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

Maskhadov · 20-03-2006 9:36am #1

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

Treacy Hogan

Environment

Correspondent

HIGH-SPEED trains travelling at 200kmh will cut the Dublin-Cork journey to just two hours.

Passengers can look forward to at least 30 minutes being slashed from the trip.

CIE chairman, John Lynch, last week ordered Iarnrod Eireann chiefs to activate the radical plan.

A €117m fleet of new trains will come into service on the Dublin-Cork route in coming weeks, clearing the way for an hourly service in each direction by the end of the year.

Replaced

Some 100 miles of track is being replaced for the project.

The current maximum speeds on the route are 160kmh with a best journey time of two hours 30 minutes.

The plan involves significant changes to the infrastructure and to the powering of trains on the route.

Under the scheme, traditional locomotive-hauling, which will operate the new fleet this year, would be upgraded to twin lightweight power cars, operating at either end of the train.

This technology has recently been adopted by some rail operators in the UK and elsewhere, with notable success.

Not only would twin power cars deliver a boost to speed and journey time, but reliability would also improve dramatically.

To facilitate the increased speeds envisaged, a number of infrastructure initiatives are involved.

Iarnrod Eireann proposes to make a number of improvements to the line, including:

* Track renewal of 100 miles of track.

* Elimination of a number of level crossings.

* Realignment of certain sections of curved track.

* Renewal of signalling and train protection systems.

Currently, 160kph operation covers approximately 25pc of the Dublin-Cork route.

The infrastructure plans would see 200kmh adopted in the link between Clondalkin, Co Dublin and Limerick Junction, over 62pc of the route distance.

Barry Kenny, Iarnrod Eireann spokesperson, said yesterday: "The Cork-Dublin route is our flagship Intercity route, with almost 4,000,000 passenger journeys annually today."

Target

He added: "Improving speeds is the next target, to extend still further our speed advantage over road transport."

Mr Kenny told the Irish Independent that no other mode of transport would rival the new project.

"A two-hour city centre to city centre journey time would simply be impossible for any other transport mode in this country to even come close to matching," he said.

Detailed feasibility work is to be undertaken this year to establish likely costs and timescales for the plan.
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1583608&issue_id=13822

This is outstanding !!

Great news

Trampas · 20-03-2006 11:01am

How much will the fare go up by though??

Slice · 20-03-2006 11:47am

I'm not sure if this a reflection on IE or Translink but I remember reading a report on the then planned introduction of the Dublin-Belfast intercity Enterprise service that projected journey times between the two cities to be 1hr 40 minutes - but this never transpired and travel times between the two cities on Enterprise still take well over two hours.

MarkoP11 · 20-03-2006 12:08pm

Dublin Belfast got down to 1:51 for a while (its now 1:55/2:05) the non stop 100mph timing was never realised as they never spent the money to allow the increase from 90mph to 100mph to make it happen (more NIR than IE at fault as they still have a fair bit of 70mph), its a bit like the 2:15 Dublin Cork promise of 1986. Translink are now talking about going 125mph as well

Fares will go up 3-5% per year as before as the DoT control them not IE, off peak fares are going to fall next year if you book in advance, well so they say.

Its about time, the first 200km/h coaches entered service in May 1984, and where tested in Ireland at 200km/h

murphaph · 20-03-2006 12:29pm

I have never believed anything more than 125mph would be required here (TGV is 186mph in service IIRC) as our land mass (and the centre island nature of the principal destination-Dublin) would never see the advantages of 186mph style trains given the relatively short distance journeys that IC trains make here.

125mph is perfect IMO. My only quandry is why stop at Limerick Junction? Take it on to Cork and why start at Clondalkin? Surely if the bar has been set for the route then the Kildare Route Project should ensure 125mph from the start gate at Heuston, not a few miles out the road at Clondalkin!

These two measures would further slash the journey time to well under 2 hrs, the road alternative would never be able to compete, regardless of motorways and that's what we need.

If this is the new way forward, then I'm pleased. I'd hope any works on the upgrade would be carried out in such a way to make later electrification straightforward. In fairness to IE they have always done this in the past.

If they could get complete 125mph running Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Belfast it would pave the way for Cork-Belfast direct via the Phoenix Park Tunnel. It might be possible to do it in 4.5 hrs, which might suit many business travellers as they can work onboard and it's city centre to city centre travel. A long long way off no doubt, but a possibility perhaps. Would probably require quading the northern line out beyond Howth Junction at least to make it viable.

How come Dr. Lynch gets to make all these grand plans? Where are IE management in all this?

Maskhadov · 20-03-2006 4:27pm

i said on previous threads that IE should buy new locos as it would really increase the speed of services on the Cork Dublin line. Someone flamed the rear end off me. I knew I was correct. Those old minging 201's (or whatever they are called) are passed it and we need new ones.

Some people were laughing their heads off at a 200kmph service or a TGV/ICE but we could actually do with it and it would be very pratical.

Lennoxschips · 20-03-2006 5:05pm

i believe you were suggesting that we should build a new dedicated TGV line from scratch

i suggested that the current alignment be upgraded for higher speeds

what does the article say?

Chris_533976 · 20-03-2006 5:25pm

Perhaps the train will now ACTUALLY BE ON TIME, rather than arriving in Cork half an hour late each time.

with a current best journey time of two hours 30 minutes.

2 1/2 hours to get to Cork on the train? Takes at least 3.

BendiBus · 20-03-2006 5:37pm

Maskhadov wrote:

i said on previous threads that IE should buy new locos as it would really increase the speed of services on the Cork Dublin line. Someone flamed the rear end off me. I knew I was correct. Those old minging 201's (or whatever they are called) are passed it and we need new ones.

Some people were laughing their heads off at a 200kmph service or a TGV/ICE but we could actually do with it and it would be very pratical.

I believe the argument was that there was no point in faster locos as the speed restrictions on the line was the limiting factor. This is still the case and you'll notice that this proposal greatly reduces the number of speed restrictions. I'm sure the mathematics was explained.

Maskhadov · 20-03-2006 5:39pm

well i was backing both TGV/ICE or upgrading the existing rail service to 200Kmph. TGV/ICE would be completely seperate guage and thus could be built to European standards..

The service to Belfast should get a similar 200kmph overhaul.

murphaph · 20-03-2006 6:08pm

Maskhadov wrote:

The service to Belfast should get a similar 200kmph overhaul.

Agreed, wonder would it qualify for TEN funding. Most of the bad bendy bits are up north though, so unless the EU is willing to stump up some cash, it might not be a runner. 125mph Dublin-Belfast would be very good though.

John R · 21-03-2006 1:42am

The most telling part of that article is this line:

Detailed feasibility work is to be undertaken this year to establish likely costs and timescales for the plan.

No fear of any improvements in the near future then, 10 years minimum I'd say.

Transport21 Fan · 21-03-2006 2:35am

Can you only imagine the "stress" the unions will have over that.

What's the story with the new Dublin-Cork half pointy coaches then? Seem to be taken really long to enter service.

Solair · 21-03-2006 3:20am

Well the new coaches are 200km/h capable so it's just a case of ordering several sets of new pointy ends complete with light-weight high speed engines inside. The coaches will happily run at 125mph (200km/h).

You'll prob. see a new fleet of power cars that look almost identical to the current DVTs. There would be very little logic in changing the design, it's quite well styled. One will go at either end of the train. It'll look a lot nicer to have a point at either end rather than a boxy general purpose locomotive at one end and a pointy driving van at the other.

There's nothing particularly new about this sort of technology. In fact, it's just a modern version of the Intercity 125s that have operated in Britain since the 1970s. The existing Cork-Dublin fleet (The orange mark 3 coaches) are derived from this design.

It's a very successful sollution and has worked extremely well in the UK. Two light engines, one at each end, gives you excellent accelleration and spreads the weight over more axels thus reducing track wear. It also improves reliability as if one engine should fail, you can still continue on, albeit with poor accelleration.

IE's Intercity 200 will benefit from more modern computer controls, a wider variety of engines and 30 years of technologicial progress. There are many more high powered DMU trains on the rails around Europe thesedays which means that there are many efficient, fast, light engines out there to pick from.

If it works, CAF may end up with a nice off-the-shelf design suitable for 200km/h+ intercity use across europe.

The existing DVTs will be kinda wasted, however it's possible that they could be adapted to work with MK3 coaches to produce a nice intercity push-pull capable of 90mph that could be used to suplement the enterprise.
Worst case scenario, IE end up with a few useless DVTs sitting at inchicore.

I donno what they'll do with the pool of 201 locos that's going to be left as within 10 years almost no passenger trains, apart from the enteprise, will require them!

It's a *VERY* cost-effective way of upgrading the country's busiest and most profitable rail route and will give air a major run for its money. I suspect that IE had this planned all along somehow and simply wern't given the appropriate funding. It seemed a bit odd to buy high-spec 200km/h coaches to have them hauled by existing engines.

dowlingm · 21-03-2006 5:17am

more likely the DVTs will end up on Enterprise I'd say.

Victor · 22-03-2006 12:40am

Transport21 Fan wrote:

Can you only imagine the "stress" the unions will have over that.

Hmmmm, it would require fewer trains ....

What's the story with the new Dublin-Cork half pointy coaches then?

It's OK, photos of ministers will only ever be taken at the pointy end. :rolleyes:

Transport21 Fan · 22-03-2006 10:31am

As a former rail lobbist, I simply could no longer defend a semi-state company which brings in projects "on time and under budget" and then after the initial launch with Dr John Lynch and some Minister waving to the media, they fail to fullfill their promise. New gear and kit is not enough.

The Enterprise is a classic example of this. We were told it would be a world class service and indeed Barry Kenny still uses the term to highlight the magnificent status of the Enterprise. The reality is the Enterprise is mediocre at best and has carried surprisingly few passengers in the years it has been around because it is too slow and unreliable. The new gear and kit failed to deliver.

No doubt this latest announcement, will on a superfical level seem great and will of course come in "on time and under budget", but in terms of providing the service, will like all of Irish Rail's other products fail miserably. Naturally there will be expensive TV ads showing trains pointy on both ends (when they are are not) and Craig Doyle walking into a station which does not exsist in this country (let alone on the IE network).

The Interconnector likewise will fail to deliver it promise, just like the Passenger Information Systems on trains and stations which get installed at great expense and are either switched off or not connected up after three years. Just like the "inter-City" 2900 on the Sligo route...just like all the new gear and kit which CIE engineers love to order and CIE management place into service with great fanfare before the unions operate when then feel like it.

For too long CIE railways has used this "on time and under budget" clause to distract from the real truth that they run a terrible service. After the money has been spent on the flashy new kit and gear it all falls apart in the most shoddy and badly managed way.

Unless that changes - the RPA and privatisation is the answer.

Chris_533976 · 22-03-2006 1:28pm

Best post in the thread so far. Words of wisdom.

Take another example of stupid incompetance.

On the Cork-Cobh train there were a group of Americans last summer. They were looking at one of the ads in huge letters on paper on the wall of the train.

"TAKE THIS TRAIN TO THE AIRPORT!!!! DART TO DUBLIN AIRPORT JUST €5!" or something like that with a different price.

Yes those American tourists did geniunly think that the Cork-Cobh train did go to the airport.

Usually I'd say this is American dumbass, but this case I reckon its more CIE being a bunch of morons to put a sign advertising the Dart to Dublin Airport on a small suburban rail link in Cork.

Raskolnikov · 22-03-2006 1:54pm

Chris_533976 wrote:

Perhaps the train will now ACTUALLY BE ON TIME, rather than arriving in Cork half an hour late each time.

2 1/2 hours to get to Cork on the train? Takes at least 3.

Three hours ten minutes yesterday. 20 minutes late.

In fairness, the express 2hr 30 mins service is usually on time.

paulm17781 · 22-03-2006 2:34pm

Chris_533976 wrote:

Usually I'd say this is American dumbass, but this case I reckon its more CIE being a bunch of morons to put a sign advertising the Dart to Dublin Airport on a small suburban rail link in Cork.

To top it off the DART doesn't even go to the airport, you could get a bus from one or two stations. False advertising me thinks.

probe · 22-03-2006 10:57pm

About time they electrified the third world Dublin-Cork line while they are at it. The country’s transportation infrastructure is more open to oil risks than any other in Europe.

km of rail network electrified:

Ireland 55
Luxembourg 262
Norway 2,518
Switzerland 3,140
Sweden 7,644
Skovakia 2,059
Latvia 258
Denmark 613
Austria 3,545
Slovenia 504

http://www.uic.asso.fr/download.php/stats/synth2004.xls

Electric is faster, quieter, accellerates faster out of a station, is smog-free, and can run on wind, wave, tidal, photovoltaic, hydro, gas, oil, coal, etc

probe

paulm17781 · 22-03-2006 11:04pm

probe wrote:

Electric is faster, quieter, accellerates faster out of a station, is smog-free, and can run on wind, wave, tidal, photovoltaic, hydro, gas, oil, coal, etc

What do they use to generate electricity in this country?

BendiBus · 23-03-2006 12:16am

paulm17781 wrote:

What do they use to generate electricity in this country?

According to Duncan on the RTE environment programme this evening we get 3% of our electricity from wind! DART is gas powered by Energia(Viridian). But Airtricity could bid when the next contract comes up.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2005/0218/energia.html

SeanW · 23-03-2006 12:23am

probe wrote:

km of rail network electrified:

Ireland 55
Luxembourg 262

Holy crap !! :eek: Luxemburg is so small it could probably fit into half an average Irish county ...

According to Duncan on the RTE environment programme this evening we get 3% of our electricity from wind! DART is gas powered by Energia(Viridian). But Airtricity could bid when the next contract comes up.

I'd say there's a good bit coming from Hydro-electric stations as well.

BendiBus · 23-03-2006 12:27am

SeanW wrote:

I'd say there's a good bit coming from Hydro-electric stations as well.

I think we're about 95% fossil-fuelled (according to the Airtricity website) so no more than 2% hydro in that case.

MarkoP11 · 23-03-2006 1:15am

Modern diesel powered units can match electric units in acceleration, a voyager diesel unit does 0-60 mph in 60 seconds, its electric cousin the Pendelino has the same stats. Just to rub it in the fastest (non international) station to station timing in the UK is a diesel powered train running on a line which is electrified.

Unless you have a serious high frequency service electrification is not justifiable, the service frequency Port Laois Cork is at most 2 trains per hour from next year, you could get away with single track beyond Limerick Junc. It gets worse the bulk of trains on the Dublin Cork are not going to Cork there going to Tralee, Limerick. Galway, Westport, Waterford thus few could operate electrically making the investment rather inefficient.

What people don't realise that in energy used there is little to choose between electric and diesel, power stations are at best 40% efficient so while an electric train in terms of energy consumed is more efficient the amount of actual energy used to create the electricity is roughly the same as a diesel powered train.

Unless we come up with a way of generating electricity without relying on fossil fuels at a cost lower than fossil fuels diesel will rule

The game plan in Irish Rail is to watch what the UK do as the UK operators are in the final throws of specifying a 125 mph non titling diesel powered train, it effectively a HST

They have no plan its just the usual pr rubbish to make it sound like they are doing something, a basic bit of focused track work at handful of locations would chop times for little cost

Victor · 23-03-2006 3:11am

MarkoP11 wrote:

Unless you have a serious high frequency service electrification is not justifiable, the service frequency Port Laois Cork is at most 2 trains per hour from next year, you could get away with single track beyond Limerick Junc. It gets worse the bulk of trains on the Dublin Cork are not going to Cork there going to Tralee, Limerick. Galway, Westport, Waterford thus few could operate electrically making the investment rather inefficient.

When DART was being electrified, the economics were 30 trains per day. I don't know if that was one- or two-way.

positron · 23-03-2006 10:33am

probe wrote:

About time they electrified the third world Dublin-Cork line while they are at it.

km of rail network electrified:

Ireland 55
Luxembourg 262
Norway 2,518
Switzerland 3,140
Sweden 7,644
Skovakia 2,059
Latvia 258
Denmark 613
Austria 3,545
Slovenia 504
...

India 16,000 (of the total 63,028 km). ( source)

Just thought I would point that out!

Metrobest · 23-03-2006 10:41am

probe wrote:

About time they electrified the third world Dublin-Cork line while they are at it. The country’s transportation infrastructure is more open to oil risks than any other in Europe.

km of rail network electrified:

Ireland 55
Luxembourg 262
Norway 2,518
Switzerland 3,140
Sweden 7,644
Skovakia 2,059
Latvia 258
Denmark 613
Austria 3,545
Slovenia 504

http://www.uic.asso.fr/download.php/stats/synth2004.xls

Electric is faster, quieter, accellerates faster out of a station, is smog-free, and can run on wind, wave, tidal, photovoltaic, hydro, gas, oil, coal, etc

probe

That's a truly shocking statistic.

We should really electrify the Cork-Dublin and Dublin-Galway lines as a national priority. When the motorways to Dublin are fully built shedloads of train passengers will switch to cars and buses. A juddery diesel train making cups of coffee rattle and carriages vibrate is not desirable in one of the world's most successful economies.

We do not need a HST - that is only needed for super-long distances where the train must compete with the train. The island is too small to justify the expense. And the population dispersion and scale would make it uneconomic.

But there is definately a case for electrifying the existing lines so that journey times can be more reliable and passengers more comfortable. Electric trains are far more pleasant to travel on than diesel. In terms of passenger comfort the DART shames its cousin, the Arrow. And in an era where perception is all-important, passengers view an electrified line as significantly more reliable than a diesel one.

Bill McH · 23-03-2006 11:34am

probe wrote:

km of rail network electrified:

Ireland 55

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.

probe · 23-03-2006 11:44am

paulm17781 wrote:

What do they use to generate electricity in this country?

The world doesn't stand still. We have a 12% EU renewable energy requirement for 2010. And that is only a starting point. Neither you nor the government nor anyone else can escape the fact that oil is running out. Those supplies that remain come increasingly from unstable parts of the world. Bush's ill-fated power/oil grab in Iraq shows how helpless they are at "fixing" things.

Norway, which has large hydro-electric power generating facilities, is building electricity interconnecters to mainland Europe (eg Netherlands) so that it can import electricity during periods of low rainfall.

No doubt in time, Ireland will wake up to the fact that it will have to build interconnectors to France over which it can export offshore wind (and other renewably) generated power and import French electricity during periods of low wind. (90% of France's electricity supply is either hydro or nuclear).

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.

Energy prices will be rising at ever increasing rates as hydrocarbons dry up, exacerbated by growth in demand in China, India and other developing countries as oil resources shrink. Ireland is the most exposed country in Europe on the energy front. Which is laughable given the renewable energy potential of the island, if it were not so serious. Given the length of time everything infrastructural takes to achieve in the country, it is probably already too late

Probe

paulm17781 · 23-03-2006 1:45pm

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.

MarkoP11 · 23-03-2006 3:31pm

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

probe · 23-03-2006 6:06pm

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

paulm17781 · 23-03-2006 6:29pm

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.

probe · 23-03-2006 9:30pm

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

SeanW · 23-03-2006 9:34pm

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

dowlingm · 23-03-2006 9:41pm

The first prototype TGV was gas turbine powered

Bombardier will sell you a jettrain if you're interested

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.

A Dub in Glasgo · 24-03-2006 12:19am

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

MarkoP11 · 24-03-2006 1:14am

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

dowlingm · 24-03-2006 6:17am

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?

murphaph · 24-03-2006 10:06am

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.

probe · 24-03-2006 10:31am

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

dowlingm · 24-03-2006 6:26pm

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.

Victor · 24-03-2006 8:37pm

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.

murphaph · 24-03-2006 8:46pm

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.

SeanW · 24-03-2006 9:28pm

(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.

probe · 24-03-2006 10:21pm

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

evilhomer · 24-03-2006 10:40pm

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.

murphaph · 24-03-2006 10:40pm

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.

SeanW · 24-03-2006 11:20pm

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.

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

Comments