of growing its rail freight business where real opportunities present and returning the rail freight business to profitability. Iarnród Éireann has made progress in recent years in growing the rail freight business in areas where it holds a competitive advantage over road haulage, e.g. large volumes or trainloads over long distances.
Iarnród Éireann has undertaken extensive engagement with industry and transporters but had genuine difficulty in identifying business opportunities that offer reasonable volumes of business on a regular basis. It is not feasible to run trains with one or two containers and Iarnród Éireann has not identified sufficient business, with the exception of the Ballina to Waterford service, to group a
number of separate activities together to form a viable trainload. Most Irish industry is focused on ‘just in time’ transport which is particularly suited to our expanding and improving road network. Rail freight generally involves road movements at each end of the logistics chain and given the often short distances in Ireland it is difficult to develop a business case. The experience across Europe is no different. Rail freight activities are most economic over long distances with large volumes and where the freight to be carried is not time sensitive.
As part of the engagement with industry Iarnród Éireann works closely with port authorities to identify opportunities. Rail freight is fully liberalised since 1st January, 2007, and while no serious representations have been made to my Department for entry to the market to date, I would welcome any expressions of interest. In the absence of real opportunities or proposals for viable long term rail freight business, the development and use of fiscal incentives has not been considered.”
(Source: Written Dáil answer: Minister for Transport and the Marine, Noel Dempsey, 28/06/07).

bk

Rail freight typically requires two things, long distances and very heavy loads.

We have neither in Ireland, we are a small Island where most places are within 300km of Dublin and we have very little heavy industry (mining, etc.) and not much general manufacturing either.

To top it all off, we are and island and each of our cities has a port.

You literally couldn't find a place that is less suitable to rail freight.

It is generally much faster and cheaper to transport freight by road. You also have the advantage of avoiding a single company going on strike or suddenly raising prices and thus holding you hostage as it is so easy to just bring in another haulier.

I agree that if more private operators were allowed to operate rail freight, that we would see an increase in the usage of rail freight, but I don't see it increasing much beyond an extra percent or two. Certainly I can't see any circumstance where rail freight makes up more the 5% of all freight.

Therefore it has little material impact on the viability of intercity rail.

monument

black francis wrote: »

Here's IE with thier view on Freight back in the good old days of 2007.

Wonder who's arguments are backed up more by this?


“Iarnród Éireann continues to pursue a policy of growing its rail freight business where real opportunities present and returning the rail freight business to profitability. Iarnród Éireann has made progress in recent years in growing the rail freight business in areas where it holds a competitive advantage over road haulage, e.g. large volumes or trainloads over long distances.
Iarnród Éireann has undertaken extensive engagement with industry and transporters but had genuine difficulty in identifying business opportunities that offer reasonable volumes of business on a regular basis. It is not feasible to run trains with one or two containers and Iarnród Éireann has not identified sufficient business, with the exception of the Ballina to Waterford service, to group a
number of separate activities together to form a viable trainload. Most Irish industry is focused on ‘just in time’ transport which is particularly suited to our expanding and improving road network. Rail freight generally involves road movements at each end of the logistics chain and given the often short distances in Ireland it is difficult to develop a business case. The experience across Europe is no different. Rail freight activities are most economic over long distances with large volumes and where the freight to be carried is not time sensitive.
As part of the engagement with industry Iarnród Éireann works closely with port authorities to identify opportunities. Rail freight is fully liberalised since 1st January, 2007, and while no serious representations have been made to my Department for entry to the market to date, I would welcome any expressions of interest. In the absence of real opportunities or proposals for viable long term rail freight business, the development and use of fiscal incentives has not been considered.”
(Source: Written Dáil answer: Minister for Transport and the Marine, Noel Dempsey, 28/06/07).

That's from February 21, 2007, which was not even two months after the domestic market was opened.

And I'm open to correcting but Irish Rail only published its first Network Statement at the start of 2011.

Only this year the tramway to the rail network was extended in Dublin Port restoring the ability for trains to go further into the port. And has been mentioned by others on the thread, other ports remain unconnected.

