Abolish Ireland's Rail System

Barely There

Seeing as any reference to the current threatened industrial action is apparently off-bounds, I will attempt to get some responses to my propoal again.


A country the size of Ireland does not need a rail system.

Our current inter-urban motorway network is more than sufficient to meet our needs.


At present over 99% of freight is transported by road.
Travel times between our major cities are comparable now by road with the motorway network.
Rail journeys (both passenger and freight) only start to make economic and environmental sense at distances greater than 300km.


I’d like to see us rip up the rail lines and replace them with greenways and then aggressively market our country to tourists as the best country in the world for cycle holidays.


I would like to see a coherent argument put forward by someone who believes that the current sums of money we spend on a rail system is anyway justified.

Losty Dublin

In before the thread closure.

Which will be quicker for this thread than the closure of the Nenagh branch :pac:

Barely There wrote: »

Seeing as any reference to the current threatened industrial action is apparently off-bounds, I will attempt to get some responses to my propoal again.


A country the size of Ireland does not need a rail system.

Our current inter-urban motorway network is more than sufficient to meet our needs.


At present over 99% of freight is transported by road.
Travel times between our major cities are comparable now by road with the motorway network.
Rail journeys (both passenger and freight) only start to make economic and environmental sense at distances greater than 300km.


I’d like to see us rip up the rail lines and replace them with greenways and then aggressively market our country to tourists as the best country in the world for cycle holidays.


I would like to see a coherent argument put forward by someone who believes that the current sums of money we spend on a rail system is anyway justified.

Jem72

While you it might make sense to shut the whole lot down on a strict profit and loss basis, there is a bigger picture. While each passenger might be costing the government a certain amount of money, it is quite likely that journey generates a lot more money for the government.

If the people travelling to Dublin for hospital appointments could not do so by rail, it would become necessary to open up regional duplicates of centralised hospital services, costing the health system a lot of money.

In my case, I am a long-distance commuter and have been managing to keep this up for 10 years by rail. I simply wouldn't have the stamina to keep it up by any other means as I can get quite a lot of work done on the train. There are several hundred like me on the Longford route and at a conservative estimate, we would earn an average of 10 or 15 thousand a year extra because we can work at professional jobs in Dublin. Many of us would be on the dole otherwise. As a result the government collects thousands more in taxes than would be spent on subsidising our tickets. It would not be ridiculous to suggest that the positive cash flow towards government for each long-distance could be of the order of 10 grand.

There is certainly an argument to suggest that you could lop parts off the system, but if you were to take out the Sligo line past Longford, you would find that it would become necessary to invest tens of millions in Roscommon and Sligo hospital.

Barely There

Jem72 wrote: »

If the people travelling to Dublin for hospital appointments could not do so by rail, it would become necessary to open up regional duplicates of centralised hospital services, costing the health system a lot of money.

Why couldn't they travel by bus?

Jem72 wrote: »

In my case, I am a long-distance commuter and have been managing to keep this up for 10 years by rail. I simply wouldn't have the stamina to keep it up by any other means as I can get quite a lot of work done on the train. There are several hundred like me on the Longford route and at a conservative estimate, we would earn an average of 10 or 15 thousand a year extra because we can work at professional jobs in Dublin.Many of us would be on the dole otherwise

Why couldn't you work on a modern bus? I know plenty of people who do.
I find it difficult to believe that the only other options available to you, other than the train is unemployment.

Jem72

Personally, I can't work on a bus because the work I do requires the use of a laptop with a 15" screen and I have yet to find a bus where I can use a laptop with a 15" screen comfortably.

Travelling by train is a lot less exhausting than using a bus. When you are spending 20 hours a week commuting, your productivity suffers with the resulting tiredness. This is manageable on a train. Similarly, imagine having to travel to Dublin every day from Sligo for radiotherapy. The cumulative effects of the exhaustion makes it basically impossible as you would end up being too tired to get better.

I work as a software developer and have done for 20 years. I probably could find a job in Longford or Athlone, but it would be at a massive pay cut compared to what I get for working in Dublin. As such, the government would lose 10 or 15 thousand euro in tax revenue from my work.

