Improvement to rail routes (EDIT: using existing network)

end of the road

Wote wrote: »

The Waterford-Rosslare service died a death because there were only two trains a day on it and a 90 minute wait in Waterford to go on to Limerick. IE timetabled that service badly too so deliberately in my opinion engineered a situation where there was no demand for the service.

completely agree, i would say that most people in the areas around the railway probably didn't know their was still a passenger service running on the line, i certainly didn't. thought they had stopped years ago to be honest. the line might get mentioned the odd time by someone every few years or so, but thats it, no promotion no nothing by IE, it was probably wexfords best kept secret.

end of the road

bk wrote: »

Wote even if you didn't have BE competing with rail, you would still have the private coach companies crucifying rail with their much cheaper prices, higher speeds and zero cost to the taxpayer.

oh yeah because thats why people travel on busses instead of the trains, because its zero cost to the tax payer, you heard it first here lads and ladies, zero cost to the tax payer is a reason why people choose a horid rickidy buss over the train. to be honest i'd stick a horid 2700 railcar before i would take the bus these days, i used to do it and sure some of BE'S skanyas were comfortable when they had them, i remember one of them used to have a dreadful hum, oh god that hum.

corktina

The reality is we have a modern network of roads now which offer faster journey times, even at a 120k limit or lower. The cost of that to the passenger is less than rail and the cost to the taxpayer is less in the form of subsidy (which in the case of Citylink et al is zero).

IE are currently endeavouring to upgrade their flagship line to 100mph max speed, which will give an average speed of les than 80 mph. This is totally inadequate to combat the roads, as an example the UK were upgrading to 125 max in the 1970s on key routes specifically to counter the competition from the Motorways.

Rail is yesterdays system in terms of short non-commuter services, it's strength is long distance passengers (and the longest journey inIreland is only about 160 miles) and high-density commuter . People are voting with their feet, we used to use the train going to Dublin as it was conveniant, but now it costs more than the petrol (and if there is two or more travelling its a no brainer to take the car). So never mind opening new lines to small provincial towns, Rail needs to improve its services to Belfast, Cork, Galway , Limerick and Waterford. Most of the other lines should be shut down or pruned back to a Railhead served by a connecting coach network.

The Idyll Race

corktina wrote: »

The reality is we have a modern network of roads now which offer faster journey times, even at a 120k limit or lower. The cost of that to the passenger is less than rail and the cost to the taxpayer is less in the form of subsidy (which in the case of Citylink et al is zero).

IE are currently endeavouring to upgrade their flagship line to 100mph max speed, which will give an average speed of les than 80 mph. This is totally inadequate to combat the roads, as an example the UK were upgrading to 125 max in the 1970s on key routes specifically to counter the competition from the Motorways.

Rail is yesterdays system in terms of short non-commuter services, it's strength is long distance passengers (and the longest journey inIreland is only about 160 miles) and high-density commuter . People are voting with their feet, we used to use the train going to Dublin as it was conveniant, but now it costs more than the petrol (and if there is two or more travelling its a no brainer to take the car). So never mind opening new lines to small provincial towns, Rail needs to improve its services to Belfast, Cork, Galway , Limerick and Waterford. Most of the other lines should be shut down or pruned back to a Railhead served by a connecting coach network.

Yet again, you have ignored my point that there seems to be bottomless cash to pay landowners for new road alignments while even a cent to the railways is grudged.

I'd also love you to take your disproven remark about small provincial towns to the Donegal board. Letterkenny itself has twice the population of Ballina within the Town Council area alone, with that population again within five miles beyond the town boundary. Approximately sixty thousand people outside that again use Letterkenny as their service town in North Donegal.

You should actually try visiting the place instead of making smart alec assumptions to fit your seeming disdain for railways outside of railway engines.

corktina

Well, if you read what I wrote , and not what you think I wrote, you would see that small provincial towns might include the likes of Wexford, Tralee, Westport et al.

I suggest you go read it again.

