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

Rationalisation

2

Comments

  • #32
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,835 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    davidlacey wrote: »
    its only the beginning, getting rid of infrastructure can and will result in further reduce of competitiveness between road and rail. I understand limerick has not been used for freight for a number of years but IE are slowly but surely shooting themselves in the foot by cutting off potential freight flows to the main network I.e north esk and cutting of an already small network into a passenger one, say a company wanted to set up in limerick yeard and the infrastructure was not in place? IE surely would not pay for this and the company would, clearly the company would see this as an unnecessary cost and would choose road over rail always

    They are lifting a few sidings, it's hardly one of the tracks between Cork and Dublin. There will be plenty more there in needed in future.

    Freight out of Limerick is unlikely anyway and these changes wouldn't stop it.


  • #33
    Vanquished
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,073 ✭✭✭Vanquished


    A new bus station is being built on the sidings by the existing car park.

    The plans for the upgrade of the station are outlined in this document.

    http://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/2014_Colbert_Station_Redevelopment_-_Proposed_Design1.pdf


  • #34
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »
    Limerick yard isn't exactly short on sidings so I don't see the issue, time to move along.

    it is a very big issue as potential capacity is being removed for no good reason, when CIE stop destroying the peoples infrastructure then it will be time to move along

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #35
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    corktina wrote: »
    the one bit missed in a another thread (scrapping Mk3s) which is relevant here, is they chopped up some container flats at Cork. So the yards are gone and so is the rolling stock. Can people stop talking about a resurgence of rail freight now and smell the coffee?

    what coffee, irish rail destroy infrastructure and wagons that would allow them to chase potential customers for freight, the passenger railway isn't going to carry irish rail alone, they have to find any type of customer they get, with trucks getting bigger and bigger and doing more damage to the roads and the roads not having the money to be maintained as much as they should then getting some of these trucks off the road where possible needs to be a priority to keep road maintenence costs down

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #36
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    end of the road wrote: »
    it is a very big issue as potential capacity is being removed for no good reason, when CIE stop destroying the peoples infrastructure then it will be time to move along

    There's a very good reason if you read the post above yours. They are building a new bus park there.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    end of the road wrote: »
    what coffee, irish rail destroy infrastructure and wagons that would allow them to chase potential customers for freight, the passenger railway isn't going to carry irish rail alone, they have to find any type of customer they get, with trucks getting bigger and bigger and doing more damage to the roads and the roads not having the money to be maintained as much as they should then getting some of these trucks off the road where possible needs to be a priority to keep road maintenence costs down

    the more trucks, the more tax paid in to the treasury, so I'd say they pay their own way. Yes, roads have to be maintained but so do rail lines, so your arguement is hard to understand. The roads likely to be damaged by trucks are also the ones that could never be re[placed by a train.No customers have come forward in a good few years to use those sidings for freight, so it's doubtful they ever would


  • #38
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    corktina wrote: »
    the more trucks, the more tax paid in to the treasury, so I'd say they pay their own way. Yes, roads have to be maintained but so do rail lines, so your arguement is hard to understand. The roads likely to be damaged by trucks are also the ones that could never be re[placed by a train.No customers have come forward in a good few years to use those sidings for freight, so it's doubtful they ever would

    just because they haven't come forward doesn't mean they never will, removing anything that can give companies an alternative should they want it should not be acceptable

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #39
    metrovick001
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 425 ✭✭metrovick001


    You are waaay off the mark Corktina. The haulage business is indirectly subsidised by the exchequer by the provision of toll free motorways.
    Im not suggesting this is inappropriate but to suggest that the haulage business pays its own way is incorrect.
    corktina wrote: »
    the more trucks, the more tax paid in to the treasury, so I'd say they pay their own way. Yes, roads have to be maintained but so do rail lines, so your arguement is hard to understand. The roads likely to be damaged by trucks are also the ones that could never be re[placed by a train.No customers have come forward in a good few years to use those sidings for freight, so it's doubtful they ever would


  • #40
    davidlacey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 416 ✭✭davidlacey


    metrovick001 wrote: »
    You are waaay off the mark Corktina. The haulage business is indirectly subsidised by the exchequer by the provision of toll free motorways.
    Im not suggesting this is inappropriate but to suggest that the haulage business pays its own way is incorrect.

    plus is there not a fuel subsidy for haulage companies


  • #41
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    davidlacey wrote: »
    plus is there not a fuel subsidy for haulage companies

    i don't know, remove it all anyway and lets have real competition and let the trucks pay their way like every other vehicle has to

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Advertisement
  • #42
    relaxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 572 ✭✭✭relaxed


    corktina wrote: »
    you can't ditch 4 stops.
    You have to stop at Oranmore because it is a P&R and makes no sense not to stop.
    You have to stop at Athenry, no other choice...
    Ardrahan, Craughwell....fair enough ditch them.....
    Gort? don't think so
    Ennis Sixmilebridge?......nah....

    basically you are massaging the figures to fit your theory.

    Even if you could do all this, I bet you wouldn't get the passengers back off the coach and you certainly wont get them out of their cars

    It's not a theory, it's 70 miles, so at 50 mph you get 1hr 24minutes journey time non stop.

    Fix a few things like brain dead stops (let them stop at ardrahan and craughwell twice a day to appease the all politicians) and the slow bit out from Limerick and you are losing in on 1.40 without any effort.


  • #43
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    Athenry will be interesting non stop...and you forget that most journeys are to get people into and out of Galway and Limerick rather than taking people between them, so the non stop trains will be more than half empty compared to now.

    As far as I know there is no fuel subsidy and VAT and PRSI and Income Tax paid into the Government are all sizable amounts.

    Some motorways are toll free, but every motorist benefits from that and the Motor Tax on a Truck is quite substantial.

    No amount of train-spotter dreaming will make lines such as this viable. The passenger figures prove it. I'd much rather the money that would need to be spent speeding up this line, plus the loss it makes , be spent on other far more important lines.


  • #44
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    end of the road wrote: »
    i don't know, remove it all anyway and lets have real competition and let the trucks pay their way like every other vehicle has to

    ..and remove the Irish Rail subsidy then, make them charge a break-even price for their services. (bye bye Rail if that were to happen)


  • #45
    davidlacey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 416 ✭✭davidlacey


    corktina wrote: »
    ..and remove the Irish Rail subsidy then, make them charge a break-even price for their services. (bye bye Rail if that were to happen)

    the irish rail subsidy does not cover freight


  • #46
    davidlacey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 416 ✭✭davidlacey


    corktina wrote: »
    ..and remove the Irish Rail subsidy then, make them charge a break-even price for their services. (bye bye Rail if that were to happen)

    the irish rail subsidy does not cover freight


  • #47
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,270 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    cgcsb wrote: »
    It seems positively ridiculous that a railway built in 2009 was built to such poor standard. Surely it shouldve been designed with modern speed requirements in mind.

    Maybe you should ask the shareholders why; they are the ones who call the shots and who made the investment.


  • #48
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    davidlacey wrote: »
    the irish rail subsidy does not cover freight

    well it lost 13 million last year...either that is covered by Government subsidy or it is cross-subsidised by the rest of the network (which I believe is illegal)

    There's some amazing stuff coming out now..... suggesting dropping 4 stops between Galway and Limerick.....non stop journeys, nothwithstanding a reversal at Athenry.... Rail Freight is not subsidised. Somewhat lacking in credibility really.


  • #49
    davidlacey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 416 ✭✭davidlacey


    corktina wrote: »
    well it lost 13 million last year...either that is covered by Government subsidy or it is cross-subsidised by the rest of the network (which I believe is illegal)

    There's some amazing stuff coming out now..... suggesting dropping 4 stops between Galway and Limerick.....non stop journeys, nothwithstanding a reversal at Athenry.... Rail Freight is not subsidised. Somewhat lacking in credibility really.

    where is the €13 million coming from is that the Irish rail figure from the 2013 report because if it is rail freight you are refering to it lost 1.638 million last year compared to 1.750 million loss last year


  • #50
    relaxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 572 ✭✭✭relaxed


    corktina wrote: »
    well it lost 13 million last year...either that is covered by Government subsidy or it is cross-subsidised by the rest of the network (which I believe is illegal)

    There's some amazing stuff coming out now..... suggesting dropping 4 stops between Galway and Limerick.....non stop journeys, nothwithstanding a reversal at Athenry.... Rail Freight is not subsidised. Somewhat lacking in credibility really.

