When will the penny drop that we cannot keep building large roads?

magicbastarder

and have to pay 16 drivers instead of one.

JimmyVik

magicbastarder wrote: »

and have to pay 16 drivers instead of one.

Probably cheaper and easier to run a fleet of buses than a train station though.

JimmyVik

magicbastarder wrote: »

and have to pay 16 drivers instead of one.

And dont bus companies already compete with trains. And thats using normal roads. Imagine they had a dedicated road with no other traffic.

buffalo

JimmyVik wrote: »

And dont bus companies already compete with trains. And thats using normal roads. Imagine they had a dedicated road with no other traffic.

You could chain the busses together so there's only one driver needed.

And with dedicated roads, you've then reinvented trains. :pac:

JimmyVik

buffalo wrote: »

You could chain the busses together so there's only one driver needed.

And with dedicated roads, you've then reinvented trains. :pac:

Wont be too long until they are driving themselves Thomas the tank engine style.

roadmaster

JimmyVik wrote: »

Wont be too long until they are driving themselves Thomas the tank engine style.

Dont let the NBRU here you talk like that they will have a hit put out on you!

Del.Monte

Another thread heading for AH. :rolleyes:

cgcsb

Are these posts for real?

bk

Interestingly Dublin Bus has less staff then Irish Rail, but it carries about 2.7 times more passengers then Irish Rail. So on a passengers carried per staff basis, DB carries about 3 times as many passengers as rail.

Of course that isn't really a fair comparison, as DB is purelya city service, while IR operate city, commuter, intercity and rural services. So more like a mix of DB + BE.

But it does show that operating rail is complex and requires far more staff then just drivers. Station staff, signalling staff, etc.

Of course I would never support this suggestion of paving over major rail lines and replacing them with buses, that would be utter madness!

But it does lead to an interesting thought about frequency versus capacity. Look at Luas, each Luas tram is much shorter then say that DART and carries far less passengers per vehicle. But it makes up for it by having a far more frequent service, which leads to higher capacity per hour and ends up actually carrying more people then DART. This also leads to a nicer service for commuters, it is much nicer to arrive at a station and have to wait just 3 minutes for the next tram, then it is to have to wait for up to 30 minutes for the next train.

Frequency and waiting times play a big part in the attractiveness of public transport. I happen to live in a part of Dublin that doesn't have a rail or Luas service nearby. However my closest bus stop has multiple major routes pass by and you never wait more then 3 minutes. To be honest, I actually much prefer this then having a train every 30 minutes.

Of course, there is no reason why heavy rail can't have similar frequencies, look at Moscow underground with trains every 90 seconds damn impressive. Though you need a very high level of automation and priority which in general the Irish Rail network tends to lack.

I'm hoping DART+ gets us closer to a more frequent and more attractive public transport system.

JimmyVik

bk wrote: »

Interestingly Dublin Bus has less staff then Irish Rail, but it carries about 2.7 times more passengers then Irish Rail. So on a passengers carried per staff basis, DB carries about 3 times as many passengers as rail.

Of course that isn't really a fair comparison, as DB is purelya city service, while IR operate city, commuter, intercity and rural services. So more like a mix of DB + BE.

But it does show that operating rail is complex and requires far more staff then just drivers. Station staff, signalling staff, etc.

Of course I would never support this suggestion of paving over major rail lines and replacing them with buses, that would be utter madness!

But it does lead to an interesting thought about frequency versus capacity. Look at Luas, each Luas tram is much shorter then say that DART and carries far less passengers per vehicle. But it makes up for it by having a far more frequent service, which leads to higher capacity per hour and ends up actually carrying more people then DART. This also leads to a nicer service for commuters, it is much nicer to arrive at a station and have to wait just 3 minutes for the next tram, then it is to have to wait for up to 30 minutes for the next train.

Frequency and waiting times play a big part in the attractiveness of public transport. I happen to live in a part of Dublin that doesn't have a rail or Luas service nearby. However my closest bus stop has multiple major routes pass by and you never wait more then 3 minutes. To be honest, I actually much prefer this then having a train every 30 minutes.

Of course, there is no reason why heavy rail can't have similar frequencies, look at Moscow underground with trains every 90 seconds damn impressive. Though you need a very high level of automation and priority which in general the Irish Rail network tends to lack.

I'm hoping DART+ gets us closer to a more frequent and more attractive public transport system.

No, but putting those "trainbus" lanes on existing intercity motorways and any new roads would only add to the transport network.

bk

JimmyVik wrote: »

No, but putting those "trainbus" lanes on existing intercity motorways and any new roads would only add to the transport network.

Oh, I agree completely.

It isn't popular to say amongst some people on this forum, but the rise of the intercity non-stop coaches on our motorways over the last 15 years has been an absolute revolution for intercity (and inter-town) public transport.

They offer an often just as fast, but much more frequent, up to 24/7 running and much cheaper public transport. What isn't there to love with that?

And this was achieved without bus lanes. Most of our motorways are quiet enough not to need bus lanes. The exception obviously being the M50 and say a few km as you approach, Dublin, Cork, etc. Yes bus lanes on those sections of motorways would be fantastic.

BTW if you do start going for "bus trains" you could have one driver up front, with the other bus/coach following driverless with self driving, following the lead vehicle. They are already trying this with big truck conveys as an intermediate step towards fully self driving. It is an interesting concept, but I admit, it might not work once you actually get into the city on either end.

GT89

Anytime I've been on the Dublin to Cork train over the last ten years I was glad I pre booked as the train was operating at close to capacity. If rail has so little potential according to some on here why are intercity trains still relatively busy in normal times obviously.

Intercity buses have their place but even with their share of the market people still seem to want to use the train. A large reason why people have switched to intercity buses is because the rail service is poor compared to tother countries.

I am not saying we should have high speed lines just decent quality trains on preferably electrified lines. Using people switching to intercity express buses as an excuse to downgrade the railway further as some appear to be suggesting is not a good enough solution. Another poster mentioned Railjet in Austria and Czechia is not high speed for example but still provides an excellent journey. I reckon a service to this standard along with electrification of Dublin to Belfast/Cork would very much be a hit.

bk

GT89 wrote: »

Anytime I've been on the Dublin to Cork train over the last ten years I was glad I pre booked as the train was operating at close to capacity. If rail has so little potential according to some on here why are intercity trains still relatively busy in normal times obviously.

LOL that doesn't sound busy at all compared to the past!

Back when I used the train to Cork, before Aircoach started up, it use to be standing room only, with people standing in the doorway, sitting on the floor and people standing all along the corridors. People use to get left behind in the station at times.

I remember that ideally you had to be at the station about an hour before to guarantee a seat, which of course impacted on the attractiveness of the total journey time of rail.

The fact that today, for the most part you can always get a seat and people rarely stand, says that the train is still busy, but far from capacity like it was in the past.

I assume those extra people are now on the coaches.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for a moment saying that trains aren't popular or we should get rid of all trains or that we shouldn't improve them like you suggest.

Not at all. I'm just challenging the notion that some here seem to have that trains are always automatically better.

Buses, coaches, trams, metros, trains, they are all public transport. They all have their pros and cons and are suited to different routes and types of services with different levels of demand. They all (along with walking and cycling) have a vital part to play in our public transport network and getting people out of cars.

end of the road

cgcsb wrote: »

Are these posts for real?

yes, i'm afraid so.
there was a group in the uk who during the 80s i think were suggesting the same nonsense, converting one of the london terminal stations and their lines to coach ways.
can't remember which terminal but i think it was waterloo?

bk wrote: »

LOL that doesn't sound busy at all compared to the past!

Back when I used the train to Cork, before Aircoach started up, it use to be standing room only, with people standing in the doorway, sitting on the floor and people standing all along the corridors. People use to get left behind in the station at times.

I remember that ideally you had to be at the station about an hour before to guarantee a seat, which of course impacted on the attractiveness of the total journey time of rail.

The fact that today, for the most part you can always get a seat and people rarely stand, says that the train is still busy, but far from capacity like it was in the past.

I assume those extra people are now on the coaches.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for a moment saying that trains aren't popular or we should get rid of all trains or that we shouldn't improve them like you suggest.

Not at all. I'm just challenging the notion that some here seem to have that trains are always automatically better.

Buses, coaches, trams, metros, trains, they are all public transport. They all have their pros and cons and are suited to different routes and types of services with different levels of demand. They all (along with walking and cycling) have a vital part to play in our public transport network and getting people out of cars.

yes but to be fair nobody wants those conditions either.
over-packed trains leaving people behind to wait 2 or more hours is not a good idea either.

end of the road

JimmyVik wrote: »

I often thought instead of putting trains on tracks just pave it and put a load of buses on it. You could widen the stations and have parking bays for the buses.
If one broke down just drive it out of the way.

realistically that wouldn't be cost effective.
it would require a huge amount of vehicles and drivers and all other staff to support it, + would likely cost billions to convert the lines to bus ways.
the cost would be so prohibitive that it would never be affordable more then likely.

