Looks like I've to apologise to West on Track

dermo888 · 08-09-2018 11:12am #1

I always said - years ago that if the Western Rail Corridor was a success, I'd apologise, and say well done, considering my vehement and near militant opposition of it in the 2001 to 2010 period.
That time, has finally - after 8 years come to pass, and while not commercially profitable, has reached a point of 'social' viability. Its with that, and with a degree of humility, I say congratulations and well done to those who pushed over the years for its reopening.
I'll remain cynical about opening further north towards Claremorris.
Also - mush work needs to be done to improve the standard of service provision and line speeds on Waterford to Limerick Junction, a stretch of line - with higher population levels with considerably greater potential.
https://connachttribune.ie/taoiseach-may-back-rail-link-reopening-690/

Del2005 · 09-09-2018 11:28pm

I wonder how many of the 350k paid for the tickets themselves? I can't see many people paying their own money for a slower service.

goingnowhere · 10-09-2018 12:02am

350k between Galway and Limerick is always the fudge
What is the number between Ennis and Athenry? Its 125k ? half of what the business case predicted and a huge amount of that has been obtained by aggressive discounting of fares and targeting the student market so the financial situation is worse not better

Lord Glentoran · 10-09-2018 7:47am

Del2005 wrote: »

I wonder how many of the 350k paid for the tickets themselves? I can't see many people paying their own money for a slower service.

Do a survey on the trains. "Hello, I'm from The Internet and I want to see your ticket" should be absolutely fine.

Isambard · 10-09-2018 8:07am

Del2005 wrote: »

I wonder how many of the 350k paid for the tickets themselves? I can't see many people paying their own money for a slower service.

you talk as if they aren't genuine passengers if they're on a FTP. Without the subvention that the free travel scheme brings, no line would be viable.

coylemj · 10-09-2018 12:02pm

Isambard wrote: »

you talk as if they aren't genuine passengers if they're on a FTP. Without the subvention that the free travel scheme brings, no line would be viable.

With or without the FTP subvention, no line in the country is commercially viable.

If the criteria for opening up a new route is is simply 'social viability' then surely a bus service would have sufficed? At a considerably lower cost.

Del.Monte · 10-09-2018 12:44pm

Anecdotal crap - the sort of thing RTE specialise in - like allowing people to say nobody uses the Waterford/Limerick Jn without questioning the daft timetable. There are plenty of non-FTP holders using the line.

gozunda · 10-09-2018 1:11pm

coylemj wrote: »

With or without the FTP subvention, no line in the country is commercially viable.
If the criteria for opening up a new route is is simply 'social viability' then surely a bus service would have sufficed? At a considerably lower cost.

Attempting to escalate that to an anti FTP type rant? And not to mention a inflated scenario for rail when all roads and motorways are also heavily subsidised / subverted by the tax payer?

Rather than selectively quoting 'social viability' ' (is that even a thing?) this makes interesting reading which I'd take a guess you'd probably not heard about?

https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/70442/rail-expansion-essential/

end of the road · 10-09-2018 5:50pm

coylemj wrote: »

With or without the FTP subvention, no line in the country is commercially viable.

If the criteria for opening up a new route is is simply 'social viability' then surely a bus service would have sufficed? At a considerably lower cost.

not really no . there were already bus services before the line and the passengers using rail could have chosen them but didn't. the reason, because the train has more potential to meet their needs then a bus service ever could.
a lot of people will always take a train over a bus no matter what, and they won't be people who are interested in trains either.
as for the bus being lower cost, usually that's because the basic operation cost is what is quoted. not the actual cost, which should really be including the infrastructure cost like is done with rail.

Del2005 · 11-09-2018 6:52am

Isambard wrote: »

you talk as if they aren't genuine passengers if they're on a FTP. Without the subvention that the free travel scheme brings, no line would be viable.

I've no problem with a subvention for public transport but when a line or service is run purely on subvention and FTP then it's not really a viable service. We'd be cheaper getting taxis for the FTP people than a rail line that no one else uses.

coylemj · 11-09-2018 1:37pm

gozunda wrote: »

this makes interesting reading which I'd take a guess you'd probably not heard about?

https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/70442/rail-expansion-essential/

Seriously, this is the best you can come up with? A 'report' written by a consortium of UK public transport operators.....

http://www.urbantransportgroup.org/about-us/our-members

I've no doubt it's a highly objective and balanced report and in no way biased towards railways but I'll pass, thanks all the same.

Lord Glentoran · 11-09-2018 3:40pm

coylemj wrote: »

Seriously, this is the best you can come up with? A 'report' written by a consortium of UK public transport operators.....

http://www.urbantransportgroup.org/about-us/our-members

I've no doubt it's a highly objective and balanced report and in no way biased towards railways but I'll pass, thanks all the same.

Perhaps one written by farmers who want to sell land on the basis of one house per acre, and thus expand rural sprawl with poor services, would be preferred?

Lord Glentoran · 11-09-2018 4:07pm

Del2005 wrote: »

I've no problem with a subvention for public transport but when a line or service is run purely on subvention and FTP then it's not really a viable service. We'd be cheaper getting taxis for the FTP people than a rail line that no one else uses.

