Ultra light rail cutting dramatically the cost of railway reopenings

Banjoxed

Yes, it is the Daily Mail, but it will be very interesting to see if this "no-frills" tech does deliver the "5,000 miles" of railway reopenings in the UK mentioned in the article. Potentially a game changer for more efficient use of disused or low use railway lines..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4215586/New-no-frills-trains-open-little-used-lines.html

n97 mini

Hmmm, thinking of a recently closed line here which runs through the population equivalent of the Sahara desert, I'm not sure even these would save it.

And then add in ancillary costs like manual level crossings...

MGWR

Banjoxed wrote: »

Yes, it is the Daily Mail, but it will be very interesting to see if this "no-frills" tech does deliver the "5,000 miles" of railway reopenings in the UK mentioned in the article. Potentially a game changer for more efficient use of disused or low use railway lines..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4215586/New-no-frills-trains-open-little-used-lines.html

The true "costs" involve politics. It doesn't matter how cheaply any trains can be built or purchased for. Get the government out of the way and the private sector can handle railways just fine.

Del.Monte

The Daily Mail ....a slow/no news day and who gets their news from that sort of tabloid rag anyway - the broadsheets are bad enough for their 'fake' news stories.

BuffyBot

Del.Monte wrote: »

The Daily Mail ....a slow/no news day and who gets their news from that sort of tabloid rag anyway - the broadsheets are bad enough for their 'fake' news stories.

And if this was a media forum, that would be relevant. But we're not, so back to the subject at hand..

BlinkingLights

We urgently need to get trams or something into more routes in Dublin and Cork.

The M50 and N40 are absolutely at capacity in both cases and there's no room to put more lanes in.

We need to have a Luas line to EVERY major suburb / commuter town within 20km radius at this stage. Two lines would be skimping it in Cork never mind in Dublin.

Rural transport in Ireland simply needs subsided busses. Trains can't possibly serve scattered patterns of population here.

If we don't get cars off the road in commutes though we are going to start seeing economic consequences of serious congestion again and also we will be missing agrees carbon limits and hitting huge fines.

Appropriate systems for rural Ireland that actually meet real needs need to be put in place though. Not another WRC.

AngryLips

MGWR wrote: »

The true "costs" involve politics. It doesn't matter how cheaply any trains can be built or purchased for. Get the government out of the way and the private sector can handle railways just fine.

Southern Railway in London is the perfect example of a private sector success story

BlinkingLights

The UK is probably the worst possible model you could follow for public transport. It's far too expensive at point of use.
Even many American cities seem to have better models of finding at this stage.

Sam Russell

The UK tried putting old buses onto bogies and calling the result trains. They were flimsy, noisy and unpopular.

ted1

Do we have any unused train lines that havn't been destroyed?

Sam Russell

ted1 wrote: »

Do we have any unused train lines that haven't been destroyed?

Drogheda to Navan.

Lines still in place - Mullingar to Athlone.

Of course they could run buses if they put tarmac down.

magicbastarder

drogheda to navan *is* used, i thought, for cargo?

Sam Russell

magicbastarder wrote: »

drogheda to navan *is* used, i thought, for cargo?

Exactly, so a 'Ultra light rail' project such as described would bring passengers. However, it has quite a few level crossings which would require to be automated or removed. There is also a problem at both the Drogheda and the Navan end in that the line does not connect with the station.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

Hmmm, thinking of a recently closed line here which runs through the population equivalent of the Sahara desert, I'm not sure even these would save it.

no such recently closed line fits your description. all lines that do closed in the 60s. the recently closed line you refer to had a decent population and extending the service to the rest of the county and connecting to limerick junction with decent fares and a reliable timetable and a non-railway-political operator would have given it a chance. we both know the actual reason it was closed and it had nothing to do with usage or population. not where CIE are concerned.

n97 mini wrote: »

And then add in ancillary costs like manual level crossings...

the money was there to remove them if IE wanted it. did they look for it?

