Abolish Ireland's Rail System

Losty Dublin

Barely There wrote: »

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,

No, I'm not talking about running costs so perhaps you need to read it again: I am referring to the basics of PW costs for road and rail.

It costs about same to lay and maintain track on a line in traffic such as the quiet Waterford-Limerick line as it does the busy Maynooth-Mullingar single line line. Similarly the Drogheda-Dundalk line needs about as much attention as the Connolly-Howth junction section. There are variables but they relate to the track itself (Bullhead and flat based track) or low traffic levels (slow freight trains like the Navan Branch) and are the exception in Ireland.

On the contrary with roads, a route like the M4 needs more work and attention between, say, Leixlip and Kilcock or the Athlone bypass (N6) that it would around Ballinasloe due to traffic levels.

On tax, a quick follow up will tell you that motor tax revenues pale in comparison to expenditure on road investment in Ireland. Any newspaper will confirm this for you.

Bigus

Losty Dublin wrote: »

On tax, a quick follow up will tell you that motor tax revenues pale in comparison to expenditure on road investment in Ireland. Any newspaper will confirm this for you.

Can you give some figures or links please ?

Barely There

Losty Dublin wrote: »

No, I'm not talking about running costs so perhaps you need to read it again: I am referring to the basics of PW costs for road and rail.

It costs about same to lay and maintain track on a line in traffic such as the quiet Waterford-Limerick line as it does the busy Maynooth-Mullingar single line line. Similarly the Drogheda-Dundalk line needs about as much attention as the Connolly-Howth junction section. There are variables but they relate to the track itself (Bullhead and flat based track) or low traffic levels (slow freight trains like the Navan Branch) and are the exception in Ireland.

On the contrary with roads, a route like the M4 needs more work and attention between, say, Leixlip and Kilcock or the Athlone bypass (N6) that it would around Ballinasloe due to traffic levels. .

The relevant question is - At the moment we are paying to maintain both rail and road intercity options, if we removed rail, would the increased maintenance cost associated with the increase in road volumes be greater than the cost of maintaining the equivalent rail line?
I very much doubt it.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

On tax, a quick follow up will tell you that motor tax revenues pale in comparison to expenditure on road investment in Ireland. Any newspaper will confirm this for you.

I'd imagine you're right, however tax on petrol, public tolls and VRT would also need to be factored in. I would hazard a guess these far outweigh motor tax.

end of the road

Barely There wrote: »

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

oh god this is brilliant. the tax payer gets a fantastic deal from irish rail. continuous cutting of subsidy and still more or less the same amount of services.

Barely There wrote: »

That justification may include;
Better journey speeds - though, to my mind that it by far the weakest justification.

its a brilliant justification. rail can offer faster speeds then roads could ever offer. it just needs the will to do it.

Barely There wrote: »

a more economical favourable option over the equivalent bus journey.

much more comfortable. brings me to where i wish to go. can operate in many forms of weather when the roads could be closed. offers me what a bus could never offer me.

Barely There wrote: »

a more environmentally favourable option over the equivalent bus journey.

i couldn't care about environmental issues. rail is mor comfortable for me and offers me what i want. and takes me where i want to go. the bus doesn't and never will offer this to me.

Barely There wrote: »

a more socially favourable option over the equivalent bus journey.

can move more people or offer a better comfort level then a bus could offer. it keeps cars off the road which i suspect if the rail went people would go back to their cars.

Barely There wrote: »

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

i don't care, as you don't speak for me. as i'm a citizen of this country who is happy for his taxes to go to rail. and frankly spending money on improving rail journeys is value for money to me and i suspect many others. spending money on over specked motor ways to places where a dual carrige way would be more then enough, or having money going out to private toal operators on the other hand. or even being forced to use a bus because someone doesn't like the company operating the railway is definitely not value for money to me. difference is i'm not wasting my life ranting about it because i don't like a particular company. i'l just continue to use the method of transport I want to use and thats it.

end of the road

Barely There wrote: »

The relevant question is - At the moment we are paying to maintain both rail and road intercity options, if we removed rail, would the increased maintenance cost associated with the increase in road volumes be greater than the cost of maintaining the equivalent rail line?
I very much doubt it.

how wouldn't it.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

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.

to bypass much of rural Ireland would need new lines. any of the rural stations that survive are rail heads for other areas. i've explained that to you before. the rural lobby want the trains to stop because they use them.

Vic_08

Barely There wrote: »

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.

I won't even bother to comment on some of your other nonsense but you are persisting with one major fallacy here; that in the absence of rail all former rail passengers will transfer to bus/coach. This is simply not the case. A very large % would switch to private car use. This has been proven all over the developed world, both by surveys of attitudes, results of rail closures and comparisons between similar journeys where rail is only available for some.

The alternative to funding railways is more funding to deal with our already overly car-centric society, more pollution, more congestion, more demand for land hungry road building.

Frankly mass rail closures in developed countries has already been deemed to be a bad policy and a mistake of the mid 20th century that we are now paying the price for.

I recall reading a study that estimated over 80% of the route miles closed post WWII in Britain would, if still open today, be by any measure considered desirable and not candidates for closure. Dozens of formerly closed lines have ended up being re-opened at huge cost and there are many more where the prohibitive cost of re-building infrastructure that was destroyed 30-50 years earlier is the reason why many towns and routes will not see services again.

The idea that in 2014 anybody would be considering any of the major rail routes in Ireland is just preposterous, we would really be a laughing stock to other nations who are busily building more railways to improve their nation's infrastructure.

n97 mini

end of the road wrote: »

any of the rural stations that survive are rail heads for other areas.

A railhead is a rail terminus.

end of the road wrote: »

i've explained that to you before. the rural lobby want the trains to stop because they use them.

And you've illustrated my point perfectly.

n97 mini

Vic_08 wrote: »

The alternative to funding railways is more funding to deal with our already overly car-centric society, more pollution, more congestion, more demand for land hungry road building.

Can we get over the fallacy that just because it's a train it pollutes less. It all depends on the loading. An 84 tonne train with 6 people on board generates considerably more pollution than the alternative of six cars.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

A railhead is a rail terminus.

it can be but in this context its not. its a station which serves areas which either lost their stations or had none. for example rathdrum on the rosslare dublin line is the railhead for other areas and a couple of stations on the line closed in the 60s. glad you get it now

Barely There

Vic_08 wrote: »

I won't even bother to comment on some of your other nonsense...

Please feel free to ignore any of my points you're not comfortable debating.

Vic_08 wrote: »

but you are persisting with one major fallacy here; that in the absence of rail all former rail passengers will transfer to bus/coach. This is simply not the case. A very large % would switch to private car use. This has been proven all over the developed world, both by surveys of attitudes, results of rail closures and comparisons between similar journeys where rail is only available for some...

Yes, I agree, we actually have a couple of alternatives to continue to fund rail - this is my point exactly.

Vic_08 wrote: »

The alternative to funding railways is more funding to deal with our already overly car-centric society, more pollution, more congestion, more demand for land hungry road building..

Well, that's certainly big on rhetoric but conspicuously low on some actual facts and figures - do you have any or was it a just a general anti-car tirade?

Vic_08 wrote: »

The idea that in 2014 anybody would be considering any of the major rail routes in Ireland is just preposterous, we would really be a laughing stock to other nations who are busily building more railways to improve their nation's infrastructure.

But the economic arguments may be completely different in other countries where population densities and distances involved may indeed make a rail a viable option.

I'm talking about Ireland though - all 200miles wide and 350miles long of it, with our relatively low population densities.

Frankly, I couldn't give a hoot about whether other countries would consider the idea laughable - only whether it makes any kind of sense to continue to fund a rail system where a preferable alternative (or even alternatives as you've pointed out) already exists.

veryangryman

Slightly irrelevant but...

Former life, i worked for a call centre on a breakdown service. I got a call once from a guy broken down in Drogheda one Saturday evening. Towed his car to local place in Drogheda.

The man then asked how he would get home. I informed him that there was an hourly bus and to post us on the ticket for a refund. His response: "I dont take buses". I said why not? He said, i dont take them.

This thread reminded me of the mentality that one witnesses with train users (I prefer the bus, takes you quicker into the city (from the west anyway) and is cheaper.

We left said man in Drogheda with his "I dont take buses whinging" and tbh i hope he's still there.

BuffyBot

I have this funny feeling of deja-vu.

I could have sworn I already I posted something about trollery..