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

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!!!

n97 mini

Idbatterim wrote: »

Also did someone mentioned 35mph as an average speed, christ you could do that on a road bike!!!

1 hour 40 mins to cover 56 miles from Waterford to Limerick Junction. Average speed 33.6 mph!

end of the road

Idbatterim wrote: »

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...

absolute nonsense. i've been using the rosslare line for 20 years, if the numbers doubled the numbers would be double far from a joke. they are far from it as it is . they're is room for road and rail where both exist, it's the government and those obsessed with 1960s thinking that are the cause of our transport issues. it doesn't have to be 1 or the other and the mindset can still change.

monument

Posts deleted or edited as we're not quoting or discussing posts from the Conspiracy Theories board!

-- moderator

monument

These threads are fanciful.

It's not one or the other and never will be -- and in the short-to-mid term pitting rural rail vs urban rail will more likely delay larger Dublin projects.

What starved urban and rural rail of funding in the boom times was the massive focus on motorways. It was things like the idea that Ireland had to have four motorways down south and that's echoed in the thinking that we needed the M1, M2 and M3 so close to each other. Even if you said forget about the railways, a motorway between Cork and Limerick would should have been a higher priority than such massive duplication across the south of the country.

n1ey

ClovenHoof wrote: »

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

As an American I think that you should retain rural rail and enhance the service. I think that the years have shown that having a proper network improves ridership. Multiple trains each way on a line makes it accessible. Timing the trains to actually meet for transfers is important.

Many years ago it seemed impossible to travel in 1 day from Sligo to places.

I also don't think that you should have a mess of transit in Dublin. Why advocate yet another mode? You need 1 seat ride for commuting. Every time you introduce another mode you actually don't bring much improvement. You need a system that integrates with DART. Luas is a disaster because it can not haul enough people with small capacity cars and runs on slow ROWs.

Things like the Luas are often advocated by NIMBYS in America. NIMBYs are really trying to make a project unworkable instead of a success.

Look at Washington DC for a good system. Everything was completed at the same time to create a core network. It has been expanded over the years. Yet, all lines use the same heavy rail cars. Seamless interchange between different lines in the SAME station. This is the only way to go if you have a 2 seat ride.

You should have a belt line under heavy rail that connects to the DART. If you are spending a billion than do it right. Plus another strategically placed line that might run underground with the equipment. An airport run should be included.

Bill