Oops - an inconvenient truth from the other island turns this fallacy on its head:

Dmz9ptTXgAcMzZu?format=jpg&name=large

coylemj · 11-09-2018 5:18pm

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Perhaps one written by farmers who want to sell land on the basis of one house per acre, and thus expand rural sprawl with poor services, would be preferred?

No, just someone with a balanced viewpoint and who doesn't favour one form of transport over another.

Do you have a source you'd like to quote for the numbers in the graphic above? I'm curious as to how they got a figure of £54 billion as the 'cost' of air pollution caused by road transport. Congestion ..... £20 billion? Sure why not - it's a nice round number. Trump couldn't do better.

Del2005 · 11-09-2018 5:30pm

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Oops - an inconvenient truth from the other island turns this fallacy on its head:

Where's the comparison between a railway line running on subsidies and FTP users only? Every taxpayer in the country is paying for the railway line that no one uses. The money wasted on the WRC could have improved public transport for thousands if invested in our cities, but instead we pay for a line no one uses if they have to pay with their own money.

Lord Glentoran · 11-09-2018 5:30pm

coylemj wrote: »

No, just someone with a balanced viewpoint and who doesn't favour one form of transport over another.

Do you have a source you'd like to quote for the numbers in the graphic above? I'm curious as to how they got a figure of £54 billion as the 'cost' of air pollution caused by road transport. Congestion ..... £20 billion? Sure why not - it's a nice round number. Trump couldn't do better.

Trump advocating public transport is about as likely as a fish getting out of the sea Lough next to me and hopping up on a bicycle. I haven’t done a Due Dilligence on those figures. I might in a few years when I don’t have to do my present job and can get a commission to do so. It is though an interesting perspective on the received wisdom here that roads and private cars are cost free.

coylemj · 11-09-2018 5:54pm

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Trump advocating public transport is about as likely as a fish getting out of the sea Lough next to me and hopping up on a bicycle.

I was alluding to Trump's propensity for picking figures out of the air. Which you did with that graphic.

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

I haven’t done a Due Dilligence on those figures. I might in a few years when I don’t have to do my present job and can get a commission to do so. It is though an interesting perspective on the received wisdom here that roads and private cars are cost free.

So you splash up a heap of numbers to expose a 'fallacy', yet you're not prepared to say where the numbers came from? That's hardly surprising considering you plucked the graphic from the source, dumped it onto an image sharing website and that's the link you posted, thereby ensuring that we can't see where it came from.

Due diligence me arse.

gozunda · 11-09-2018 5:55pm

coylemj wrote: »

No, just someone with a balanced viewpoint and who doesn't favour one form of transport over another.

Do you have a source you'd like to quote for the numbers in the graphic above? I'm curious as to how they got a figure of £54 billion as the 'cost' of air pollution caused by road transport. Congestion ..... £20 billion? Sure why not - it's a nice round number. Trump couldn't do better.

Not you then?

coylem wrote:

With or without the FTP subvention, no line in the country is commercially viable.
If the criteria for opening up a new route is is simply 'social viability' then surely a bus service would have sufficed? At a considerably lower cost.

coylemj · 11-09-2018 6:03pm

gozunda wrote: »

Not you then?

Your viewpoint is not compromised by stating facts. No railway line in this country is commercially viable in that it cannot make a profit. Even the biggest rail zealot has to agree that that is true.

Which does not mean that I want subventions reduced or lines closed, I'm all for rail travel. But I also want decisions made based on realistic projections and not fiction.

gozunda · 11-09-2018 6:15pm

coylemj wrote: »

Your viewpoint is not compromised by stating facts. No railway line in this country is commercially viable in that it cannot make a profit. Even the biggest rail zealot has to agree that that is true.

Which does not mean that I want subventions reduced or lines closed, I'm all for rail travel. But I also want decisions made based on realistic projections and not fiction.

Roads and motorways are also subvented and subsidised - or is that an inconvient truth?

It's just that from your comments you don't appear to have any balanced viewpoint but favour one form of transport over the other ...

Lord Glentoran · 11-09-2018 6:15pm

coylemj wrote: »

I was alluding to Trump's propensity for picking figures out of the air. Which you did with that graphic.

So you splash up a heap of numbers to expose a 'fallacy', yet you're not prepared to say where the numbers came from? That's hardly surprising considering you plucked the graphic from the source, dumped it onto an image sharing website and that's the link you posted, thereby ensuring that we can't see where it came from.

Due diligence me arse.

Dearie me. I would have given you links but Google is your friend. It isn’t exactly hidden.

end of the road · 11-09-2018 6:54pm

Del2005 wrote: »

Where's the comparison between a railway line running on subsidies and FTP users only? Every taxpayer in the country is paying for the railway line that no one uses. The money wasted on the WRC could have improved public transport for thousands if invested in our cities, but instead we pay for a line no one uses if they have to pay with their own money.

except they are using it. and nobody has been able to say if and who are or aren't either fair paying or ftp holding passengers. if you are talking about the building costs, then that might have brought a bit of improvement elsewhere but i'd imagine not very much. if you are refering to the running cost, then it might have got you the cost of pelletstown.

coylemj · 11-09-2018 7:49pm

gozunda wrote: »

Roads and motorways are also subvented and subsidised - or is that an inconvient truth?

