Does rail transport have a future in Ireland?

end of the road

Judgement Day wrote: »

I genuinely can't be bothered to spend more time on the issue, especially trying to argue the toss with somebody with such a massive anti-rail bias.

ah but, barry kenny isn't anti rail <snip>

end of the road

corktina wrote: »

how long will the Taxpayers who never use a train be prepared to fund the Railways?

as long as they are told they have to, what are they going to do? go protesting about it? doubt it. they will do what most irish do, sit back and moan about it but do nothing.

Del2005

end of the road wrote: »

rubbish, the taxpayer has to pay for the maintaining of the motor ways, more cost then steal tracks.
bus coaches are to slow, horid and will never be sufficient for everyone, spending money on a railway making it faster then the motor way is money well spent. i bet you the likes of todd andrews and doctor beeching came out with the same rubbish, in the case of beeching some of the lines he closed have been re-opened or partly re-opened. if your going to close the rail network most people are just going to go to their cars, why bother with a bus going the exact same way. i'd rather have money spent on railways rather then paying back the gambling debts of private banks and speculators.

Show me the areas with enough population density, outside of the GDA, which can have viable rail or even bus transit?

Buses can go past peoples houses, unless we force people to move into towns along the current rail lines then they'll have to drive to the station. Why would someone get the train when they are already in their car? And with our love of one of housing even buses aren't viable in most areas. If Dublin Bus can't make a profit with a catchment of 1m+ people, the buses are jammed at rush hour, how does a train which doesn't go near any houses make money.

So while I'd love to see rail make a comeback in Ireland, it can only happen if/when all the ribbon development housing is gone and people are living in large towns centred on rail lines.

Wasting money on uneconomical rail, WRC!, is a bad as paying back the gambling debts. But at least they are working on getting a deal on the debts. If we build more rail or open old lines and no one uses it who benefits?

corktina

end of the road wrote: »

as long as they are told they have to, what are they going to do? go protesting about it? doubt it. they will do what most irish do, sit back and moan about it but do nothing.

thats what you have a vote for...if the majority want rail, then we all pay, if at some stage they dont, then.....

chooochooo

end of the road wrote: »

as long as they are told they have to, what are they going to do? go protesting about it? doubt it. they will do what most irish do, sit back and moan about it but do nothing.

Wha?!!
I'll have you know that sitting back and moaning is a perfectly legitimate and respectable response to the situation that faces us.
We're all doomed anyway.
I won't hear a word against our loyal moaners.

bk

How I see it, assuming we don't strike oil in the Wicklow mountains, there are two scenarios for the future of rail in Ireland:

Scenario 1) It looks much the same as today.

There will be big cost cutting at Irish Rail, but they manage to keep levels of service at roughly the same levels as today.

There will be far more automation and far fewer staff around.

We will be riding in pretty much the same trains 30 years from now as we do today, with perhaps some change in the trains to Belfast and Cork. Probably replaced by high quality DMU's.

The schedules will be much the same, with perhaps the Cork/Limerick/Galway lines being on average 30 minutes faster.

There maybe some branch lines closed to safe money. There will be little or no rail freight.

This is the best case scenario.

Scenario 2) There is massive cost cutting.

Things in the economy get even far worse then there are. Irish Rails subsidies are cut to nothing and IR lays off most of their staff.

All the branch lines are closed. Even the core Cork/Limerick/Galway intercity services are cut down to just a few trains a day and they get slower due to multiple stops and speed restrictions due to lack of maintenance work.

Private bus coach companies fill the gap in services.

Dart and Commuter rail are maintained as a priority over everything else.

Obviously this is the nightmare scenario and I really hope it doesn't happen.

I don't see any scenario that would be different. The crouch point will come in 40 years from now and the DMU's need to be replaced and a decision needs to be made on electrification, etc.

end of the road

chooochooo wrote: »

I'll have you know that sitting back and moaning is a perfectly legitimate and respectable response to the situation that faces us.

i never said it wasn't, just thats what usually happens when something we don't like happens, thats all i said

chooochooo wrote: »

I won't hear a word against our loyal moaners.

never said a bad word about them.

chooochooo wrote: »

We're all doomed anyway.

that is very true

chooochooo

hmm.......rubber duck,
looks like we have us a joker.

popebenny16

two interesting points are emerging on this thread which are not only relevent to the topic in hand, but to other areas as well. they have been mentioned on other topics on this here forum but I am hearing them elsewhere, on the steet as it were, and I find them alarming.

The first one is the entire concept, post fiscal treaty, of maintaining a balanced budget. on a national level, as i posted before, this is a simple matter. we take in €40 billion in taxes, we can spend that plus a little bit more (after deduction of a % of the overall gov debt). The question arises of the methodology and the philopsophy of how that money is spent. To wit - will each dep have to balance, will some (like SW or Justice) be allowed overspend in the public interest and that be made up from other departmental votes (for example, DoT) thus resulting in cutbacks in some departments?

This could mean that IE will have to survive, on current spending, out of the fares box. In effect this seems to be happening anyway as the subsidy is gradually reduced and the fares increased, together with a "use it or lose it" mentality from Count Leo. How long will it take for the subsidiy to be phased out? Well, it is to be reduced by 20% by 2015 from the 2011 figure. Thats four years. However 20% of what is left is in effect a greater cut based on the 2011 figures, so you could be looking at a 50% cut by the end of the decade on 2011 terms.

That is not good.

Point two is the one which is being talked about here, on other topics and on the street. It is the concept "why should a tax payer who does not use the train pay for it" ovbiously the reduction of the subsidy will answer that question, but the very question is one which i find disturbing. Why should your taxes go to fund a railway? Because having a railway which assists the economic function of the state is one of the reasons why you are lucky enought to have a job from whcih taxes are extracted in the first place. Why should my taxes pay for the gardai in donegal? Why should my taxes pay for a hospital in kerry? I dont use either of those things.

This question is being asked more and more. On the thread about livig in the country I have seen it many times. "why should my taxes pay for your roads" or a variant on it, from urban dwellers to rural ones. This is now a subject of more debate with the Household tax. I hear TD's now debating how the household tax, which is to fund local authorities, is to be spead. Will all the tax in Dublin be used solely for dublin?? Will some of it be used in counties with sparse population (and hence small Household tax intake)?

On the other hand, will all counties have to, like the state, and maybe like CIE, exist as little islands, and only spend what they take in on local commercial rates and Household Tax?

This is a big question, it will effect everything. The effect on the Railways could be nothing short of cathostrophic.

bk

popebenny16 wrote: »

Point two is the one which is being talked about here, on other topics and on the street. It is the concept "why should a tax payer who does not use the train pay for it" ovbiously the reduction of the subsidy will answer that question, but the very question is one which i find disturbing. Why should your taxes go to fund a railway?

It think most of us here have no issue at all with our tax money being used for things that we ourselves don't use. That is how tax works.

However I think what most of us object to is our tax money being wasted on projects with no economic or social return, simply so politicians can buy votes.

It is the waste that most people object to.

The Western Rail Corridor is a perfect example of that. 100 million + totally wasted on a project that no one wants and has no benefit socially or economically.

On the other hand I fully support my tax money being spent on the Atlantic Road Corridor, despite the fact that I will never likely use it. Because I see a real social and economic return for my tax money.

In particular Irish Rail seems to be a very inefficient organisation, from whom a large degree of fat can be cut.

Surely if subsidies to Irish Rail are cut substantially, but they manage to maintain services at current levels via cost cutting, then that isa good thing. It means that Irish Rail was bloated all along and that my tax money can be used more productively elsewhere in the economy.

popebenny16 wrote: »

Because having a railway which assists the economic function of the state is one of the reasons why you are lucky enought to have a job from whcih taxes are extracted in the first place.

But that is the question, does intercity rail continue to assist our economy?

It certainly did in the past, when the roads between our cities were awful and rail was the only way to safely and quickly move between our cities.

But the reality is times have changed and we now have a world class motorway network that allows people and goods to move just as safely and much cheaper and faster between our cities then by intercity rail.

So now the economic benefit of intercity rail is much lessened.

Should we continue to have intercity rail, yes I think we should. Should we pump billions into it to improve it further. No, I just don't see any economic justification for that. You are getting to the point of diminishing returns.

popebenny16 wrote: »

This question is being asked more and more. On the thread about livig in the country I have seen it many times. "why should my taxes pay for your roads" or a variant on it, from urban dwellers to rural ones. This is now a subject of more debate with the Household tax. I hear TD's now debating how the household tax, which is to fund local authorities, is to be spead. Will all the tax in Dublin be used solely for dublin?? Will some of it be used in counties with sparse population (and hence small Household tax intake)?

On the other hand, will all counties have to, like the state, and maybe like CIE, exist as little islands, and only spend what they take in on local commercial rates and Household Tax?

This is a big question, it will effect everything. The effect on the Railways could be nothing short of cathostrophic.

I don't think it will happen, but I think it could have quiet positive effects.

It would mean Dart Underground and Metro North would likely go ahead. It would mean atrocities like the Western Rail Corridor would be closed down.

It would mean the tax money is spent where most people actually live.

The current political setup means most tax money is raised in Dublin and Cork, but due to the centralised tax system, politicians can take it and spread it around on inefficient projects to buy votes in rural areas.

It is a big reason why we have so many one of houses and dispersed population that makes rail and other infrastructure so hard to do in Ireland.

A switch to local government having more power might see a positive change in this system and a much needed shift to more dense living which will make rail more sustainable.

Hey, this is how much major European cities have excellent infrastructure.

But that is also one reason we are unlikely to see it really, properly happen. It will take the power out of the hands of rural TD's.

Del2005

popebenny16 wrote: »

two interesting points are emerging on this thread which are not only relevent to the topic in hand, but to other areas as well. they have been mentioned on other topics on this here forum but I am hearing them elsewhere, on the steet as it were, and I find them alarming.

The first one is the entire concept, post fiscal treaty, of maintaining a balanced budget. on a national level, as i posted before, this is a simple matter. we take in €40 billion in taxes, we can spend that plus a little bit more (after deduction of a % of the overall gov debt). The question arises of the methodology and the philopsophy of how that money is spent. To wit - will each dep have to balance, will some (like SW or Justice) be allowed overspend in the public interest and that be made up from other departmental votes (for example, DoT) thus resulting in cutbacks in some departments?

This could mean that IE will have to survive, on current spending, out of the fares box. In effect this seems to be happening anyway as the subsidy is gradually reduced and the fares increased, together with a "use it or lose it" mentality from Count Leo. How long will it take for the subsidiy to be phased out? Well, it is to be reduced by 20% by 2015 from the 2011 figure. Thats four years. However 20% of what is left is in effect a greater cut based on the 2011 figures, so you could be looking at a 50% cut by the end of the decade on 2011 terms.

That is not good.

Point two is the one which is being talked about here, on other topics and on the street. It is the concept "why should a tax payer who does not use the train pay for it" ovbiously the reduction of the subsidy will answer that question, but the very question is one which i find disturbing. Why should your taxes go to fund a railway? Because having a railway which assists the economic function of the state is one of the reasons why you are lucky enought to have a job from whcih taxes are extracted in the first place. Why should my taxes pay for the gardai in donegal? Why should my taxes pay for a hospital in kerry? I dont use either of those things.

This question is being asked more and more. On the thread about livig in the country I have seen it many times. "why should my taxes pay for your roads" or a variant on it, from urban dwellers to rural ones. This is now a subject of more debate with the Household tax. I hear TD's now debating how the household tax, which is to fund local authorities, is to be spead. Will all the tax in Dublin be used solely for dublin?? Will some of it be used in counties with sparse population (and hence small Household tax intake)?

On the other hand, will all counties have to, like the state, and maybe like CIE, exist as little islands, and only spend what they take in on local commercial rates and Household Tax?

This is a big question, it will effect everything. The effect on the Railways could be nothing short of cathostrophic.

I've no problem with my taxes going down the country or supporting necessary transport, but I do have a problem with wasting my tax money.

My job doesn't rely on trains and I don't know anyone who's job does. The only people I know who use the train are on free passes, everyone else I know either drives or buses.

Also how can trains be assisting the economic functions of the state if they require money from the state to function? They don't carry much freight or passengers and on one line it'd be cheaper to taxi the passengers to their destination than running a train.

While I don't think we should wind down trains they just aren't viable for the vast majority of our population. Spending money on trains, improving speed/removing level crossing, will benefit the train users. There are several million more people who would get more benefit from spending the money on buses.

So what do we do, spend billions on rail line(s) to improve journeys for a small % of our population or spend it on buses/commuter lines which can benefit a much larger %?

end of the road

Del2005 wrote: »

There are several million more people who would get more benefit from spending the money on buses.

thats happening, BE and dublin bus have got some new busses in the past few years and i believe could be getting more?

Del2005 wrote: »

So what do we do, spend billions on rail line(s) to improve journeys for a small % of our population

yes. people might consider using the railways if they were faster. we have 100 to 125 mph capible carriges which if we had spent the money on improving speeds we could have been getting them working to their full potential.
the rosslare line is an example of IE driving away the people with a slow service and for years uncomfortable commuter railcars running on the line. i've traveled up and down on it for years so i do know what i'm talking about in relation to this line. the sligo line on the other hand has received extra services (okay maybe one or two could have the times changed to attract more people but still they got them) yes rosslare did get some extra services but their are still major gaps at certain parts of the day, between morning and afternoon and afternoon and evening going up has a 4 to 5 hour gap going down has about a 3 to 4 hour gap, believe me people down here aren't expecting an hourly service as much as it would be nice but at least a 2 or 3 hourly service, it seems the WRC has more services then us or have they cut the trains?

Del2005 wrote: »

spend it on buses/commuter lines which can benefit a much larger %?

busses will never be good enough for long journeys for everyone, most who use the train would probably go to their cars if the railways were closed down and i'm sure the disabled passengers might start car pooling with friends.
were spending it on the commuter lines anyway, the KRP in theory should benefit those going to stations between dublin and co killdare and intercity passengers (i'm aware its probably not being used to its full potential) and wasn't their recently signalling upgrades for the dart? i think everyone agrees the WRC shouldn't have been re-opened whatever about the faults it has at the moment with supposibly poor quality rolling stock and the apparent not being able to book online (don't know has that changed) just because the WRC was a failure the rest of the railways shouldn't be judged because of it. IE didn't want the WRC either but its built now so we have to accept it.

dubhthach

end of the road wrote: »

busses will never be good enough for long journeys for everyone, most who use the train would probably go to their cars if the railways were closed down and i'm sure the disabled passengers might start car pooling with friends.

Let two private companies (Gobus and citylink) seem to be able to manage to run 34 non-stop direct bustrips a day (each direction -- 68 trips overall) between Galway and Dublin, costing from €10 single. People are already making the shift. 6 years ago the above wouldn't have been viable until the Motorway was finished. The fact that they run so many services just shows the demand for seats. It takes 2hours and 30 minutes to get from Eyre Square (new bus station) to George's Quay (right beside Tara Street Dart).

Not only that you get free-wifi and there's an onboard Jacks.

corktina

How come subsidised services are so dear when private enterprise can do it so cheap?
Can we afford both bus and rail services from CIE group?
Will we have them much longer with all those competing private coaches?

end of the road

corktina wrote: »

How come subsidised services are so dear when private enterprise can do it so cheap?

i'm sure lots of books could be written on why that is the case. i certainly don't know, it is a good question though, maybe its to do with the fact that pay and other costs would be less with private companies?

corktina wrote: »

Will we have them much longer with all those competing private coaches?

maybe, maybe not, if IE management aren't sorted out we won't have a rail network because they will have ran it into the ground, BE and DB may not fair much better either?

chooochooo

end of the road wrote: »

no it isn't, the timper and the tara mines trains. so technically it is still alive just about.

for the majority of whats being transported yes, but if CIE hadn't been able to destroy the freight infrastructure and run down everything ireland could be able to have it on the unlightly off chance companies did require it.

Can't see any future for the Timper Mines.

steamengine

chooochooo wrote: »

Can't see any future for the Timper Mines.

A bit smart don't you think to point up spelling mistakes, what's your contribution to the discussion ???

steamengine

dubhthach wrote: »

Let two private companies (Gobus and citylink) seem to be able to manage to run 34 non-stop direct bustrips a day (each direction -- 68 trips overall) between Galway and Dublin, costing from €10 single. People are already making the shift. 6 years ago the above wouldn't have been viable until the Motorway was finished. The fact that they run so many services just shows the demand for seats. It takes 2hours and 30 minutes to get from Eyre Square (new bus station) to George's Quay (right beside Tara Street Dart).

Not only that you get free-wifi and there's an onboard Jacks.

From the saying, 'game, set and match', one would have to concede 'game' here at least. Regarding rail, the only two variables are journey times and fares. The former comes up for a mention in one of the key points in the AECOM/Goodbody report, the objective being 1hr 45 mins. Cheap fare promotions are available, as I understand it, which would appear to be the only way to win back lost custom, at present. Some people will continue to choose rail anyway for the added comfort and internal space. These mooted improved journey times are imperative now.

steamengine

bk wrote: »

How I see it, assuming we don't strike oil in the Wicklow mountains, there are two scenarios for the future of rail in Ireland:

Scenario 1) It looks much the same as today.

There will be big cost cutting at Irish Rail, but they manage to keep levels of service at roughly the same levels as today.

There will be far more automation and far fewer staff around.

We will be riding in pretty much the same trains 30 years from now as we do today, with perhaps some change in the trains to Belfast and Cork. Probably replaced by high quality DMU's.

The schedules will be much the same, with perhaps the Cork/Limerick/Galway lines being on average 30 minutes faster.

There maybe some branch lines closed to safe money. There will be little or no rail freight.

This is the best case scenario.

Scenario 2) There is massive cost cutting.

Things in the economy get even far worse then there are. Irish Rails subsidies are cut to nothing and IR lays off most of their staff.

All the branch lines are closed. Even the core Cork/Limerick/Galway intercity services are cut down to just a few trains a day and they get slower due to multiple stops and speed restrictions due to lack of maintenance work.

Private bus coach companies fill the gap in services.

Dart and Commuter rail are maintained as a priority over everything else.

Obviously this is the nightmare scenario and I really hope it doesn't happen.

I don't see any scenario that would be different. The crouch point will come in 40 years from now and the DMU's need to be replaced and a decision needs to be made on electrification, etc.

+1......generally that's the reality of it ok. I remain optimistic though.

invinciblePRSTV

bk wrote: »

However I think what most of us object to is our tax money being wasted on projects with no economic or social return, simply so politicians can buy votes.

bk wrote: »

The Western Rail Corridor is a perfect example of that. 100 million + totally wasted on a project that no one wants and has no benefit socially or economically.

Bad as the WRC is, compare the spend on that to the billions wasted on unneeded and/or over spec road projects constructed during the boom.

bk wrote: »

On the other hand I fully support my tax money being spent on the Atlantic Road Corridor, despite the fact that I will never likely use it. Because I see a real social and economic return for my tax money.

I see a ridiculously overspecced road project cutting a a swathe through the part of the island with the lowest population densities. The AC will only further encourage long distance commuting and the bungalow blitz which blights our country. AADTs will be doing well to get into 5 figures for most of the ACs length I'd wager.

bk wrote: »

In particular Irish Rail seems to be a very inefficient organisation, from whom a large degree of fat can be cut.

Surely if subsidies to Irish Rail are cut substantially, but they manage to maintain services at current levels via cost cutting, then that isa good thing. It means that Irish Rail was bloated all along and that my tax money can be used more productively elsewhere in the economy.

You're conflating two seperate issues here. Is there potential for efficiencies in IR? yes there almost certainly is.

Is there potential for masssive cuts in public subsidies without large cuts in service? no there probably isn't. From what I can tell there isn't a state anywhere in the globe which doesn't require public subvention for railway networks, even nominally 'privatised' railways like the UK.

bk wrote: »

But that is the question, does intercity rail continue to assist our economy?

It certainly did in the past, when the roads between our cities were awful and rail was the only way to safely and quickly move between our cities.

But the reality is times have changed and we now have a world class motorway network that allows people and goods to move just as safely and much cheaper and faster between our cities then by intercity rail.

So long as the railways move tens of millions of people annually then yes, there is an economic benefit.

bk wrote: »

Should we continue to have intercity rail, yes I think we should. Should we pump billions into it to improve it further. No, I just don't see any economic justification for that. You are getting to the point of diminishing returns.

Previously you've posted your opposition to proposals such as improvements on the line out of Heuston serving the provincial urban area's (costed @ 175m). So I'm not sure you can be taken at face value when you say 'billions' need to be spent.

Think about that for a moment, we can bring down times on Cork/Gal/Lim/Wafurd-Dublin by railway to compete with current Motorway times for a modest sum. Yet still you oppose.

That improvement in tandem with removing the remaining LCs on the Cork-Dublin line would be extremely competitive with motorway journey times and itwould not cost 'billions' either but no doubt you'd not support that either.

bk wrote: »

It would mean Dart Underground and Metro North would likely go ahead. It would mean atrocities like the Western Rail Corridor would be closed down.

It would mean the tax money is spent where most people actually live.

The current political setup means most tax money is raised in Dublin and Cork, but due to the centralised tax system, politicians can take it and spread it around on inefficient projects to buy votes in rural areas.

It is a big reason why we have so many one of houses and dispersed population that makes rail and other infrastructure so hard to do in Ireland.

A switch to local government having more power might see a positive change in this system and a much needed shift to more dense living which will make rail more sustainable.

Hey, this is how much major European cities have excellent infrastructure.

But that is also one reason we are unlikely to see it really, properly happen. It will take the power out of the hands of rural TD's.

All that is very much desirable. But it makes your anti ICR stance all the more confusing. Shutting the railways but spunking billions on rural motorways will copperfasten Ireland as a mini USA, with run down urban area's and geographically vast exurb hinterlands which can only be served by road, not rail or bus.

corktina

on the radio yesterday I heard a discussion about the distinct possiblility that OAPs travel concessions (and Social Welfare reciepiants by implication I assume) being withdrawn.

The logical adjunct to that is the withdrawal of the subsidy to CIE (as withsdrawing the passes only wont save any money)

I should think that Iarnrod Eireann would not survive this in any meaningful form

CantGetNoSleep

I recently did a journey in Europe of 320 km from my house to a friends house - door to door took just under 2 hours.

This included a tram + metro to first station, a high speed train, and two metros to her house.

If we can do that in the same time here then the whole country could use it (or at least people living in cities)

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

dubhthach

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

I recently did a journey in Europe of 320 km from my house to a friends house - door to door took just under 2 hours.

This included a tram + metro to first station, a high speed train, and two metros to her house.

If we can do that in the same time here then the whole country could use it (or at least people living in cities)

How big were the two endpoints in terms of population?

invinciblePRSTV

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is the wesht we're talking about, the AC will be moderately busy twice a day, once in the morning and once in the evening. It'll be dead the rest of the time I'd wager, not unlike the rest of the Mway network outside the main urban hinterlands are now.

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'd prioritize the moderately priced schemes for renewing the Heuston line, the Removal of the Cork-South Tipp LCs and the renewal of the Northern Line (which won't be moderately priced) above pretty much any of the roads projects proposed for the short to medium term - bar perhaps the NX upgrade.

bk

end of the road wrote: »

thats happening, BE and dublin bus have got some new busses in the past few years and i believe could be getting more?

Yes BE just received a brand new fleet of 2012 buses.

But this also showed the stupidity and inefficiency of BE as well.

These new buses, while costing a fortune, don't have any toilets on board, have much less leg room then the 2009 Aircoach coaches, seats only half leather, seats don't recline and no table at the back of seat.

In other words these brand new expensive coaches are of a significantly lower spec then Aircoaches much 2008/2009 coaches!!

Meanwhile it seems Aircoach have just started receiving second hand 2006 coaches from the UK. But these new coaches are excellent, they are the standard National express coach. Fully wheelchair accessible, large floor level toilet at the back, reclining full leather seats, airline style table at every seat. Will likely be used on the Belfast and Cork routes.

So while older and much cheaper then BE's coaches, they are of a much higher specification and they are likely to draw many people away from BE and IR.

IR will be in particular trouble IMO, as a Corkonian living in Dublin, I love the new Aircoach service to Cork. But some of my family and friends are hesitant to use it due to the lack of toilets. With such a high quality coach, that will equal train in terms of comfort, this reluctance will go out the window and they will all switch to bus coach for the massive money savings.

end of the road wrote: »

busses will never be good enough for long journeys for everyone, most who use the train would probably go to their cars if the railways were closed down and i'm sure the disabled passengers might start car pooling with friends.

I was on the new Aircoach service to Cork last week. I overheard a lady on the phone saying that she normally drives between Cork and Dublin, but with the new coach bus service being so cheap and fast, she just couldn't justify it anymore and would be taking the bus instead in future.

With the cost of driving between Cork and Dublin at about €60, a €80 train ticket was never going to have anyone switching from car to train. But a €22 ticket on a very fast and comfortable bus, now I can see many people switching from their car for those sort of savings.

For me the introduction of the new fast direct coach bus services is the greatest break through in intercity travel in Ireland ever. It is a real revolution for Corkonians.

Where before it cost me €80 to travel to Cork, it now only costs €22 and it is faster. I can now afford to go to Cork every single weekend, where before I could only afford to go once a month. And even better are the late night coach services which meant last Sunday I was able to stumble out of a club in Cork and get on a bus to Dublin at 3am in the morning.

Another example was Tuesday when a friend got the bus up from Cork to go to the Red Hot Chili Peppers concert and then got it back down at 1am the same day. Only possible because of the €22 fare, quick service and late night flexibility.

Non of these would ever have been possible with either BE or IR. Who only offered slow and expensive services that only ran at times that suited them.

So forgive my cynicism when I question do we really need BE and IR.

BTW the new coaches that both BE and Aircoach have gotten are fully wheelchair accessible.

steamengine wrote: »

Some people will continue to choose rail anyway for the added comfort and internal space. These mooted improved journey times are imperative now.

I agree that some people will continue to choose rail. That is fair enough. But the question is should we the taxpayer continue to heavily subsidise it when almost as good alternatives exist that cost the tax payer nothing.

If people want the extra luxury of the train, should they not pay for it. I'm open to my tax money going to subsidise things I don't need. But I object to my tax money being wasted on other peoples "comfort" when there are jsut as good alternatives.

Honestly I'm open to be convinced, unlike what some people say here, I'm not anti rail, I'm just anti waste.

BTW I think the added comfort thing is being is a bit of a myth. I'll certainly give you that there is more walking around space on the train, however having actually used Aircoaches 2009 coaches to Cork, I've found compared to the Cork trains they are:

- The Aircoaches are much quieter and have a smoother, less bumpy ride then the Cork train. I'm able to sleep on them no problem.

- The Aircoach leg room is massive, way bigger then Irish Rail.

- The seats are more comfortable, being full leather and reclining.

The train in fairness does have advantages.

- Toilets on board
- Table at every chair

(However both of the above issues are fixed with Aircoaches new coaches currently arriving, having both toilets and tables).

- More walking around room
- Food service on board (having said that the Aircoach leaves from just besides an O'Briens sandwich bar and Tescos, so not such a big deal).

So personally, I think the comfort argument is overstated. And I certainly don't think there is a big enough difference to justify paying 4 times more for a slower journey.

Actually interesting story, my mother was flying out of Dublin last week, despite being an elderly and inform OAP with a free travel pass, her and her friend opted to pay the €22 to take the bus from Cork to Dublin Airport as it was faster and no messing around with dragging bags off the train and onto the 747, etc.

They were delighted with the Aircoach service and found it very comfortable. If elderly people like my mother can use it, then it kind of throws the whole comfort argument out the window in my mind.

As you say getting journey times and ticket prices down will be vital for IR to survive.

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Bad as the WRC is, compare the spend on that to the billions wasted on unneeded and/or over spec road projects constructed during the boom.

I'm sorry, but building a high quality motorway network was a vital priority for the Irish economy.

With 75% of all intercity journeys made by road and 99% of all freight moved by road, it was always going to be needed and built before any railway improvements.

No modern western country can operate without having a good motorway network connecting the cities. Even countries with superb rail networks, first they built superb motorway networks (e.g. German authbahns anyone) and then only built high speed rail when the motorways were reaching capacity.

So there it is a ridiculous argument that we should have built railways over motorways. There is an argument that we built the motorways to a higher spec then needed.

However when you looked at it, it turned out that it really didn't cost too much extra to do the job right and to future proof it up front. This is a nice change from the way things normally work in Ireland, look at the M50 upgrade or the higgly piggly way Irish Rail has upgraded their network.

No for once we did things right with the motorway network.

I just wish Irish Rail had some foresight at the time and built a new high speed rail alignment next to the new motorways, like they did in Israel. It wouldn't have cost too much extra and we could have a world class rail network too now.

But unfortunately no such forward thinking at IR :mad:

BTW there is also another major benefit to the motorways, they are the primary reason for the massive decrease in fatal accidents over the past few years.

end of the road wrote: »

So long as the railways move tens of millions of people annually then yes, there is an economic benefit.

Do you know that BE carry almost twice as many passengers per year as IR do? And BE manage to carry 3 times as many passengers per member of staff as IR?

Also the majority of passengers carried by IR are DART and commuter rail, not intercity. And there is no argument about the importance and future of DART and commuter rail services, they are absolutely vital.

Also I expect a massive fall off on intercity passengers with the new direct bus coach service to Cork and Limerick, if the trend in Galway is repeated.

Cork intercity mode share in 2011 was:
Car: 50% Bus: 10% Rail: 40%

Galway was:
Car: 50% Bus 25% Rail: 25%

Likely due to the very strong competition from GoBus/Citylink in Galway.

Now with the launch of Aircoaches and GoBus similar services to Cork, we could see a similar shift in Cork.

A 15% mode shift to Cork would lead to a 40% decline in Irish Rails intercity passengers!! (The Cork route being by far the busiest route).

With such a decrease, the future of intercity rail and it's continued subsidisation certainly comes into play.

end of the road wrote: »

Previously you've posted your opposition to proposals such as improvements on the line out of Heuston serving the provincial urban area's (costed @ 175m). So I'm not sure you can be taken at face value when you say 'billions' need to be spent.

Think about that for a moment, we can bring down times on Cork/Gal/Lim/Wafurd-Dublin by railway to compete with current Motorway times for a modest sum. Yet still you oppose.

That improvement in tandem with removing the remaining LCs on the Cork-Dublin line would be extremely competitive with motorway journey times and itwould not cost 'billions' either but no doubt you'd not support that either.

I was speaking of upgrading to high speed rail. This would involve the need for a new alignment. Just doing Cork to Dublin would cost about 4 billion.

They could probably have done it for less then 2 billion, had they done it at the same time as the motorway network was built.

The 175m investment was to just getting the network up to 120km running. Which would mean Cork in 2h 30mins, and Galway and Limerick in 2 hours.

I have no objection to IR raising and spending 175m of their own money doing this. I however object to them looking to the government for this money.

I don't think the time savings will make much difference versus car and bus.

Cork to Dublin by car is about 2h 15m and the bus is 3h to O'Connell St. A 2h 30min train will only equal the bus going to O'Connell St, once you have factored in the transfer to DB or Luas to get to O'Connell St.

So I'm dubious about the value of this investment. I just don't see it making a significant modal shift.

To really compete with the motorways, I think IR need to get down to 1h 30m to Cork, but that would require vastly larger investment in high speed rail.

In other words I feel IR are stuck between a rock and a hard place here.

What I feel will happen is IR will raise the 175m themselves (via loan, cost cutting and sneaky cross subsidisation), which will put them at about the same speed as car and bus and then they will try to drop ticket prices to compete.

But it still won't stop a significant drop in intercity passengers.

All good news for the commuter and the taxpayer. Not so good news for IR staff.

end of the road wrote: »

All that is very much desirable. But it makes your anti ICR stance all the more confusing. Shutting the railways but spunking billions on rural motorways will copperfasten Ireland as a mini USA, with run down urban area's and geographically vast exurb hinterlands which can only be served by road, not rail or bus.

But you see I'm not a fundamentalist, I'm not anti rail or anything like that. I'm very much pro public transport and I'm very much a realist.

I look at what we have and I think how can we make the best use of the resources we have and the best way to deliver services to people.

Motorways don't necessarily mean rural sprawl. Quite the opposite in fact. The Motorways in Ireland are controlled by the NTA and the NTA have very strictly forbidden any sort of ribbon development along the motorways. This is in stark contrast to national road, which are controlled by the county councils and their councilors who get all sorts of spread out housing built along side them.

France and Germany have some of the finest motorway networks in the world, yet 90% of their population lives in urban areas (versus 6% in Ireland). Motorways with their very seldom off ramps, which usually only lead to larger towns and cities, tends to encourage people to live in those towns and cities.

It is the thousands of km's of N and R roads throughout the country, one of the largest road networks in Europe, that encourages rural ribbon development along these roads.

The motorways are a good first step towards correcting that.

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

I recently did a journey in Europe of 320 km from my house to a friends house - door to door took just under 2 hours.

This included a tram + metro to first station, a high speed train, and two metros to her house.

If we can do that in the same time here then the whole country could use it (or at least people living in cities)

I agree, as a person who doesn't own a car and travels extensively across Europe, I love it to. Unfortunately however we have to be realistic, we don't have the population size or density to support that outside of Dublin

steamengine

bk wrote: »

I agree that some people will continue to choose rail. That is fair enough. But the question is should we the taxpayer continue to heavily subsidise it when almost as good alternatives exist that cost the tax payer nothing.

If people want the extra luxury of the train, should they not pay for it. I'm open to my tax money going to subsidise things I don't need. But I object to my tax money being wasted on other peoples "comfort" when there are jsut as good alternatives.
(

We are back to the uneven playing field with this one. Who pays the 885 million Euro I see mentioned in the budget estimates for 2012, for road improvements and maintenance ? The point is these private bus companies are indirectly subsidised in fact. If all these companies had to pay their fair share of motorway construction costs and maintenance costs, then they would be charging substantially more for the journeys also.

Nice to see you admitting to the superiority of rail though, comfort wise.

bk

steamengine wrote: »

We are back to the uneven playing field with this one. Who pays the 885 million Euro I see mentioned in the budget estimates for 2012, for road improvements and maintenance ? The point is these private bus companies are indirectly subsidised in fact. If all these companies had to pay their fair share of motorway construction costs and maintenance costs, then they would be charging substantially more for the journeys also.

First of all the users do more then pay for it via tolls, road tax and tax on petrol. In fact far more then is spent on roads and in fact a lot of that tax money goes to subsidising rail, amongst many other things.

So private coach operators aren't indirectly subsidised, they do pay for the infrastructure they use. It is just that the cost is less as it is spread out over far more users.

Rail is a net expense for the state, roads are a net gain for the state (i.e. roads bring in more tax money then they cost to build and maintain).

But it is a silly argument, we were always going to build a motorway network, country couldn't survive and operate without it. Now that we have it, it makes sense to make the most of it.

The question now is, do we need an intercity rail network in addition to the motorway network and what level of subsidy should it receive?

steamengine wrote: »

Nice to see you admitting to the superiority of rail though, comfort wise.

Nice how you ignored that I said the bus coach was more comfortable with a quieter, smoother ride and lots more legroom, with more comfortable, fully leather reclining seats :rolleyes:

steamengine

bk wrote: »

So private coach operators aren't indirectly subsidised, they do pay for the infrastructure they use. It is just that the cost is less as it is spread out over far more users.

Including private motorists who pay but don't get any return. I would suggest that is indirect subsidisation.

dubhthach

VRT revenue from 1997-2008, taken from an answer to a Dáil question.



This covered basically all of NRA funding over that period. This only factors in VRT completing ignoring all other road taxes.

Here's a response from then Minister of Finance on 27th November 2007 showing income from taxes on Motorists.



Totals going to Central Gov. (excluding motor tax)

• 2002: €3 billion
• 2003: €3.2 billion
• 2004: €3.6 billion
• 2005: €4 billion
• 2006: €4.4 billion
• 2007: €4.8 billion (estimate)

Totals going to Local Gov. (Motor tax)

• 2002: €581m
• 2003: €680m
• 2004: €747m
• 2005: €802m
• 2006: €880m
• 2007: €944m (estimate)

Looking at the details from the 2011 budget you see that when it comes to "Local Goverenement Fund" that "Gross Motor Tax receipts" predicted for 2011 were:
€953m, the predicted expenditure on "Non-National Road payments" in the same Fund is €397.5m. In other words for vast bulk of roads (90,000 km) are funded out of a Fund made up of "Motor tax" receipts.