Would You Sacrifice Rural Rail Services for the DART Underground/Metro North?

ClovenHoof

Serious question. If that was the only offer on the table?

Amirani

In a heartbeat.

lawred2

Yup

At least the country might get some value for money unlike the parish pump western rail corridor and it's 13 patrons.

It's should not even be a thinker.

But in Ireland you could be sure it would be

munster87

Would your answer mainly depend on if you live in Dublin or in rural Ireland?

John_Rambo

The latter is needed more, more people would use it, it would generate money for the state, things would improve.

So, it probably won't happen.

lawred2

munster87 wrote: »

Would your answer mainly depend on if you live in Dublin or in rural Ireland?

Only if you see things as 'us lot agin dem lot'

Seve OB

John_Rambo wrote: »

The former is needed more, more people would use it, it would generate money for the state, things would improve.

So, it probably won't happen.

So you reckon rural rail is needed more and more people would use it!
What planet are you on?

lawred2

Seve OB wrote: »

So you reckon rural rail is needed more and more people would use it!
What planet are you on?

Fairly sure he meant latter

munster87

lawred2 wrote: »

Only if you see things as 'us lot agin dem lot'

Not really us against them, more which would the individual make more use of

devnull

Heh, I'm not going to take the bait from the OP on this one

Del.Monte

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Serious question. If that was the only offer on the table?

No, but I'd be happy to see a reduction in commuter services if it meant the reopening of Mullingar/Athlone; Waterford/Rosslare Strand and a direct curve from the Dublin/Rosslare line to the Waterford/Rosslare line.

John_Rambo

Seve OB wrote: »

So you reckon rural rail is needed more and more people would use it!
What planet are you on?

Planet stupid. Sorry, meant the latter!! I'll change it now! Thanks.

ClovenHoof

To offer my own opinion the WRC proves that opening Parish Pump lines does nothing to generate rail transport usage at the macro level. If the option was to stop passenger services on the lines mentioned in the most recent report http://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/rail-report-routes-around-country-at-risk-of-closure-1.2840423, and focus resources on the GDR, this would massively increase rail usage and lead - in a round-about way - to reopening close lines reopening in future.

If the DARTUnderground/Dublin Rail Plan was fully implemented, then it would lead in time to reopening of Athlone-Mullingar and Navan lines. The tree growing from the very healthy roots.

I know it sounds like a strange idea, but it creates momentum for expansion, opening the second phase of the WRC is the terminal paralysis of all rail services.

Grandeeod

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Serious question. If that was the only offer on the table?

A visionary post brother Cloven.;)

Grandeeod

Del.Monte wrote: »

No, but I'd be happy to see a reduction in commuter services if it meant the reopening of Mullingar/Athlone; Waterford/Rosslare Strand and a direct curve from the Dublin/Rosslare line to the Waterford/Rosslare line.

LOL!

At least you are enjoying yourself.:D

LeinsterDub

In a heartbeat

Del.Monte

LeinsterDub wrote: »

In a heartbeat

That's two of us. Which commuter services would you like to see cut back? I fancy withdrawing everything north of the Liffey as it only encourages Northsiders to wander.

end of the road

i don't believe in others losing their services for other services, even if i support the proposed services that others would be sacrificed for. while it all ready effectively has happened with rail, increasing that might cause the idea to spread to other services knowing our government.

LeinsterDub

Del.Monte wrote: »

That's two of us. Which commuter services would you like to see cut back? I fancy withdrawing everything north of the Liffey as it only encourages Northsiders to wander.

We are keeping all the urban rail didn't you read the op

BonnieSituation

Deedsie wrote: »

As a person originally from rural Ireland (and wishes to return someday) who supports the Limerick - Nenagh - Ballybrophy line and wants it upgraded not closed.

I would have to say yes, if Metro North and DART Expansion being built was contingent on that line being closed I think it would be the best option for the government to go with Metro North and DART Expansion.

Over 95% of the island would benefit from Metro North, it would provide access for everyone to the airport and link up to public transport options to the rest of Ireland etc

This whole Dublin v the rest thing has to stop. It is all of our country An Dublin is all of our capita city.

