Motorways, greenways, bypasses, and railways (off-topic posts from disused WRC thread

Carawaystick

galwaycyclist wrote: »

The current Tuam - Gort motorway is a travesty
...

Trucks heading for the motorway will still have to go through the middle of Loughrea, Gort etc.

Where will these trucks be coming from?
Won't traffic use the m18 m6 n65 route?

Grandeeod

BoatMad wrote: »

100million is a drop in the ocean to upgrade rail instrastructure in any meaningful way, its hardly enough to subvent CIE losses to one year.

It a hopeless case. IR is merely a bunch of public servants whose goal is efficiency. 100% efficiency of course is a completely closed railway network. Passengers, customers, service , etc what that !

100 million is more than a third of what IE need to relay the network for higher speeds. They want 50 mllion per year over 5 years.

BoatMad

Grandeeod wrote: »

100 million is more than a third of what IE need to relay the network for higher speeds. They want 50 mllion per year over 5 years.

higher speeds is a chimera. what IR need to do is to bring up the whole networks average speed

With poor track paths, excessive stops , no express traffic, congested low capacity lines mixed with commuters, IR simply can't achieve significant drops in timetabled speeds , Equally the punter is interested in his or her point to point timings , no point reducing rail speeds by 15 mins , if its takes an hour to get from Heuston to the the punters destination

High speed trains perform best in interurban high population density activities , often competing both internal air connections

They make little sense in Ireland over short distances

A punter getting a comfortable 70 mph reliable regular service that he can depend on day in day out is sufficient.

The money could then be spent on improving passengers facilities, operating more interconnecting rural and sub-rural trains and removing some poorly performing rolling stock etc.


High speed is IR trying to believe its a shiny European rail network, conveniently forgetting its based on a tiny island with few people.

galwaycyclist

Carawaystick wrote: »

Where will these trucks be coming from?
Won't traffic use the m18 m6 n65 route?

Traffic including trucks does not appear magically on Motorways (well actually it does but induced traffic is another story).

It comes from places other than motorways.

The issue is what roads does that traffic use to get to the motorways?

Specifically it should not be going through places that are towns and villages or are whose primary function is not for transport. eg roads whose primary function is residential.

BoatMad

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Traffic including trucks does not appear magically on Motorways (well actually it does but induced traffic is another story).

It comes from places other than motorways.

The issue is what roads does that traffic use to get to the motorways?

Specifically it should not be going through places that are towns and villages or are whose primary function is not for transport. eg roads whose primary function is residential.

Your argument is for bye-passes, yes

a better argument is for motorways AND bye-passes. that I could agree with , because after the traffic uses a bye-pass, it has to efficiently get to the urban centre quickly safety and efficiently , motorways do that

Grandeeod

BoatMad wrote: »

higher speeds is a chimera. what IR need to do is to bring up the whole networks average speed

With poor track paths, excessive stops , no express traffic, congested low capacity lines mixed with commuters, IR simply can't achieve significant drops in timetabled speeds , Equally the punter is interested in his or her point to point timings , no point reducing rail speeds by 15 mins , if its takes an hour to get from Heuston to the the punters destination

High speed trains perform best in interurban high population density activities , often competing both internal air connections

They make little sense in Ireland over short distances

A punter getting a comfortable 70 mph reliable regular service that he can depend on day in day out is sufficient.

The money could then be spent on improving passengers facilities, operating more interconnecting rural and sub-rural trains and removing some poorly performing rolling stock etc.


High speed is IR trying to believe its a shiny European rail network, conveniently forgetting its based on a tiny island with few people.

Im not talking about highspeed ala France , Spain or Germany. I'm talking about a road Vs Rail competitive scenario of 90 to 100 mph running across the rail network with more passing loops etc. on single line sections. I would be the first to criticise IE for being very short sighted in their initial upgrade, but with less WRC bull**** and more direct investment in the existing system, it could at the very least be "getting there".

Carawaystick

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Traffic including trucks does not appear magically on Motorways (well actually it does but induced traffic is another story).

It comes from places other than motorways.

The issue is what roads does that traffic use to get to the motorways?

Specifically it should not be going through places that are towns and villages or are whose primary function is not for transport. eg roads whose primary function is residential.

You mentioned Loughrea. Loughrea has a bypass, the N6 bypassed the town to the North. It has a second bypass, the M6.
Loughrea industrial centres and supermarkets are at the edge of the town, near the bypass.
Are you suggesting industry and hgv use should only be generated by places outside any bypass?
What through hgv traffic will there be once the M18 is built? cattle going to the mart from Killnadeema?

BoatMad

Grandeeod wrote: »

Im not talking about highspeed ala France , Spain or Germany. I'm talking about a road Vs Rail competitive scenario of 90 to 100 mph running across the rail network with more passing loops etc. on single line sections. I would be the first to criticise IE for being very short sighted in their initial upgrade, but with less WRC bull**** and more direct investment in the existing system, it could at the very least be "getting there".

first off IR needs to move away from a simplistic argument that you can compete with road transport , with simple running speeds. for a transport system now carrying virtually 0% freight and about 5% passengers, thinking you are competing is nonsense.

IR has repeatedly scavenged the network to try and keep up with European railways in some vain race of vanities.

What IR has to do is not compete , but offer an alternative. Entice those car travellers onto a comfortable, catered , regular and reliable service. It matters not if the train runs for 1:30 or 1:45, as long as it does it every day all day.

Passengers need consistent service across the network, IR needs flexible demand oriented rolling stock and sufficient track paths to offer flexibility and route options. If you have to keep dismantling and re-assembling fixed railcar sets, particular in a resource constrained railway, it can lead to inability to provide service.

electrification or peak speed increases, in reality adds nothing to the passenger experience and just massages IR engineers ego.

monument

BoatMad wrote: »

... and just massages IR engineers ego.

Cut down on this kind of mud slinging nonsense. You're arguments stand up or they don't, there's no need for such attacks on people who are doing their jobs.

-- moderator