The point is that the rail system itself does not exist in isolation and it provide massive benefits to the wider economy. No intercity rail system anywhere can stand on its own two feet. So in Europe we recognise the benefit to the wider economy and to government revenue by subsidising the system. To not do so would end up in a net loss to the state and is basically the kind of thinking that turned the bust here into a vicious cycle of austerity and further decline.

There is nothing fundamental about bus travel that makes it impossible to replace rail. You could have roughly the same amount of space per passenger on a bus as on an intercity railcar by reducing the number of seats on the bus down to about 40. It would probably end up being cheaper but nobody in Ireland seems to consider it worthwhile offering such a service so we are left with the train as the only option.

end of the road

Barely There wrote: »

A country the size of Ireland does not need a rail system.

yes it does. for long distance journeys the rail is the only exceptable method for many.

Barely There wrote: »

Our current inter-urban motorway network is more than sufficient to meet our needs.

no its not. you don't get to decide what meets my needs i do. for me its rail. and the motor ways won't stay the way they are forever and we'l need something else to work along side it.

Barely There wrote: »

At present over 99% of freight is transported by road.

and? means nothing. up to irish rail to chase for rail freight if they want it.

Barely There wrote: »

Travel times between our major cities are comparable now by road with the motorway network.

apparently. still many choose to use the train. because thankfully they have the choice to do so. as it meets their needs unlike the motor ways and busses.

Barely There wrote: »

Rail journeys (both passenger and freight) only start to make economic and environmental sense at distances greater than 300km.

jesus britain should rip up most of their network so even though its thriving

Barely There wrote: »

I’d like to see us rip up the rail lines and replace them with greenways and then aggressively market our country to tourists as the best country in the world for cycle holidays.

yeah. rip up the lot so one can ride a bike. you have plenty of places to ride your bike, much of which contains sceenery a lot nicer then along the current network. the old rail lines around kerry for example.

Barely There wrote: »

Why couldn't they travel by bus?

why should they be bullied in to traveling by bus. if they wanted to travel by bus they would do so all ready.

Barely There wrote: »

Why couldn't you work on a modern bus? I know plenty of people who do

because she wants to work on and use the train. a modern bus will never be good enough for rail replacement. railway and bus working together or nothing.

Barely There wrote: »

I find it difficult to believe that the only other options available to you, other than the train is unemployment.

well maybe it is .

Barely There

Jem72 wrote: »

There is nothing fundamental about bus travel that makes it impossible to replace rail. You could have roughly the same amount of space per passenger on a bus as on an intercity railcar by reducing the number of seats on the bus down to about 40. It would probably end up being cheaper but nobody in Ireland seems to consider it worthwhile offering such a service so we are left with the train as the only option.

Possibly because it's difficult to compete against a massively subsidised rail system, however if that system weren't there, the private sector would step in to provide for any demand.

end of the road

Barely There wrote: »

Possibly because it's difficult to compete against a massively subsidised rail system

rubbish. there are many private operators doing just that and doing well. yet many people still use the train, for the simple reason it meets their requirements where as the bus doesn't, just like the train won't meet the requirements of everyone. still no reason to get rid of it for a few bicyclists.

Barely There wrote: »

if that system weren't there, the private sector would step in to provide for any demand.

and? so? people have tried this tripe before. it failed last time and it will again. subsidised public transport is here to stay.

corktina

I'd suggest moving the thread to Cycling or Walking thread. It's plainly ridiculous to post it here.

Busted Flat.

We had a clown back in the fifties called Tod Andrews who was minister for transport he tried to close the rail down because it made too much noise going past his house in Dundrum, he only succeeded in closing the one at the back of his house. 40 years later, it cost the Luas millions to buy back the line. If anything this country is renowned for it's short sightedness and backword thinking. The M50 is a classical example of clowns looking to our future. Leave the rail alone.
Our city and county planners have degrees in usefulness and incompetence.

end of the road

Busted Flat. wrote: »

We had a clown back in the fifties called Tod Andrews who was minister for transport he tried to close the rail down because it made too much noise going past his house in Dundrum, he only succeeded in closing the one at the back of his house.

i think he was just the boss of CIE. but i agree with your point.

