bk wrote: » Sigh and what does intercity rail in Ireland run on, steam? No it runs on the same diesel that intercity bus coaches use. Any increase in fuel prices will also lead to increases in train fares. Bus coaches are actually more fuel efficient then diesel intercity trains (per passenger mile) so they will actually be less effected. Also it ignores the gradual shift to electric cars and more fuel efficient hybrid cars.
corktina wrote: » Because the railways are currently slower than they were a couple of decades back and need massive investment to compete with the new shiny motorways. You have to remember that Britains Motorways are bursting at the seams whilst ours are pretty empty.
NITransport wrote: » Being a frequent user of the M4, M5, M6, M40, M42 and M50 I disagree that it's a capacity issue which is driving motorists onto the railways. It's mostly urban motorway sections which have the biggest issues, or were several motorways join, and big leaps have been made through introducing ATM after the trial between junctions 3a and 7 on the M42 a few years back. But on the whole interurban motorways are relatively free flowing. The reason rail succeeds in the UK is due to the time saving over driving. For example London - Birmingham 1hr 14mins by rail, 2hrs 5mins by road; or London - Warrington 1hr 45mins by rail, 3hrs 20mins by road. This is achieved through modest rail speeds of 125mph/200kph. Speeds which would be more than appropriate for an island of Ireland's size.
bk wrote: » Unfortunately it is economics. Irish Rail claim it will cost 500 million to upgrade the Cork line to electric and high speed running. I'd assume another 500 million for the Belfast line and these costs don't include the costs of new trains. So you are looking at probably about 1.5 billion and that isn't even the whole network. Is spending 1.5 billion on this really worth it just so someone can get Dublin to Cork/Belfast 30 minutes faster then by car? I don't really see the economic justification for this. Even if we had the money, IMO 1.5 Billion could go to much more necessary projects like fibre optic cable to every home in Ireland or DART Underground, Metro North, etc. Irish Rail seems to recognise this reality themselves. They don't plan on electrifying until about 30 years from now. Instead they are looking to make much smaller and cheaper adjustments, which might give them a 30 minute advantage over the coach buses, which might be enough to keep their heads above water. Maybe. I think IR's focus now needs to be on reducing costs, being more competitive and making the most of the resources they have.
corktina wrote: » i agree. Because Dublin is in the centre of the country more or less, most journeys are very short compared to the UK and there is little scope to better road times by enough of a margin to make a difference.
Cool Mo D wrote: » Really not true. Dublin - Cork is quite a bit further that London - Birmingham, and Dublin - Galway and Dublin - Belfast are about the same distance.
NITransport wrote: » I remember reading an interview with NIR in the Railway Gazette around this time last year that stated the De Deitrich coaches and/or the 201 loco would come to end of life around the end of the decade, and they may find it hard to find suitable diesel powered replacement. So you never know, a lot can happen to the economy in 8 years, we might finally see the necessary upgrading.
Cool Mo D wrote: » Really not true. Dublin - Cork is quite a bit further that London - Birmingham, and Dublin - Galway and Dublin - Belfast are about the same distance. Intercity journeys in Ireland are the same distance or longer that in the UK, as most big cities are located in an area bounded by Liverpool, Cardiff, the English south coast, London, and Leeds -an area of similar size to Ireland, which has far more closely spaced large cities. The only three big places outside that are Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh.
NITransport wrote: » I live in hope that one day the irish rail industry will undergo a renaissance similar to that seen in the UK from the late 90's onwards. Why so many contributors are adverse to that... I don't understand. (Please don't reply referring just to the economic situation.)
When old BR executives gather at reunions the talk is always the same. What sort of railway could they have given Britain with a third bigger market, rising rail fares, access to private capital markets and four times the old level of subsidy? These were not men opposed to privatisation. They merely regarded the 1993 Act as stupid. They knew that creating a separate track company would destroy management discipline, unleash infrastructure costs and proliferate litigation and regulation. Their railway had its shortcomings, but it was the most cost-effective in Europe. Their eyes mist over at the gold-plated service they could have run with the quantities of public money available today.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/19/comment.publicservices
The UK rail industry is a disaster. Privatisation, a money saving exercise, ended up costing a the taxpayer a multiple of what it did previously.
corktina wrote: » yes, but passenger numbers over there are up hugely, more services are running than ever before and investment is going into places that need it, such as the massive re-building of the station and junctions at Reading which includes flyovers and bypasses, new bridges and about doubles the number of platforms. Far better that than the struggle here to update the countys premier line to 100 mph max 40 years after the UK defined 125 mph as the minimum economic crusing speed to compete with the roads.
corktina wrote: » you may think it's rubbuish, but thats the business decison that BR(WR) made in the seventies to compete with the M4. Since then speeds have actually been increased on some lines. In fairness, you wouldn't expect non-high-speed inter city services to run at taht speed now would you.!Certainly though you might expect the services on the most importnat lines to run at a speed that can compete with the motorways and surely Cork to Dublin should come in that category.
IsaacWunder wrote: » The UK rail industry is a disaster. Privatisation, a money saving exercise, ended up costing a the taxpayer a multiple of what it did previously.
Cool Mo D wrote: » Yes, of course speed improvements are necessary, but if Dublin - Cork took 2 hours, that would be easily competitive with the motorway, and would only require an average speed of 85mph / 140 km/h. I would love to see 125mph services, but fairly small speed increases would also make a big difference.
Ireland should be looking to countries like Austria, Finland, and Denmark to see how to run our rail service, not the UK, as they are much closer in size and population distribution to us.
cgcsb wrote: » a 2 hour rail journey between Dublin and Cork would easily beat even the most enthusiastic of drivers. It is IÉ's intention to reduce journey times to Cork, Galway and Balfast to 2 hours, although taking the 2hour Belfast-Dublin journey time, that doesn't seem all that ambitious.
Wild Bill wrote: » Door to door, rail will never compete.
MYOB wrote: » Irish Rail are probably happy to be able to compete with buses, not private cars.
cgcsb wrote: » It is IÉ's intention to reduce journey times to Cork, Galway and Balfast to 2 hours
bk wrote: » Not true, they plan on reducing it by 30 minutes, which would bring Dublin to Cork to about 2h 30m. Only slightly faster then the new bus service and still slower then by car.