60000 people is really not a large town you know...its not enough to support a rail service, the investnment in which would be enormous, when a bus service to several points could be in place for a fraction of that cost.

Hungerford

bk wrote: »

Wote even if you didn't have BE competing with rail, you would still have the private coach companies crucifying rail with their much cheaper prices, higher speeds and zero cost to the taxpayer.

Zero cost to the taxpayer? Who do you think pays for the upkeep of the road network and the construction of new roads? The tooth fairy??

bk

end of the road wrote: »

oh yeah because thats why people travel on busses instead of the trains, because its zero cost to the tax payer, you heard it first here lads and ladies, zero cost to the tax payer is a reason why people choose a horid rickidy buss over the train.

No, people take the bus because it is two to 4 times cheaper then by train while now being just as fast and comfortable.

The fact that it costs the taxpayer nothing isn't a reason a person takes a bus, but is a very positive side effect of bus travel that makes it hard to justify subsidising rail to the tune of 200 million a year.

end of the road wrote: »

to be honest i'd stick a horid 2700 railcar before i would take the bus these days, i used to do it and sure some of BE'S skanyas were comfortable when they had them, i remember one of them used to have a dreadful hum, oh god that hum.

Really you should try taking one of the new GoBus coaches to Cork or Galway. They really are light years ahead of the old BE coaches.

Unlike you I can actually compare them, having spent the past 10 years taking the train to Cork once a month. I can assure you that the new bus coaches have a less bumpy and quieter ride then the Mark 4 trains. Also their seats are more comfortable, being fully leather, reclining and lots of leg room.

You really should give them a try, it will open your eyes.

bk

Hungerford wrote: »

Zero cost to the taxpayer? Who do you think pays for the upkeep of the road network and the construction of new roads? The tooth fairy??

No, but you are always going to have to have the cost of building and maintaining a road network as it is vital to the economy. Roads carry 75% of all intercity passengers and 99% of all freight. Then putting a bus service on this road is making efficient use of a piece of infrastructure that is already there and would be there regardless.

Rail is always something you build in addition to a road. It is secondary to a road and has high maintenance costs and utility compared to the number of passengers and freight a road carries. You should only build a rail in addition to a road if the railway can justify itself on social and/or economic basis.

Building a rail at the cost of 100 million, which subsequently almost no one uses and has to be subsidised at the cost of 3 million (WRC) per year benefits no one.

I'm not saying we should close all our existing railways. But we need to be realistic here. Rail in Ireland is under serious threat. Forgot about opening new tracks to Donegal, etc. or even electrifying and double tracking all lines. What we need to focus on is making the absolute most of the railway assets we already have and ensuring that the core network is healthy and survives.

Victor

I've edited the thread title. Let us stick to improvements to the existing network, e.g. extra tracks, passing loops, stations, etc.

New or re-opened lines can go in a separate thread.

Moderator

corktina

Thank you Victor, this way this thread can be a sensible discussion on what is possible rather than pie-in -the -sky plans which will never happen.

Moving on to what BK said, I'd like to repeat my opinion that investment should be limited to InterCITY lines and focussed on making them quicker and more desirable, oh and something needs to be done to make them cheaper, at least a comparable cost to a bus ticket.
Other lines could be cut back to a railhead which then could be a hub for feeder coach services from several points. An example would be cutting back the Ballina /Westport lines with feeders running to Castlebar not only from those points but also places like Ballinrobe which has no train currently. Through ticketing, decent coachs, guaranteed connections.
. The only other part of the Rail Network that makes sense is commuter services, even if they make a loss as they have other benefits (social and traffic congestion for example)

I can't really see many lines closing, other than the usual suspects which are marginal to say the least and Galway, Sligo Limerick et al will no doubt continue to be rail-served.

Wote

If discussion on developing the rail network is to be stopped can the mods stop the pro bus propaganda as well?