DU is exponentially more important. MN can jump until it's built.

Del2005

end of the road wrote: »

i don't believe in others losing their services for other services, even if i support the proposed services that others would be sacrificed for. while it all ready effectively has happened with rail, increasing that might cause the idea to spread to other services knowing our government.

So you'd rather spend tax income on something which has better cheaper alternatives than something that would benefit the whole country.

This country doesn't believe in what makes public transport, and the provision of most public services, viable because people want ribbon development instead of living in towns or villages while complaining about having to use a car to get anywhere. Rail needs high densities to be viable, we don't do high density.

BonnieSituation

Del2005 wrote: »

So you'd rather spend tax income on something which has better cheaper alternatives than something that would benefit the whole country.

This country doesn't believe in what makes public transport, and the provision of most public services, viable because people want ribbon development instead of living in towns or villages while complaining about having to use a car to get anywhere. Rail needs high densities to be viable, we don't do high density.

Then planning guidelines should force us to. Ribbon development should come with hefty levies to make them not viable and force people into towns and villages.

Look at the heights in the new Dublin City Development plan!

We are a mediocre people who vote for gobsh!tes into office and then complain that planners don't do their jobs.

Densities can be achieved if they're made be achieved!

end of the road

Del2005 wrote: »

So you'd rather spend tax income on something which has better cheaper alternatives than something that would benefit the whole country.

they're are no better alternatives to rail apart from the private car. the only cheeper alternative that is worth it's salt for rail users if their service was stolen is the car, because it offers the next best thing. so yes, i would happily spend money on providing something that is another public transport option, for which new users can be attracted to it who may not use public transport otherwise, and existing users who use it, will continue to use public transport. that benefits the whole country as it's less money on moher ways begorra. dart underground won't benefit me or others if our rail services which are viable were stolen to fund it.

Del2005 wrote: »

Rail needs high densities to be viable, we don't do high density.

the lines in this country are viable and have the populations to make them work, it's non interest by IE/NTA/government and the lack of infrastructure investment that is the reason they're are problems.

Nekarsulm

What rural services? There is no rail service in an arc between the Belfast line and the Maynooth/Longford/Sligo line. I suppose thats why they built the M3 instead.

n97 mini

If the fares were free to the user and Michael O'Leary paid their fares to IE instead I doubt the Waterford-Limerick Junction route, the Nenagh branch, the WRC or the Wexford line beyond Gorey would pay their way.

The reality is the rail "network" was built in the 1800s and large parts of it are unfit for purpose. Additionally towns that should have grown didn't as parish pump politics mean rural one-offs are rife, and contribute nothing to the sustainability of many services, rail included.

If I had to pick one to give the bullet to it'd probably be the Nenagh branch. After that it's a toss up between the WRC and the Waterford-Limerick Junction route. The latter is doomed as it averages less than 35mph and all the stations en route are already bricked up.

Something that would probably turn a profit immediately would be the M3 Parkway to Navan route, something so busy it now has a 24 hour a day bus service... But the parish pump spent the money on the WRC instead.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

If the fares were free to the user and Michael O'Leary paid their fares to IE instead I doubt the Waterford-Limerick Junction route, the Nenagh branch, the WRC or the Wexford line beyond Gorey would pay their way.

the vast vast majority of the network doesn't pay it's way, however it adds to society and benefits us all and the economy in many ways which cannot be quantified in simple profit and loss.
wexford and enniscorthy absolutely have the traffic to justify a rail service and while groth would be liked by me and many others, the morning dublin bound and evening rosslare/wexford bound trains do decent trade. however the service has a hell of a lot of room for improvement so it's not surprising many choose not to use it, deal with the issues and you have something we can be prowd of.

n97 mini wrote: »

The reality is the rail "network" was built in the 1800s and large parts of it are unfit for purpose.

some could have better alinements yes, but as much as we'd all like to have japanese style bullet trains, the reality is it isn't going to happen so we have to improve and work with, and invest in what we have got.

n97 mini wrote: »

Additionally towns that should have grown didn't as parish pump politics mean rural one-offs are rife, and contribute nothing to the sustainability of many services, rail included.

the vast vast majority of the rail network is sustainible. parish pump politics is what the people want, otherwise they wouldn't vote for it again and again. now you don't have to like that fact and don't by all means, i don't always like it either but the people know what they are voting for and vote for it. one knows what they are getting. so the people are responsible for the failures.

n97 mini wrote: »

If I had to pick one to give the bullet to it'd probably be the Nenagh branch. After that it's a toss up between the WRC and the Waterford-Limerick Junction route. The latter is doomed as it averages less than 35mph and all the stations en route are already bricked up.

the limerick junction waterford line can be saved with interest. decent sized towns which can support a frequent reliable rail service. for the wrc, close all the stations bar ennis and athenry, the 2 original stations. that would potentially give a competitive service. infact, from the start no stations should have been opened between limerick and athenry.

n97 mini wrote: »

Something that would probably turn a profit immediately would be the M3 Parkway to Navan route, something so busy it now has a 24 hour a day bus service... But the parish pump spent the money on the WRC instead.

and then again it might not turn a profit. what would happen if that was the case? would we shut it back down again or just except like grown up countries that it is part of our infrastructure?
the people voted for the government who reopened ennis athenry instead of navan (which never should have been closed and ripped up in the first place) . the people are responsible.

MGWR

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Serious question. If that was the only offer on the table?

False dilemma.

And if this is what the government "offers", then a political football. Utterly corrupt notion to even broach.

MGWR

n97 mini wrote: »

If the fares were free to the user and Michael O'Leary paid their fares to IE instead I doubt the Waterford-Limerick Junction route, the Nenagh branch, the WRC or the Wexford line beyond Gorey would pay their way.

The reality is the rail "network" was built in the 1800s and large parts of it are unfit for purpose. Additionally towns that should have grown didn't as parish pump politics mean rural one-offs are rife, and contribute nothing to the sustainability of many services, rail included.

If I had to pick one to give the bullet to it'd probably be the Nenagh branch. After that it's a toss up between the WRC and the Waterford-Limerick Junction route. The latter is doomed as it averages less than 35mph and all the stations en route are already bricked up.

Something that would probably turn a profit immediately would be the M3 Parkway to Navan route, something so busy it now has a 24 hour a day bus service... But the parish pump spent the money on the WRC instead.

All false arguments. None of the government-run railways "turn a profit" no matter how busy they are; that is the nature of things when the government runs them.

And there are many railways built in the 1800s that are quite "fit for purpose even today. When was the Dublin and Kingstown built, after all?

Bray Head

MGWR wrote: »

All false arguments. None of the government-run railways "turn a profit" no matter how busy they are; that is the nature of things when the government runs them.

We all know that a rail system in Ireland inevitably requires subsidies.
It is perfectly reasonably to compare subsidy per passenger across various routes though.
My guess is that there is an order of magnitude difference between Limerick-Ballybrophy and Bray to Pearse.
Happy for anyone to prove me wrong on this.

n97 mini

MGWR wrote: »

All false arguments. None of the government-run railways "turn a profit" no matter how busy they are; that is the nature of things when the government runs them.

And there are many railways built in the 1800s that are quite "fit for purpose even today. When was the Dublin and Kingstown built, after all?

Dublin and Kingstown is in a metro area and proves my point: urban lines are not a problem, and we need more of them.

Profitable=sustainable. If they're not profitable routes the money has to come from somewhere else to keep them open.

Alan Kelly did us a favour by carpet bombing the Nenagh branch with trains. People then couldn't complain about lack of services, but they still stayed away in droves. No justification for wasting money running empty trains.

Del2005

end of the road wrote: »

they're are no better alternatives to rail apart from the private car. the only cheeper alternative that is worth it's salt for rail users if their service was stolen is the car, because it offers the next best thing. so yes, i would happily spend money on providing something that is another public transport option, for which new users can be attracted to it who may not use public transport otherwise, and existing users who use it, will continue to use public transport. that benefits the whole country as it's less money on moher ways begorra. dart underground won't benefit me or others if our rail services which are viable were stolen to fund it.



the lines in this country are viable and have the populations to make them work, it's non interest by IE/NTA/government and the lack of infrastructure investment that is the reason they're are problems.

Apart from the commuter lines which one is faster, cheaper and arrives in the location that people want to get to faster than coaches?

Del2005

Deedsie wrote: »

Most people in Ireland do live in towns and cities. Provide proper efficient public transport for those towns and cities and then start complaining about people living in one off housing. It's their choice to live outside towns and cities, hard to blame them when you see the ghettoising of former great town centres throughout rural Ireland.

The amount of vacant houses in most rural towns and villages doesn't support that. People rather build a new house miles outside the village than in the village. If there are people living in the towns and villages why are all the shops closing?

Bray Head

Deedsie wrote: »

As I said, ghettoisation of town centres has pushed the majority of people out to estates on the fringes of towns in Ireland. Have a look at Rural addiction on the RT Player. Of course there is a large number of people in one off housing but the majority still live in clusters.

Regardless, blaming 1 off ribbon developments as a reason for the government and planners not providing a public transport system for Dublin Metro Area is ridiculous.

In my experience people much prefer to build a large one-off outside a town than to renovate something in town centres.
Part of this is understandable. A lot of terraced, on-street housing stock in rural towns is small, cold, doesn't have parking and would probably be best demolished and replaced with something better.
But it does not help to make the case for rail transport if very few people live within walking distance of stations.

n97 mini

I took the daily boardings from the 2015 rail census, stuck them in a spreadsheet and sorted in ascending order. No doubt about it Waterford to Limerick Junction will be closed next, followed by the Nenagh Branch. Manulla Junction to Ballina features in the bottom too, but freight it keeping that line open.

ClovenHoof

n97 mini wrote: »

I took the daily boardings from the 2015 rail census, stuck them in a spreadsheet and sorted in ascending order. No doubt about it Waterford to Limerick Junction will be closed next, followed by the Nenagh Branch. Manulla Junction to Ballina features in the bottom too, but freight it keeping that line open.

How about instead of closing entire lines, just close the badly performing stations enroute and making the end to end services more speedy and attractive? Less stops and so on. Woodlawn was always a huge problem with the Galway route. It is only remained opened because some headbanger - who was later shown to not use the train - chained himself to the crossing gates.

CINCLANTFLT

From a rural background, but I'd go with developing the urban and core intercity routes. I got the train up from Cork this morning, the luas to a meeting west of the city, on the luas to a meeting near Connolly now. Then dart to Malahide and then dart / luas to Hueston and the train home to cork... however if I was going to Galway from Cork id zoom up there in the car... WRC is too slow!

n97 mini

ClovenHoof wrote: »

How about instead of closing entire lines, just close the badly performing stations enroute and making the end to end services more speedy and attractive? Less stops and so on. Woodlawn was always a huge problem with the Galway route. It is only remained opened because some headbanger - who was later shown to not use the train - chained himself to the crossing gates.

On Waterford - Limerick Junction most or all of the stations are closed anyway. So there would be no cost saving. If the train didn't stop at those stations the alignment is still so bad that that it's unlikely to shave more than 10 minutes off.

I do agree that on busy routes it's probably worth closing one or two stations that have virtually no patronage.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

Profitable=sustainable.

so all public services in the country are unsustainible then as they don't make anything. or is it just rail which has to be profitable in your view so you can have an excuse to support it's destruction outside your line (all the while claiming to use other lines isn't that funny)
. they're will never be a profitable rail network anywhere. some lines of a network might make 1 but as a whole network (yes a network) it will not be profitable.

n97 mini wrote: »

If they're not profitable routes the money has to come from somewhere else to keep them open.

yes, just like every other public service.

Del2005 wrote: »

Apart from the commuter lines which one is faster, cheaper and arrives in the location that people want to get to faster than coaches?

different people have different expectations from public transport. so regardless of whether the bus is supposibly faster and cheeper, for many, it doesn't and never will offer what they want from public transport. bus is no reason for the destruction of rail. that drivel was tried and it failed, time for ireland to grow up and move on from the 1960s thinking. even britain has done that in relation to it's network.

Del.Monte

ClovenHoof wrote: »

How about instead of closing entire lines, just close the badly performing stations enroute and making the end to end services more speedy and attractive? Less stops and so on. Woodlawn was always a huge problem with the Galway route. It is only remained opened because some headbanger - who was later shown to not use the train - chained himself to the crossing gates.

That's already been tried and just makes the railway irrelevant to yet more people. Buttevant, Knocklong, Killmallock, Dundrum, Goolds Cross, Mountrath, Avoca, Ferns, Wexford South, Dunleer.....will I go on?

n97 mini

end of the road wrote: »

so all public services in the country are unsustainible then as they don't make anything.

We're talking about rail services, not schools etc. Face it, if a route makes money its future is guaranteed. If it does not there will always be a question mark over it, and its future will not be certain.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

We're talking about rail services, not schools etc.

rail services are public services. well at least in grown up countries they are.

n97 mini wrote: »

Face it, if a route makes money its future is guaranteed. If it does not there will always be a question mark over it, and its future will not be certain.

face it, whether a route makes money or not guarantees absolutely nothing.
1. the tramore line was apparently very proffitable when it was closed and yet it was closed.
2. the network as a whole doesn't pay it's way and never has.

n97 mini

Del.Monte wrote: »

That's already been tried and just makes the railway irrelevant to yet more people. Buttevant, Knocklong, Killmallock, Dundrum, Goolds Cross, Mountrath, Avoca, Ferns, Wexford South, Dunleer.....will I go on?

Where was Wexford South? I tried googling but it's not turning up much.

n97 mini

end of the road wrote: »

rail services are public services. well at least in grown up countries they are.

You said about all public services wrt profit, a straw man argument as we're not talking about anything other than rail. It's pointless trying to argue anything with you as this is your style, along with being pro wasteful public spending. In the real world there is a limited amount of money to go around, and it has to be spent wisely.

end of the road wrote: »

face it, whether a route makes money or not guarantees absolutely nothing. the tramore line was apparently very proffitable when it was closed and yet it was closed.

Profitable routes don't get closed. Why would they. The Tramore route was losing money, lots of it, for the last six years before closure. A basic bit of research and you wouldn't have tried that argument. Here's a link to make it easy for you: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/an-irishman-s-diary-about-the-waterford-and-tramore-railway-1.2502691

Anyway, I'm not getting involved in pointless irrational arguments with you on this thread so I won't be responding to your posts again.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

You said about all public services wrt profit, a straw man argument as we're not talking about anything other than rail.

which is a public service. you don't see rail as a public service, i see rail as a public service, so therefore the argument i put forward as far as i'm concerned is not one bit a strawman.

n97 mini wrote: »

It's pointless trying to argue anything with you as this is your style, along with being pro wasteful public spending. In the real world there is a limited amount of money to go around, and it has to be spent wisely.

i'm not pro wasteful public spending, plenty of posts to back that up. however i'm also not pro stealing others services to fund other services. like i said, the vast vast majority of the rail network is 100% viable and they're is plenty of room for growth, so investing in it and growing it is spending money wisely and money well spent according to this tax payer.

n97 mini wrote: »

Profitable routes don't get closed. Why would they.

they do when politics is involved. we could get the wrong type of government at the next election who might decide to shut the lot. also remember the nuts who were against the dart, had they gotten their way (and i'm surprised all be it glad they didn't) we would have had nothing at all in terms of a suburban service.

n97 mini wrote: »

The Tramore route was losing money, lots of it, for the last six years before closure. A basic bit of research and you wouldn't have tried that argument. Here's a link to make it easy for you: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/an-irishman-s-diary-about-the-waterford-and-tramore-railway-1.2502691

losing money according to who? CIE? who couldn't be trusted as far as it could be thrown. maybe it was true and maybe it wasn't, who knows. however, an irish times link proves jot all. and as i said, CIE's word can't be truely trusted if at all.

n97 mini wrote: »

Anyway, I'm not getting involved in pointless irrational arguments with you on this thread so I won't be responding to your posts again.

you mean your non arguments have been called out for the nonsense they are and your backing down. correct choice, because you won't win with me on this issue, it's one i will keep going all day and all night on if i have to.