Bigus

corktina wrote: »

I'd suggest moving the thread to Cycling or Walking thread. It's plainly ridiculous to post it here.

It's no harm for people who like rail,use it or are employed in rail,to see that it might be not be there forever , just because of nostalgia.

If it's not viable, beware.

The modern motorway system has put rail under severe pressure, maybe even terminal pressure.

The argument above re hospitals doesn't stack up,and because the government doesn't have any strategic military or regional large scale manufacturing relying on the rail system , the ops argument may gain momentum.

Has any other small country shut down rail ?

Is any other small country setting up rail apart from tram systems ?

Maybe this is why Veolia are running the Luas, in anticipation of Irish Rail wind down ?

Bigus

Busted Flat. wrote: »

We had a clown back in the fifties called Tod Andrews who was minister for transport he tried to close the rail down because it made too much noise going past his house in Dundrum, he only succeeded in closing the one at the back of his house. 40 years later, it cost the Luas millions to buy back the line. If anything this country is renowned for it's short sightedness and backword thinking. The M50 is a classical example of clowns looking to our future. Leave the rail alone.
Our city and county planners have degrees in usefulness and incompetence.

That was the only example of ONE out of many lines shut down , the others have yet to re open.

Barely There

Busted Flat. wrote: »

We had a clown back in the fifties called Tod Andrews who was minister for transport he tried to close the rail down because it made too much noise going past his house in Dundrum, he only succeeded in closing the one at the back of his house. 40 years later, it cost the Luas millions to buy back the line. If anything this country is renowned for it's short sightedness and backword thinking. The M50 is a classical example of clowns looking to our future. Leave the rail alone.
Our city and county planners have degrees in usefulness and incompetence.

Thank you for your coherent, well-reasoned and backed-up argument on the benefits of retaining a rail system in this country.

I particularly enjoyed the anecdote about the politician from 60 years ago and the bit about the M50 motorway, which seemed to be almost on the verge of being relevant to the discussion, without ever quite making it.

Busted Flat.

end of the road wrote: »

i think he was just the boss of CIE. but i agree with your point.

Your correct, but he was still a príck, he done severe damage, to the rail system with his short sightedness.

daviecronin

I take the train to school everyday. So that's 10 times a week. My personal view is that it is need! Well for me anyway haha! Its a a part of a lot of peoples daily commute and they are trying to save money and the environment (maybe/maybe not) by taking the train. What I would do is cut these 20 workers that stand around all day doing feck all but talking when they have automatic ticket checkers!!!
They literally could have 3 people in every station. Like the county council workers there is too many of them!!

Neon_Lights

Privatise and urbanise dont abolish ... the only reason its so expensive to run is because of those inefficient mandated fecks working in the company

end of the road

Bigus wrote: »

It's no harm for people who like rail,use it or are employed in rail,to see that it might be not be there forever , just because of nostalgia.

makes no sense. posting a rant here isn't going to " make people who like rail, use it or are employed in rail, to see that it might be not be there forever, just because of nostalgia" . its there because people use it and it provides a beneficial service.

Bigus wrote: »

If it's not viable, beware.

the whole network wouldn't be viable according to the op i suspect. public services aren't supposed to be viable. most public transport in this country run by CIE isn't viable.

Bigus wrote: »

The modern motorway system has put rail under severe pressure, maybe even terminal pressure.

yes, but the motor way is no reason to get rid of the rail system, only people who are very very delusianel would suggest as much. if it was, it would have been done all ready.

Bigus wrote: »

The argument above re hospitals doesn't stack up,and because the government doesn't have any strategic military or regional large scale manufacturing relying on the rail system , the ops argument may gain momentum.

it does stack up. people use rail over other methods for many reasons, if the other methods were so perfect then nobody would be using rail. the only reason the argument to shut the rail is supposibly growing momentum is because of vested interests within the road lobby and the governments love for private bus operators, or dislike of the company running it. all no reason to rip it up.

Bigus wrote: »

Has any other small country shut down rail ?

all its network? i don't know of any recently but someone will i'm sure.