Wote

bk wrote: »

No, but you are always going to have to have the cost of building and maintaining a road network as it is vital to the economy. Roads carry 75% of all intercity passengers and 99% of all freight. Then putting a bus service on this road is making efficient use of a piece of infrastructure that is already there and would be there regardless.

Rail is always something you build in addition to a road. It is secondary to a road and has high maintenance costs and utility compared to the number of passengers and freight a road carries. You should only build a rail in addition to a road if the railway can justify itself on social and/or economic basis.

Building a rail at the cost of 100 million, which subsequently almost no one uses and has to be subsidised at the cost of 3 million (WRC) per year benefits no one.

I'm not saying we should close all our existing railways. But we need to be realistic here. Rail in Ireland is under serious threat. Forgot about opening new tracks to Donegal, etc. or even electrifying and double tracking all lines. What we need to focus on is making the absolute most of the railway assets we already have and ensuring that the core network is healthy and survives.

Killing off the rail network in the way you describe is utter madness and if the existing BE/IE competition nonsense continues we may as well not have a rail network.

You would shut down the Castlebar - Westport and Claremorris - Ballina routes and replace them with buses. Which increases the traffic, the roads then have to be updated to cope and who benefits? A few landowners perhaps.

corktina

Wote wrote: »

If discussion on developing the rail network is to be stopped can the mods stop the pro bus propaganda as well?

"New or re-opened lines can go in a separate thread."

thats what the Man said...

Wote

corktina wrote: »

"New or re-opened lines can go in a separate thread."

thats what the Man said...

Teacher's lick

The Idyll Race

Wote wrote: »

Teacher's lick

Given the constraints imposed I'd advocate, amongst other projects, upgrading the Sligo line to enable a two hour service to Dublin, but there would be squeeling about buses and motorways instead :rolleyes:

No "luxury" coaches with super duper jaxes in the huge swathe of the country denuded of their railways, funny enough there is where the railway exists...

corktina

I've already advocated setting up dynamic loops to increase line capacity and reduce journey times on single lines.

I've also advocated railheads with feeder coaches for places without rail lines (in this case somewhere like Donegal Town and/or Stranorlar perhaps).

kc56

corktina wrote: »

I've already advocated setting up dynamic loops to increase line capacity and reduce journey times on single lines.

I've also advocated railheads with feeder coaches for places without rail lines (in this case somewhere like Donegal Town and/or Stranorlar perhaps).

Dynamics loops? Tell me more....

corktina

As I understand it, a so-called dynamic loop is a section of double track maybe 2 or 3 miles long where opposing trains can pass each other at full line speed instead of one or other of them having to stop in a loop at a station, this being the biggest cause of delays on a single line.

I imagine with approriate signalling they could be used also fro a fast non-stop train to overtake a stopper.

end of the road

no point cutting back the railways to (rail heads) pruning was tried and it failed. best keep rail services to (provincial towns) and develop them properly, places like rosslare westport and so on kept their rail services for a reason, now IE for whatever reason is doing what it can to destroy what we have left with help from the road lobbiests and pro rickidy old bus brigade. time for a risk equalisation scheme for the bus companies to pay for the railway. if they act as feeder busses instead of going into competition with the railway they won't have to pay. our motor ways won't stay good forever so best to build up the railways and make them as fast as possible, faster then the roads could ever be.

corktina

so its cheaper and quicker to go by Coach and for that reason you think they should pay money to the slower more expensive railways?
hmm

I don't mind if Government decide theres a case for subsidising a rail line..thats their job. But there does NEED to be a case made, and if it CAN'T be made then that line should go. Lets take our old favourite the WRC. It costs €3million a year in losses. Is that justifaible when a Coach Company would put on a quicker cheaper service with no subsidy AND contribute to the Exchequer in the form of VAT and Vehcile tax.?

Wote

Because your passion for closing railways is really just short term thinking. It's the same mindset that shut the Harcourt St line in the fifties only to see the line reopened as a LUAS line decades later.