Del.Monte

n97 mini wrote: »

You said about all public services wrt profit, a straw man argument as we're not talking about anything other than rail. It's pointless trying to argue anything with you as this is your style, along with being pro wasteful public spending. In the real world there is a limited amount of money to go around, and it has to be spent wisely.


Profitable routes don't get closed. Why would they. The Tramore route was losing money, lots of it, for the last six years before closure. A basic bit of research and you wouldn't have tried that argument. Here's a link to make it easy for you: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/an-irishman-s-diary-about-the-waterford-and-tramore-railway-1.2502691

Anyway, I'm not getting involved in pointless irrational arguments with you on this thread so I won't be responding to your posts again.

That article is behind a pay wall! Anyway, without reading it - tell me how an eight mile long railway largely operated by DMUs lost lots of money. A bit of 'basic reserach' would inform you that CIE wished to close the line because it was self-contained and not connected to the rest of the rail network. CIE, like some on here, have an answer for every closure.

Just got behind the paywall by another search and why not highlight this bit from the article 'For the last six years of its life, the line used diesel railcars, but by the end of the 1950s, the line was losing £3,000 a year. As Frank O’Donoghue says, rather ruefully, another tuppence on the fares would have cleared the deficit. When the train was replaced by buses, the bus fares were dearer. In 1959, the year before it was shut down, the line carried over 400,000 passengers.'

n97 mini

Del.Monte wrote: »

That article is behind a pay wall! Anyway, without reading it - tell me how an eight mile long railway largely operated by DMUs lost lots of money. A bit of 'basic reserach' would inform you that CIE wished to close the line because it was self-contained and not connected to the rest of the rail network. CIE, like some on here, have an answer for every closure.

Just got behind the paywall by another search and why not highlight this bit from the article 'For the last six years of its life, the line used diesel railcars, but by the end of the 1950s, the line was losing £3,000 a year. As Frank O’Donoghue says, rather ruefully, another tuppence on the fares would have cleared the deficit. When the train was replaced by buses, the bus fares were dearer. In 1959, the year before it was shut down, the line carried over 400,000 passengers.'

Post the bit where it says about concession fares to boost numbers after they fell off a cliff. If it carried 4 million a year at a loss, a loss is still a loss.

Del.Monte

n97 mini wrote: »

Where was Wexford South? I tried googling but it's not turning up much.

It was the GSWR Wexford Station (south of where the railway leaves the quays near Trinity Street and closed in 1977. The cabin remained in use for some years for the adjoining LC.

Del.Monte

n97 mini wrote: »

Post the bit where it says about concession fares to boost numbers after they fell off a cliff. If it carried 4 million a year at a loss, a loss is still a loss.

Friend if you knew anything about the inner workings of CIE you wouldn't believe a single figure from that source. Why was it ripped up virtually immediately - like the Harcourt Street line?

PS Nowhere does that article say the passenger numbers 'fell off a cliff'. You tell me how an eight mile line operated by railcars could lose that sort of money and I'll show you a liar.

Del.Monte

On the Tramore line in the late 1950s.

Carawaystick

Del.Monte wrote: »

On the Tramore line in the late 1950s.

Did that go by McNeads pub?

Idbatterim

the vast vast majority of the network doesn't pay it's way, however it adds to society and benefits us all and the economy in many ways which cannot be quantified in simple profit and loss.
wexford and enniscorthy absolutely have the traffic to justify a rail service and while groth would be liked by me and many others, the morning dublin bound and evening rosslare/wexford bound trains do decent trade. however the service has a hell of a lot of room for improvement so it's not surprising many choose not to use it, deal with the issues and you have something we can be prowd of.

much of rural ireland has had a fortune spent on motorways. This is Ireland and Irish Rail we are talking about here, when you say "the service has room for improvement" even if the numbers doubled, they would probably still be a joke...

How far away from autonomous taxis are we also? Also did someone mentioned 35mph as an average speed, christ you could do that on a road bike!!!