JimmyVik wrote: »

Maybe when you build motorways stick in lanes solely for buses too. And have a big park and ride near every town that doubles as the bus station right beside the motorway.

realistically there isn't a need for bus lanes along the whole way, in certain sections certainly.
pricing cars off on to rail and buses would be a much cheaper alternative.

JimmyVik wrote: »

Probably cheaper and easier to run a fleet of buses than a train station though.

definitely not at the levels you are suggesting and even then, buses have the luxury of not having their infrastructure cost calculated as part of the running, unlike rail which does not have that luxury.

JimmyVik wrote: »

And dont bus companies already compete with trains. And thats using normal roads. Imagine they had a dedicated road with no other traffic.

yes, our road infrastructure costs which are already huge would rise even further.
given they can compete fine on existing roads there is no need for dedicated ones, and even if dedicated ones existed, your idea is still a non-runner due to likely ridiculously high over all costs.

Del.Monte

Not forgetting the great brains in CIE who wanted the old Harcourt Street line reopened as a Busway.

Zebra3

GT89 wrote: »

Anytime I've been on the Dublin to Cork train over the last ten years I was glad I pre booked as the train was operating at close to capacity. If rail has so little potential according to some on here why are intercity trains still relatively busy in normal times obviously.

Intercity buses have their place but even with their share of the market people still seem to want to use the train. A large reason why people have switched to intercity buses is because the rail service is poor compared to tother countries.

I am not saying we should have high speed lines just decent quality trains on preferably electrified lines. Using people switching to intercity express buses as an excuse to downgrade the railway further as some appear to be suggesting is not a good enough solution. Another poster mentioned Railjet in Austria and Czechia is not high speed for example but still provides an excellent journey. I reckon a service to this standard along with electrification of Dublin to Belfast/Cork would very much be a hit.

If I'm going somewhere with my mates, the train is great. Much more sociable with four seats facing each other.

If 'm going somewhere on my own (with a good bit non-stop), I can have a nice relaxing bit of sleep on the bus.

Paying extra for the train to stare at a stranger wouldn't be my thing!! :pac:

Del.Monte

Zebra3 wrote: »

If I'm going somewhere with my mates, the train is great. Much more sociable with four seats facing each other.

If 'm going somewhere on my own (with a good bit non-stop), I can have a nice relaxing bit of sleep on the bus.

Paying extra for the train to stare at a stranger wouldn't be my thing!! :pac:

There are plenty of seats for those not wishing to stare at others.

Zebra3

Del.Monte wrote: »

There are plenty of seats for those not wishing to stare at others.

True, but non-stop buses are still preferable for me when travelling solo.

bk

Del.Monte wrote: »

There are plenty of seats for those not wishing to stare at others.

True, but the many 4 seater tables and families or groups drinking beers at those tends to make carriages nosier all round for everyone else around them. In my experience it tends to lead to a much rowdier environment.

Add to that the bright led lighting, loud announcements that drone on for ever and general train noise. Plus people passing constantly to go to the dinning car.

Coaches by comparison are so much quieter and chilled out. Most people just sit there and relax watching a movie on their phone or sleep IME.

I'd suggest that in future trains should have far less 4 seaters and far more 2 seaters. I notice when I book a seat on a train, the 2 seaters usually sell out first. It sucks ending up on a 4 seater table on your own, with a group of 2 or 3 other people who know one another chatting the whole way!

Maybe they should have most of the carriages be all two seaters, with just one or two carriages next to the dining car being all 4 seaters for the folks who want that, rather then mixing them in carriages. Might help with the noise. Oh and turn down the leds and and announcements while at it.

Del.Monte wrote: »

Not forgetting the great brains in CIE who wanted the old Harcourt Street line reopened as a Busway.

That is interesting, when was that proposed?

If it was back in the 60's or 70's and they got 30 years out of it and then upgraded to Luas when demand required it, it could have been quiet useful for those years.

It isn't unusual for a corridor to get upgraded like so as demand increases:
bus lane -> busway/brt -> tram/Luas -> metro

GT89

bk wrote: »

LOL that doesn't sound busy at all compared to the past!

Back when I used the train to Cork, before Aircoach started up, it use to be standing room only, with people standing in the doorway, sitting on the floor and people standing all along the corridors. People use to get left behind in the station at times.