Since 2007, DFDS and IWT are operating services and have expanded.

What exactly is your argument? To ignore what has happened since 2007 and that there are still barriers to entry into the market?

Sponge Bob

Many Zinc/Lead prospects are in play in Limerick/Tipp right now and Foynes would be an ideal spot for ore trains ( as it was with Silvermines) . I utterly fail to see why IE won't at least entertain the idea of trucking freight by rail.

A mixture of existing lines, short spurs and rebuilding part of the old Charleville line south towards Croom and we could railfreight the whole lot.

None of this has anything to do with the recently self-admitted lack of a business case for Intercity though

Frank Black

monument wrote: »

That's from February 21, 2007, which was not even two months after the domestic market was opened.

And I'm open to correcting but Irish Rail only published its first Network Statement at the start of 2011.

Only this year the tramway to the rail network was extended in Dublin Port restoring the ability for trains to go further into the port. And has been mentioned by others on the thread, other ports remain unconnected.

Since 2007, DFDS and IWT are operating services and have expanded.

What exactly is your argument? To ignore what has happened since 2007 and that there are still barriers to entry into the market?

If you haven't figured it out by now you never will.


There come's a point in all threads when you feel you've said all that you can say - I've made my points, you've made yours - Let the neutrals/voters decide whether they wish to funding the current system out of our scant tax resources.

monument

black francis wrote: »

If you haven't figured it out by now you never will.

There come's a point in all threads when you feel you've said all that you can say - I've made my points, you've made yours - Let the neutrals/voters decide whether they wish to funding the current system out of our scant tax resources.

I know what your overall argument is, but in your last post you just posted something which ignored what has happened since 2007 and that there are still barriers to entry into the market.

Anyway...

steamengine

black francis wrote: »

The link you've posted does not advance your argument - while it states that road transport still consumes significantly more energy per tonne-km than rail or ship freight transport - it doesn't cross reference this with distance travelled. This is a huge factor in any comparison (as admitted by yourself in your OP)

As many of my previous posts have acknowledged, rail transport may offer advantages over longer distances available in mainland Europe - but in an Irish context, the stats you've supplied aren't relevant.

Well it states more than that - did you not see Fig 1 - grams of CO2 per passenger kilometre ??? I never mentioned distance as it would be obvious to most people fuel consumption and emissions are are directly proportional to distance travelled. I revert back to my original point about the relatively frictionless nature of rail - one either accepts this or one doesn't and by extension the reduction in emissions and consumption - for passenger rail travel as well as freight.

Yahew

steamengine wrote: »

Well it states more than that - did you not see Fig 1 - grams of CO2 per passenger kilometre ??? I never mentioned distance as it would be obvious to most people fuel consumption and emissions are are directly proportional to distance travelled. I revert back to my original point about the relatively frictionless nature of rail - one either accepts this or one doesn't and by extension the reduction in emissions and consumption - for passenger rail travel as well as freight.

Good post but BF is changing the goal posts when he moves onto Freight. the OP mentions inter city passenger improvements. And thats what we are discussing and what he opposes.

The pro-road lobby are really pro-cars, but they throw in buses as a diversionary tactic. This is nonsensical.

Businessmen never take buses. The time to get out of Paddington to the green belt on a train is a few minutes. Taking it yesterday it seemed slightly more than 3 minutes before it was all greenery; however bus starting from Praed st. would be two red lights away and be up to an a hour from the "free flowing" m4. Similar differences apply when going into Bristol, although it would be past rush hour. The journey time is an hour longer on the timetable but in reality can be much more.

Is Dublin to Cork different? Not much. The cities are smaller, the motorway flows a bit better than the m4, but traffic is traffic.

The time from the centre to the centre will always be more on a bus.

dowlingm

If IE was interested in railfreight, they wouldn't have tried to sell the nonPP 201s and scrapped every freight crane and yard they could. But there was no takers for the 201s so they had to put them back to work. Now they're at the stage where Ballina is so congested with IWT and timber that Westport has reopened to timber, and Dublin Port has put its own money into reinstating sidings. If railfreight is to expand further, other vested interests are going to have to drag IE kicking and screaming - IDA, county councils who want fewer HGVs pounding their road repair budgets, etc.

For me the opportunities are greatest in reverse flow since the driver hours and wagons are already rolling - I've proposed in the past that Dublin's waste authorities should look at sending waste to the Indaver site in Meath to use any spare capacity using the empty trains returning to Tara, if lead dust issues could be avoided by wrapping the waste bales. Perhaps a small freight facility could be added in Claremorris (using the stub of the Tuam track they sometimes park trains on) to allow shipping from North Wall or Belview for pickup and distribution of sub train loads of imports to Mayo towns other than Ballina, or even OSB product from the Coillte mill itself if timber wagons could be used to transport it safely.

That NIR is completely uninvested in freight limits the ability to use the entire 1600mm network, so that goods landed at Larne from Scotland could be shipped to Tralee or indeed exported the other way. When the salt crisis happened recently it came to my attention that the salt processing facility up North lies right beside NIR rails but instead they send out by ship.

Zoney

dowlingm wrote: »

That NIR is completely uninvested in freight limits the ability to use the entire 1600mm network, so that goods landed at Larne from Scotland could be shipped to Tralee or indeed exported the other way. When the salt crisis happened recently it came to my attention that the salt processing facility up North lies right beside NIR rails but instead they send out by ship.

On those particular rails they have difficulty enough managing to keep a passenger service running!

Amtmann

black francis wrote: »

If you haven't figured it out by now you never will.

black francis wrote: »

Keep up buddy, we were talking about CO2 emmissions - not freight viability.

black francis wrote:

By Jove, he’s got it!

black francis wrote: »

Most people are able to figure these things out without having to have every single last detail spelled out to the nth degree – I understand you’re not one of these people

black francis wrote:

Or you could try thinking a little clearer – honestly it would save me the typing and everyone else the reading.

black francis wrote:

I’ve already answered it – you either are incapable of understanding that answer or are in denial of it.

Two things.

1) You are within a hair's breadth of being banned for six months. I'll not warn you again about the petty, snide comments. Cut it out, or you're gone.

2) Stop using colour=black in your posts on this forum. Not everyone uses the white Boards.ie skin and your posts are invisible on some display options. That's not a request, btw.

Amtmann

Tremelo wrote: »

2) Stop using colour=black in your posts on this forum. Not everyone uses the white Boards.ie skin and your posts are invisible on some display options. That's not a request, btw.

To explain the above comment, as it might sound a little strange:

All is well in the picture immediately below:


Suddenly, out of all the posts in the thread, only the text in posts made by you is black:


The reason is that you seem to have formatted your text deliberately that way:


If this is a technical issue not of your making, I suggest you post in the Help Desk or Feedback forums so that a ticket can be opened and a solution can be found. The site developers will know immediately why the problem occurred. I can even ask them if you like.

Don't reply on-thread. I will conduct all correspondence with you over PM from now on; but I wanted to explain that remark to the community.

EDIT: This issue has been satisfactorily explained. It is the result of pasting text from MS Word into the Boards.ie message input box, and is not a deliberate formatting option.

ei.sdraob

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2011/09/02/planes-trains-and-automobiles-ii/

more from Colm McCarthy if Snip Board fame

very good article!

Judgement Day

Colm McCarthy is an economist and as the old saying goes - economists know the price of everything and the value of nothing. I very much doubt when his report recommended the closing of the Ballina branch that he had a clue where it was and the fact that it was a busy freight route to boot. What McCarthy knows about a lot of things could be written on the back of a very small postage stamp.

If you have the inclination and a strong boredom threshold here's an interesting piece about the bould Colm.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/93211

ei.sdraob

when one can not fault an article one proceeds to tar the author, typical

Judgement Day

ei.sdraob wrote: »

when one can not fault an article one proceeds to tar the author, typical

Not really, McCarthy is typical of his type - Sean Barrett etc.etc. - people who have led cosseted lives (frequently at the expenses of the taxpayer) and never done any real work and feel that they have a God given right to talk down to the rest of us.