Did I ever hint or suggest that they were not? No, but go ahead and throw mud if it helps you convince yourself that I'm biased against railways.

gozunda wrote: »

It's just that from your comments you don't appear to have either a balanced viewpoint but favour one form of transport over the other ...

And you do have a balance viewpoint? When, without the slightest hint of irony, you quote a report commissioned by a public transport lobby as if it's hard evidence for your case, whatever it is.

gozunda · 11-09-2018 8:07pm

coylemj wrote: »

Did I ever hint or suggest that they were not? No, but go ahead and throw mud if it helps you convince yourself that I'm biased against railways.
And you do have a balance viewpoint? When, without the slightest hint of irony, you quote a report commissioned by a public transport lobby as if it's hard evidence for your case, whatever it is.

I strongly disagree. Your previous post used the subvention of railways as a negative over and above road based transport - which recieved none of the same criticism. Perhaps if you are really interested in balance you could provide a source that argues against the points laid out in the linked rail report. No? I guess that's where the lack of balance comes in ....

coylemj · 11-09-2018 8:16pm

gozunda wrote: »

I strongly disagree. Your previous post used the subvention of railways as a negative over and above road based transport ...

What you are engaged in now is a classic case of 'whataboutery' which proves that you have run out of material and are now simply making stuff up.

Goodbye.

gozunda · 11-09-2018 8:59pm

coylemj wrote: »

What you are engaged in now is a classic case of 'whataboutery' which proves that you have run out of material and are now simply making stuff up.

Goodbye.

Well it would be good if you could at least engage in the discussion. But no worries. Take care ...

Del.Monte · 11-09-2018 9:01pm

Del2005 wrote: »

Where's the comparison between a railway line running on subsidies and FTP users only? Every taxpayer in the country is paying for the railway line that no one uses. The money wasted on the WRC could have improved public transport for thousands if invested in our cities, but instead we pay for a line no one uses if they have to pay with their own money.

Just repeating the same old claptrap often enough does not make it true. The WRC carried more than 350,000 passengers last year - that's a lot of FTP users and up 57% on 2011 figures. I'll put the official piece from the Irish Times here tomorrow.

Also, extending the route only as far as Tuam rather than Claremorris will be an expensive mistake in much the same way as only reopening Cobh Jn. to Midleton instead of the whole route to Youghal.

Del2005 · 12-09-2018 12:18am

Del.Monte wrote: »

Just repeating the same old claptrap often enough does not make it true. The WRC carried more than 350,000 passengers last year - that's a lot of FTP users and up 57% on 2011 figures. I'll put the official piece from the Irish Times here tomorrow.

Also, extending the route only as far as Tuam rather than Claremorris will be an expensive mistake in much the same way as only reopening Cobh Jn. to Midleton instead of the whole route to Youghal.

One section that serves two major urban areas carried 350k, the rest carried 150k.

The whole line is an expensive mistake and throwing more money at it will be a bigger mistake. If the money wasted on it had been spend in Galway, Cork or any of our cities it would have provided a much better service to the public.

Bray Head · 12-09-2018 1:20pm

coylemj wrote: »

Your viewpoint is not compromised by stating facts. No railway line in this country is commercially viable in that it cannot make a profit. Even the biggest rail zealot has to agree that that is true.

But some subsidies are orders of magnitude greater than others. Each DART journey requires a subsidy of about €1 per passenger. It is something like €400 on Limerick to Ballybrophy.

I reckon you could make the DART break even if you priced the hell out of passengers and closed the Howth branch.

I am not saying this should be done. It's just that saying "all rail lines make losses" hides a multitude.

dermo888 · 19-09-2018 11:53am

'It is something like €400 on Limerick to Ballybrophy'
Thats mainly due to the financial structuring of the accounts. Its a line that has high fixed costs. If they improved the service and the frequency and the speeds, that would rapidly DROP. Besides, any kind of rail based subsidy should be calculated on the lowest common denominator which is per passenger kilometre, thats the global rail accounting metric.

Bray Head · 19-09-2018 1:14pm

dermo888 wrote: »

'It is something like €400 on Limerick to Ballybrophy'
Thats mainly due to the financial structuring of the accounts. Its a line that has high fixed costs. If they improved the service and the frequency and the speeds, that would rapidly DROP. Besides, any kind of rail based subsidy should be calculated on the lowest common denominator which is per passenger kilometre, thats the global rail accounting metric.

I double checked the Roland Berger report in the 2016 Rail Review Report. It's in Appendix 6 and has a very nice methodology for allocating costs across routes.

Per passenger subsidy is €551 on Limerick Ballybrophy! This could even go up if frequency increased due to rolling stock, staff and fuel costs!

Out of interest, per passenger subsidy is €44 on Limerick-Galway route.

Looks like I've to apologise to West on Track

Comments