I remember that ideally you had to be at the station about an hour before to guarantee a seat, which of course impacted on the attractiveness of the total journey time of rail.

The fact that today, for the most part you can always get a seat and people rarely stand, says that the train is still busy, but far from capacity like it was in the past.

I assume those extra people are now on the coaches.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for a moment saying that trains aren't popular or we should get rid of all trains or that we shouldn't improve them like you suggest.

Not at all. I'm just challenging the notion that some here seem to have that trains are always automatically better.

Buses, coaches, trams, metros, trains, they are all public transport. They all have their pros and cons and are suited to different routes and types of services with different levels of demand. They all (along with walking and cycling) have a vital part to play in our public transport network and getting people out of cars.

Probably because the coach has taken a certain amount of patronage away from the train I accept that but also the trains from Dublin to Cork are hourly now meaning demand is now more spread out and btw some most of these journies were off peak so not exactly a Friday evening with students heading back for the weekend when I'd imagine the trains would be standing room only.

I've also travelled on trains in far busier places on the continent where I have managed to get a seat with relative ease so these things can vary. Anyway people want to get a seat on a long distance train and not have to stand.

I think the reason why your coach experience has been better than IE is not because the coach is better because IE is so bad. Dirty trains, cheap nasty looking interiors and constant never ending annoucements (although not an issue if you have good earphones). Travelling by train in Ireland is not really that pleasant an experience compared to other countries on the continent.

The one thing I don't understand is why you think that the coach is better than the train for you but yet you think the ICR and I'm guessing MKIVs are good trains. I really don't understand why busy lines like Dublin to Cork are not electrified.

GT89

bk wrote: »

True, but the many 4 seater tables and families or groups drinking beers at those tends to make carriages nosier all round for everyone else around them. In my experience it tends to lead to a much rowdier environment.

Add to that the bright led lighting, loud announcements that drone on for ever and general train noise. Plus people passing constantly to go to the dinning car.

Coaches by comparison are so much quieter and chilled out. Most people just sit there and relax watching a movie on their phone or sleep IME.

I'd suggest that in future trains should have far less 4 seaters and far more 2 seaters. I notice when I book a seat on a train, the 2 seaters usually sell out first. It sucks ending up on a 4 seater table on your own, with a group of 2 or 3 other people who know one another chatting the whole way!

Maybe they should have most of the carriages be all two seaters, with just one or two carriages next to the dining car being all 4 seaters for the folks who want that, rather then mixing them in carriages. Might help with the noise. Oh and turn down the leds and and announcements while at it.

Just throwing out ideas here but perhaps some carriages could have 3+1 configurations three seats on side and a single across the aisle. The single seats would be handy for solo travellers who don't want to sit beside people then maybe 2+1 in first class for more space and make allowances for wider more comfy seats. I wonder would quiet coaches ever work on IE.

That is interesting, when was that proposed?

If it was back in the 60's or 70's and they got 30 years out of it and then upgraded to Luas when demand required it, it could have been quiet useful for those years.

It isn't unusual for a corridor to get upgraded like so as demand increases:
bus lane -> busway/brt -> tram/Luas -> metro

Only problem with that would be locals objecting when they wanted to take away their popular bus service and close it for a couple of years to replace it with a higher capacity tram just like they are right now with the metro to Sandyford.

I don't see much advantages to guided busways over trams they don't cost much less but carry far less than a tram. There's a few in the UK but mostly only short stretches where it wouldn't make sense to build a full tram system to only go a few km.

end of the road

the problem with quiet coaches on IE is that the trains are just too small for them currently, if we had proper full length trains across all long distance services then perhapse there would be scope for them.
but i can't see investment to allow for say, 9 cars across all lines though, and that is assuming platforms could actually be lengthened at all, as inevitably there will be a couple that can't.

bk

GT89 wrote: »

The one thing I don't understand is why you think that the coach is better than the train for you but yet you think the ICR and I'm guessing MKIVs are good trains. I really don't understand why busy lines like Dublin to Cork are not electrified.

Good would be a stretch, I think they are pretty average, but comparable with lines with similar levels of demand elsewhere in Europe.

Things like lighting levels, announcement volume and length and seating configuration and type could be done differently within the same carriages and lead to a better experience IMO.

The ICR's are particularly noisy, but that is par of the course for pretty much all DMU's, just the reality of a Diesel engine in every carriage *

* Except for those FLIRT trains which have a really interesting design concept.

