Abolish Ireland's Rail System

Banjoxed · 04-09-2014 10:02AM

Barely There wrote: »

Targeted?
I'm just looking for someone to give reasoned argument that the retention of inter-urban rail services makes any kind of economic, social or environmental sense in this Country. So far nobody has managed to do so.
I don't see how you have any case that you're somehow being persecuted for being a rail enthusiast by being asked to justify the money the taxpayers pay for said service.

You're missing the point - there is plenty of additional capacity on the motorway network to cater for the existing passengers using the train as well as any possible increases.

I fail to see how closure of an inter-urban rail service and relacement of same with an equivalent bus service contributes to any of the issues you've mentioned.
Perhaps you could explain.

I can certainly explain. You have no previous presence on this forum, and created an early version of this thread that was closed because your trolling was just a little bit too blatant.

Barely There · 04-09-2014 10:06AM

Effects wrote: »

People don't enjoy themselves in appropriate clothing. Cycling in the rain wearing rain gear isn't fun.

I think you're getting a bit hung up on the rain.
Ireland has an ideal climate and topography for cycling holidays - not too hot, not too cold, and fairly flat.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Presumably cycling along a greenway is intended to be free, yet the 200k long greenway will itself cost a sizeable sum to maintain. So it doesn't actually generate anything directly, in fact its a sizeable enough negative in the balance sheet.
Its benefits are fairly indirect, much like the railways.

Any increase in tourist numbers are a direct benefit to the economy - it's a fairly well established fact.

Banjoxed wrote: »

I can certainly explain. You have no previous presence on this forum, and created an early version of this thread that was closed because your trolling was just a little bit too blatant.

That doesn't explain anything to do with the points in your previous post which were something to do with Letterkenny and ribbon development I believe.

Are you able to explain or back up your points or not?

davidlacey · 04-09-2014 10:17AM

Can I suggest to a mod to moving this thread elsewhere, even to go to commuting and transpor. This thread is getting tedious and no where as the cycle lobbyists have one view and view only and that's close intercity railways. This is going to go back and forth for weeks with no real point to it

BarryD · 04-09-2014 10:17AM

Barely There wrote: »

Yes, this is exactly why they make such good Greenways.

Imagine if we could convert the railines from something which is costing us millions every year into something which is generating millions instead.

Clearly (a) you haven't read my post and/or (b) you are not particularly a cyclist or walker.

Repeat: a disused railway line through / along interesting scenery might make a good Greenway for tourists (and locals), the surrounding landscape compensating for the regular going. However many other rail lines through mile after mile of flat countryside and bog will be monotonous and unattractive to tourist and local alike.

Variety is the key in these matters and rail lines in general don't have much variety.

Near/ in urban areas, rail lines would make excellent cycle routes for local use.

Tazz T · 04-09-2014 10:26AM

In response to the rail v bus issue:

1. Traffic jams
2. Would anyone with the option of taking a train for the same price travel by bus?

metrovick001 · 04-09-2014 10:27AM

Here is a video of one of those terrible freight trains that take eighteen HGVs off the roads of counties Dublin, Kildare, Meath, Westmeath, Longford, Roscommon & Mayo. IE should close this line and make it a cycleway all the way from the docks. We could strap 40Kg sacks of product to peoples backs and they could cycle to Ballina on the aforementioned cycleway.

Barely There · 04-09-2014 10:41AM

Tazz T wrote: »

In response to the rail v bus issue:

1. Traffic jams
2. Would anyone with the option of taking a train for the same price travel by bus?

1. The current inter-urban motorway network is well below capacity - traffic jams are not an issue.

2. the only reason anyone would have the option of taking a train for the same price is due to the funding IR receives from the Govt.

I could equally turn your proposition on its head and ask 'Why should the tax-payers of this country subsidise people who wish to travel by train when a cheaper alternative mode of transport is available?'

n97 mini · 04-09-2014 11:18AM

Barely There wrote: »

I could equally turn your proposition on its head and ask 'Why should the tax-payers of this country subsidise people who wish to travel by train when a cheaper alternative mode of transport is available?'

And you have to ask where to draw the line. A good example is Dublin - Cork during the tiger: subsidised bus, subsidised rail, subsidised flights, and all competing with each other.

Barely There · 04-09-2014 11:32AM

n97 mini wrote: »

And you have to ask where to draw the line. A good example is Dublin - Cork during the tiger: subsidised bus, subsidised rail, subsidised flights, and all competing with each other.

I would agree it is a ridiculous scenario, particularly when the private sector could easily step in to cater for the demand which exists on this route as well as Dublin - Limerick, Dublin Cork, Dublin Belfast etc.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Presumably cycling along a greenway is intended to be free, yet the 200k long greenway will itself cost a sizeable sum to maintain.

Far, far less than maintaining 200km of rail line.

MGWR · 04-09-2014 11:39AM

Barely There wrote: »

1. The current inter-urban motorway network is well below capacity - traffic jams are not an issue.

2. the only reason anyone would have the option of taking a train for the same price is due to the funding IR receives from the Govt.

I could equally turn your proposition on its head and ask 'Why should the tax-payers of this country subsidise people who wish to travel by train when a cheaper alternative mode of transport is available?'

Since trains are focussed on intracity or intercity travel, traffic jams are very much an issue. Railways do not jam up like the motorways and local roads do, save in the cases of derailment or signal failure. Railways do have distinct advantages over roads especially in potential top and average speeds, ability to operate in inclement weather (especially snowy/icy conditions), and greater potential for passenger/freight haulage per footprint width.

If not for the government, trains could run at a profit, especially by freight haulage. Study the history of railways in Ireland: they were taken over by the government not because they were failing, but because the government did not want a viable privately-owned alternative to their subvented roads. There's a reason the shrinkage of the railway system was concurrent with extension of government control over the transport system.

If road travellers had to pay the full cost of their journey, i.e. not being subsidised by non-users and users alike, never mind other costs being covered by government borrowing, the cost of driving would go way up.

corktina · 04-09-2014 11:40AM

Rodge2012 wrote: »

So what are the canditates for closure then?
All existing lines have been scrutinised to the nth degree, all existing lines have the capability/spare capacity to have a decent service in terms of freight/passenger and as the economy returns to a more favourable footing all the lines in the network will improve in terms of passenger numbers and possible freight tonnage.

That's simply not the case.

2 or 3 lines are on their last legs both in terms of usage and cost.

The brand new WRC section carries less than an average of 10 passengers per train.

Whereas some increase in freight may be possible, it won't be the saviour of IE.

In short, there is no magic wand.

MGWR · 04-09-2014 11:46AM

corktina wrote: »

That's simply not the case.

2 or 3 lines are on their last legs both in terms of usage and cost.

The brand new WRC section carries less than an average of 10 passengers per train.

Whereas some increase in freight may be possible, it won't be the saviour of IE.

In short, there is no magic wand.

Privatisation and deregulation is a good start. Get out of the way of entrepreneurs that want to rebuild railways and have a plan to compete with the road hauliers who are clearly keen on expanding pollution and haulage monopoly in Ireland, never mind jamming up the existing new roadways the construction of whom was not welcomed by many. When IE cuts freight haulage by forty percent on a whim, that speaks volumes as to the thinking of the government.

As for WRC, the government "competes" with itself by running lots of express buses between Limerick and Galway and no express trains, never mind investing in a route north of Ardrahan (at least; a Galway-facing route north of Craughwell would help too). The traffic potential is therefore admittedly there, but the government is clearly showing its bias as to which mode it prefers—a clear conflict of interest.

ArmaniJeanss · 04-09-2014 11:51AM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Presumably cycling along a greenway is intended to be free, yet the 200k long greenway will itself cost a sizeable sum to maintain. So it doesn't actually generate anything directly, in fact its a sizeable enough negative in the balance sheet.
Its benefits are fairly indirect, much like the railways.

Barely There wrote: »

Far, far less than maintaining 200km of rail line.

Well throw up your figures there, seeing as its your proposal.

Total cost of scrapping a 200km railway line, cost of transferring it to a greenway, yearly maintenance of that greenway, investment/advertising needed over x years to entice cycling tourists to come and use it.
And in the positive column you can have the amount of revenue from these tourists.

Barely There · 04-09-2014 11:57AM

MGWR wrote: »

Since trains are focussed on intracity or intercity travel, traffic jams are very much an issue. Railways do not jam up like the motorways and local roads do, save in the cases of derailment or signal failure. Railways do have distinct advantages over roads especially in potential top and average speeds, ability to operate in inclement weather (especially snowy/icy conditions), and greater potential for passenger/freight haulage per footprint width..

I'm afraid that journey time information available from the road and rail providers do not back up any of your points. Quite simply there is no significant difference in journey time between our major cities whether that journey is made by bus or train - while private car travel is quicker than both.

MGWR wrote: »

If not for the government, trains could run at a profit, especially by freight haulage. Study the history of railways in Ireland: they were taken over by the government not because they were failing, but because the government did not want a viable privately-owned alternative to their subvented roads. There's a reason the shrinkage of the railway system was concurrent with extension of government control over the transport system..

Sounds like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory to me.

There's a reason why less than 1% of frieght is transported by rail in this country and it's entirly to do with the short distances involved, No Govt conspiracy involved.

MGWR wrote: »

If road travellers had to pay the full cost of their journey, i.e. not being subsidised by non-users and users alike, never mind other costs being covered by government borrowing, the cost of driving would go way up.

Completely irrelevant to the argument.
Some form of subvention is required to allow the movement of goods and people around the country - the question is 'what mode is the most economic?'.

I've yet to see a response which demonstrates that the answer to this question is 'rail'.

Effects · 04-09-2014 12:09PM

Barely There wrote: »

I think you're getting a bit hung up on the rain.
Ireland has an ideal climate and topography for cycling holidays - not too hot, not too cold, and fairly flat.

Yeah, you make sense about the heat. But we are know for the rain we get here. Cycling in rain isn't fun no matter how much you think it is.

Barely There · 04-09-2014 12:13PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Well throw up your figures there, seeing as its your proposal.

Total cost of scrapping a 200km railway line, cost of transferring it to a greenway, yearly maintenance of that greenway, investment/advertising needed over x years to entice cycling tourists to come and use it.
And in the positive column you can have the amount of revenue from these tourists.

UK studies (http://www.transport-watch.co.uk/facts-sheet-8-rail-versus-road-track-maintenance-costs) have demonstrated that track maintenance for rails costs are between 5 and 10 times that required by road.
The maintenance costs of a Greenway are far, far less than a road.

But, really where your argument falls down is that what you have suggested is exactly what is happening. Up and down the country from Monaghan to Galway, Greenways are being installed on our disused rail lines.

Let's take the next logical step and extend this to our inter-urban lines, where we already have in place a cheaper, more environmentally friendly and equivalent speed alternative - our motorways.

corktina · 04-09-2014 12:43PM

MGWR wrote: »

Privatisation and deregulation is a good start. Get out of the way of entrepreneurs that want to rebuild railways and have a plan to compete with the road hauliers who are clearly keen on expanding pollution and haulage monopoly in Ireland, never mind jamming up the existing new roadways the construction of whom was not welcomed by many. When IE cuts freight haulage by forty percent on a whim, that speaks volumes as to the thinking of the government.

As for WRC, the government "competes" with itself by running lots of express buses between Limerick and Galway and no express trains, never mind investing in a route north of Ardrahan (at least; a Galway-facing route north of Craughwell would help too). The traffic potential is therefore admittedly there, but the government is clearly showing its bias as to which mode it prefers—a clear conflict of interest.

well you can understand that surely? A Rall line that loses €3 a year or so or a road on which a vastly greater number of people both travel and benefit from the freight carried and pay a huge sum of money into the coffers.

davidlacey · 04-09-2014 12:46PM

corktina wrote: »

well you can understand that surely? A Rall line that loses €3 a year or so or a road on which a vastly greater number of people both travel and benefit from the freight carried and pay a huge sum of money into the coffers.

€3 a year? Certainly not a bad loss :-)

end of the road · 04-09-2014 12:55PM

Barely There wrote: »

We transport less than 1% of freight by rail (and this is falling all the time).

its not falling. rubbish.

Barely There wrote: »

The fact is that for a country the size and population density of Ireland, road is the most appropriate means of transporting goods and people.

its not. its part of a multi-modal network. get over it and pay up

Barely There wrote: »

For rail to become competitive with road transport, large government investment and cost differential funding would be required. Would this investment would provide value for money? - the short answer is absolutely not!

with proper speed increases yes.

Barely There wrote: »

Express coach services are quicker, more economical and more environmentally friendly than running trains.

i doubt it but so what? no excuse to rip up the railways which are viable and functioning and could do better with investment and good management. frankly express coaches will never be good enough for a replacement to rail. may as well tell one to get a car. i wouldn't touch an express coach no matter what and i won't be bullied into using one either just because one has a dislike of the company and its staff who operate the railway, and because one pretends to want a cycle way which there are plenty of around the country, then i'm expected to fund said cycle way even though i won't use it.

Barely There wrote: »

In Ireland, the dispersed and relatively low density pattern of residential development results in demand for many rail movements being too low to make it viable to provide for high-frequency, competitively priced rail transport options.

the current network is viable. no new lines are suggested to be opened

Barely There wrote: »

It is likely that even an unrealistically high level of investment and impractically ambitious programme of improvement to the inter-urban rail network would only have a small impact on traffic levels.

i bet they said that about the dart. they were wrong

end of the road · 04-09-2014 12:57PM

Barely There wrote: »

I'm just looking for someone to give reasoned argument that the retention of inter-urban rail services makes any kind of economic, social or environmental sense in this Country. So far nobody has managed to do so.

I'm just looking for someone to give reasoned argument that the ripping up of inter-urban rail services just to benefit a private bus operator or for a cycle way that will probably need the same amount of money spent on it when there are plenty of them all ready makes any kind of sense in general. so far all i've got is private express coaches which people who use the train obviously don't wish to use or they would be all ready, we have motor ways now shur its all grand, something about a cycle way. and the private sector will take up the slack. fact is the state will be involved in running many things. you don't want to fund it maybe consider going to another country

Barely There wrote: »

I don't see how you have any case that you're somehow being persecuted for being a rail enthusiast by being asked to justify the money the taxpayers pay for said service.

he has justified it. why should i fund your greenway.

Barely There wrote: »

You're missing the point - there is plenty of additional capacity on the motorway network to cater for the existing passengers using the train as well as any possible increases.

means nothing. the train passengers don't wish to use the motor way otherwise they would be doing so.

Barely There wrote: »

I fail to see how closure of an inter-urban rail service and relacement of same with an equivalent bus service contributes to any of the issues you've mentioned.

the bus service will never be equivalent to the rail. rail passengers don't want busses. if they did they would be using. if i want a bus there are plenty for me to use. yet i don't want to. your little crusade is going no where.

Barely There wrote: »

Yes, this is exactly why they make such good Greenways.

no . they all don't. any of the good greenways are on lines all ready closed.

Barely There wrote: »

Imagine if we could convert the railines from something which is costing us millions every year into something which is generating millions instead.

well you can't. because its still going to cost you millions and on many of them bring in nothing because as a greenway they have nothing to offer.

end of the road · 04-09-2014 12:58PM

Barely There wrote: »

1. The current inter-urban motorway network is well below capacity - traffic jams are not an issue.

i bet they are.

Barely There wrote: »

2. the only reason anyone would have the option of taking a train for the same price is due to the funding IR receives from the Govt.

or maybe because they wish to take the train. face it. if people want bus. they will use. many don't. so they don't use.

Barely There wrote: »

I could equally turn your proposition on its head and ask 'Why should the tax-payers of this country subsidise people who wish to travel by train when a cheaper alternative mode of transport is available?'

do you not get it. people don't wish to use the cheeper alternative which gets indirect subsidy because it doesn't and never will offer what they want.

Barely There wrote: »

I would agree it is a ridiculous scenario, particularly when the private sector could easily step in to cater for the demand which exists on this route as well as Dublin - Limerick, Dublin Cork, Dublin Belfast etc.

its not ridiculous at all. the private sector couldn't fully step in on these routes unless they make money. stopping in every little town and village doesn't make much money. again if people want busses they will use. those of us who don't won't. if i want private sector services plenty of them exist. i still take the train. fantastic isn't it.

Barely There wrote: »

Far, far less than maintaining 200km of rail line.

i don't buy it

Losty Dublin · 04-09-2014 12:59PM

Barely There wrote: »

UK studies (http://www.transport-watch.co.uk/facts-sheet-8-rail-versus-road-track-maintenance-costs) have demonstrated that track maintenance for rails costs are between 5 and 10 times that required by road..

The cost of maintaining a railway line is fixed whereas the cost of maintaining a road goes up the more it is used. The more the railway line is used the lower the cost incurred per mile traveled.

You will find also that a truck or coach or car pay a lower contribution towards the capital cost of maintaining the road. Railways on the other hand generally have to bear the whole cost of same. When State Aid covers these costs it's no batted eyelid for roads; for railways it's ammo to either close the line or used as manifesto for the next elections.

end of the road · 04-09-2014 12:59PM

Barely There wrote: »

UK studies (http://www.transport-watch.co.uk/facts-sheet-8-rail-versus-road-track-maintenance-costs) have demonstrated that track maintenance for rails costs are between 5 and 10 times that required by road.

yeah i'm sure they are.

Barely There wrote: »

The maintenance costs of a Greenway are far, far less than a road.

don't care.

Barely There wrote: »

But, really where your argument falls down is that what you have suggested is exactly what is happening. Up and down the country from Monaghan to Galway, Greenways are being installed on our disused rail lines.

yes lines disused for years.

Barely There wrote: »

Let's take the next logical step and extend this to our inter-urban lines

lets not

Barely There wrote: »

where we already have in place a cheaper, more environmentally friendly and equivalent speed alternative - our motorways.

they are not cheeper. they are much more expensive, but the cost is hidden. your paying for the railway. leave the country if it annoys you so much. plenty of countries with lots and lots of cycle ways.

end of the road · 04-09-2014 01:01PM

Barely There wrote: »

I'm afraid that journey time information available from the road and rail providers do not back up any of your points

again. that means nothing

Barely There wrote: »

Quite simply there is no significant difference in journey time between our major cities whether that journey is made by bus or train - while private car travel is quicker than both.

obviously private car travel will be quicker. however ripping up the railways just because there is a bus alternative which funnily enough many don't wish to use is just deluded rabel rabel tripe

Barely There wrote: »

Sounds like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory to me.

it would to someone who is anti rail/the staff/company running rail. or maybe just anything that isn't private sector.

Barely There wrote: »

There's a reason why less than 1% of frieght is transported by rail in this country and it's entirly to do with the short distances involved, No Govt conspiracy involved.

and irish rail years ago who let it all go. long distance freight could be found in this country and moving it to rail taking trucks off the road would mean less spent on the roads. win win for us all.

Barely There wrote: »

Completely irrelevant to the argument.
Some form of subvention is required to allow the movement of goods and people around the country - the question is 'what mode is the most economic?'.

one which has rail and road as an integrated solution. but lets face it this thread isn't about whats economic or not.

Barely There wrote: »

I've yet to see a response which demonstrates that the answer to this question is 'rail'.

i've yet to see a reason to rip up the railways just to benefit someones private tole and bus operator friends or for a cycle way where there are many all ready or because one doesn't like the company and staff operating it. i know the reason for this thread and its not economics.

n97 mini · 04-09-2014 01:16PM

OSI wrote: »

Favourite part of my commute every day is zooming past all the stuffy overcrowded buses stuck in traffic, while I sit in my air conditioned quiet rail carriage. Bliss.

What's the route and we can calculate the average speed to see if you are indeed zooming, or more realistically just ambling?

corktina · 04-09-2014 01:16PM

davidlacey wrote: »

€3 a year? Certainly not a bad loss :-)

€3million.... :-)

Red Alert · 04-09-2014 01:23PM

To succeed, Irish Rail need to be forced to improve speeds - some of it requires permanent way work, some requires signalling changes but improvements could certainly be made by de-padding the timetable. They need to adopt the approach of "beating the motorway", and if that includes more express point to point services then so be it.

We have quite a good fleet of rolling stock in the 22k, DD and formerly Mk3 stock. The Mk4s are debatable. But we have more than enough kit to run a much better service than we currently have.

Barely There · 04-09-2014 01:25PM

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The cost of maintaining a railway line is fixed whereas the cost of maintaining a road goes up the more it is used. The more the railway line is used the lower the cost incurred per mile traveled.

You will find also that a truck or coach or car pay a lower contribution towards the capital cost of maintaining the road. Railways on the other hand generally have to bear the whole cost of same. When State Aid covers these costs it's no batted eyelid for roads; for railways it's ammo to either close the line or used as manifesto for the next elections.

If you're claiming that it's more economically advantageous to move goods and people around Ireland by rail than by road, then it's incumbent on you to post up some back-up like for example an international study (that would be applicable here) to demonstrate this.

As it stands, your post contains nothing other than conjecture masquerading as fact,

Barely There · 04-09-2014 01:34PM

Red Alert wrote: »

To succeed, Irish Rail need to be forced to improve speeds

Irish Rail needs to be forced to justify the money that the tax-payers of this country currently pay it to provide a service.

That justification may include;

Better journey speeds - though, to my mind that it by far the weakest justification.
A more economical favourable option over the equivalent bus journey.
A more environmentally favourable option over the equivalent bus journey.
A more socially favourable option over the equivalent bus journey.

Sinking more of our tax-funds into IR to allow them to 'beat the motorways' (on journey time) doesn't represent good value for the citizens of this country IMO.

n97 mini · 04-09-2014 01:40PM

I think part of the issue with increasing speeds is you have to bypass rural Ireland and go straight city to city to achieve anything meaningful. Queue political interference brought on by the rural lobby who want a 30 mph service to stop at their village "because I prefer the train" rather than a 100 mph one which doesn't.

Abolish Ireland's Rail System

Comments