I note that we can no longer talk on this thread about NEW rail lines but others can talk ad nauseaum about CLOSING rail lines. How does that contribute towards a discussion on improving rail services? Ridiculous.

end of the road

corktina wrote: »

so its cheaper and quicker to go by Coach and for that reason you think they should pay money to the slower more expensive railways?

if it encourages them not to go into competition with the railway until such time as the railway is invested in properly and brought up to proper speeds and given a fair chance then yes i'm all for it.

corktina wrote: »

I don't mind if Government decide theres a case for subsidising a rail line..thats their job. But there does NEED to be a case made, and if it CAN'T be made then that line should go.

tried line closures, it hasn't worked. the railway is still failing, the closures in the 60s and 70s were so the rest could thrive were they not? is the rest thriving? no apart from dart and commuter, who's fault is that? CIE/IE'S for wasting money and miss management, and the governments for having a conflict of interest and not making sure CIE/IE spent whatever they got in the right areas.

corktina wrote: »

take our old favourite the WRC. It costs €3million a year in losses. Is that justifaible when a Coach Company would put on a quicker cheaper service with no subsidy AND contribute to the Exchequer in the form of VAT and Vehcile tax.?

why do people like you always have to use the WRC to try justify your argument? nearly all pro rail people here agree it shouldn't have been built but realise it is now and thats it. if the WRC was built to a proper speed with only a couple of stops and reasonable fairs then maybe it would be used, but no we got a slow line most lightly built to fail. just because a coach company operates cheeper is no excuse not to invest in rail, we tried (bus replacements) in the 60s and 70s when lines were closed, how many of those (bus replacements) survives? we could have got a good rail network but the government chose roads over the railway, yes chose roads, they could have invested in both if they realy wanted to, we can have both but the will is just not there, a country needs good roads for sure but not at the expense of leaving its railway to rot, doing so is a bad mistake and it will be a bad mistake for us to do the same thing, but then again we dug up our original tram system in favour of busses and are now putting it back down again but not to the same extent (yes okay were not unique to such a thing) we leave the railways to rot thats it, once their closed the squatters will move in and when we ever need them again we won't be able to get them back, you and some others might be okay with that but i and many others are not.

Wote

end of the road wrote: »

why do people like you always have to use the WRC to try justify your argument? nearly all pro rail people here agree it shouldn't have been built but realise it is now and thats it. if the WRC was built to a proper speed with only a couple of stops and reasonable fairs then maybe it would be used, but no we got a slow line most lightly built to fail. just because a coach company operates cheeper is no excuse not to invest in rail, we tried (bus replacements) in the 60s and 70s when lines were closed, how many of those (bus replacements) survives? we could have got a good rail network but the government chose roads over the railway, yes chose roads, they could have invested in both if they realy wanted to, we can have both but the will is just not there, a country needs good roads for sure but not at the expense of leaving its railway to rot, doing so is a bad mistake and it will be a bad mistake for us to do the same thing, but then again we dug up our original tram system in favour of busses and are now putting it back down again but not to the same extent (yes okay were not unique to such a thing) we leave the railways to rot thats it, once their closed the squatters will move in and when we ever need them again we won't be able to get them back, you and some others might be okay with that but i and many others are not.

Bloody good post. The WRC is there for political reasons, as was the Maynooth line for many years before IE got up and actually spent time and effort improving it.

I well remember the old Railcars with the hard plastic seats in 1981 and the poor frequencies due to the line being single after Clonsilla. Once the line was doubled and the NIR Class 80 Railcar sets were pressed into service the Maynooth line started to improve.

The WRC is a useful Aunt Sally for the Scorched Earth brigade to attack the whole notion of rail transport.

Cool Mo D

Improving the rail service could be done cheaply enough around Dublin, after the signalling upgrade is done.

The priority should be clockface on all DART and commuter routes, 6 DARTs per hour, alternating Howth and Malahide, 3 Maynooth commuter per hour, 3 Dunboyne shuttles per hour, 3 Hazelhatch Heuston per hour, and one hourly Drogheda commuter off peak.

