Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Irish Times - Proposal to bring train journey times between cities below two hours

1…1011121416

Comments

  • #392
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,285 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Personally I don't the state should be subsidising any form of internal air transport. If it's economically viable then people will operate a service. However I do agree that non-stop bus services should be licensed on all of the Inter Urban motorways.


  • #393
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,716 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    bk wrote: »
    Thinking about it further, if people really want to build the best public transport infrastructure between Cork and Dublin, then these are the first two things I would do:

    1) License at least one private bus operator to operate a high quality direct non stop coach service between Cork and Dublin.

    This will benefit the people who want to travel between Cork and Dublin in the cheapest way possible.

    2) Issue a dedicated license (so no one else can fly the route) to operate a Cork to Dublin air route to someone like Aer Arann or another company with similar sized aircraft.

    This will benefit the (mostly business) people who want to make the journey in the quickest way possible.

    Both of these steps would significantly improve peoples public transport options between Cork and Dublin and best of all it wouldn't cost us anything to do as they would both be operated by private operators.

    Anyone who disagrees with these ideas and instead thinks it is better to spend 175 million knocking a mere 30 minutes off the 3 hour Cork to Dublin train journey obviously has a major bias for rail and doesn't have the best interests of the people of Ireland and people like me who regularly take this journey at heart.

    BTW I say all of this as a Corkonian living in Dublin who makes this journey by train at least once a month and has lots of friends who also use to do the same, but who almost all have now switched to the car for the same journey.

    Personally I'd see little benefit in having my journey reduced from 3 hours to 2.5 hours (I find once it isn't over 3 hours it doesn't really matter too much). But leave me take the bus in three hours for a third of the price of the train and I would jump at that opportunity.

    Interestingly I got the train at the weekend and it had free wifi. This is great, with free wifi the time flies by without you even noticing, that is why I say 30 minutes difference hardly matters. IR need to roll out the free wifi as quickly as possible and preferably put power at every seat.

    I've been saying this for at least 5 years, glad to see Irish Rail finally start to listen. This initiative will probably have a more positive impact then reducing journey times by 30 minutes and probably cost just a fraction of the 175 million.

    The key business trains (0615 ex-Cork and 1700 ex-Heuston) would be closer to 2 hours 10 minutes under this proposal - these already take 2 hours 30 minutes (with no recovery time). I cannot see any coaches competing with that.

    The wifi is currently being fitted out across the entire Mk 4 fleet, coach by coach, so it should not be too much longer before more sets are rolled out.


  • #394
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72,763 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    invinciblePRSTV wrote: »
    After all that money would be far better spent building new schools and hospitals.

    We don;t need any new acute hospitals, as an aside. There are ample, 1990s+ units empty in hospitals nationwide due to staffing cuts, e.g. the huge bits of Mullingar that were never properly used after Cowen moved the main hospital for that HB to his constituency.

    Once underway work and the "three childrens hospitals all in the same city" mess is fixed we should, really, be good for quite some time if the existing resources were used properly.


  • #395
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    we need fewer managers and admin and more medical staff.


  • #396
    dubhthach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,285 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    corktina wrote: »
    we need fewer managers and admin and more medical staff.

    There's a 1:1 ratio of medical professionals to paper pushers in the health service.


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    invinciblePRSTV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    bk wrote: »
    Hmm, lets see, 450 million on new carriages when the old ones were good for at least another twenty years.

    Yeah that's nonsense quite frankly. The old Dublin - Cork carriages may have been useful for another couple of decades, but the majority of the IR fleet, y'know the ones used on all other IC services and commuter services was in dire need of renewal, which they got.

    As an example look no further then Cork commuter services, I once had the (mis)fortune of doing a Cork - Cobh commute for a while one summer when i was young about a decade ago, the train sets were old, cold, leaky, grotty, generally unpleasant and prone to break downs. Fast forward a decade and I quite enjoy the shiny new railcars, as I'm sure do most of the rail commuters in Dublin, Cork and on the IC services.

    Billions wasted upgrading an ancient fleet? nope not in my book.
    bk wrote: »
    Over 2 billion spent on mainline track improvement and safety work over the last 10 years, yet the trains are slower today then they were 25 years ago!!

    Let's remind ourselves that even the 'premier' railway lines still have dozens of level crossings and twisty alignments. And that with the huge increase in Dublin commuter services in the past decades means that IC journey times will inevitably be slow due to increased line traffic.

    You seem to harbour the illusion that the 2 billion spent should've wiped out all these contributory factors to IC journey times and bought a railway network which has suffered from under investment for decades up to 21st century standards.