BlinkingLights wrote: »

Rural transport in Ireland simply needs subsided busses. Trains can't possibly serve scattered patterns of population here.

subsidized bus services all ready exist for the demand. not in every area unfortunately but if people feel strongly that one shoud exist then campaign for one to be introduced. or even better club together if possible and set your own up if it can be done. as for the existing railway, it is viable but it needs to improve it's quality to attract people to it and back from other methods. government also need to stop using it as a political football and the people need to be educated to see it as part of the infrastructure of the country

lawred2

Banjoxed wrote: »

Yes, it is the Daily Mail, but it will be very interesting to see if this "no-frills" tech does deliver the "5,000 miles" of railway reopenings in the UK mentioned in the article. Potentially a game changer for more efficient use of disused or low use railway lines..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4215586/New-no-frills-trains-open-little-used-lines.html

Did we not rip up most of the rails?

end of the road

Sam Russell wrote: »

The UK tried putting old buses onto bogies and calling the result trains. They were flimsy, noisy and unpopular.

the old bus bodies onto underframes were only test vehicles, when the concept was rolled out and became the pacer the bodies were newly built and were modified for the concept. all though i think the original protatype the class 140 had a normal unmodified but new bus body. they were fitted to a modified version of the new underframe for freight wagons introduced by br rather then a proper bogy. i have never been on one myself thankfully. in saying that, these proposed vehicles in the article seem to be to a higher standard then the rickity railbuses. br only built the rickity railbuses out of necessity, i'm sure they knew well they would be hated. in fact br only designed them for a 10 year lifespan i believe.

lawred2 wrote: »

Did we not rip up most of the rails?

both ourselves and britain ripped up a lot yes. some quite quickly, others a bit later on and others were simply left to rot rather then being removed.

Sam Russell

end of the road wrote: »

the old bus bodies onto underframes were only test vehicles, when the concept was rolled out and became the pacer the bodies were newly built and were modified for the concept. all though i think the original protatype the class 140 had a normal unmodified but new bus body. they were fitted to a modified version of the new underframe for freight wagons introduced by br rather then a proper bogy. i have never been on one myself thankfully. in saying that, these proposed vehicles in the article seem to be to a higher standard then the rickity railbuses. br only built the rickity railbuses out of necessity, i'm sure they knew well they would be hated. in fact br only designed them for a 10 year lifespan i believe.



both ourselves and britain ripped up a lot yes. some quite quickly, others a bit later on and others were simply left to rot rather then being removed.

From the link I quoted:

Pacer is the operational name of the British Rail Classes 140, 141, 142, 143 and 144 diesel multiple unit railbuses, built between 1980 and 1987. Intended as a short-term solution to a shortage of rolling stock (with a lifespan of no more than 20 years), as of 2016 many Pacer railbuses are still in use.[1]

They were noisy, had appalling suspension because of their 4 fixed, non-bogey, wheel set up which gave a seesaw motion, and were horrid and cheap. Doors opened inward as per a bus rather than sliding as per a train.

Nasty things - surprised they were not modelled on a bendy bouncy bus.



There are many lines with the tracks in place, held together by rotten sleepers.

end of the road

Sam Russell wrote: »

From the link I quoted:



They were noisy, had appalling suspension because of their 4 fixed, non-bogey, wheel set up which gave a seesaw motion, and were horrid and cheap. Doors opened inward as per a bus rather than sliding as per a train.

Nasty things - surprised they were not modelled on a bendy bouncy bus.



There are many lines with the tracks in place, held together by rotten sleepers.

correct, i wasn't disagreeing, just simply giving a bit more information on the pacer concept for others. yes indeed there are some lines still there being held together just about, hence i stated others being left to rot which effectively describes them (or at least i thought it did)

Red Kev

Building BRT's (wide body or standard) on dedicated lanes would be a lot cheaper and would move more people per hour.

L1011

Red Kev wrote: »

Building BRT's (wide body or standard) on dedicated lanes would be a lot cheaper and would move more people per hour.

In rural areas the roads are already empty enough that BRT is not needed. For most of the unused lines we have, the roads are more direct than the rail anyway. And unlike the UK where there are large amounts of track used solely for freight we have one single example.

The only place this could possibly be useful would be in providing a commuter service from Limerick to Raheen/Dooradoyle/Mungret on still extant (albeit in need of upgrade regardless) track and providing service to Castleconnell if the Ballybrophy branch is closed.

end of the road

Red Kev wrote: »

Building BRT's (wide body or standard) on dedicated lanes would be a lot cheaper and would move more people per hour.

nope. not a chance would brts on dedicated lanes move more people per hour then a light rail system. light rail can have multiple vehicles per set compared to a bendy bus type solution. by the time you implement all the vehicles and drivers to make the brt meaningful you may as well have spent the extra money and gone light rail anyway. that is assuming light rail would cost more then a brt which tbh i'm not sure that is the case.

ted1

magicbastarder wrote: »

drogheda to navan *is* used, i thought, for cargo?

Tara mines use it to bring iron ore to Dublin Port

Cookie_Monster

Sam Russell wrote: »

The UK tried putting old buses onto bogies and calling the result trains. They were flimsy, noisy and unpopular.

and yet after 35+ years they remain a backbone of certain parts of the network...
they may not be overlay popular but they certainly do the job.

end of the road

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

and yet after 35+ years they remain a backbone of certain parts of the network...
they may not be overlay popular but they certainly do the job.

it's actually debatible as to whether they do the job tbh. apparently if you have a good crowd aboard you can forget them being able to move off quick or at all unless attached to a sprinter unit.

jackofalltrades

Banjoxed wrote: »

Yes, it is the Daily Mail, but it will be very interesting to see if this "no-frills" tech does deliver the "5,000 miles" of railway reopenings in the UK mentioned in the article.
Potentially a game changer for more efficient use of disused or low use railway lines..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4215586/New-no-frills-trains-open-little-used-lines.html

The article seems to be very light on important information as to why this is a game changer.

4068ac1elhodqr

From the same paper back in 2015, there was some tests done on a smaller scale hyperloop type concepts.

A smaller footprint, little or no moving parts, nor engines and still a respectable 260km/h (not 1,200km/h). As it would use roller bearings (not air) on electron-magnetic pulses. The capsules need only be the size of small cars so ideal for small streets, and lightweight would be the key phrase. Just lash a few monorails 20 foot up above existing main routes.

Many banks have been using vacuum tubes for transporting sending cash deposits between floors for over 20yrs.

L1011

Robert Black Shampoo wrote: »

Many banks have been using vacuum tubes for transporting sending cash deposits between floors for over 20yrs.

Try 180 years. Prague even had a pneumatic post system!

oppenheimer1

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The article seems to be very light on important information as to why this is a game changer.

Exactly. Railways are expensive because of the land, wages and other associated infrastructure associated with them, rolling stock is a small part of that.

Even a light train has to run on maintained track and be staffed. If there are lines in the UK where rolling stock is coming to end of life and its not viable to buy new full size rolling stock then something like this might help keep it open. It won't however result in closed lines reopening though.

ClovenHoof

Sam Russell wrote: »

The UK tried putting old buses onto bogies and calling the result trains. They were flimsy, noisy and unpopular.

and this is relevant in 2017 how?

ClovenHoof

what is really need is proper "light" rail. No more level crossings. light weight DMUs that are self sustained units in terms of controlling signiall, traffic lights collecting fares and with one driver.

I can't understand how in this day and age we cant have lightweight DUMs on rural lines operating like trams in cities. You look at a luas. its a train that runs on streets? why is this not happening on rail lines?

Why are Victorian infrastructures and technology still on rail lines? There should be signs on rail crossing saying things like 'train arriving in 90 seconds' no need for huge LC crossing gates.

I am talking rural branch lines now not fast mainlines.

Del.Monte

ClovenHoof wrote: »

what is really need is proper "light" rail. No more level crossings. light weight DMUs that are self sustained units in terms of controlling signiall, traffic lights collecting fares and with one driver.

I can't understand how in this day and age we cant have lightweight DUMs on rural lines operating like trams in cities. You look at a luas. its a train that runs on streets? why is this not happening on rail lines?

Why are Victorian infrastructures and technology still on rail lines? There should be signs on rail crossing saying things like 'train arriving in 90 seconds' no need for huge LC crossing gates.

I am talking rural branch lines now not fast mainlines.

Next you will suggesting that some closed stations (Avoca, Ferns, Knocklong etc.) could be reopened cheaply - without lifts, cobblelock and miles of palisade fencing - and trains could be flagged down like buses.....oh wait

jimmycrackcorm

The premise of the article is that the cost of a cheap train solves the problem, when we know from our experience here with Irish Rail and latterly the Luus, the real cost is the monopoly behaviour of the unions and their workers.

It'll be practical when we have electric driver-less trains.

L1011

ClovenHoof wrote: »

and this is relevant in 2017 how?

Because operating light stock on poor lines is still as problematic?

Sam Russell

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The premise of the article is that the cost of a cheap train solves the problem, when we know from our experience here with Irish Rail and latterly the Luus, the real cost is the monopoly behaviour of the unions and their workers.

It'll be practical when we have electric driver-less trains.

Why do we not have driverless trains?

The technology is clearly there with the solution being much easier than driverless cars on roads. The driver could supervise the train and check the tickets and protect the revenue.

ArnieSilvia

Del.Monte wrote: »

Next you will suggesting that some closed stations (Avoca, Ferns, Knocklong etc.) could be reopened cheaply - without lifts, cobblelock and miles of palisade fencing - and trains could be flagged down like buses.....oh wait

Frankly, can't seem an issue with that.

My local DB bust stop has no palisade fencing, no shed, no nothing. Why rail needs all of this.

Sam Russell

Was on a train from Shrewesbury to Cardiff, the train had a few request stops where one had to indicate that one wanted to get off, or the train would not stop. It was a very long and winding route.

Perhaps that could be introduced on some lines, like Athlone to Westport or Athenry to Ennis.

Del.Monte

Sam Russell wrote: »

Was on a train from Shrewesbury to Cardiff, the train had a few request stops where one had to indicate that one wanted to get off, or the train would not stop. It was a very long and winding route.

Perhaps that could be introduced on some lines, like Athlone to Westport or Athenry to Ennis.

Sadly if CIE introduced that type of operation it would just lead to even more demanning of larger stations and no reopenings. Certainly it should be introduced at the likes of Ardrahan, Craughwell and Sixmilebridge.

ClovenHoof

L1011 wrote: »

Because operating light stock on poor lines is still as problematic?

Are we still all driving Morris Minors and Ford Corribs?

invoking ancient techology to somehow make a critical point about engineering today is utterly asinine.

end of the road

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why do we not have driverless trains?

The technology is clearly there with the solution being much easier than driverless cars on roads. The driver could supervise the train and check the tickets and protect the revenue.

simple reason, the cost to implement it. the railway would have to be fully enclosed apart from platforms and that is probably for starters. the tech might improve enough in years to come to negate this though and bring the costs of implementation down. very easy to implement it on a new build railway which would be designed for it, then a victorian built railway.

BlinkingLights

The technology to deal with bad lines and bumpy track hasn't changed much at all. You still need tracks that are fairly smooth.

L1011

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Are we still all driving Morris Minors and Ford Corribs?

invoking ancient techology to somehow make a critical point about engineering today is utterly asinine.

The technology hasn't moved on to sufficient extent to deal with it. Heavier trains (within reason!) ride better on poorer track for various reasons. The cost advantage of lighter units is gone if you start rebuilding the track.

BlinkingLights

L1011 wrote: »

The technology hasn't moved on to sufficient extent to deal with it. Heavier trains (within reason!) ride better on poorer track for various reasons. The cost advantage of lighter units is gone if you start rebuilding the track.

Unless you're talking about the CAF Mark 4 trains which seemed to have been specified for ultra-smooth continental tracks. They ride very poorly on bumpy Irish lines, yet they're extremely heavy by any standard.