Obviously EMU's and electrified trains would lead to a much quieter and smoother ride, but then many of our lines don't have a usage level to justify the expense of electrification for now at least.

When you say you have ridden on better non high speed trains in mainland Europe, I suspect it is mostly down to them being electric.

Having travelled on a couple of quieter Diesel lines myself around more peripheral parts of Europe (I do a lot of hiking, so often off the beaten track), the experience I find is pretty similar to what we have here.

I've been on much worse Diesel trains in Eastern Europe and in Western Europe I'd say ours are relatively similar to Diesel services.

Basically I'm comparing like to like.

It will be interesting to see how EV and hydrogen trains develop and if they could be an alternative to intercity electrification while giving the same advantages.

BTW The Mark IV's have a quiet car, or at least they did when I travelled on them. But most people seemed to ignore it, at least when I was on it and it still had all the other design issues.

Del.Monte

end of the road wrote: »

the problem with quiet coaches on IE is that the trains are just too small for them currently, if we had proper full length trains across all long distance services then perhapse there would be scope for them.
but i can't see investment to allow for say, 9 cars across all lines though, and that is assuming platforms could actually be lengthened at all, as inevitably there will be a couple that can't.

A lot of trains are far too short - Dublin/Rosslare being a particular bugbear of mine - and platforms wouldn't need to be lengthened if Selective Door Opening (SDO) controlled by the driver was fitted. Anyway, if things were properly organised, as they were in years gone by, passengers could be advised which carriages to sit in to be at the platform in destination stations.

end of the road

bk wrote: »

BTW The Mark IV's have a quiet car, or at least they did when I travelled on them. But most people seemed to ignore it, at least when I was on it and it still had all the other design issues.

that's right, it was the same in both cases when i traveled on them, quiet car but ignored.
but that was over 10 years ago so may have changed.

Del.Monte wrote: »

A lot of trains are far too short - Dublin/Rosslare being a particular bugbear of mine - and platforms wouldn't need to be lengthened if Selective Door Opening (SDO) controlled by the driver was fitted. Anyway, if things were properly organised, as they were in years gone by, passengers could be advised which carriages to sit in to be at the platform in destination stations.

oh i completely agree, but the modern railway doesn't do solutions and common sense isn't allowed any more.
god when i think of it how did we survive with announcements to move to the front of the train? you would have thought there would have been incidents all over the place but yet, nothing, we got on fine.

GT89

bk wrote: »

Good would be a stretch, I think they are pretty average, but comparable with lines with similar levels of demand elsewhere in Europe.

Things like lighting levels, announcement volume and length and seating configuration and type could be done differently within the same carriages and lead to a better experience IMO.

The ICR's are particularly noisy, but that is par of the course for pretty much all DMU's, just the reality of a Diesel engine in every carriage *

* Except for those FLIRT trains which have a really interesting design concept.

Obviously EMU's and electrified trains would lead to a much quieter and smoother ride, but then many of our lines don't have a usage level to justify the expense of electrification for now at least.

When you say you have ridden on better non high speed trains in mainland Europe, I suspect it is mostly down to them being electric.

Having travelled on a couple of quieter Diesel lines myself around more peripheral parts of Europe (I do a lot of hiking, so often off the beaten track), the experience I find is pretty similar to what we have here.

I've been on much worse Diesel trains in Eastern Europe and in Western Europe I'd say ours are relatively similar to Diesel services.

Basically I'm comparing like to like.

It will be interesting to see how EV and hydrogen trains develop and if they could be an alternative to intercity electrification while giving the same advantages.

BTW The Mark IV's have a quiet car, or at least they did when I travelled on them. But most people seemed to ignore it, at least when I was on it and it still had all the other design issues.

Generally though I would say that the demand and traffic levels on the Dublin to Cork and the Dublin to Belfast is enough to justify electrication by European standards there are lines in the North of Sweden and Finalnd that are electrified which is probably the most sparsely populated part of Europe and if you bring electrification to Cork you might aswell go to Limerick and possibly Galway aswell.

Some countries have rolled out electrication a lot more than others for example the UK which we tend to follow has very little electrication comparatively to most EU countries although more lines have been electrified in the last few years.

buffalo

Has a town ever said no to a bypass before?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/leitrim-residents-dismayed-at-bypass-proposals-1.4602775

planners believe the bypass will only take 5,000 vehicles a day out of the town

“The design engineers’ own statistics suggest that Carrick would still be left with 11,000 vehicles crossing the bridge after the bypass is built because 80 per cent of journeys are local,” she told The Irish Times.