    That's an unrealistic viewpoint to hold.
    bk wrote: »
    Irish Rail has a dreadful record of investment in mainline rail over the past ten years, with the money going in completely the wrong places. Irish Rail has built a railway system for the 1980's, not a network suitable for the reality of the competition it faces today.

    Please elaborate on the ''dreadful record of investment in mainline rail'' undertaken by IR in the past 10 years.


    bk wrote: »
    My bias is towards putting in place infrastructure that will move people from A to B in the most cost effective, efficient and environmentally friendly manner possible.


    Any solution involving the replacement of IC railway with more motorways and more internal air flights would not meet the criteria for being either cost effective or environmentally friendly.
    bk wrote: »
    I frankly couldn't care less if it is rail, air, car, bus or bloody horse and cart, as long as we get the right balance of the three above.

    Sure if we had unlimited money or could do it for free, then reducing journey times would be a very good idea.

    But this is the real world, money is tight now and we have to ensure what little money we have left is spent on the project or projects that will give us the maximum social and economic return for our money.

    You're just repeating yourself here.
    bk wrote: »
    I just don't think spending 175 million to knock a mere 30 minutes off a three hour train journey is going to make any major economic difference.

    You're entitled to think what you like.
    bk wrote: »
    Reducing the Cork to Dublin train from 3 hours to 2:30 would still make it slower then driving to Cork, which is about 2:15 to 2:30 and that is door to door and cheaper then the train.

    Again you're being short sighted here. A modest investment in one section of the Cork - Dublin railway line will bring down journey times to the same level as the multi billion euro motorway!

    Between that, the Kildare quad tracking and any future improvements to the Cork railway line south of Portarlington then you'll be seeing IC journey times between the 2 cities further decreased.
    bk wrote: »
    I believe you need to get the Cork to Dublin train under 2 hours in order to make it competitive, but of course that would cost a lot more then 175 million.

    Would it now? how much?
    bk wrote: »
    You can and I do.

    Every project should be carefully analysed for it's social and economic return.

    Then the projects with the top economic and social value should be completed with whatever money is available.

    Agreed, I'd be quite satisfied that this project would score well on whatever criteria is presented. I'd imagine it'd score much higher then the vast majority of roads projects still on the NRA's to do list for example.
    bk wrote: »
    Do you honestly believe spending 175 million to knock just 30 minutes off the Cork to Dublin train would be better then building LUAS BXD?

    It's not just about Cork - Dublin is it? It's Cork/Galway/Limerick/Waterford and Dublin outer suburban services which will all benefit from this particular project. They're both worthy projects imo.


  • #398
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    lots of opinions there, but we've heard it before from IE about reduced journey times, it hasnt happened in the past and it wont happen now .

    Yes all the old boneshaking stock was replaced but that doesnt change the fact that the extensive Mk3 fleet was discarded when similar older stock in the uk is still running in front line 125mph service, and will be for the next decade or more.

    IE will not make effective use of any investment WE make in them, they wasted money on the Mk4s and can't be trusted to give good VFM on any further investment they might desire.


  • #399
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,631 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    invinciblePRSTV IR claim (unbelievably IMO) that they can knock 30 minutes off rail journeys for just 175 million.

    If it would cost so little extra on top of the 2 billion already spent on track improvement works over the last few years, why didn't they ask for the relatively little extra money during the good days?

    Either it will really cost far more then 175 million (we have no details on the costs, just IR's word for what it is worth) or IR management were are completely incompetent and didn't foresee the competition the motorway network would pose to them.

    The Mark 4's on the Cork to Dublin route cost 117 million. The old Mark 3's were perfectly serviceable for at least another 20 years with some refurbishment. This 117 million could have gone a long way to covering the 175 million IR claim they need to reduce journey times by 30 minutes.

    So another balls up by IR management, spending our (taxpayers) money in the wrong areas and again not recognising the competition the motorways would bring.

    And then not having power at every seat and free wifi (yes now being corrected 5 years later!) on these shiny new carriages, playing to the one advantage trains have over motorways (being able to work/play on board).

    There you go, this is just the start of the list of Irish Rails dreadful investment decisions in mainline rail.

    IR management have so far shown that they are completely incompetent and you want us the tax payer to trust them with another 175 million of our now precious money!!


  • #400
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    bk wrote: »
    invinciblePRSTV IR claim (unbelievably IMO) that they can knock 30 minutes off rail journeys for just 175 million.

    yes its hard to believe, especially as to acheive those savings you would need to run at much higher speeds, which entails buying new locos to haul the Mk4s or , far more likely, complete new high speed units, something like the TGV or ICE units, which is what they should have bought in the first place instead of the Mk4s but they couldnt do that as they'd have to admit they have no use for the 201s. HAd they bought new power cars to run with the Mk3s instead of making do wirth the 201s and buying the unnecessary Mk4s we could have faster services now

    Its no good doing half the job and accelerating the service a bit...to compete with the Motorways, we need proper high speed services...you cant use the 201s for that, so what will they do?


  • #401
    invinciblePRSTV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,017 ✭✭✭invinciblePRSTV


    corktina wrote: »
    yes its hard to believe, especially as to acheive those savings you would need to run at much higher speeds, which entails buying new locos to haul the Mk4s or , far more likely, complete new high speed units, something like the TGV or ICE units, which is what they should have bought in the first place instead of the Mk4s but they couldnt do that as they'd have to admit they have no use for the 201s. HAd they bought new power cars to run with the Mk3s instead of making do wirth the 201s and buying the unnecessary Mk4s we could have faster services now

    Its no good doing half the job and accelerating the service a bit...to compete with the Motorways, we need proper high speed services...you cant use the 201s for that, so what will they do?

    I'm out of depth when talking about the issues around the Mk4s beyond my own obserservations that people seem to like and use the new trainsets despite their flaws.
    corktina wrote: »

    IE will not make effective use of any investment WE make in them, they wasted money on the Mk4s and can't be trusted to give good VFM on any further investment they might desire.

    Setting aside the carriages, can you point to an example where IR have wasted billions on physical infrastructure upgrades? as far as i can see, any major line works they have undertaken over the past few decades - WRC, Midleton, DART, Maynooth, KRP - have been built without massive cost over runs or ridiculous delays.

    Any surely you'll acknowledge that any previous IR claims for achieving decreased IC journey times in the 1990s thanks to the ontrack programme were lost with the expansion of the Dublin suburban network during the 1990s & naughties?
    bk wrote: »
    invinciblePRSTV IR claim (unbelievably IMO) that they can knock 30 minutes off rail journeys for just 175 million.

    What is exactly unbelievable about it? put in New track, Remove LCs, straighten sections of track, increase speed limits and et viola we have a quicker journey times on this section of the line.

    Obviously the 30 minutes IR are saying can be saved here could be lost elsewhere downtrack on the older, slower sections, or due to congestion in the Dublin suburban section. But I can scarcely believe that people are opposing as basic an upgrade as this proposal.
    bk wrote: »
    If it would cost so little extra on top of the 2 billion already spent on track improvement works over the last few years, why didn't they ask for the relatively little extra money during the good days?

    Maybe it's because IR were focused on the numerous other projects they were tasked with arranging over the past decade- Midleton, WRC, Navan, KRP, Docklands - to name but a few.

    Or maybe they did present proposals previously to upgrade sections of their IC network and previous governments shot them down seeing as they - messrs O' Rourke, Brennan, Dempsey & Cullen - were more focused on the NRA & RPA's efforts. After all, building Metro's, LUAS's and a Motorway network seemed to be far more of a priority for Bubble-era FF politicians then boring old upgrades of the existing, clapped out, heavy rail network except for where noisy local groups pulled some strings.

    Whatever did happen, i definitely don't agree with the proposition to shut the IC network down just because the motorways are now open.
    bk wrote: »
    Either it will really cost far more then 175 million (we have no details on the costs, just IR's word for what it is worth) or IR management were are completely incompetent and didn't foresee the competition the motorway network would pose to them.

    It's not an either/or like proposition like you describe it. More importantly you seem to be of the bent that because now IR are only bothering to decrease IC journey times that it's too late, the motorways are here and the IC lines should be shut down and the network shrivelled to commuter rumps. Obviously I disagree, the motorway network should now act as a spur to rebuild the IC railway network not close large swathes of it.
    bk wrote: »
    The Mark 4's on the Cork to Dublin route cost 117 million. The old Mark 3's were perfectly serviceable for at least another 20 years with some refurbishment.

    Yeah I'm aware that the Mark IV's and the premature departure of the mark IIIs have embittered many spotters and associated train fans. But in my own experience, people who are not interested in these things don't give two figs about it and quite enjoy the new train sets which IR have put on pretty much all their services.

    I believe i'm correct in saying that in the years after their introduction, Cork - Dublin passenger numbers increased (then decreased in line with the bubble's collapse obviousy), so I can't see how - outside of the trainspotters scene - the Mark IVs have been nothing but a success in the eyes of the general public who use them.
    bk wrote: »
    This 117 million could have gone a long way to covering the 175 million IR claim they need to reduce journey times by 30 minutes.

    Again you're engaging in specious reasoning. If we hadn't had P-pars we could have paid for some of this upgrade, if we didn't offer generous tax breaks to the wealthy, or if we didn't introduce benchmarking, or build the WRC or M9 or not have E-Voting, or cut the foreign aid budget, then we could have built this.

    It's pointless talking about what we could have done when the money is already spent.


    bk wrote: »
    So another balls up by IR management, spending our (taxpayers) money in the wrong areas and again not recognising the competition the motorways would bring.

    Again you seem to be back to the proposition that because now the motorways are open then IR should not receive any more money.
    bk wrote: »
    And then not having power at every seat and free wifi (yes now being corrected 5 years later!) on these shiny new carriages, playing to the one advantage trains have over motorways (being able to work/play on board).

    A minor quibble in the great scheme of things. You realise that the rest of the IC fleet outside of Dublin - Cork (and i Think Dublin - Belfast, not sure) have plugs on every seat? and that free WIFI is being rolled out?
    bk wrote: »
    There you go, this is just the start of the list of Irish Rails dreadful investment decisions in mainline rail.

    You haven't really presented anything of substance tbh and certainly nothing to prove your original claim that IR have wasted ''Billions" over the past decade or so.
    bk wrote: »
    IR management have so far shown that they are completely incompetent and you want us the tax payer to trust them with another 175 million of our now precious money!!

    Like I've already mentioned countless times on this thread, when it comes to upgrading the physical infrastructure of the railways, far from being wasteful like you paint them to be, IR have a pretty decent record in building infrastructure and keeping within budget in doing so.


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    invinciblePRSTV wrote: »
    .



    Setting aside the carriages, can you point to an example where IR have wasted billions on physical infrastructure upgrades? as far as i can see, any major line works they have undertaken over the past few decades - WRC, Midleton, DART, Maynooth, KRP - have been built without massive cost over runs or ridiculous delays.

    Any surely you'll acknowledge that any previous IR claims for achieving decreased IC journey times in the 1990s thanks to the ontrack programme were lost with the expansion of the Dublin suburban network during the 1990s & naughties?

    your multi quoting makes it very difficult tio reply in a clear way so I'll just reply to the bit addressed to me. I didn't say they wasted billions, I said they wasted the money on the Mk4s and can't be trusted to manage future investments.

    i have no comment to make on your second point as I don't have the relevant info to give a worthwhile answer.


  • #403
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    invinciblePRSTV wrote: »
    What is exactly unbelievable about it? put in New track, Remove LCs, straighten sections of track, increase speed limits and et viola we have a quicker journey times on this section of the line.

    Now I don't know what plans IE have to make 30 minute time savings on Galway - Dublin but the only was I can see it happening is double track between Portarlignton & Athlone. I've picked this section since this services two lines and based on my opinion that there'd be minimal additional savings on Galway - Athlone since trains don't usually have long waits at stations along this portion of the line (or they didn't when I used this regularly). I'm also assuming that the 4 track from Heuston to Kildare is completed at this stage.

    There was a proposal some years ago to double track Galway-Athenry (approx 20km). Rail users Ireland put the total figure for all works (including new stations) at €50 before purchase of rolling stock (2005 prices) - the costing appears to be based on the WRC proposals.

    Portartlington to Athlone is approximately 60 km. Assuming the estimates are reasonably accurate the Galway - Dublin portion alone would take over €100m - before we consider upgrading any existing track.


  • #404
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    DUBLIN TO CORK is about 155 miles and takes about 170 minutes at present or less than 60mph average. To chop 30 minutes of this isnt possible with the existing rolling stock IMHO, so the 201s need replacing ,as said before with either new locos (or powercars) or entirely new units. Either way the Mk4s are a wasted investment. Add to that their riding qualities which are inferior to mk3s .


  • #405
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    invinciblePRSTV wrote: »
    Like I've already mentioned countless times on this thread, when it comes to upgrading the physical infrastructure of the railways, far from being wasteful like you paint them to be, IR have a pretty decent record in building infrastructure and keeping within budget in doing so.

    You seem to be in denial about the amount of money that IE are spending. This bit comes from the CIE annual report from 2004
    CIÉ with government and EU financial support has spent €1.7 billion since 2000 in an investment programme which has radically modernised public transport as well as improved railway safety systems. More railway track was laid in this period than over the last 100 years.

