Maximizing the current Rail Infrastructure

Markcheese

Norrie Thomas wrote:

Brighton is 80km from London. No shortage of commuters there.

And if Cork ever gets a population of over 10 million the currently abandoned line will be reopened... 😀

GerardKeating

Norrie Thomas wrote: »

Brighton is 80km from London. No shortage of commuters there.

Population of Youghal (2016) is 7,500.
Population of Brighton (2016) is 289,200, plus a dozen towns on the route bigger than Youghal..

Banjoxed

GerardKeating wrote: »

Population of Youghal (2016) is 7,500.
Population of Brighton (2016) is 289,200, plus a dozen towns on the route bigger than Youghal..

So why not plan for expansion. This is the sort of negative thinking by Official Ireland that has hobbled the Republic since independence. Let's not be having any sustainable development or provide for expansion, sure the fellas selling land for one-off houses wouldn't be making a buck..

goingnowhere

To be fair the local authorities in Cork have planned correctly to make the railway work

Last thing you want to do is encourage commuting from Youghal to Cork, bad idea and it would destroy the financials of the Midleton line which is rolling along very nicely, probably close to or if not better performance than Dublin

Del.Monte

goingnowhere wrote: »

To be fair the local authorities in Cork have planned correctly to make the railway work

Last thing you want to do is encourage commuting from Youghal to Cork, bad idea and it would destroy the financials of the Midleton line which is rolling along very nicely, probably close to or if not better performance than Dublin

Well somebody should tell Micheal Martin.

BoatMad

probably close to or if not better performance than Dublin

goodness, are there 1.5 million people in the GCA ( greater Cork area then )

C0rk is a village on any sort of scale

goingnowhere

BoatMad wrote: »

goodness, are there 1.5 million people in the GCA ( greater Cork area then )

C0rk is a village on any sort of scale

Cork suburban rail is an efficient operation, low running costs and healthy passenger numbers means it requires minimal subsidy. 2 trains, 2 drivers gets you an hourly service to both Cobh and Midleton

Del.Monte

goingnowhere wrote: »

Cork suburban rail is an efficient operation, low running costs and healthy passenger numbers means it requires minimal subsidy. 2 trains, 2 drivers gets you an hourly service to both Cobh and Midleton

Nobody maintaining the permanent way or checking tickets?

BoatMad

goingnowhere wrote: »

Cork suburban rail is an efficient operation, low running costs and healthy passenger numbers means it requires minimal subsidy. 2 trains, 2 drivers gets you an hourly service to both Cobh and Midleton

I didnt realise two drivers worked from 7am to 10pm monday through Sunday , good for IE

goingnowhere

Del.Monte wrote: »

Nobody maintaining the permanent way or checking tickets?

Not a lot of track to look after, most of it brand new, fully automatic signalling. Don't have fast or heavy trains so track doesn't need much work.

This is the basis of commuter rail, short routes, good demand, allows for efficient and productive use of trains which are regularly standing room only which is fine for a journey less than 25 minutes

Jamie2k9

BoatMad wrote: »

I didnt realise two drivers worked from 7am to 10pm monday through Sunday , good for IE

Would say it's more like 2 every 7 or 8 hours. Also benefits from a lot of cruise revenue.

BoatMad

goingnowhere wrote: »

Not a lot of track to look after, most of it brand new, fully automatic signalling. Don't have fast or heavy trains so track doesn't need much work.

This is the basis of commuter rail, short routes, good demand, allows for efficient and productive use of trains which are regularly standing room only which is fine for a journey less than 25 minutes

CTC signalling is staff, level crossing monitoring is " staffed ",

far far more then just 2 drivers.

Cork could survive without " commuter " rail , the GDA could not

All commuter rail expenditure needs to be focussed in the GDA for the next decade to solve the capitals transport issues ,


we need DU
Heavy rail Airport access
Solutions to pathing into connolly ( 4 track etc )
Solutions to pathing from Wexford

more LUAS and possibly Metro ( not convinced about Metro)

Jamie2k9

BoatMad wrote: »

CTC signalling is staff, level crossing monitoring is " staffed ",

far far more then just 2 drivers.

Cork could survive without " commuter " rail , the GDA could not

All commuter rail expenditure needs to be focussed in the GDA for the next decade to solve the capitals transport issues ,


we need DU
Heavy rail Airport access
Solutions to pathing into connolly ( 4 track etc )
Solutions to pathing from Wexford

more LUAS and possibly Metro ( not convinced about Metro)

CTC staff are fixed costs, if the rail line closed tomorrow they wouldn't lose their jobs. The cost of them is irrelevant to operating costs.

BoatMad

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

CTC staff are fixed costs, if the rail line closed tomorrow they wouldn't lose their jobs. The cost of them is irrelevant to operating costs.

A proportion of their time is needed to oversee the Cork suburban line , hence to argue its run by 2 drivers etc is nonsense, its requires ( like any other line ) a complete rail infrastructure to be in place, including signallers, level crossing monitors , track maintenance, stock maintenance, operatives, ,management etc

Jamie2k9

BoatMad wrote: »

A proportion of their time is needed to oversee the Cork suburban line , hence to argue its run by 2 drivers etc is nonsense, its requires ( like any other line ) a complete rail infrastructure to be in place, incising signallers, level crossing monitors , track maintenance, stock maintenance, operatives, ,management etc

In theory CTC do require pay however if the line closed tomorrow they would still have to control Cork yard and because they are highly skilled people IE couldn't really afford to let them go because replacing them would take a long time through training.

The same applies with track upkeep, yes they do it however the level of upkeep is minimal and again if it was closed no staff would lose their jobs because they are the same who do other sections of track in Cork area.

The only major works on the line are sea defense. The other standard works are very little.

They are costs but not operating costs.

BoatMad

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

In theory CTC do require pay however if the line closed tomorrow they would still have to control Cork yard and because they are highly skilled people IE couldn't really afford to let them go because replacing them would take a long time through training.

The same applies with track upkeep, yes they do it however the level of upkeep is minimal and again if it was closed no staff would lose their jobs because they are the same who do other sections of track in Cork area.

The only major works on the line are sea defense. The other standard works are very little.

They are costs but not operating costs.

You cannot divorce overall costs from immediate line costs. If you closed down all of IE except the the Cork suburban , you would immediately see massive cost loadings, just to maintain that line

You simply cannot segregate costs in the way you state, its just ridiculous ( and its as ridiculous as IE nonsense subsidy per passenger per line nonsense, thats trotted out every so often )

Jamie2k9

BoatMad wrote: »

You cannot divorce overall costs from immediate line costs. If you closed down all of IE except the the Cork suburban , you would immediately see massive cost loadings, just to maintain that line

You simply cannot segregate costs in the way you state, its just ridiculous ( and its as ridiculous as IE nonsense subsidy per passenger per line nonsense, thats trotted out every so often )

The costs have no bearing on the line operating or not. So you can exclude those costs from the operating cots if it suits. The costs will be there regardless.

The point which was made is that Cork Commuter is largely viable and the subsidy is low like the DART passenger cost.

BoatMad

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

The costs have no bearing on the line operating or not. So you can exclude those costs from the operating cots if it suits. The costs will be there regardless.

The point which was made is that Cork Commuter is largely viable and the subsidy is low like the DART passenger cost.

no rail service in ireland is " viable"

dividing the costs per passenger is entirely a " loaded " metric

IE, costs X to run, thats all you need to say

The rest is bean counters playing with figures to achieve a particular " gloss "

Cork suburban is a subsidised operation largely because the state has followed a policy of limited rail investment as an alternative to roads

Limited being the operative word

BoatMad

The costs have no bearing on the line operating or not. So you can exclude those costs from the operating cots if it suits

no you cant, its a fallacy, for the Cork suburban facility to exist , it must have access to facilities that costs large amounts of money to provide, including rolling cost maintenance , track maintenance , signalling etc etc

You cant exclude those costs, because these costs have to accrue somewhere .

donvito99

BoatMad wrote: »

more LUAS and possibly Metro ( not convinced about Metro)

The thread is about maximising the current rail infrastructure, so this and the Airport Spur are out of place, but why the dismissal of Dublin Metro, a project that is principally better than Luas in every way but cost?

BoatMad

donvito99 wrote: »

The thread is about maximising the current rail infrastructure, so this and the Airport Spur are out of place, but why the dismissal of Dublin Metro, a project that is principally better in almost every but cost than Luas?

we tend in this country to promote " flights of fancy " projects that often get politically delayed ( for all sorts of reasons ) and we use these " flights of fancy " projects to then do nothing practical for years , a classic case is DU preventing PPT from being reopened to passenger traffic

Instead of spending billions on Metro, I would spend it ( metro money ) on specific easy to achieve wins on infrastructure

(a) heavy rail link to connolly
(b) 4 track to connolly, this bullet will HAVE to be bitten anyway
(c) Improved south east service by building a railcar depot in wexford and terminating services there ( and better time tables to wexford henceforth )
(d) improving average speeds to 100mph , especially away from Dub Cork
(e) preventing any more destruction of rail infrastructure and/or disposal of land

( This is all " maximising current infrastructure" by the way)

(f) More LUAS, which has proved immensely popular with the public , including lines to Swords ( and onwards to a heavy rail link) , line to Bray , and a line west towards lucan

DU being funded as a stand alone project in addition

rebel456

BoatMad wrote: »

(f) More LUAS, which has proved immensely popular with the public , including lines to Swords ( and onwards to a heavy rail link) , line to Bray , and a line west towards lucan

I think we tend to overlook this to our detriment in favour of MN & DU. Both MN & DU should of course be built - just a disclaimer. But LUAS is ripe for expansion and can become a genuine network in its own right. Expanding BXD into Finglas, a Western line heading to Lucan/Clondalkin, etc. Even revive Metro West as a LUAS line. Trams suit Dublin very well given our low density, the success of Red & Green lines shows this. And are also more accessible to our policy makers given the fiscal constraints we operate in - limited portion of the budget for capital investment.

donvito99

BoatMad wrote: »

Instead of spending billions on Metro, I would spend it ( metro money ) on specific easy to achieve wins on infrastructure

(a) heavy rail link to connolly

Dart Underground? The one that costs twice as much as Metro?

(b) 4 track to connolly, this bullet will HAVE to be bitten anyway

Agreed, but add that to DU and now we're easily talking €6bn

(c) Improved south east service by building a railcar depot in wexford and terminating services there ( and better time tables to wexford henceforth

All well and good for Wexford, but are you going to take money from a plan to accommodate 30mn passengers per annum to add to a service couldn't accommodate anything like that?

(d) improving average speeds to 100mph , especially away from Dub Cork

Dublin - Cork, i.e. the only line that would reasonably justify such speeds. Again, are we getting bang for our buck here by torpedoing Metro.

(f) More LUAS, which has proved immensely popular with the public , including lines to Swords ( and onwards to a heavy rail link) , line to Bray , and a line west towards lucan

But Metro is Luas, but better! More capacity, more frequency and yes, it is more expensive - because it works great. And continuing to tag on spurs to the Luas (to Swords, to Lucan, to Bray) only means the trams fill up more quickly and the service remains slow. It is accepted that for the Green Line, for instance, to go to Bray, the Green Line will need to become more Metro and less Luas.

I couldn't help but laugh at

LUAS, which has proved immensely popular with the public

... because a better service in Metro will prove less popular? Or are you forcing Luas on us because, "ah shure, ye like Luas, ye don't need a fancy schmancy Metro!"

donvito99

rebel456 wrote: »

Trams suit Dublin very well given our low density, the success of Red & Green lines shows this.

As has been discussed to death in the Infrastructure forum, our density supports metro north. The success of Luas demonstrates, with trams full before Sandyford, that metro suits Dublin a lot better.

You wouldn't run a 3 car ICR on the 0700 Heuston to Kent, why would you build a tram to the Airport?

rebel456

donvito99 wrote: »

As has been discussed to death in the Infrastructure forum, our density supports metro north. The success of Luas demonstrates, with trams full before Sandyford, that metro suits Dublin a lot better.

*Sigh* I didn't say we shouldn't build Metro North - I added a disclaimer to prevent response such as yours.

The City Centre to Swords stretch is ripe for a metro given the urban density along the route, the airport, and the population of Swords at the end of the line.

But for a decent proportion of Dublin suburbs & inner suburbs (Clondalkin, Lucan, Tallaght, Blanch, Finglas) it is relatively low density single/double floored dwellings that suit a tramline well.

BoatMad

donvito99 wrote: »

Dart Underground? The one that costs twice as much as Metro?

Agreed, but add that to DU and now we're easily talking €6bn

Its not about the absolute cost of all this, I believe there are solutions that result in better bang for our buck then MN. If we want a metro then lets build a comprehensive one, not another " single line " system

DU is a far more strategic project then MN, its a key to unlocking large amounts of capacity and tying the major rail systems together

All well and good for Wexford, but are you going to take money from a plan to accommodate 30mn passengers per annum to add to a service couldn't accommodate anything like that?

Well the SE corridor is likely to be the next Swords to Drogheda commuter belt nd we need to gear up to make rail the predominant commuter choice and try and avoid the road issues ( the M11 at that end is already way over capacity anyway )

Dublin - Cork, i.e. the only line that would reasonably justify such speeds. Again, are we getting bang for our buck here by torpedoing Metro.

its not all simply about €€s. to compete with roads rail systems need to have advantages , I see ( a) good average journey times and not just one line that has it (b) comfort and on train services not easily provided in other forms of land transport

I would not then seek to raise line speeds further ( as I ve argued elsewhere )

But Metro is Luas, but better! More capacity, more frequency and yes, it is more expensive - because it works great. And continuing to tag on spurs to the Luas (to Swords, to Lucan, to Bray) only means the trams fill up more quickly and the service remains slow. It is accepted that for the Green Line, for instance, to go to Bray, the Green Line will need to become more Metro and less Luas.

we have a long way to go, before LUAS is at capacity, speed also per se is not the issue, average road speeds in Dublin are close to walking speeds and comparable to bikes, yet we have loads of people in cars

I couldn't help but laugh at



... because a better service in Metro will prove less popular? Or are you forcing Luas on us because, "ah shure, ye like Luas, ye don't need a fancy schmancy Metro!"

A proper planned all encompassing Metro would be a useful project, but this state will never have the resources ( certainly on its own ) to build it

LUAS is somewhat cheaper, being overground, and has proven popular ( and its popularity when it was proposed was seriously questioned )


Look at the BxD fiasco, many due to a mis-informed position adopted and led by garret fizgerald and several economists, the connection of the two lines was delayed but " flights of fancy : that involved and expensive underground portion

Funnily when we actually moved beyond that fancy we have found it entirely practical to build an above ground link !!!.

Jamie2k9

BoatMad wrote: »

no rail service in ireland is " viable"

dividing the costs per passenger is entirely a " loaded " metric

IE, costs X to run, thats all you need to say

The rest is bean counters playing with figures to achieve a particular " gloss "

Cork suburban is a subsidised operation largely because the state has followed a policy of limited rail investment as an alternative to roads

Limited being the operative word

It is largely viable. I never said it was viable.

The facts still remain maintenance on the line is very cheap because it's a bran new line. Bridges, Level Crossing, Signals, Tracks all bran new. The only maintenance is routine. Typical low cost work carried out are your service of the LC, points machines and signalling, replace the odd sleepier. Rolling stock maintenance.

The only major maintenance would be to lay a bit of Ballast, weed spray once or twice a year. A train going around 40mph will not wear the infrastructure. It could well be 15-20 years before major works is needed to replace life expired assets.

The costs of routine would be factored into annual costs but overall it's a pretty viable route because the subsidy per passenger is probably only 3-5 euro at most. Pretty good value for money.

IE do charge maintenance costs to individal routes but manpower is much more difficult to distribute.

The cost associated with intercity routes will be much higher because the infrastructure is much older and gets wore down much more by trains at higher speeds.

Carawaystick

Taytosnax wrote: »

A: We don't have that extensive a motorway network - try getting to Donegal from Dublin or Cork to Limerick

B: most developed countries use both Road and Rail, they complement each other

There's only 2 railways from Spain to France, and the one I'm familiar with has about 5 goods trains each way per day. Even at 100 carriages per train, which is a very high estimate, thats only 500 truckloads. There's more than one truck per minute on the A9, 6 days a week, and not many trains on Sundays either.

The closeby A9 was recently widened to 3 lanes to take the trucks and the a63 got upgraded also.

BoatMad

The costs of routine would be factored into annual costs but overall it's a pretty viable route because the subsidy per passenger is probably only 3-5 euro at most. Pretty good value for money.

where did you get that data from ?

Marty Bird

CTC don’t cover the midleton line Cork Cabin control it.