International modal share of rail vs road.

Copyerselveson

monument wrote: »

Can you name many countries where, on a national level, modal share of rail is above the modal share of roads?

None of course, but I think its worth showing the breakdown of modal share internationally. Ireland would be pretty low down the percentage share I should think.

corktina

that's because we have very few railways serving very few population centres and have almost no suitable freight cargoes. I truth, we are barely a Country, more a Capital City with outlying suburbs.

Copyerselveson

corktina wrote: »

that's because we have very few railways serving very few population centres and have almost no suitable freight cargoes. I truth, we are barely a Country, more a Capital City with outlying suburbs.

I'm afraid the facts on the ground don't match your regular assertions about rail freight. Are you aware that there are serious moves underway to get railfreight moving again from Foynes for instance?

corktina

I'm well aware of it and have my hat ready to eat when it happens. Are you aware that there are also proposals to improve the N road route to handle the traffic?
I did say "almost" . I think you'd be hard pressed to find another potential flow.

Copyerselveson

corktina wrote: »

I'm well aware of it and have my hat ready to eat when it happens. Are you aware that there are also proposals to improve the N road route to handle the traffic?
I did say "almost" . I think you'd be hard pressed to find another potential flow.

I am aware of the N road improvements but I also have family in Foynes itself who can't wait to see the freight trains rolling, not to spot the trains but to have less lorries rolling through the town.

Freight is profitable for IE so with David Franks at the helm expect to see more and more railfreight in the coming years as that is one way IE can get themselves out of the financial hole they are in without going cap in hand to the Department.

corktina

Don't forget that every euro spent improving the road will benefit everyone passing that area whereas the same spent on the rail line will benefit the company using the service only . The lorries rolling through the town will still be there of course as they will have no use for the rail line, and one assumes that road improvements would include improved road access to the Port. Freight on IE in this instance will only be "profitable" with a large investment of public money for which we get no return.

munchkin_utd

corktina wrote: »

that's because we have very few railways serving very few population centres and have almost no suitable freight cargoes. I truth, we are barely a Country, more a Capital City with outlying suburbs.

true. The population of Ireland is one thing, but the country has barely any resources, and any that exist are already being hauled by rail anyhow.

Theres a chart of road vs rail on the euro stat website for 2000 and 2010
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Modal_split_of_inland_freight_transport,_2000_and_2010_(1)_(%25_of_total_inland_tkm).png&filetimestamp=20121016055006
Latvia and estonia are the only ones with Rail as a larger % than road.
Ireland plummet from 3.8% to less than 1% from 2000 to 2010 is probably due to the combination of no more sugar beet and the ending of rail transport by gypsum.

explainations for the stats are here:
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Freight_transport_statistics

munchkin_utd

the high rail stats for Estonia and Latvia are probably down to them being large shifters of "international" goods, so probably long distance shipments to Russia + other former soviet states you would think (well, they arent acting as ports for anyone else now are they? )

Copyerselveson

corktina wrote: »

Don't forget that every euro spent improving the road will benefit everyone passing that area whereas the same spent on the rail line will benefit the company using the service only . The lorries rolling through the town will still be there of course as they will have no use for the rail line, and one assumes that road improvements would include improved road access to the Port. Freight on IE in this instance will only be "profitable" with a large investment of public money for which we get no return.

With respect Corktina I think you are completely wrong on all counts here. The whole purpose of getting freight back on the tracks at Foynes is to reduce the amount of freight rolling through the town. I understand that IE are looking at a partnership regarding getting the line re-opened so the call on government funding is far little than it would be and given that freight is profitable for IE that's money that you as a taxpayer don't have to spend to prop IE up. Everyone wins in this scenario.

corktina

Yes but it would be NEW freight that would be on the rail, the existing lorries passing through would continue as before.

Copyerselveson

corktina wrote: »

Yes but it would be NEW freight that would be on the rail, the existing lorries passing through would continue as before.

Can you expand a little on what would the new freight be?

corktina

Well, isn't the idea to reopen the line to cope with a flow of minerals from a projected mine in Tipperary somewhere? The line would hardly be necessary for the existing flows

Copyerselveson

corktina wrote: »

Well, isn't the idea to reopen the line to cope with a flow of minerals from a projected mine in Tipperary somewhere? The line would hardly be necessary for the existing flows

I'm surprised you're so vague about the reasons why there's momentum for re-opening the line for freight yet so definite that rail freight is not needed.

Shannon Foynes Port, the EU and it would appear IE aren't so vague and don't agree with you.

In their Masterplan, Shannon Foynes port see the rail link as a key driver of traffic to and from the port. Here's a quote from their strategy document:

Foynes has the advantage of being the only port in the country with the deepwater capable of facilitating post Panamax vessels with a direct rail line to the national rail network thereby accommodating sustainable and efficient trade distribution.

Source: http://www.sfpc.ie/download/SFPC MASTERPLAN Final.pdf

Now the railway is so important to Shannon Foynes port that they include the re-instatement of the railway line as one of the key actions needed to achieve their 25 year plan targets. So while the N69 will need to be upgraded as well, the port has clearly got the re-instatement of the rail line as a strategic objective.

The Pallasgreen Zinc mine isn't the only potentially new client for the railway. There's also Goulding Fertilizers and Pfizers in Askeaton. All their freight currently travels by road, but Askeaton is also on the railway line. Their freight may well move onto rail soon enough.

The EU think highly enough of the line that the Foynes line is now part of the TEN-T rail network, which means funds for the rebuilding of the line as well.

According to the irishrailwaydevelopments blog IE are working on a proposal to get the Foynes line rebuilt: http://irishrailwaydevelopments.wordpress.com/2013/12/09/railfreight-from-foynes-again/

I honestly think the Foynes line will be up and running sooner rather than later and I believe IE management are now far more pro-railfreight under DF2 than it was under DF1.

Monument hit the nail on the head earlier when he said that money spent on rail does benefit motorists. Freight and passenger traffic that moves to rail from road reduces congestion and wear and tear on the roads. And that benefits everyone on the roads too. Car drivers and hauliers alike.

corktina

if you aren't deliberately vague you risk being shot down by someone more expert. Condiments added to hat, carving knife sharpened.

I already pointed out in response to Monuments post that moving road traffic to rail still involves road use at both ends and would involve directing traffic into and out of built up areas, to/from railheads.. This you ignore and is exactly the opposite of a benefit to road users and local residents. Far from reducing congestion, it would more likely add to it.

end of the road

corktina wrote: »

moving road traffic to rail still involves road use at both ends and would involve directing traffic into and out of built up areas, to/from railheads..

yeah, but it could only be a town at each end, and not the towns in the middle, also if sorting depots were built beside rail that would remove the main haulage (obviously their will be some haulage from the depot to the customer as is current) their are many ways in which rail freight could be sorted and work, lines brought back directly to ports should also happen, the list is endless, it can be done, but the will needs to be there, and IE will wake up, and the road hauliers will have to put up and shut up

Copyerselveson

corktina wrote: »

if you aren't deliberately vague you risk being shot down by someone more expert. Condiments added to hat, carving knife sharpened.

I already pointed out in response to Monuments post that moving road traffic to rail still involves road use at both ends and would involve directing traffic into and out of built up areas, to/from railheads.. This you ignore and is exactly the opposite of a benefit to road users and local residents. Far from reducing congestion, it would more likely add to it.

Not so much ignore as not significant enough to warrant a whole lot of interest. I must admit your idea of reducing road congestion by putting more trucks on the road is an original if somewhat less than robust argument.

corktina

it's not just freight though. Transferring passengers to rail will also result in a increase in local traffic at the railheads, increasing congestion. You have to include the towns in the middle, not everyone will want to do (say) Cork to Dublin....some will want to go to Limerick or Portarlington or wherever. The same applies to Freight.

corktina

oh and another thing...yes using rail more would reduce wear and tear on the roads but I bet you that rail maintenance per passenger mile or however you want to measure it is more expensive than road maintenance by a very significant amount.

Banjoxed

corktina wrote: »

oh and another thing...yes using rail more would reduce wear and tear on the roads but I bet you that rail maintenance per passenger mile or however you want to measure it is more expensive than road maintenance by a very significant amount.

Source?

Copyerselveson

corktina wrote: »

oh and another thing...yes using rail more would reduce wear and tear on the roads but I bet you that rail maintenance per passenger mile or however you want to measure it is more expensive than road maintenance by a very significant amount.

I have to go to work and don't have the time right now to answer what could end up being a really long exam question.

However it's worth pointing out that the relative cost of maintaining a single track section treated as effectively a long siding with only one train at a time would a lot cheaper than a double track electrified passenger line with stations and full CTC and occupied by several trains at a time.

Is the low capacity single track option cheaper or more expensive than a full on motorway with signage lighting and junction management? Possibly, but as I said work beckons. Maybe someone else can dig out costs etc but to be honest the maintenance costs which should be fairly low given what is being proposed along with supposed extra congestion which I do not think will be significant at the railhead are in my opinion will not be the deciding factors in getting freight rolling again on the rails.

corktina

Copyerselveson wrote: »

I have to go to work and don't have the time right now to answer what could end up being a really long exam question.

However it's worth pointing out that the relative cost of maintaining a single track section treated as effectively a long siding with only one train at a time would a lot cheaper than a double track electrified passenger line with stations and full CTC and occupied by several trains at a time.

Is the low capacity single track option cheaper or more expensive than a full on motorway with signage lighting and junction management? Possibly, but as I said work beckons. Maybe someone else can dig out costs etc but to be honest the maintenance costs which should be fairly low given what is being proposed along with supposed extra congestion which I do not think will be significant at the railhead are in my opinion will not be the deciding factors in getting freight rolling again on the rails.

well, I think you need to be looking at the title of the thread.
We aren't talking just the Foynes branch here and in any case the traffic from that branch won't stay on the branch
Nor are we only talking about Freight.

I appreciate that you want to champion rail, but lets not do it with the blinkers on,otherwise another WRC Ennis to Athenry farce could occur.


Incidentally, I have not championed moving freight on to the roads, as has ben suggested.. I was merely responding to Monuments assertion that using rail would cut congestion . The traffic proposed for the Foynes line will be new traffic, so congestion in Foynes would not be an issue ,as I have explained and less wear and tear on the roads is not relevant in my view as I have also pointed out.

Banjoxed

corktina wrote: »

well, I think you need to be looking at the title of the thread.
We aren't talking just the Foynes branch here and in any case the traffic from that branch won't stay on the branch
Nor are we only talking about Freight.

I appreciate that you want to champion rail, but lets not do it with the blinkers on,otherwise another WRC Ennis to Athenry farce could occur.

If the line gets commissioned for a specific flow, what is the problem?

corktina

the problem here is we aren't talking about the Foynes branch...we are talking about increasing the share of traffic road vs rail.