    What's amazing about not stopping at ardrahan and craughwell?

    We all know there is a reversal required at athenry, what amazes you about that?

    You should get a job at Irish rail, you would fit right in if it negativity you seek.

    You still haven't explained how culling some stops and reducing padding will cost hundreds of millions to reduce journey times.


  • #51
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    davidlacey wrote: »
    where is the €13 million coming from is that the Irish rail figure from the 2013 report because if it is rail freight you are refering to it lost 1.638 million last year compared to 1.750 million loss last year

    typo


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    relaxed wrote: »
    What's amazing about not stopping at ardrahan and craughwell?

    We all know there is a reversal required at athenry, what amazes you about that?

    You should get a job at Irish rail, you would fit right in if it negativity you seek.

    You still haven't explained how culling some stops and reducing padding will cost hundreds of millions to reduce journey times.

    The fact that it was proposed by someone to drop 4 stops not 2.... yeah, you could drop two off-peak , but you couldn't drop them on the very trains they are likely to be used on...ie the Peak-time services, let alone ever drop them from 4....

    The fact that someone could work out an average speed not allowing for that reversal....

    The loss not being covered by a subsidy, have IE a magic money jar?....

    To reduce times to anywhere near the extent proposed in some of these ill-thought out posts would involve easing curves, eliminating crossings, building an avoiding line at Athenry and installing more loops, plus the signalling alterations to enable that lot. Hundreds of millions.It is what should have been spent in the first place and wasn't.

    I'm not negative, I'm simply pointing out that some of you have their heads in the clouds. The reality is quite different.


  • #53
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,835 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    end of the road wrote: »
    it is a very big issue as potential capacity is being removed for no good reason, when CIE stop destroying the peoples infrastructure then it will be time to move along

    As Ballina can handle such large volumes of freight traffic with such limited tracks and space, removing a few tracks in Limerick won't cause problems and nowhere on the network will see such freight as Ballina does.


  • #54
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »
    As Ballina can handle such large volumes of freight traffic with such limited tracks and space, removing a few tracks in Limerick won't cause problems and nowhere on the network will see such freight as Ballina does.

    Why? I suppose the rush to disconnect sidings, scrap container gantries, sell-off land etc. might have something to do with it.


  • #55
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,835 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    Judgement Day wrote: »
    Why? I suppose the rush to disconnect sidings, scrap container gantries, sell-off land etc. might have something to do with it.

    Two major issues the M7 and what customer base is there for such services that are at Ballina Anyway it was just pointing out how Ballina copes with such a tiny level of space and people are up in arms about a track or two being taken away in Limerick.


  • #56
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »
    Two major issues the M7 and what customer base is there for such services that are at Ballina Anyway it was just pointing out how Ballina copes with such a tiny level of space and people are up in arms about a track or two being taken away in Limerick.


    the M7 should have nothing to do with it, people are up in arms about the entity intrusted to look after the peoples railway continuing to destroy it

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #57
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,835 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    end of the road wrote: »
    the M7 should have nothing to do with it, people are up in arms about the entity intrusted to look after the peoples railway continuing to destroy it

    They are destroying nothing. It's a few tracks that have not being used in years. There would be valid points if they were completely removing all unused sidings which they are not.


  • #58
    davidlacey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 416 ✭✭davidlacey


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »
    They are destroying nothing. It's a few tracks that have not being used in years. There would be valid points if they were completely removing all unused sidings which they are not.

    I think the key word here is "destroyed" I agree that sidings pulled up is nothing major but IE has helped the destruction of rail freight more than anyone else


  • #59
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,835 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    davidlacey wrote: »
    I think the key word here is "destroyed" I agree that sidings pulled up is nothing major but IE has helped the destruction of rail freight more than anyone else

    Remind me when freight operated to Limerick.


  • #60
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    we'l just have to agree to disagree jamie

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »
    Remind me when freight operated to Limerick.

    Norfolk liners used to run round there on the Cork to Waterford runs.


Advertisement