It seems like a solution looking for a problem, pushed by TII and local politicians?

whisky_galore

The quiet coach was a good idea but like a lot of things in Irish society, rules without any punishments are for suckers, to be defied and ignored.

JimmyVik

The reality is that a car is a necessity in Ireland though unless you live in a city and only travle to other cities or large towns, and have a long time to get to your destination.
I for one am glad I have a car in Ireland and very glad of the roads.
Trains and buses by no means suit everyone for every trip.

Just for one example I looked this trip up for public transport. I do this one about once a month.
I collect the aul wan and then the aunt and take them down to see the other aunt.

<snip>

I leave them there for the day and go off to meet up with some cousins in Limerick and then bring them back home in the evening.

And sometimes i just go down and collect the aunt and bring her up.
I looked it up on google maps to see how it would go with public transport and google could not compute.
I guess you could do it with a few lifts and a couple of buses if you really had no transport but that involves cars too.
Imagine people in their 80s trying to do that on public transport in Ireland.

JimmyVik

JimmyVik wrote: »

The reality is that a car is a necessity in Ireland though unless you live in a city and only travle to other cities or large towns, and have a long time to get to your destination.
I for one am glad I have a car in Ireland and very glad of the roads.
Trains and buses by no means suit everyone for every trip.

Just for one example I looked this trip up for public transport. I do this one about once a month.
I collect the aul wan and then the aunt and take them down to see the other aunt.
<snip>

I leave them there for the day and go off to meet up with some cousins in Limerick and then bring them back home in the evening.

And sometimes i just go down and collect the aunt and bring her up.
I looked it up on google maps to see how it would go with public transport and google could not compute.
I guess you could do it with a few lifts and a couple of buses if you really had no transport but that involves cars too.
Imagine people in their 80s trying to do that on public transport in Ireland.

So what you're saying is because your one very specific convoluted use case, that we should keep building more roads for cars and give them free reign wherever they want to go?

Or was there another point you were making that I missed?

magicbastarder

i suspect you've given away your home location there, unless that's not your house which is the starting point.

bk

magicbastarder wrote: »

i suspect you've given away your home location there, unless that's not your house which is the starting point.

Snipped it for privacy, just in case.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

So what you're saying is because your one very specific convoluted use case, that we should keep building more roads for cars and give them free reign wherever they want to go?

Or was there another point you were making that I missed?

The details may differ but that is very much the experience of the majority of people who need to visit or live in rural Ireland.

Economics101

Just came across this interesting discussion. Here's my tuppence worth:
1. Rail is inherently more energy efficient (assuming adequate amounts of traffic), even if only because steel wheels on steel rails offer a lot less rolling resistance. This has obvious implications for carbon emissions.
2. Irish rail won't order any more purely Diesel trains. They may go for hybrids in the short to medium term (electric-battery, or electric diesel) or alternatives such as hydrogen.
3 Electrification is far more suitable for rail than for cars - look at the 80% to 90% of European rail traffic being electric.
4. Electric trains are just about as cheap to purchase as any alternative, and generally cheaper to run in terms of (fuel)(energy) costs, maintenance costs rolling stock life.
5. I would agree with the Dart+ and the Cork suburban developments, plus some limited commuter services for Limerick, Galway and possibly Waterford.
6. Forget hugely expensive grandiose intercity high speed lines. Electrification of existing main lines and some track and signalling improvements can get you 125mph over much of Dublin Cork and 100mph on many other lines. The big problem is Dublin-Belfast, where much of the solution will be in extra suburban capacity from Dublin to Drogheda and Belfast to Portadown,
7. Land take for a double track railway is a lot less than for a motorway.
8. The energy savings for freight going in containers from ports could reduce emissions by at least 75% per tonne-km and as under slightly more optimistic scenarios by 90%
9. A big opportunity as we have a Green minister for transport. But he seems to be more interested in bicycles.

magicbastarder

Economics101 wrote: »

2. Irish rail won't order any more purely Diesel trains. They may go for hybrids in the short to medium term (electric-battery, or electric diesel) or alternatives such as hydrogen.

i thought most trains in ireland were diesel electric anyway (question borne of genuine ignorance)?

Economics101

magicbastarder wrote: »

i thought most trains in ireland were diesel electric anyway (question borne of genuine ignorance)?