    This bit is from the Irish Rail report of 2004:
    Iarnród Éireann has invested over €1.5 billion in rebuilding the railways since 1999, with Government and EU support for the investment programme delivering improvements in new trains, upgraded infrastructure and customer facilities

    This was before the upgrades to the fleet, WRC, Docklands, Kildare Route etc.


  • #406
    AngryLips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    I thought the speed issue isn't to do with the rolling stock (which I thought was capable of much greater speeds) but with the speed restrictions on the tracks itself?

    While I agree that IE is the problem child in the CIE group I think the money spent has to be seen in the context of a massive increase in services during the boom years, including expenditure on many politically motivated and questionable projects, while maintaining a near perfect safety record.


  • #407
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,716 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    corktina wrote: »
    DUBLIN TO CORK is about 155 miles and takes about 170 minutes at present or less than 60mph average. To chop 30 minutes of this isnt possible with the existing rolling stock IMHO, so the 201s need replacing ,as said before with either new locos (or powercars) or entirely new units. Either way the Mk4s are a wasted investment. Add to that their riding qualities which are inferior to mk3s .

    The poor timings have nothing to do with the rolling stock - it is the number of speed restrictions on the permanent way and the number of stops en route.

    Eliminating temporary/permanent speed restrictions and extending the stretches of track where 90mph and 100mph running applies can and would under this proposal deliver real improvements, when combined with better timetabling - bi-hourly fast services and bi-hourly semi-fasts.

    The key business trains do the trip from Dublin to Cork and v.v. in 2 hours 30 minutes (0615 ex-Cork and 1700 ex-Dublin) with stops at Limerick Junction and Mallow - but they have no recovery time added into the trip. With these improvements they could be accelerated to 2 hours 10-15 minutes.


  • #408
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    BR in the UK realised in the 1970s that to compete with the motorways, a crusing speed of 125mph was necessary. They introduced the HSTs at that stage which use the same carriages as Mk3s.....30 odd years behind the UK already and you propose 90 to 100 mph running?

    You can't acheive the necessary timings to beat the motorway with those schedules. You need fast accelerating units with a high power to weight ratio...not lumbering freight engines.


  • #409
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,631 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    lxflyer wrote: »
    The key business trains do the trip from Dublin to Cork and v.v. in 2 hours 30 minutes (0615 ex-Cork and 1700 ex-Dublin) with stops at Limerick Junction and Mallow - but they have no recovery time added into the trip. With these improvements they could be accelerated to 2 hours 10-15 minutes.

    I've been on the 1700 ex-Dublin many times over the past few months and it has never gotten in at 2h30m, the best it did is 2h38m, the norm is 2h45m.

    In other words it is pure fantasy and one of the reasons I'm so cynical about IR achieving the time savings they claim.

    As corktina says the evidence from the UK is if you want to compete with the motorways you have to be significantly faster then the motorways.

    IMHO there is little point in getting Cork to Dublin down to 2h15m as you can do most places in Cork to most places in Dublin direct by car in 2h15m and that is door to door, most people don't live in train stations, so add an extra 30 to 60 minutes to get too and from the stations.

    I believe spending 175 million to knock just 30 minutes off the train would do nothing to stop the drain of customers away from trains to cheaper and faster cars and cheaper buses.

    I believe you would need to get Cork to Dublin down to max 2 hours, even better 1h45m to be somewhat competitive with the motorways. But then that would likely cost far more money and I'm not sure that would be justifiable.

    After all even 1h45m would still only roughly equal the car door to door time when you take into account time to get too and from the station.


  • #410
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,716 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    bk wrote: »
    I've been on the 1700 ex-Dublin many times over the past few months and it has never gotten in at 2h30m, the best it did is 2h38m, the norm is 2h45m.

    In other words it is pure fantasy and one of the reasons I'm so cynical about IR achieving the time savings they claim.

    As corktina says the evidence from the UK is if you want to compete with the motorways you have to be significantly faster then the motorways.

    IMHO there is little point in getting Cork to Dublin down to 2h15m as you can do most places in Cork to most places in Dublin direct by car in 2h15m and that is door to door, most people don't live in train stations, so add an extra 30 to 60 minutes to get too and from the stations.

    I believe spending 175 million to knock just 30 minutes off the train would do nothing to stop the drain of customers away from trains to cheaper and faster cars and cheaper buses.

    I believe you would need to get Cork to Dublin down to max 2 hours, even better 1h45m to be somewhat competitive with the motorways. But then that would likely cost far more money and I'm not sure that would be justifiable.

    After all even 1h45m would still only roughly equal the car door to door time when you take into account time to get too and from the station.

    If you read my post again you will note that I stated that the 0615 and 1700 have no recovery time built into the schedule.

    That means that if any additional speed restrictions are added in they will be delayed, which may be what happened to the 1700 when you were on it.


  • #411
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,631 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Thinking about it a little bit more, reading other threads about regional airlines, dart airport spurs, etc. I think a lot of people don't understand the reality of the situation we face in Ireland today.

    The reality is:

    1) Rightfully or wrongfully, we now have a world class motorway network that puts the vast majority of the population of Ireland within a safe and comfortable 2h30m drive of Dublin.

    2) We have no or very little money left.

    You might rightfully argue that the government over engineered our motorway network and prioritised it over other equally important infrastructure projects. But the reality that is in the past now and other then learning from these mistakes, we can't do anything about that now and have to work with the reality of what is on the ground now.

    This motorway network now effectively eliminates the need for so many regional airports and also pretty much eliminates the need for a heavily subsidised intercity rail network.

    IMO the need to be able to transport people quickly, efficiently and safely from our regional cities to Dublin is now adequately serviced by the motorways network. All it needs to maximise the use of the motorway network is direct non stop bus services for those who need public transport options.

    In the past we needed airports scattered all over the country as it often took more then 5 hours to get to Dublin on unsafe roads.

    Likewise we needed the intercity rail network as it was much quicker (3 hours) and safer then the roads (Cork to Dublin use to take the 4h 30m). But that is in the past now and the roads are much faster and safer now.

    Spending any amount of money to shave just 30 minutes off the railways will make little difference. The car will still be cheaper and faster door to door.

    It is easy to say sure just 175 million to knock 30 minutes off the railways or sure just 1.5 million a year to keep Galway airport open or 300 million for a dart spur to the airport.

    People seem to still think we are in the celtic tiger days. But the reality we have little or no money left and hard decisions have to be made. The total capital transport budget for this year is going to be just 300 million this year and with subsidies to vital services like DB, Dart, commuter rail, etc. being cut, I find it amazing that anyone thinks that spending 175 million to shave just 30 minutes off intercity rail travel is a good way to spend our money.

    Sure when the good times finally return it should definitely be done (hopefully after IR is reformed) but I can't see any economic and social justification for it today.

    What we need to do is maintain what we have and make any cheap and easy improvements we can to existing public transport to improve it and maximise what we have, for example:

    1) Putting free wifi on all trains. Now finally being done, but should have been done 5 years ago.
    2) Putting power at every seat on the trains. Again maximising the one advantage trains have.
    3) Licensing at least one (preferably two) private coach operators on every motorway route in Ireland. Gives commuters a cheap option to every city in Ireland. This costs the tax payer nothing and trust me giving people a cheap option for intercity travel would be much more popular in these hard recessionary times then shaving 30 minutes off expensive trains.
    4) Licensing (not subsidising, just a guarantee of no competition from Ryanair) flight routes between Cork/Dublin, Cork/Blefast, Dublin/Belfast, etc.
    Again this would cost the taxpayer nothing.
    5) Getting rid of the stupid online booking fees on Irish Rail. Who do they think they are Ryanair!! Stupidity of the highest order.
    6) Truly integrated ticketing, with single fares for all bus journeys.
    7) The rollout of RTPI to all public transport and a single public transport planning and fare site.
    8) More quality bus corridors and bus gates.
    9) License more buses to use the port tunnel.
    etc......

    As for the 300 million capital transport budget. We have to make sure it is spent on the project with the maximum social and economic return on investment.

    I'm not sure if it is even wise to blow it all on one project like LUAS BXD or would it be better spent on a variety of smaller things like perhaps maintaining the subsidies to DB, BE and IR so people don't have to face 20% fare hikes this year in this hard recessionary times (I bet people would much prefer this then knocking 30 minutes of the railways), eliminating bottle knecks on the quality bus corridors like Cat & Cage in Drumcondra, BRT routes, etc.

    I know they aren't sexy big projects, but they are probably all we can do for the next three years or so. After that we can look again at the big projects.


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    AngryLips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    corktina wrote: »
    You can't acheive the necessary timings to beat the motorway with those schedules. You need fast accelerating units with a high power to weight ratio...not lumbering freight engines.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge IE have not replaced any of their lumbering freight engines. They have invested in replacing passenger carriages but these are not powered. Where the freight engines you speak of have been replaced it has been with dedicated passenger DMUs which have been specifically designed for passenger service.


