Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail

Sam Russell

serfboard wrote: »

There are two cheaper, good, fast and frequent services on the M18 now, and they have been there since before the final section was complete - Bus Eireann's X51 and Citylink's Galway->Limerick->Cork service. Both take about 1:15 to 1:20 to do the intercity journey.

The X51 has the advantage that some of the services stop at Shannon Airport, which the train will never do. The Citylink service does Galway->Cork direct at weekends in two and a half hours - and that's even before the M20 is built.

What is the fare - Galway Limerick and the frequency and cost of the service? And the comparable Galway - Athenry - Limerick figures by train?

Lord Glentoran

L1011 wrote: »

So no data then?

From Ciaran Cannon? Apparently not.

CatInABox

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

From Ciaran Cannon? Apparently not.

Or you.

Sligo eye

CatInABox wrote: »

Or you.

Or you?

L1011

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

From Ciaran Cannon? Apparently not.

There's quite the expectation on they who challenge the figures to come up with evidence. Rather than try to be witty while avoiding doing so

ohographite

westtip wrote: »

Press release From: The Western Rail Trail campaign

June 7th 2019 for immediate release

• Headline passenger figures on Western Rail Corridor shown up as transparent.
• Passenger numbers on Ennis-Athenry section of new line still achieving little more than half of original business case target.
• Average passenger load per train on Ennis-Athenry section would barely fill a bus.
• Trains carrying 20% of capacity on average
• Public invited to comment on economic analysis of Western Rail Corridor.
• Rail review will need to consider failure of phase one of Rail Corridor.

In April 2019 Irish Rail released figures showing 387,408 journeys on the Western Rail Corridor in 2018. However figures obtained from Irish Rail under freedom of information by the Western Rail Trail Greenway campaign show that in fact only 137,784 of those passenger journeys were made on the new section of railway between Ennis Athenry which was opened in 2010 at a cost of €105 million.

The route from Ennis to Athenry reopened in 2010 was built to allow direct intercity journeys between Limerick and Galway. The business case used to convince the Government of the time to invest €105 million in the Western Rail Corridor was based on 250,000 journeys on the new route using Ennis-Athenry by end of year five. Eight years since the Ennis-Athenry line was opened it is still well short of original targets with only 137,784 journeys recorded in 2018. Subvention on the line is costing more than €3 million a year.

Brendan Quinn of the Western Rail Trail campaign said. “We were interested to see the real story behind the headline figure published by Irish Rail in April, so we submitted the FOI request. The headline passenger numbers from Irish Rail in April included those using the Athenry to Galway line which is part of the pre-existing Dublin Galway railway route, as well as numbers on the Ennis-Limerick commuter line. Passenger numbers are up on these two parts of the route which existed before the ‘Western Rail Corridor’ project was developed, in particular on the short section of the Dublin-Galway railway between Oranmore and Galway ; Oranmore station re-opened in 2013.

A total of 54,417 journeys in 2018 were made on the 7 minute journey into Galway city centre from Oranmore utilising the Dublin Galway line which is not part of the Western Rail Corridor. This growth is hardly attributable to the fact a railway between Ennis and Athenry was re-opened.

The figures for the intercity passenger demand between Limerick and Galway using the Ennis/Athenry route is still very low at 137,784 for the whole of 2018.

Quinn continued “To put this number in context based on the number of trains per annum using the new railway route from Ennis to Athenry, the average number of passengers per train travelling on the Ennis to Athenry line is 39 per trainload; a number that could easily be accommodated on one bus. Each train on the Ennis/Athenry line has a capacity to carry 192 passengers so the trains are operating at 20% of capacity”

Quinn added “An independent international consulting company EY DKN has been appointed to examine the economic and business case for an extension of the Western Rail Corridor, and just this week EY DKN have invited the public to make submissions on the rail review. EY DKN will discover during this consultation process that phase one of the Western Rail corridor from Ennis to Athenry has not achieved the target numbers it was built for and that there is now a huge demand for a greenway on the closed railway route. What is absolutely clear now is that based on the actual performance of Ennis Athenry any case for a railway north of Athenry will most likely be viewed with caution based on the failure of phase one of the Western Rail Corridor to deliver on the original business case.”

People can make their voices heard at this link:

Survey on rail review invites public to express their views on Western Rail Corridor extension

Western Rail Corridor Passenger figures: The real picture

Year Passengers using new railway from Ennis to Athenry - intercity passengers from Galway to Limerick and vice versa – “Western Rail Corridor” passengers % of original business case of 250,000 passengers per year by year 5 used to justify building the Ennis/Athenry
2010 43799
2011 34461
2012 34325
2013 28437
2014 51128 20%
2015 102486 41%
2016 100564 40%
2017 133835 54%
2018 137784 55%


Year No. of Passengers using Oranmore Galway commuter route part of the mainline from Dublin to Galway
2013 5,522
2014 11,624
2015 13,852
2016 19,887
2017 34,138
2018 54,417



ENDS: body text 566 words Contacts: contact via the sligo mayo greenway page on FB or PM on boards.

The figures for the patronage on Ennis to Athenry in 2018 are mentioned on this post which was on this thread a few months ago.

Lord Glentoran

L1011 wrote: »

There's quite the expectation on they who challenge the figures to come up with evidence. Rather than try to be witty while avoiding doing so

Yeah well I’m neither a rail/transport professional, nor am I here to do research on request. I see someone has put up Brendan Quinn’s press release, so for those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they would like. I can’t vouch for its accuracy though.

Lord Glentoran

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Yeah well I’m neither a rail/transport professional, nor am I here to do research on request. I see someone has put up Brendan Quinn’s press release, so for those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they would like. I can’t vouch for its accuracy though.

You are the one who shouted "fake news" and when pushed to prove its not true you resort to "you're not the boss of me"

Ha!

Sam Russell

If the numbers quoted by westtip are correct:

Eight years since the Ennis-Athenry line was opened it is still well short of original targets with only 137,784 journeys recorded in 2018. Subvention on the line is costing more than €3 million a year.

That equates to about €22 per passenger subvention. How much is the fare contribution for Athenry to Ennis?

Isambard

Sam Russell wrote: »

If the numbers quoted by westtip are correct:



That equates to about €22 per passenger subvention. How much is the fare contribution for Athenry to Ennis?

and remember they only managed to increase the passenger numbers by slashing the fares!

L1011

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Yeah well I’m neither a rail/transport professional, nor am I here to do research on request.

Backing up a claim you have made is not "research on request"; but as you've just admitted that you have no ability to give any validity to the figures we can just write it off as you providing misinformation.

Sam Russell

Isambard wrote: »

and remember they only managed to increase the passenger numbers by slashing the fares!

I just checked the fare on the IR site - €7:50 one way. There are five services per day, which is as many as Wexford gets. So every train would need to carry a full load to equal the subvention.

It is obvious that it is a money pit and is unsustainable.

Lord Glentoran

L1011 wrote: »

Backing up a claim you have made is not "research on request"; but as you've just admitted that you have no ability to give any validity to the figures we can just write it off as you providing misinformation.

Me wondering about the source of Ciaran Cannon’s assertions isn’t misinformation. But of course it is a critique of the new Greenway Religion, and is therefore Heresy.

Lord Glentoran

Deleted User wrote: »

You are the one who shouted "fake news" and when pushed to prove its not true you resort to "you're not the boss of me"

Ha!

Jeez Louise, get over yourself. :rolleyes:

Lord Glentoran

Isambard wrote: »

and remember they only managed to increase the passenger numbers by slashing the fares!

Shocking! How very dare they!!!!

Sam Russell

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Isambard wrote: »

and remember they only managed to increase the passenger numbers by slashing the fares!

Shocking! How very dare they!!!!

Well, if it worked, then it would be good. But if it did not, then it was a loss.

I suspect the farebox was less after the reduction in fares despite the increase in numbers. Are there actual figures as to how much the farebox increased/reduced?

Isambard

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Shocking! How very dare they!!!!

exactly.. Manipulating the farebox to try to meet the projected figures and still missing the target by 50% or so. Heads will roll...oh no wait a minute, it's IE, so no they won't.

end of the road

Isambard wrote: »

exactly.. Manipulating the farebox to try to meet the projected figures and still missing the target by 50% or so. Heads will roll...oh no wait a minute, it's IE, so no they won't.

they are growing slowly but surely, give it a few years and it probably will meet the targets. it's just taking longer then hoped. remember, we aren't long out of one of the worst recessions to hit this country.
the line is doing well, better then even i expected and i was once a critic.

ohographite

Isambard wrote: »

and remember they only managed to increase the passenger numbers by slashing the fares!

In fairness, the 39 people per train the Ennis to Athenry section carries now is more like what you would expect(regarding population, etc.) than the 6 per train it used to be carrying.

Isambard

so having given it a fare reduction to meet it's target, we're now expected to give it more years? what sort of target is that? It's already missed the targets

Del.Monte

So many figures bandied about but I fail to see what is to be gained by closing Ennis/Athenry again as the operating loss is a drop in the ocean in terms of CIE annual deficit/subvention or whatever. Why not close Limerick/Ennis while you're at it?

Sam Russell

Del.Monte wrote: »

So many figures bandied about but I fail to see what is to be gained by closing Ennis/Athenry again as the operating loss is a drop in the ocean in terms of CIE annual deficit/subvention or whatever. Why not close Limerick/Ennis while you're at it?

Of course, the money is spent (and wasted - it is not coming back). Closing would be to reduce future losses.

No breakdown is given for the 39 passengers - are they children or students going to school/college? Are they season ticket holders? Are FTP passengers? Are they frequent passengers, or just random day trippers? Are they spread out over all the service, or are some services much under patronised?

Extending such a service to Tuam would be nuts.

end of the road

Sam Russell wrote: »

Of course, the money is spent (and wasted - it is not coming back). Closing would be to reduce future losses.

which it won't do. the closures that actually reduced losses happened in the 50s 60s and 70s.

Sam Russell wrote: »

No breakdown is given for the 39 passengers - are they children or students going to school/college? Are they season ticket holders? Are FTP passengers? Are they frequent passengers, or just random day trippers? Are they spread out over all the service, or are some services much under patronised?

they could be absolutely anyone traveling for any reason. whatever the case, it's less people clogging up the roads in the area.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Extending such a service to Tuam would be nuts.

not at all. in fact tuam should have reopened before ennis athenry which is now only a small part of the galway limerick corridor. makes absolute perfect sense and could make tuam an attractive place to live.
there is nothing to say that services would be extended to tuam, rather it may be served by it's own service to galway. historical service patterns are not a clue to future ones on this corridor.

ohographite

When I heard the Ennis - Athenry section was carrying 39 people per train, (around 390 daily) I was convinced that it was safe from any closure. This is considering that the 2018 heavy rail census shows Ennis had 358 passenger movements(not including journeys made on the Ennis - Athenry section) on census day, and Sixmilebridge had 120 movements(some of which probably were journeys made on the Ennis - Athenry section). This means if Ennis -Athenry hadn't reopened, the Limerick - Ennis line would have had around 460 journeys made on census day 2018*, which isn't much more than
what Ennis - Athenry had on the average day(Limerick - Ennis is also served by more trains than Ennis - Athenry is). Nevertheless, Limerick - Ennis is not threatened with closure, so that is why I do not think Ennis - Athenry will close. I do not think Ennis - Athenry should close either.



*Even though rail census day is at the time of year when most railways are busiest, this figure could be prone to chance, but I remember that rail census day 2017 recorded a similar amount of passengers using Limerick - Ennis without also using Ennis - Athenry.

Lord Glentoran

ohographite wrote: »

When I heard the Ennis - Athenry section was carrying 39 people per train, (around 390 daily) I was convinced that it was safe from any closure. This is considering that the 2018 heavy rail census shows Ennis had 358 passenger movements(not including journeys made on the Ennis - Athenry section) on census day, and Sixmilebridge had 120 movements(some of which probably were journeys made on the Ennis - Athenry section). This means if Ennis -Athenry hadn't reopened, the Limerick - Ennis line would have had around 460 journeys made on census day 2018*, which isn't much more than
what Ennis - Athenry had on the average day(Limerick - Ennis is also served by more trains than Ennis - Athenry is). Nevertheless, Limerick - Ennis is not threatened with closure, so that is why I do not think Ennis - Athenry will close. I do not think Ennis - Athenry should close either.



*Even though rail census day is at the time of year when most railways are busiest, this figure could be prone to chance, but I remember that rail census day 2017 recorded a similar amount of passengers using Limerick - Ennis without also using Ennis - Athenry.

Agreed - and the point being deliberately missed is that closing and removing railways from the nation’s infrastructure is that rural sprawl and car dependency is being enabled by that action. The “Little America” model so enthusiastically adopted by pro-sprawl enthusiasts has a massive cost in terms of provision of services. Railways have a role well beyond the cash box in terms of enabling sensible planning. The reopening of Glounthane - Midleton arose from the Cork Land Use and Transportation Study in the eighties. It is interesting that no one on these forums refers to the “Glounthane to Midleton line” while we hear nothing else but “Ennis to Athenry” as it was serving two random towns in the Whest and for no other purpose.

Lord Glentoran

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

It is interesting that no one on these forums refers to the “Glounthane to Midleton line” while we hear nothing else but “Ennis to Athenry” as it was serving two random towns in the Whest and for no other purpose.

Go ahead and start the thread on the topic

Lord Glentoran

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Go ahead and start the thread on the topic

No.

Carawaystick

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

It is interesting that no one on these forums refers to the “Glounthane to Midleton line” while we hear nothing else but “Ennis to Athenry” as it was serving two random towns in the Whest and for no other purpose.

Does the Midleton to Glounthane line close for long periods of time when it rains?

Lord Glentoran

Carawaystick wrote: »

Does the Midleton to Glounthane line close for long periods of time when it rains?

That could be shored up properly but there would be much weeping and grinding of teeth on this thread if that was done over the spending of any money on the railway at all. I refer the honourable member to the ongoing issues with the sea wall at Dawlish in SW England.

serfboard

end of the road wrote: »

not at all. in fact tuam should have reopened before ennis athenry which is now only a small part of the galway limerick corridor. makes absolute perfect sense and could make tuam an attractive place to live.
there is nothing to say that services would be extended to tuam, rather it may be served by it's own service to galway. historical service patterns are not a clue to future ones on this corridor.

If you're going to open the line to Tuam, you may as well go all the way to Claremorris (which will at least open the line to through services) or not bother at all.

I'm on the side of not bothering at all, because doing so would be as much if not more of a waste of money than the previous section.

Tuam is currently very well served by public transport with almost 40 bus services per day serving Tuam. Spending another 100 million or more developing a service that will not serve the employment hubs of Ballybrit/Parkmore/Mervue and NUIG/UHG, or the education facilities of GMIT & NUIG would be a waste of money, and for that reason, simply will not happen.