Locomotives are generally Diesel-electric, i.e. a Diesel engine drives a generator, which supplies electricity to the traction motors on the axles. All the electricity comes from the diesel-driven generator, no room for renewables, unless it's bio-diesel, but that has its problems too. Better to generate electricity efficiently and cleanly and send it through the wires to the trains.
Multiple units (aka "railcars") are driven directly by diesel engines, i,e, most Irish passenger trains.

Markcheese

The reality is the more roads you build the more you encourage road use - if you can easily use the train or bus to go to college - or starting off on a regular commute , then you probably won't need need a car - maybe later on you can be a one car household -
And when you do need to do an awkward once a month trip - just use a go-car ...
But - spending money on restoring defunct rural rail lines without any major trip generators is just taking money from decent urban transport projects ..
Honestly private coaches on bus lanes are the future - but they'll need state infrastructure

Isambard

Economics101 wrote: »

Locomotives are generally Diesel-electric, i.e. a Diesel engine drives a generator, which supplies electricity to the traction motors on the axles. All the electricity comes from the diesel-driven generator, no room for renewables, unless it's bio-diesel, but that has its problems too. Better to generate electricity efficiently and cleanly and send it through the wires to the trains.
Multiple units (aka "railcars") are driven directly by diesel engines, i,e, most Irish passenger trains.

to expand, a "Electro-diesel" loco is an electric loco with external electricity supply plus an auxilliary diesel engine for moves on un-wired sections. All the rage overseas it seems.

Electrification isn't the be all and end all, as there are enviromental costs from all the infrastructure necessary and a lot of Capital expenditure, it isn't necessarily "better" in all situations..

bk

Economics101 wrote: »

Just came across this interesting discussion. Here's my tuppence worth:
1. Rail is inherently more energy efficient (assuming adequate amounts of traffic), even if only because steel wheels on steel rails offer a lot less rolling resistance. This has obvious implications for carbon emissions.

This isn't always true, in particular for lightly used rural lines.

It is definitely true for a packed DART, but for a lightly used rural line, if you aren't carrying many passengers, it can be worse then a smaller/lighter coach that better fits the demand.

In one of the Irish Rail reports on closing one of the rural lines, they actually pointed this out. The train was carrying so few passengers that it was producing twice amount of green house gases as a Diesel coach they were recommending to replace the line.

And that was without even talking about EV or hydrogen coaches.

Economics101 wrote: »

3 Electrification is far more suitable for rail than for cars - look at the 80% to 90% of European rail traffic being electric.

Of course historically overhead electric trains have been easier to electrify as battery tech wasn't good enough until recently. But in the past 10 years battery tech has greatly matured and as a result all forms of transport, including cars will be electrified.

I'm really blown away by the number of EV cars I'm seeing around my area, it seems that any of my neighbours who have bought a new car in the past year or two have bought an EV. Loads of Telsa's, ID3/4, Kon's, eNiros, Ioniq's, etc.

In the last few weeks I noticed that both my local An Post and DPD drivers have EV vans.

The NTA has just placed an order for EV single decker buses and are tendering for 800 EV Double Deckers.

The electrification of all transport is happening quickly and it certainly won't be limited to just rail

The point I'm making, I've seen some "rail advocates" try and push the idea that there will be some sort of widespread renaissance in rail, in particular rural rail and rail freight, because of need to de-carbonise.

I disagree, instead I believe we will see all transport become electrified, ICE cars will become EV *, ICE vans and trucks will become EV, buses and coaches will become EV and use rail will continue to be electrified, either with overhead cables our with battery or hydrogen trains.

* Note I'm using EV as a shorthand for both battery EV's and Hydrogen fuel cell EV's.

I honestly don't take we will see a massive shift in the faith of either rural rail or rail freight because of de-carbonisation. I suspect most people in rural Ireland will just switch to driving EV cars and trucks will become Hydrogen.

On a positive note, I do think we will continue to see the massive growth in urban rail, commuter rail and mass transit, where the demand exists and there just isn't the space for so many cars.

Economics101

BK: You said about my point regarding the inherent efficiency of rail : "This isn't always true, in particular for lightly used rural lines." You seem to have overlooked my qualifying clause: "assuming adequate amounts of traffic", which was intended to meet your objection.

You seem to assume that electrification will happen within various modes, and that shifts between modes will not be all that significant. The whole point about proper carbon pricing is precisely to induce a shift to low-emission modes, which should benefit rail, albeit to what extent is hard to say.