  • #413
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    AngryLips wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge IE have not replaced any of their lumbering freight engines. They have invested in replacing passenger carriages but these are not powered. Where the freight engines you speak of have been replaced it has been with dedicated passenger DMUs which have been specifically designed for passenger service.

    Designed is not a word that I would apply to the 22000s - no space for parcels, no Selective Door Opening etc.etc. They may be more comfy than steam heated Cravens but they are a poor substitute for MkIIs or even MkIIIs - ask people on the Connolly - Rosslare Harbour line what they think. :rolleyes:


  • #414
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    AngryLips wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong but to my knowledge IE have not replaced any of their lumbering freight engines. They have invested in replacing passenger carriages but these are not powered. Where the freight engines you speak of have been replaced it has been with dedicated passenger DMUs which have been specifically designed for passenger service.

    the lumbering freight engines are operating the Cork to Dublin services and the Dublin to Belfast services I think....that is a few of them are and the rest are stored disused.

    They have invested in new coaches for them to haul that were not necessary as there was decades of life left in the previous coaches and they did that because they had invested a lot of money in these locos and had no other work for them as they had divested themselves, rightly or wrongly , of most of the freight they were carrying.

    The units you speak of were indeed partly to replace older worn out stock but the Mk3s were by no means old or worn out and as I have pointed out older examples of the same design are still in front line 125mph service in the UK and will be for at least another decade.

    SO we see IEs investment policy....

    buy lots of expensive locos (34 initially i think) and then scrap the services they were designed mainly for, storing most of them as they have no work

    Replace perfectly good coaches (that these locos could have hauled) with Units (please not DMUs, a term not used in Ireland I think)

    replace the remainder of those same coaches with inferior loco hauled replacements when the sensible course would have been to buy TGVs Pendolinos or ICEs or similar

    Plan to improve track to line speeds of 90 and 100 mph in place in this High SPeed Age where 125mph is called for.

    Give IE more money to invest (that we diont have) I dont think so


  • #415
    AngryLips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    corktina wrote: »
    replace the remainder of those same coaches with inferior loco hauled replacements when the sensible course would have been to buy TGVs Pendolinos or ICEs or similar

    How is this a sensible option while speed restrictions continue to exist on the main intercity lines?

    The fact is that existing rolling stock is capable of 160kph. Assuming you're correct and the line distance Dublin-Cork is 155 miles, you'd still be able to achieve a journey time of around 1hr40mins end-to-end inclusive of dwell times at intermediate stops once IE eliminate speed restrictions with the stock that they have putting it far ahead of motorway.

    Ordering higher spec'd trains ten years ago, or whenever the investment began, without the ability to maximise the unique advantages of such trains would have been a far bigger waste of money. If anything, IE could have used the money on reducing line speeds to begin with instead of on newer stock, but that would leave us with a fleet that is less attractive to the average user and one that isn't wheelchair accessible.


  • #416
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    are you kidding me? The Mk3s are a 125mph desgn and they were designed in the seventies! They never have had locos (in this countrry) capable of hauling them at that speed though, and are currently hauled by what is essentially a freight loco which incidentally has been responsible for a lot of the track damage that now is being addressed.

    One hour and 40 minutes in your dreams. You might do that with a modern high speed train with no stops but you wont with slow heavy,low power to weight huge loco haulage. They are slow to accelerate from stops and have to approach stations very slowly and cautiously (have you never noticed that?) In fact a 22 type unit would do it quicker.

    Pendolinos in particular would be able to negotiate restrictions and bends at a higher speed than convential trains.


  • #417
    kilkenny31
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 701 ✭✭✭kilkenny31


    http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1019/infrastructure-business.html

    EU infrastructure plan could benefit Ireland

    Updated: 16:31, Wednesday, 19 October 2011

    Irish officials have welcomed new proposals for an expansion of infrastructure projects in Europe.
    EU wants to attract private investment to infrastructure
    EU wants to attract private investment to infrastructure

    Irish officials have welcomed new proposals for an expansion of infrastructure projects in Europe which, they say, could have significant funding benefits for Ireland in the areas of broadband and energy supply.

    The proposals, presented by the European Commission this morning, could see €50 billion being spent over the next decade under the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF).

    The Commission wants to fast-track spending on infrastructure and to attract more private investors through the use of so-called Project Bonds.

    As well as funding for broadband, areas under consideration from an Irish point of view could include the Northern seas offshore grid as well as so-called smart grids which could facilitate the development of wind and wave energy off Ireland's coasts.

    Funding could also become available for rail links between Belfast and Dublin, and ferry links between Dublin and Holyhead.

    The CEF envisages a blend of funding from the European Commission, co-financed cohesion funding - whereby national governments contribute matching funds - and the use of Project Bonds.

    The Project Bonds initiative is to help infrastructure projects to attract long-term private investment through the European Investment Bank.

    At a news conference this morning, Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso said an initial €213m could be leveraged through the issue of Project Bonds to generate up to €4.6 billion that could be spent in the short-term on infrastructure projects.

    Ireland must make up 80% of transport funding

    A spokesman for the Department of Transport said the European Commission's proposals would be looked at carefully.

    In the transport provisions of the CEF initiative, funding from Europe would require 80% matching funds from the Government, he said, adding that the plan should not be regarded as a new source of funding.

    "The implications for Ireland's transport infrastructure will need to be examined carefully, particularly the specifications for the road and rail network and our capacity to deliver in the current economic climate," he said.

    The spokesman added that Ireland would aim to maximise any available funding for transport projects in Ireland which meet the requirements of the CEF once it has been finalised and adopted, which is likely to take place in 2013.


  • #418
    AngryLips
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    It'll be interesting to see what benefits come out of this for the Enterprise service. Will they replace the unreliable locos or remove speed limits on the tracks? I don't see the passenger coaches being replaced since they're still fairly new...


  • #419
    flyingsnail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,783 ✭✭✭flyingsnail


    AngryLips wrote: »
    It'll be interesting to see what benefits come out of this for the Enterprise service. Will they replace the unreliable locos or remove speed limits on the tracks? I don't see the passenger coaches being replaced since they're still fairly new...

    As far as I know that proposal only applies to works on the Cork line. With reference to the unreliable locos on the enterprise service work is under way to improve reliability by including Mk 3 generator vans in the set to remove electrical load from the loco.


  • #420
    Hungerford
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 912 ✭✭✭Hungerford


    AngryLips wrote: »
    While I agree that IE is the problem child in the CIE group I think the money spent has to be seen in the context of a massive increase in services during the boom years, including expenditure on many politically motivated and questionable projects, while maintaining a near perfect safety record.

    Are you Dick Fearn in disguise? A near perfect safety record? Over the past decade we've had the Cahir viaduct collapse, the Malahide viaduct collapse and the Skerries derailment - three major incidents, two of which were on one of the state's busiest main lines.

    The problem with IE isn't the rolling stock or the track, it's operational inefficiencies. Anyone using the Enterprise would be familiar with IE's tendency to timetable the departure of slow stopping trains and DARTs immediately in front of expresses.

    They also have some strange 'safety' rules which affect regional lines. For example, a train cannot go through a section signalled using semaphores at a speed greater than 50mph, regardless of track condition.

    In the North, the Portrush line is generally worked using a token system and trains can go at 70mph on it. The Coleraine-Derry line, where the track is quite ropey, operates using a combination of tokens and semaphores and the maximum speed for those services is 60mph.

    They are also incredibly slow to conduct day-to-day maintenance which means that there is a lot of temporary speed restrictions on their lines.

    What IE want to do isn't rocket science and it doesn't need huge wads of cash. They basically need to operate their railway more efficiently so that average speeds are higher.

    To put this in perspective, look at the road vs rail journey times in Northern Ireland:

    Belfast to...
    Bangor: 26 min (road); 30 min (slow train); 16 min (express)
    Carrickfergus: 23 min (road); 27 min (slow train); 16 min (express)
    Coleraine: 74 min (road); 77 min (slow train); 58 min (express)
    Larne: 38 min (road); 54 min (slow train); 41 min (express)
    Portadown: 40 min (road); 50 min (slow train); 36 min (express)

    Derry to...
    Coleraine: 50 min (road); 45 min (slow train)

    I haven't done the times from Belfast to Derry as the railway has to go via Coleraine whereas a car can take a much more direct route.


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    NITransport
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 66 ✭✭NITransport


    I read an article in from the Railway Gazette where they interviewed a high up official within NIR. (Care of the TFL library) and they stated that they initially envisaged the Belfast - Dublin line being upgraded starting from the end of the decade. They stated that they would want (I understand that what the would want to do, isn't necessarily what they will do) to either increase the maximum speed on the line to 125mph or 140mph if they obtained Pendilinos, along with significant line investment and signalling investment. The official did state that they believed it would be hard to procure "high speed" diesel hauled locos by the end of the decade and would need to look at electrification of the line.

    In my view, the line needed improved and straightened where ever feasible, electrification would be ideal and a Pendilino with an actual operating speed of 125mph would be more than ideal to operate the circa 100mile route.


Advertisement