Bigus wrote: »

Is any other small country setting up rail apart from tram systems ?

most countries are probably reopening rail where justified but setting up new ones, i wouldn't know sorry.

Bigus wrote: »

Maybe this is why Veolia are running the Luas, in anticipation of Irish Rail wind down ?

well considering they have been running it since 2005 i should doubt thats the reason. if irish rail shut down there is no way that the likes of dart would go, someone would have to run it. commuter services also. the rest, we could only hope for the best.

end of the road

daviecronin wrote: »

I take the train to school everyday. So that's 10 times a week. My personal view is that it is need! Well for me anyway haha! Its a a part of a lot of peoples daily commute and they are trying to save money and the environment (maybe/maybe not) by taking the train. What I would do is cut these 20 workers that stand around all day doing feck all but talking when they have automatic ticket checkers!!!
They literally could have 3 people in every station. Like the county council workers there is too many of them!!

i'd say better deployment of them would be a better option. i wouldn't trust automatic ticket checkers either.

Sheldons Brain

The people of Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal might agree, as their railways were closed but they still have to pay for the others, without any motorways to salve the wound.

Busted Flat.

Bigus wrote: »

It's no harm for people who like rail,use it or are employed in rail,to see that it might be not be there forever , just because of nostalgia.

If it's not viable, beware.

The modern motorway system has put rail under severe pressure, maybe even terminal pressure.

The argument above re hospitals doesn't stack up,and because the government doesn't have any strategic military or regional large scale manufacturing relying on the rail system , the ops argument may gain momentum.

Has any other small country shut down rail ?

Is any other small country setting up rail apart from tram systems ?

Maybe this is why Veolia are running the Luas, in anticipation of Irish Rail wind down ?

We will be the first, look at the way other countries act on EU directives, we have to go one better, and be harsher in our implementation. A country of hidden zealots implementing laws that has no effect on their lives,but effects the plebs.

end of the road

Neon_Lights wrote: »

Privatise and urbanise dont abolish ... the only reason its so expensive to run is because of those inefficient mandated fecks working in the company

urbanise? whats that supposed to mean? the majority of the network as it is is viable. why would we privatise it? is a private company going to take the current subsidy or lower to run the operation? i personally don't think so. the only way there could be any supposed efficientsy savings is if there is one operator operating the lot. private companies want to make a proffit and rightly so as they have shareholders looking for a return. unless the government is going to pay a bigger subsidy and the passenger probably a higher fare its a non runner i suspect. and frankly why would one want to fund a private company who may take their money back home? its not as if we can force them to spend it here? the railway is the way it is due to bad management and politics.

Dravokivich

If we shut down rail a lot of people will end up requiring multilpe modes of transport for commuting to work. I'd have to get a bus to town and then out to leixlip, instead of just getting the train to leixlip from where I live. A lot of people on the dart use it to go across the city.

Shutting down the rail and forcing them to use other means will make it troublesome for a lot of people. If I had to move thatd affect people locally. The shops I go to. The creche we use. It has a greater impact on all of us that would need to uproot, just because...

Effects

Barely There wrote: »

aggressively market our country to tourists as the best country in the world for cycle holidays.
[/COLOR]

Will these new cycle ways have roofs to keep the rain off?

Barely There

Dravokivich wrote: »

If we shut down rail a lot of people will end up requiring multilpe modes of transport for commuting to work. I'd have to get a bus to town and then out to leixlip, instead of just getting the train to leixlip from where I live. A lot of people on the dart use it to go across the city.

.

Why could a bus not replace the train you take though?
Why does it have to be a train, which is far more expensive and environmentally damaging than using a bus?

And I'm not suggesting getting rid of city systems like DART or LUAS, just the intercity services.

Barely There

Effects wrote: »

Will these new cycle ways have roofs to keep the rain off?

