MJohnston wrote: » I'd like to read some reasons why some believe CIE is sabotaging rail routes in order to make them less profitable. I can buy a certain level of incompetence, but it couldn't explain it all over such a long period of time. The routes genuinely being unworkable would explain what is happening, but some here seem to strongly think that is not the case?
riddlinrussell wrote: » I think there are certain practices that certainly imply either gross incompetence or sabotage, personally I'd err towards gross incompetence. Case in point the Rosslare/Waterford line (and Waterford/New Ross) looks like services were basically only happening during the day, during normal working hours, instead of running a purely commuter schedule/looking at what optimal routes could be run on it like a New Ross/Waterford shuttle in the early morning for commuting. (The same could be done on the 2 train a day Waterford to Limerick Junction - Run Clonmel to Waterford commuter services)
Sam Russell wrote: » I think there is a sub-optimising going on here. Why do IR run Darts on a ten minute service using 8 coach trains during off peak? Well, they would require extra drivers to couple or uncouple the trains and that would cost extra. Using 8 coach sets costs extra because of extra electricity and extra maintenance on the trains, but that comes out of a different budget and is not visible as an extra cost, only a larger cost. So they run longer trains than needed to 'save' labour cost, while not saving running cost which I would think is much greater. I would estimate that Darts are less than 25% full during off peak, and probably less than 10% full in late evening. [Edit:] Just to add: Why run trains to Rosslare Europort that do not connect with the ferries?Why run trains to Rosslare Europort when a bus service from Wexford Stn would get there quicker and cheaper, and carry as many passengers, and could easily be scheduled to meet the ferries?
Del.Monte wrote: » Not wishing to fight with you but why run trains at all outside Dublin - buses are cheaper.
veryangryman wrote: » Athlone extension to shannon is ongoing. Late summer opening according to local politician. Machinery seen up there last week so things are moving
spacetweek wrote: » Where will it meet the Shannon exactly?
veryangryman wrote: » Marina apparently. Just beside radison. There will be a new bridge built. According to same politician that part is 2 years away
spacetweek wrote: » Ah - *in* Athlone. I thought you meant in some other part of the country. So only a short section then.
mr spuckler wrote: » yes, it'll take a while to get it from where it currently finishes to the west side of the Shannon, despite it being such a short distance.
veryangryman wrote: » Due to the lack od disused railway to use for it. Needs to use existing or new roadway which involves negotiations with crusties. This may take time due to the rural crime off the M8 etc
flazio wrote: » Any Compulsory Purchasing Orders are likely to meet with opposition from home owners who believe a greenway might give burglars new access routes to their property which Gardaí are unable to monitor.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Land to be CPO's would be farmers land, and while rural crime is one issue, land being more precious than blood (when the government wants to buy it) is probably more of an issue there.
loyatemu wrote: » re: Rosslare - Waterford, surely if someone has a freight flow that's suited to rail they can bring it in via Waterford port (or Dublin, or Foynes if it is re-connected). I'm just back from a week in Holland and having seen what they have there, my attitude to pretty much every cycling project here is "just bloody get on with it". They have cycle paths running through forests, across country between towns and villages, along rivers and canals. As far as I can see, environmental armageddon has not resulted from having cyclists passing nearby to nature. In towns most streets have fully separate driving lanes, cycle lanes and footpaths - I didn't see any aggro between motorists and cyclists, presumably because most motorists there are cyclists too and know to watch out for them at all times. Plenty of locations where cyclists and pedestrians mix too, again without any issues.
flazio wrote: » Because there is no disused railway to claim, the greenway must use either existing roads or sharing roads in use. Any Compulsory Purchasing Orders are likely to meet with opposition from home owners who believe a greenway might give burglars new access routes to their property which Gardaí are unable to monitor. At least I think thats the point being made.
listermint wrote: » It's an idiotic point. And I say that with a stone cold face. Our motorways did more rural theft than anything before it. Are you arguing we close the motorways. And for clarities sake. No criminals are cycling greenways for theft. Only a moron would believe that.
listermint wrote: » And for clarities sake. No criminals are cycling greenways for theft. Only a moron would believe that.
holly8 wrote: » Planning board rules against Kiltimagh Velorail project.https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/planning-board-rules-against-michael-ringbacked-project-38056876.html?fbclid=IwAR2gU1D3obg5FxvLc_xMZC03ULaw3jQNMorDVtpUs2ZNdCf_eVbMKNG208w
Del.Monte wrote: » Did you read the article before posting? It says that the development will be subject to planning rules. As for the article - typical ill researched rubbish which mentions velorail 'carriages' several times.:rolleyes:
