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

Dublin-Cork to take just two hours on 200kmh train

24

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,858 ✭✭✭paulm17781


    probe wrote:
    The world doesn't stand still. We have a 12% EU renewable energy requirement for 2010. <snip>

    No point using the environmental argument when 95% of our energy is from fossil fuels. When we can stop relying on oil it is worth looking at. In our current state (and frequency of trains as Mark said) it is pointless.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,331 ✭✭✭MarkoP11


    There is no business case for electrifcation, Mallow Limerick Junction currently is 8 passenger trains each way on a normal weekday, it becomes 14 each way next year. The DART logic was based on a increase in demand from 2000 per hour to 7000 which was achieved, thats 14,000 in total as northside and southside are considered. So number wise Dublin Cork currently moves in a day half of what the DART does in an hour. Ever other route is low frequency over single track so there is no justification

    Depending on who you talk to rail has between 30 and 50% market share Dublin Cork so it would appear that there is no justification to spend heaps of money on electrification when the same benefits can be delivered quicker and at lower capital and operating costs by the proven diesel power solution, that could be bio diesel if such was available thus it can run off renewable energy.

    As with many things the bulk of the benefits can be had by spending a small amount of money on specific issues, this talk of going to 200kph is quite premature as 160kph is still only possible on a fraction of the route, the time gained from going faster is disproportionate, say an increase from 60 to 70mph has a much larger impact than going from 90 to 100mph. Basics first dreams later, passengers are not impressed by heaps of investment they are impressed with service improvements that they can use

    I just can't envisage a need, much better off electrifying the heavy suburban routes such as Drogheda Balbriggan Dublin (Drogheda Balbriggan was dropped because the Dublin Transport Office vetoed it) The only intercity line that has any chance is Dublin Belfast by virtue of the heavy commuter usage at both ends

    The HST concept was developed in the UK in 1972 for medium to long distance intercity services, its quite tame in performance terms, 200kph 4000hp it is smooth after all it is an electric transmission. There is no vibration, the ride and passenger experience in a coach is the same regardless of what is pulling it. IE are not looking at a underfloor engine solution neither are the serious UK operators they are about to go out to tender so its a case of sit back and let them do the tricky and expensive R&D

    It cost terms there is little between electric and diesel power and there is nothing stopping you from having the ability to run on diesel and overhead. The first prototype TGV was gas turbine powered they went electric since France had a large cheap supply of electrical power we don't

    The raw energy required is roughly the same as power generation from fossil fuels is incredibly inefficient typically only 40% unless its one of the new combiend cycle gas plants so the environmental benefits are not as big as some may think
    probe wrote:
    Electrification is not a project that can be done overnight. But if it isn't in the plan, new roads will continue to be built over railway lines with insufficient clearance for electrification, just like they did in the 18th century.
    Total bull. New bridges built over railway lines are designed to allow for later electrification, note the M50 bridge in Dublin built in the late 1980's was built wide enough for 4 tracks and tall enough for electrification. Same goes for the M1 and proposed M3. Have a look at the bridge in Maynooth station it was replaced one of sufficent clearance. It has been standard policy since the mid 1980's on most primary rail routes, most of the more recent are designed to allow for double decker trains. First railway opened in Ireland in the 19th century, 1834 and the one and only bridge over the line is still in place unmodified from 1834

    Unless someone comes up with a cheap plentiful and reliable source of electricity there will be no electrification beyond suburban areas


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭probe


    paulm17781 wrote:
    No point using the environmental argument when 95% of our energy is from fossil fuels. When we can stop relying on oil it is worth looking at. In our current state (and frequency of trains as Mark said) it is pointless.


    I regret to say that your head is in the sand with the other rail anoraks!

    Ireland has no choice but to stop its reliance in fossil fuels. Sweden has announced this target for 2020*. One third of Ireland's electricity could come from offshore wind alone within 10 years – backed up by two interconnectors to the Continent which would be exporting and importing power to balance demand and provide system reliability.

    Norway is the most hydrocarbon rich country in Europe. Yet the Norwegian government has put Britain on notice that it will not be in a position to export gas to GB within seven years - about the same date as Britain's own reserves are totally depleted. The shortage has started already. Retail gas prices have been increased twice in England since January 2006 by several gas suppliers – some as much as 30%. In less than three months.

    Ireland has about 95,000 km of roads. How much of the road network is "profitable" in terms of vehicles use every day? They are part of the national infrastructure. The same goes for rail. There are thousands of km of electrified railway routes on the continent that carry only a handful of trains a day. Ireland has a higher population density than many of the countries with several thousand km of electrified rail - eg Finland with 20 people per km2 compared with IRL's 60 people - Finland has 2,619 km of electrified rail.

    Build a good quality railway network and people will use it in large numbers, instead of the car or air transport.

    Brussels > Paris used to have one or two flights per hour between the cities. Since they upgraded the rail service between the cities to TGV, there is only one flight per day!

    If the population and economic expansion in Ireland predicted in recent economic reports covering the period to 2020 comes to pass, Ireland will become unliveable in terms of congestion, cost of transport and resulting quality of life.

    Petrol cost about 5c per litre in 1960 in Ireland - now it is 105c - a 21 fold increase during an era of expanding oil production. In an environment of declining production and 2 bn people in Asia being able to afford an automobile for the first time it may go up 40 fold over the next 40 years - i.e. over €40 per litre! Great fun if you live in a house in KE, WW, MH, LH, or CW and have to drive to Dublin every day, IDT.

    There is an enormous opportunity for a high quality electrified rail service if only people would wake up and smell the coffee!

    *http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/3212/a/51058

    probe


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,858 ✭✭✭paulm17781


    probe wrote:
    I regret to say that your head is in the sand with the other rail anoraks!

    Hypocrasy if ever I saw it. I am being realistic. Until Ireland's dependace on fossil fuels is reduced there is no point electrifying lines. The only people with their heads in the sand, are those who realistically think Ireland will meet it's Kyoto targets on time.*

    *Elecrifying rail lines won't help until there is enough non-fossil based power.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭probe


    Bill McH wrote:
    55 km seems like rather a high figure for Greystones to Howth/Malahide. I wonder is the real figure 27.5 km and then it gets doubled because there's two tracks.

    The figure looks correct according to my map (they haven't doubled it). Greystones is a long way down!

    probe


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,628 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Don't forget about the Luas, 14km Red and 9km Green. That leaves 30 km for the DART Greystones to Malahide and Howth.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    The first prototype TGV was gas turbine powered

    Bombardier will sell you a jettrain if you're interested :D:D:D
    they went electric since France had a large cheap supply of electrical power we don't

    Here's an example of France's cheap supply of electrical power. Needless to say we'll be a long time waiting for that in Ireland.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,935 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    dowlingm wrote:

    Here's an example of France's cheap supply of electrical power. Needless to say we'll be a long time waiting for that in Ireland.

    Nuclear whole life costs are far from cheap


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,331 ✭✭✭MarkoP11


    51km is the route length of DART, 55km is the full extent of the track, there being sections extending for a km or so beyond the termini. Total is about 95km all in

    Let see

    Journey time by mid range 200 kph trains would be similar for electric and diesel
    While the electric option uses less energy at the point of use the total energy expended to provide that energy costs roughly the same as the diesel option but electric has a slight edge
    The fuel cost is quite comparable so
    We have no heavy haul freight where electric trains rule
    The infrastructure upgrade cost for track is equal for both, ruling axle load of 17 tons is the high speed standard, UK HST is 17 as is TGV
    The infrastructure upgrade cost for signalling is greater for electric, EMI issues
    The infrastructure upgrade for civil works is greater for electric, bridges but can be reduced by passive provision of improved clearances as is policy anyway
    The infrastructure maintenance cost is greater for electric, overhead wires substations etc

    So in summary
    There is no operational benefit from going electric at moderate speeds
    There is no passenger impact or benefit, the essential SFE* is present anyway
    Energy usage is roughly the same under current conditions
    It costs a lot more to build and run an electric railway
    The basic result is unless you don't already have an electrified line you stay diesel until the costs turn in favour
    Unless you have the scale eg TGV 16 coach double deck trains at 3-5 minute intervals the costs

    Given the money for the upgrade IE want doesn't exist its all academic

    * SFE Shinny front end


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    dub in glasgow - I know that, but obviously the french don't care.

    MarkoP11 - are electric locos lighter than diesels for the same power, given no combustion chambers, no exhaust, no fuel storage?

    Also - how is HEP managed in these dual diesel power cars?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    As regards the whole-life cost of conventional nuclear power generation, some believe that it at least breaks even with large scal fossil production, and that includes decommissioning costs. I'm unsure myself, it's a very complex issue. Fossil stations may well have more labour intensive maintenance regimes than nuclear ones. The French seem entirely happy they went virtually all nuclear in the 50's, but i think to reap the rewards of nuclear you have to go all out and get some economy of scale in the construction costs and build a large domestic knowledge base like the French have done. I would imagine the UK way of dotting a nuclear station here and there (often all different in design) is a very expensive way of doing it but the French have many identical reactors which would have cut design costs (and probably sped up construction as the contractors knew exactly what they had to do each time).

    I remain open minded on nuclear. I definitely believe the world would be in a better place had fossil fuels never been discovered and nuclear energy developed to make all the world's electricity. I'd take nuclear waste we can at least partially contain in a remote corner of the planet (or in space) over the trillions of tonnes of uncontrollable C02 etc. that's been released into the atmosphere.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭probe


    dowlingm wrote:
    Here's an example of France's cheap supply of electrical power. Needless to say we'll be a long time waiting for that in Ireland.

    No need to wait! You don’t need Irish “planning permission” to run electricity connectors to France (and France is connected to most other grids in Europe). You don’t need to use dozy Irish companies to lay the cables between Ireland and France. The project could be put out to international tender tomorrow.

    According to today’s Irish Times (confirmed by other sources) Ireland has 3 Gw of wind energy power capacity ready to run if they could connect them to the national grid. Work on this has been put on hold by the ESB mafia. Ireland’s peak electricity demand last night was just under 4.5Gw (http://www.eirgrid.com/EirGridPortal/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=System%20Demand%20Curve&TreeLinkModID=1451&TreeLinkItemID=7)

    Irish wind power could be sold on across the Continent and French nuclear power imported into Ireland during times of low wind levels. The abundant availability of cheap electricity would be an added business attraction for Ireland in the international context. The savings on buying Kyoto carbon credits ( pointcarbon.com ) would probably pay for the electricity interconnector in a short period of time.


    probe


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    murphaph

    all true.

    As for electricity interconnection, it seems like a long way to run a cable. The further you go the more likely a break could happen. Interconnecting with UK seems more feasible as I assume they have an onward connector with France via Channel Tunnel.

    Costing the totality of fossil fuel power properly is tricky because a lot of the costs of storing nuclear fuels are known but most ff emissions are discharged without penalty unless greenhouse gas/acid rain charging is implemented.


  • Registered Users Posts: 78,218 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    probe wrote:
    According to today’s Irish Times (confirmed by other sources) Ireland has 3 Gw of wind energy power capacity
    Capability (a wind farm on every hill) doesn't convert to (installed) capacity doesn't convert to avabilable capacity (downtime due to low winds and maintainence).

    Because our need is small compared to our potential capability, our greatest oppurtunity is to export wind energy when its avavilable and import at other times.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    There's already interconnection with the UK mainland via Northern Ireland.

    Link

    I'd say we might see more links put across to Scotland in the future. It's interesting that the interconnector to Scotland is DC.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,628 ✭✭✭SeanW


    (as a semi-environmentalist I don't like to say this) but wind farms may not be the answer long term. Remeber if Global Warming does kill the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic drift, it's likely a major source of winds will die with it. So wind farms near the Altantic may not produce as much power as we expect in say 30 years time.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭probe


    dowlingm wrote:
    murphaph

    all true.

    As for electricity interconnection, it seems like a long way to run a cable. The further you go the more likely a break could happen. Interconnecting with UK seems more feasible as I assume they have an onward connector with France via Channel Tunnel.

    Britain has a growing energy deficit. The coal industry is dead. Most of the new generation capacity is based on North Sea gas which is a very wasteful in terms of energy conversion and is almost spent anyway. The less “sucked dry” Norwegian gas fields Britain now depends on have under a decade to run. Converting gas into electricity is not CO2 free – ie British sourced electricity has a Kyoto carbon price on top – French electricity has almost zero carbon tax (90%) so bringing it to Ireland can contribute to reducing our CO2 levels to below the ceiling at which penalty taxes are payable.

    Britain’s nuclear industry is probably second to Russia in terms of risk. The plant is antiquated and way past its planned useful life. France has huge surpluses of electrical energy, the cheapest electricity in Europe and a well managed industry. Britain is in a state of energy panic in 2006 with shortages driving up prices by 30% or so. Britain has tiny electricity sharing capacity with France.

    The Norway Netherlands interconnector is 580 km long. It operates at 450 kV DC which offers the lowest energy transmission loss over long distances. Cost €550 million. Cork to Brittany is only 470km. As stated previously most if not all the cost of FR-IRL could be covered by Kyoto carbon tax saving over time. At least two interconnectors would be required for security of supply.

    Ireland should be a net green energy exporter – it has far more potential per km2 than anywhere else in Europe. The facilities it uses to transport these exports can act as a backup in the reverse direction during periods of low wind activity. The French grid is the most interconnected with the rest of Europe. The British grid is the least interconnected, and anyway the capacity is fully used importing power from guess where?

    probe


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,464 ✭✭✭evilhomer


    MarkoP11 wrote:
    Energy usage is roughly the same under current conditions
    It costs a lot more to build and run an electric railway
    The basic result is unless you don't already have an electrified line you stay diesel until the costs turn in favour

    Cost of oil purchase will double if not triple in the next 5 years (and that is assuming OPEC are not lying about the amount of oil they have left).

    The costs will turn in favour of Electric fairly rapidly with fuel costs of Diesel (even bio-diesel) to rocket due to kyoto carbon credits and lack of supply of fossil fuels.

    If we wait until the costs start to tip it will be too late, because once we reach peak oil it will be too expensive to build the network (with all the equipment we need to build it running in Diesel!)

    another source

    We have to cop on in this country and not wait until things hit us in the face!
    We should be ahead of the curve for once.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Britain is in the sh!t with energy production alright but their national grid is pretty fine, so why not part fund an additional interconnector to Scotland or Wales and Dover-Calais too. Harness the existing british national grid. The best bit is that 3 nations and the EU would help pay for it all.

    I think that this would suffice if we proceed with clever renewable generation here. We still have vast quantities of untapped hydro/tidal possibilities which can provide power in the absence of wind. We have done virtually nothing to promote private domestic generation in streams /small rivers running by people's property and small wind turbiness. You can sell this energy back to the grid with the right equipment. This equipment should be VAT free at least and ideally attract interest relief on a loan taken out to purchase it.

    There's a lot more we could be doing. We just this week saw sugar beet get the red card when we know it can be processed into bio-ethanol. This was an ideal opportunity to reduce our exposure to foreign fossil fuel, but not for this government.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,628 ✭✭✭SeanW


    We're kinda going off-topic here.

    Bio-diesel will become an answer but Irish Rail won't be able to use B100 in everything, probably just the 1994 201s (provided they're out of warranty) and some of the older DMUs. And even then, they won't be able to use B100 year round as it starts to gel at about 3 or 4 degrees without additives, the most common being kerosene, and lots of it. What's more, at today's rate of development in the Irish bio-fuels sector (nil) there probably won't be any bio-diesel capacity for them anyway.

    The price of oil will skyrocket - eventally it already has gone up sharply in the last decade.

    AFAIK high speed trains use a lot more energy than standard speed/commuter trains. Also, for once Metrobest got it right - an electric train is usually more comfortable than a diesel, unless of course the diesel (MU) is overspec'ed like crazy with soundproofing to dampen boatloads of integrated diesel engine noise and vibration.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭probe


    murphaph wrote:
    Britain is in the sh!t with energy production alright but their national grid is pretty fine, so why not part fund an additional interconnector to Scotland or Wales and Dover-Calais too. Harness the existing british national grid. The best bit is that 3 nations and the EU would help pay for it all.

    I think that this would suffice if we proceed with clever renewable generation here. We still have vast quantities of untapped hydro/tidal possibilities which can provide power in the absence of wind. We have done virtually nothing to promote private domestic generation in streams /small rivers running by people's property and small wind turbiness. You can sell this energy back to the grid with the right equipment. This equipment should be VAT free at least and ideally attract interest relief on a loan taken out to purchase it.

    There's a lot more we could be doing. We just this week saw sugar beet get the red card when we know it can be processed into bio-ethanol. This was an ideal opportunity to reduce our exposure to foreign fossil fuel, but not for this government.


    Why do you want to put yourself at the end of the line? The number one issue is surely security of supply for IRL when the wind isn’t blowing. You must have diversity of supply and backups.

    Britain is heading for almost certain wide scale energy blackouts over the next decade or so, because the raw material they are using for electricity generation is rapidly running out and they have poor (understatement) relationships with the remaining suppliers, and no spare capacity to import. When the crunch comes do you really think that British grid managers are going to press a button to send French electricity to Ireland while causing a blackout in London or Lancashire? In addition with Britain you have the international “terrorism” risk.

    The concept is akin to allowing Aer Lingus to fall into BA’s hands, whereupon most Aer Lingus routes would be shut down as it feeds everyone into the creaking-at-the-seams Heathrow Airport adding several hours, endless agro and waste of energy to everybody’s every journey.

    We do have endless untapped renewable sources in Ireland. If you look at the Pyrenees, they have installed hundreds of small hydro-electric stations which are fed by pipes laid down the mountain-side. Luxembourg is one of the biggest electricity consumers per capita in the world due in part to the presence of the aluminium industry. It is the size of a small Irish county (2587 km2) yet it manages to generate over 70% of its electricity needs from hydro.

    The sugar beet issue has been grossly mismanaged by Ireland and the EU. It is one of the biggest energy crops and they should have created a managed transition from sugar to energy use so that there would be no interruption for the producer. Cars that run on 15% gasoline and 85% ethanol are readily available from European manufacturers. Gross incompetence and cluelessness on their part!

    probe


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭probe


    SeanW wrote:
    We're kinda going off-topic here.

    Bio-diesel will become an answer but Irish Rail won't be able to use B100 in everything, probably just the 1994 201s (provided they're out of warranty) and some of the older DMUs. And even then, they won't be able to use B100 year round as it starts to gel at about 3 or 4 degrees without additives, the most common being kerosene, and lots of it. What's more, at today's rate of development in the Irish bio-fuels sector (nil) there probably won't be any bio-diesel capacity for them anyway.

    The price of oil will skyrocket - eventally it already has gone up sharply in the last decade.

    AFAIK high speed trains use a lot more energy than standard speed/commuter trains. Also, for once Metrobest got it right - an electric train is usually more comfortable than a diesel, unless of course the diesel (MU) is overspec'ed like crazy with soundproofing to dampen boatloads of integrated diesel engine noise and vibration.


    Any type of diesel train (bio or mineral) is noisy and polluting. They often keep the engine running while they are in the station – making the place stink! They have slow acceleration and the general travel experience is poor compared with electric. They are a third world solution to 21st century travel.

    The process of creation of bio diesel creates CO2 and other chemical pollutants which are not created by wind energy running an electric train.

    probe


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭probe


    SeanW wrote:
    (as a semi-environmentalist I don't like to say this) but wind farms may not be the answer long term. Remeber if Global Warming does kill the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic drift, it's likely a major source of winds will die with it. So wind farms near the Altantic may not produce as much power as we expect in say 30 years time.