Then, proper integrated ticketing for Bus, Luas and DART, to allow feeder buses to actually work, and make stations like Clondalkin and Navan Road, and the Luas Cherrywood extension actually useful.

Also, a station at Glasnevin/Phibsboro would be useful with a frequent train service.

corktina

end of the road wrote: »

if it encourages them not to go into competition with the railway until such time as the railway is invested in properly and brought up to proper speeds and given a fair chance then yes i'm all for it.

tried line closures, it hasn't worked. the railway is still failing, the closures in the 60s and 70s were so the rest could thrive were they not? is the rest thriving? no apart from dart and commuter, who's fault is that? CIE/IE'S for wasting money and miss management, and the governments for having a conflict of interest and not making sure CIE/IE spent whatever they got in the right areas.

why do people like you always have to use the WRC to try justify your argument? nearly all pro rail people here agree it shouldn't have been built but realise it is now and thats it. if the WRC was built to a proper speed with only a couple of stops and reasonable fairs then maybe it would be used, but no we got a slow line most lightly built to fail. just because a coach company operates cheeper is no excuse not to invest in rail, we tried (bus replacements) in the 60s and 70s when lines were closed, how many of those (bus replacements) survives? we could have got a good rail network but the government chose roads over the railway, yes chose roads, they could have invested in both if they realy wanted to, we can have both but the will is just not there, a country needs good roads for sure but not at the expense of leaving its railway to rot, doing so is a bad mistake and it will be a bad mistake for us to do the same thing, but then again we dug up our original tram system in favour of busses and are now putting it back down again but not to the same extent (yes okay were not unique to such a thing) we leave the railways to rot thats it, once their closed the squatters will move in and when we ever need them again we won't be able to get them back, you and some others might be okay with that but i and many others are not.

Nearly all> well I'm pro rail, but the network and the management need reforming into a sustainable form. As it is , rail is on a downward spiral to oblivion, would you do something to stop it or fiddle whilst Rome burns?

corktina

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Improving the rail service could be done cheaply enough around Dublin, after the signalling upgrade is done.

The priority should be clockface on all DART and commuter routes, 6 DARTs per hour, alternating Howth and Malahide, 3 Maynooth commuter per hour, 3 Dunboyne shuttles per hour, 3 Hazelhatch Heuston per hour, and one hourly Drogheda commuter off peak.

Then, proper integrated ticketing for Bus, Luas and DART, to allow feeder buses to actually work, and make stations like Clondalkin and Navan Road, and the Luas Cherrywood extension actually useful.

Also, a station at Glasnevin/Phibsboro would be useful with a frequent train service.

practical suggestions. thats more like it!

corktina

Wote wrote: »

Because your passion for closing railways is really just short term thinking. It's the same mindset that shut the Harcourt St line in the fifties only to see the line reopened as a LUAS line decades later.

I note that we can no longer talk on this thread about NEW rail lines but others can talk ad nauseaum about CLOSING rail lines. How does that contribute towards a discussion on improving rail services? Ridiculous.

I don't have a passion for closing lines, but it is obvious some of them are not sustainable, clear them out and concentrate on long distance......oh Ive said it so many times, I cant be bother repeating it again. You can't keep lines just for the sake of them, they have to have some purpose. What is it? 9 passengers per train on the new section of WRC? three taxis would cover that, and cheaper! Lets have some common sense and put investment where it will do some good, move resources wasted on running empty trains into providing a decent service to compete with the buses on time and price. Until we have that, rail has no chance.

CIE

end of the road wrote: »

Why do people like you always have to use the WRC to try justify your argument? nearly all pro rail people here agree it shouldn't have been built but realise it is now and thats it. if the WRC was built to a proper speed with only a couple of stops and reasonable fares then maybe it would be used, but no we got a slow line most lightly built to fail. just because a coach company operates cheaper is no excuse not to invest in rail, we tried (bus replacements) in the 60s and 70s when lines were closed, how many of those (bus replacements) survives? we could have got a good rail network but the government chose roads over the railway, yes chose roads, they could have invested in both if they really wanted to, we can have both but the will is just not there, a country needs good roads for sure but not at the expense of leaving its railway to rot, doing so is a bad mistake and it will be a bad mistake for us to do the same thing, but then again we dug up our original tram system in favour of buses and are now putting it back down again but not to the same extent (yes okay we're not unique to such a thing) we leave the railways to rot thats it, once they're closed the squatters will move in and when we ever need them again we won't be able to get them back, you and some others might be okay with that but I and many others are not.

Those who always bring up the WRC as a canard are not pro-rail people at all. They like to think they are, but they are really pro-motorway people. IE could operate the rebuilt section (Ennis-Athenry) to its optimal utility, but currenty refuses to; its current state of build would allow much faster operation than at present. Funny how once the Limerick-Galway railway service started up and the motorway opened, it was suddenly viable to run frequent express bus service between the two cities when no such thing existed before, isn't it? How come the market suddenly materialised out of nowhere? (Well, if you have a market for express buses, that means a market for express trains also exists. The fastest stock in Ireland happens to be the 100-mph 22000-class Intercity DMUs, but recently IE saw fit to operate these as commuter trains on the Maynooth line while operating 70-mph 2700-class railcars on the western intercity service in question.)

You might notice that when the word "cheaper" is used, that it only refers to fares. That is by government design. IE could easily lower fares to be competitive with buses, but what is more likely is that the very creative "accounting" that goes on at governmental level means that IE has to charge itself for permanent way maintenance and all that (and make it seem like such costs are being necessarily recouped out of the fare box), while when it comes to roadways all such is "socialised" (via taxes), which means we all pay later on a sort of installment plan. Buses, therefore, due to how fast they succumb to wear and tear, are actually more expensive than rail in the long run; they are not as flexible in certain kinds of weather also.

Wote

Thanks for that CIE. IE are deliberately running the Limerick-Galway service as a slow skeleton and BE have miraculously produced the Limerick - Galway express bus as a spoiler service to show the pols what a poor piece of thinking the demand for the WRC is.


But it won't be until the WRC is really a Western Rail Corridor that can run from Limerick to Sligo and beyond that we will see the benefit. That will take far sightedness and joined up thinking on transport policy before that happens.
*

(Deleted to make the post in line with board moderation policy)

dowlingm

One of the biggest problems IE has is grade crossings. They have to be signalled or manned, automating manned crossings is very expensive, even when they are you have issues of people nicking the gates or driving into the gates etc. The massive advantage the motorway has (apart from not having to operate a single traffic lane with lights at either end) is that traffic doesn't have to slow and blow its horn every time it encounters a farmer crossing, the gates of which have hopefully not been left open.

This is why I think having the NRA assume responsibility for tracks would be a good thing - they could be obliged to spend part of their budget on eliminating GCs and to create sacrificial structures to minimise bridge strikes. At present bridge works vary between NRA and IE (see Oola for instance) depending on who "owns" the bridge.

Importantly, NRA applications for road expansions could then be reasonably be expected to contain an alternatives analysis since they can't claim that they don't know how much additional railtrack would cost to build sufficient to avoid the road cost.

That said, some of the comments above about "well the railway can handle the capacity of a motorway" are nonsense. There are railways which can handle the capacity of a motorway in other countries but you have to spent a good chunk of the cost of a motorway to do it with double track or better, double deck, 12 car lengths etc. and you still need a network of feeder services to get people to their door as directly as possible whereas cars simply get on the offramp and proceed. Also, it helps if the urban centres at the terminus of said line is not a town (no matter what some English king wrote in a charter, that is what Limerick and Galway are in a global context). The time penalty for a change to a feeder means your line doesn't have to be as fast as a motorway, it has to be faster so that means few to none grade crossings and thus a lot of expensive works and paying a lot of farmers to give up their crossing rights.