The UK has made a total mess of its recent GWR electrification, which has given the whole thing a bad name. One lesson is that we should be careful how we look to the UK for any lessons on how to get things right

end of the road

Markcheese wrote: »

But - spending money on restoring defunct rural rail lines without any major trip generators is just taking money from decent urban transport projects ..

they aren't as there will be money available for such projects.
however nobody has suggested such anyway so it's a mute point.

Markcheese wrote: »

Honestly private coaches on bus lanes are the future - but they'll need state infrastructure

the future of what though?
it's still more road transport so it's unlikely to be the future of anything, but will certainly continue to target the market that does exist for it.

bk

Economics101 wrote: »

BK: You said about my point regarding the inherent efficiency of rail : "This isn't always true, in particular for lightly used rural lines." You seem to have overlooked my qualifying clause: "assuming adequate amounts of traffic", which was intended to meet your objection.

Yes, but I thought it would be better to clarify this point, since I see a couple of people around here repeatedly advocate for rural rail on environmental basis, which is dishonest/misinformed as hydrogen or EV powered coaches would actually be a more environmentally beneficial in these cases.

Economics101 wrote: »

You seem to assume that electrification will happen within various modes, and that shifts between modes will not be all that significant.

Yes, that is exactly what I expect to happen. At least for rural rail and rail freight. I'd expect no more then single digit shift between modes in Ireland, but nothing significant. I'd hope to see more significant mode shifts in and around our cities.

Economics101 wrote: »

The whole point about proper carbon pricing is precisely to induce a shift to low-emission modes, which should benefit rail, albeit to what extent is hard to say.

No it is not. The whole point is to reduce our green house emissions. To de-carbonise various industries and reach Net-zero.

No where in that is there any requirement to mode shift. The requirement is to de-carbonise, not to mode shift. Some mode shift will of course occur, but it isn't intrinsic to the goal.

Rural rail makes up less then 1% of all rural trips and rail freight, makes up less then 1% of freight carried in Ireland. Focusing on de-carbonising that, while ignoring the 99% of Diesel spewing cars and trucks would be a terrible mistake.

Electrification of cars/trucks/bus/coach is happening fast and can't be ignored.

I suppose my focus is on the bigger picture then just rail. I want to see us improve all our infrastructure, to help make people's lives better while reducing our impact on the environment.

Rail of course plays a big part in that. But just a part, all public transport, including buses, coaches, trams, etc. are just as important, as is improving walking and cycling infrastructure and yes de-carbonising our road transport.

Economics101

BK: I agree that the whole point is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: modal shift is simply a means to that end, but it could be significant in some areas of transport. We can agree to disagree about these details as perhaps we don't have enough detailed information on carbon pricing strategy (watch the politicians try to dodge some awkward issues there).

Markcheese

end of the road wrote: »

they aren't as there will be money available for such projects.
however nobody has suggested such anyway so it's a mute point.




the future of what though?
it's still more road transport so it's unlikely to be the future of anything, but will certainly continue to target the market that does exist for it.

The Future of public transport - outside of city centres,
Yes it's more road transport - and that's a good thing - buses and coaches are more flexible - and not dependant on the state for every step of the way -
Just think how many people use aircoach , go-be Dublin coach company and a plethora of others ,

Thelonious Monk

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/we-will-build-bypasses-instead-of-motorways-from-now-on-to-save-dying-irish-towns-eamon-ryan-40579975.html

No more motorways say Government

Cookiemunster

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/we-will-build-bypasses-instead-of-motorways-from-now-on-to-save-dying-irish-towns-eamon-ryan-40579975.html

No more motorways say Government

That'll be after what's in planning is built. Which isn't much in reality, and after what's in planning is built there'll be no need for any more motorways.

end of the road

Markcheese wrote: »

The Future of public transport - outside of city centres,

not going to happen.
it will be 1 form of transport but the time for it to be the future of transport outside the cities has come and gone.

Markcheese wrote: »

Yes it's more road transport - and that's a good thing - buses and coaches are more flexible - and not dependant on the state for every step of the way -

who builds the infrastructure they travel on? who maintains that infrastructure to the standards required to facilitate them? who picks up the major costs of the infrastructure? the state, ergo they are dependant on the state to exist successfully, they just won't all recieve an operational/day to day subsidy.
however without the motorway network a lot of those services wouldn't exist, either to the extent they do, or at all, or if they did, they would be a lot slower i should think.

Markcheese wrote: »

Just think how many people use aircoach , go-be Dublin coach company and a plethora of others ,

big difference between some people using those services because they genuinely find them a more convenient option, and that particular method being the future of public transport outside the cities, replacing everything else, in fairness.