There's no such thing as bad weather, just inappropriate clothing.

man98

The statement that the bus is more environmentally friendly is utter crap. That's what Irish Rail fed us when they wanted to close down Rosslare - Waterford line. Then someone I know decided to do the maths. It is worse for the environment. It is simply shortsighted to close down a railway, without regards to country roads which have taken a battering between Rosslare and Waterford. It'd be the same around the country. Unless you are an economist or expert of train/ bus travel, tell me how this IRA going to work out. Retraining train drivers with no employment, putting together pieces for elderly people in rural areas who need to travel? People in wheelchairs?
Edit: Just remembered, doesn't Dublin have TRAFFIC PROBLEMS which people prefer avoiding? What about packed crowds anywhere from Gorey to Dublin trains? Running 6 buses won't do the same job as a train.

end of the road

Barely There wrote: »

Why could a bus not replace the train you take though?

can you imagine how many busses would be needed to take over the maynooth line? and the drivers to drive them? and the diesel to fuel them?

Barely There wrote: »

Why does it have to be a train, which is far more expensive and environmentally damaging than using a bus?

why should we waste money on lots of busses, the roads for them, the diesel to fuel them, the drivers to drive them, when we could have 1 train and a driver for every few busses.

Barely There wrote: »

I'm not suggesting getting rid of city systems like DART or LUAS, just the intercity services.

you said shut and rip up the rail and replace with greenways, make up your mind. why should we get rid of intercity rail just to please a few road lobbiests and cyclists. run along and try get your bus operation out of its difficulties instead of looking for the competition to be ripped up. we tried your way it failed move on.

lulu1

Barely There wrote: »

Seeing as any reference to the current threatened industrial action is apparently off-bounds, I will attempt to get some responses to my propoal again.


A country the size of Ireland does not need a rail system.

Our current inter-urban motorway network is more than sufficient to meet our needs.


At present over 99% of freight is transported by road.
Travel times between our major cities are comparable now by road with the motorway network.
Rail journeys (both passenger and freight) only start to make economic and environmental sense at distances greater than 300km.


I’d like to see us rip up the rail lines and replace them with greenways and then aggressively market our country to tourists as the best country in the world for cycle holidays.


I would like to see a coherent argument put forward by someone who believes that the current sums of money we spend on a rail system is anyway justified.

Rail system you are lucky to have a rail system in the forgotten counties of Ireland there are no such things as rail systems

end of the road

man98 wrote: »

The statement that the bus is more environmentally friendly is utter crap. That's what Irish Rail fed us when they wanted to close down Rosslare - Waterford line. Then someone I know decided to do the maths. It is worse for the environment. It is simply shortsighted to close down a railway, without regards to country roads which have taken a battering between Rosslare and Waterford. It'd be the same around the country. Unless you are an economist or expert of train/ bus travel, tell me how this IRA going to work out. Retraining train drivers with no employment, putting together pieces for elderly people in rural areas who need to travel? People in wheelchairs?
Edit: Just remembered, doesn't Dublin have TRAFFIC PROBLEMS which people prefer avoiding? What about packed crowds anywhere from Gorey to Dublin trains? Running 6 buses won't do the same job as a train.

jesus, did irish rail really use "environmentaly friendly" as an excuse when stealing the line from the people of south wexford stamped by their little friends in the DTA? i've heard it all now, considering they use diesel multiple units. i suspect the probbible 2 users of the bus replacement couldn't care a less about "environmentaly friendly" let me guess, it was barry kenny who made that statement?

Barely There

man98 wrote: »

The statement that the bus is more environmentally friendly is utter crap. That's what Irish Rail fed us when they wanted to close down Rosslare - Waterford line. Then someone I know decided to do the maths. It is worse for the environment. It is simply shortsighted to close down a railway, without regards to country roads which have taken a battering between Rosslare and Waterford. It'd be the same around the country. Unless you are an economist or expert of train/ bus travel, tell me how this IRA going to work out. Retraining train drivers with no employment, putting together pieces for elderly people in rural areas who need to travel? People in wheelchairs?
Edit: Just remembered, doesn't Dublin have TRAFFIC PROBLEMS which people prefer avoiding? What about packed crowds anywhere from Gorey to Dublin trains? Running 6 buses won't do the same job as a train.

Please post up the maths - I'd be very interested in seeing it.

I've seen international studies which have calculated that train journeys only begin to become more environmentally advantageous at distances greater than 350km - I'll post links to these tomorrow for those that are interested.