    Denmark has lots of experience with wind energy and they are heading for 30% of their electricity to come from wind sources. They are very far from the gulf stream influence today. Ditto for Spain which is on course to install 20 Gw wind capacity (almost five times Ireland's peak el. energy demand).

    If the gulf stream stops, it will freeze the balls off you and you will be bloody glad to see wind turbines anywhere you come across them!

    probe


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,464 ✭✭✭evilhomer


    probe wrote:
    If the gulf stream stops, it will freeze the balls off you

    Is that the technical term for that? :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,015 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    probe wrote:
    Why do you want to put yourself at the end of the line? The number one issue is surely security of supply for IRL when the wind isn’t blowing. You must have diversity of supply and backups.

    Britain is heading for almost certain wide scale energy blackouts over the next decade or so, because the raw material they are using for electricity generation is rapidly running out and they have poor (understatement) relationships with the remaining suppliers, and no spare capacity to import. When the crunch comes do you really think that British grid managers are going to press a button to send French electricity to Ireland while causing a blackout in London or Lancashire? In addition with Britain you have the international “terrorism” risk
    I can't realy say I'd agree with most of that. If an interconnector(s) is funded with irish and EU money, any attempt to divert electricity Ieland has purchased from France (these things are all agreed in tenders to begin with) would be simple theft as recently witnessed in he Ukraine with EU bound gas from Russia. The EU would not look favourably on a british government allowing energy theft. It is the sort of scenario that is almost doomsday and we'll probably have much worse things to worry about if it ever came to the UK stealing our energy. I might also point out that France is virtually self sufficient in energy and Britain is far from it, so if we do eventually harness all that hydro, we cannot sell it to the brits through an interconnector to France without another interconnector to Britain anyway. We have an island the size of England with a fraction of the population and way more rainfall, we should be able to sell them a lot of energy in the future (assuming a government eventually realises we MUST start harnessing all that water and wind).


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    One way of storing wind energy is artificial reservoirs supplied by pumps at low-demand times, releasing the water to drive turbines at peak times - ESB does it at Turlough Hill.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,459 ✭✭✭jlang


    They're unlikely to pay for or get planning for another Turlough Hill.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭JackieChan


    This thread has gone way off on a tangent, remember its a post about a high speed rail line and not Britains energy crisis

    Its interesting that some curves are going to be corrected.
    The most severe I know is the curve at the Curragh but they're hardly going to straighten the line at this point.Trains slow to around 70 for this so I don't think it would make sense to spend money on building a new alignment.

    It would be good if they could do something about Portarlington as there is a good run here where the trains have to slow down.

    What other curves do you think need correcting?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭Metrobest


    I think it would be shortsighted to oppose electification of the existing intercity lines as there are longer-term benefits to be gained. The people who oppose electrifying Dublin-Cork are the same who don't want the Dublin metro to be built, or at least did their best to stall the project.

    Most people would accept that electric trains provide an enhanced passenger experience and that is part of the vision of a better train service in Ireland, along with the disbandment of CIE.

    Now, the government has shown some degree of vision in building motorways on the national routes. These are strategic pieces of national infrastructure. While existing traffic volumes would not justify motorway on sections of these routes, the government has taken the longer-term decision that they will be needed in the future. The same mentality should influence a decision over the electrification of Dublin-Cork.

    As for Philip's point about nuclear engergy, I think he is right. A lot of the focus in Ireland is on one or two isolated examples of where nuclear power has not worked. We forget that most developed countries in Europe have nuclear and it works brilliantly for them. Of course, this is all academic. There will never be nuclear in Ireland. If projects like the M3 can cause such controversy, how would a nuclear power plant ever get built?

    SeanW wrote:
    for once Metrobest got it right.

    A backhanded compliment if ever I heard one!


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


    i dont think electrification will happen...they are talking about de-electrifying the east coast main line in the UK as the number of electirc trains using it are declining.....the fixed costs are too great for a low density service such as we would have.....


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement