Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

ezstreet5

Sam Russell wrote: »

The M18 is built.

When were the trains full, and how often does it occur?

The M18 is built, but not paid for. We still still owe over €812 million on that, which we will be paying off until 2042.

ohographite

Sam Russell wrote: »

[Passenger Km] is not a recognised metric for investment.

A lot of dubious statistics in your post, along with plenty of suppositions that are unfounded in any reality. Most of the statistics coming from that line are of dubious merit, where passengers are counted from Ennis to Galway even if they alight at Oranmore for Galway.

The line does not make any positive contribution to its running cost. 220 passengers each way each day. Three full coaches each way from Ennis to Athenry would carry that many passengers at significant lower cost.

A 5 kilometre metro journey from Glasnevin to Dublin city centre is not comparable to a 120 kilometre train journey from Limerick to Galway.

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't see what statistics in my post are dubious, or what suppositions are unfounded.
The 159, 000 journeys I mentioned only includes journeys that made use of the section between Ennis and Athenry.

ohographite

goingnowhere wrote: »

But metrolink will return a surplus just like Luas. It will not need ongoing operating subsidies

There are operational railways in Ireland which were not much busier than Ennis-Athenry before the lockdown started. Linerick-Ennis and Manulla-Ballina were only slightly busier, and they are not as controversial, but I'd say they need subsidies as well.

ezstreet5

goingnowhere wrote: »

But metrolink will return a surplus just like Luas. It will not need ongoing operating subsidies

Every rail line requires subsidies. We're not going to shut down DART because it loses €0.90 per passenger, or Dublin-Cork because it loses €22.10 per passenger.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

they did but you simply don't agree with them, which is a different thing.

Sorry, no they didn't. They were back of the envelope calculations with no basis in reality.

Even taking those figures as gospel it still didn't stack up when compared to other rail projects.

Using those figure, would, at best case, mean reopening that line sometime after 2050 if and only if, there was nothing else to spend money on in the rail network

ohographite

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, no they didn't. They were back of the envelope calculations with no basis in reality.

The figures I used were the 159, 000 journeys on Ennis-Athenry(a statistic from Irish Rail) and the 106 million euro spent on reopening it, which has been mentioned here:
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/passenger-traffic-on-limerick-galway-rail-line-up-57-in-seven-years-1.3624503
The other figures I used were the 100, 000 journeys a day expected on Metrolink if it is built, and the 3 billion euro it would cost, which was mentioned here:
http://www.independent.ie/regionals/fingalindependent/news/3-billion-metro-line-is-finally-moving-forward-36744732.html

I did not make up these figures, so my post on this thread did have a basis.

ohographite

ohographite wrote: »

The figures I used were the 159, 000 journeys on Ennis-Athenry(a statistic from Irish Rail) and the 106 million euro spent on reopening it, which has been mentioned here:
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/passenger-traffic-on-limerick-galway-rail-line-up-57-in-seven-years-1.3624503
The other figures I used were the 100, 000 journeys a day expected on Metrolink if it is built, and the 3 billion euro it would cost, which was mentioned here:
http://www.independent.ie/regionals/fingalindependent/news/3-billion-metro-line-is-finally-moving-forward-36744732.html

I did not make up these figures, so my post on this thread did have a basis.

I was referring to makey-upey figures on the Wex/Waterford thread

Sam Russell

ohographite wrote: »

I don't mean to be rude, but I don't see what statistics in my post are dubious, or what suppositions are unfounded.
The 159, 000 journeys I mentioned only includes journeys that made use of the section between Ennis and Athenry.

What is the source for your figure of 159,000 journeys?

That is the only figure you give. You then do some arithmetic on the number to produce some metric not used anywhere else - equivalent to the furlong per fortnight type of figure used in parodies.

The Ennis to Athenry service is in service, but its existence is being cited as justification to extend it to Tuam, and onto Collooney and Sligo. There is little (no) justification for such an extension.

How much was the fare income on the Ennis to Athenry in 2019? By that I mean to include any tickets sold to cover journeys that conveyed passengers over that part of the route - perhaps apportioning the fares might be useful, but not necessary. Is there any source for that figure?

Isambard

there could be a project that would give some justification for the Tuam extention.

If a direct curve were installed at Athenry, thus speeding up the Limerick to Galway service by removing the reversal, coupled with double track Athenry New Junction to Galway, a Tuam Athenry Oranmore and Galway service could be introduced and the Athenry (and maybe Oranmore also?) stop on the Dublin trains omitted, speeding up that service and improving the service from Ballinasloe et al.

The Tuam line would be small beer in such an overall project which would benefit three services.

ezstreet5

Sam Russell wrote: »

What is the source for your figure of 159,000 journeys?

Ennis-Athenry saw 161,100 passengers in 2019. I don't think that figure is in dispute.

ohographite

Sam Russell wrote: »

What is the source for your figure of 159,000 journeys?

That is the only figure you give. You then do some arithmetic on the number to produce some metric not used anywhere else - equivalent to the furlong per fortnight type of figure used in parodies.

I got the figure of 159, 000 journeys from the Rail Users Ireland website, which says the figure comes from a Freedom Of Information request on Irish Rail.
Here is the link to where I got it from:
http://www.railusers.ie/news/news.php?year=2020&no=2.html

I believe you that passenger km are not an official metric, but using passengers as a metric instead means that a 5km journey is worth the same as a 100km one.

Sam Russell

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Ennis-Athenry saw 161,100 passengers in 2019. I don't think that figure is in dispute.

Source?

Fare take?

[Edit: You posted the source as I posted above. The figures are given as totals with no detail. The measure of fare take would indicate the length of the journey.

For example the number of passengers Dublin Rosslare is given as 384,000 while Dublin Wicklow as 338,000, which implies Wicklow Rosslare is only 46,000 - or just 884 per week, an average of about a dozen passengers per train. A very different story for the Wicklow Rosslare portion.

When you drill down on the figures, large holes appear.]

ezstreet5

Sam Russell wrote: »

Source?

Fare take?

I'm not going to spoon feed data on here. It's in the public domain.

Ireland trains

Sam Russell wrote: »

For example the number of passengers Dublin Rosslare is given as 384,000 while Dublin Wicklow as 338,000, which implies Wicklow Rosslare is only 46,000 - or just 884 per week, an average of about a dozen passengers per train. A very different story for the Wicklow Rosslare portion.

When you drill down on the figures, large holes appear.]

Dublin - rosslare figures are seperate from the Dublin- Wicklow figures. The former are stations south of wicklow. I doubt there are less than 900 people using the train in large towns such as enniscorthy, gorey and wexford.

Sam Russell

Ireland trains wrote: »

Dublin - rosslare figures are seperate from the Dublin- Wicklow figures. The former are stations south of wicklow. I doubt there are less than 900 people using the train in large towns such as enniscorthy, gorey and wexford.

Doubting hardly cuts it. What are the real figures of people boarding or alighting for each station?

Giving a figure for Dublin Galway suggests they all travel the whole way, which is not the case. Last time I travelled on that route, the number getting on near Galway surprised me. A near empty train suddenly filled up as we got close to Galway. It would suggest a local Commuter service for Galway might generate enough traffic to be viable.

It appears to me these numbers are cherry picked to match an agender.

Pete_Cavan

Isambard wrote: »

there could be a project that would give some justification for the Tuam extention.

If a direct curve were installed at Athenry, thus speeding up the Limerick to Galway service by removing the reversal, coupled with double track Athenry New Junction to Galway, a Tuam Athenry Oranmore and Galway service could be introduced and the Athenry (and maybe Oranmore also?) stop on the Dublin trains omitted, speeding up that service and improving the service from Ballinasloe et al.

The Tuam line would be small beer in such an overall project which would benefit three services.

What does Tuam have to do with that, why couldn't the direct curve and double tracking be done without reopening to Tuam? Reopening to Tuam will add something north €50m to the cost (being intentionally vague here to avoid another circular argument on the likely cost), the passenger numbers from Tuam are unlikely to justify the cost when the service could simply be provided from Ballinasloe at little/or extra cost.

Isambard

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

What does Tuam have to do with that, why couldn't the direct curve and double tracking be done without reopening to Tuam? Reopening to Tuam will add something north €50m to the cost (being intentionally vague here to avoid another circular argument on the likely cost), the passenger numbers from Tuam are unlikely to justify the cost when the service could simply be provided from Ballinasloe at little/or extra cost.

the point was that improving three services might make sense of the expenditure and make the double tracking more viable.

intellectual dosser

Isambard wrote: »

the point was that improving three services might make sense of the expenditure and make the double tracking more viable.

Is there a measurement out there that suggests double tracking (Galway to Athenry) isn't viable right now? I noticed it wasn't put forward as a recommended project a couple of pages back.

Isambard

intellectual dosser wrote: »

Is there a measurement out there that suggests double tracking (Galway to Athenry) isn't viable right now? I noticed it wasn't put forward as a recommended project a couple of pages back.

I doubt it's even a proposal at this stage, other than on here.

Ireland trains

Sam Russell wrote: »

Doubting hardly cuts it. What are the real figures of people boarding or alighting for each station?

Pre covid peak time trains (southbound) were standing room only until wicklow so from one train that is over 200 people. There was not only 4 train loads of people per week using the train south of wicklow. The 2019 census says that 467 passengers boarded stations south of wicklow on census day. There was not less than 900 passengers using that line every week

Geuze

Isambard wrote: »

I doubt it's even a proposal at this stage, other than on here.

It is listed by IE as a project in their recently published strategy.

Isambard

good news!

Geuze

Isambard wrote: »

I doubt it's even a proposal at this stage, other than on here.

Well the passing loop at Oranmore is more than a proposal.

https://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/119009/passing-bay-at-oranmore-station-first-phase-of-possible-double-tracking

The council and IE are applying for funding for it.


As for the larger project to double to Athenry, I don't know what stage that is at.

Pete_Cavan

Isambard wrote: »

the point was that improving three services might make sense of the expenditure and make the double tracking more viable.

There can still be three services but with commuter services running to Ballinasloe. The benefit of going to Tuam is highly unlikely to justify the extra >€50m cost.

Isambard

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

There can still be three services but with commuter services running to Ballinasloe. The benefit of going to Tuam is highly unlikely to justify the extra >€50m cost.

at the risk of repeating myself, I was suggesting a possible way to justify opening to Tuam, by including it in a package of other improvements.

end of the road

Isambard wrote: »

at the risk of repeating myself, I was suggesting a possible way to justify opening to Tuam, by including it in a package of other improvements.

exactly and it was a very good suggestion.
it would revolutionise the city and the suburban and outer suburban commute.

Pete_Cavan

Isambard wrote: »

at the risk of repeating myself, I was suggesting a possible way to justify opening to Tuam, by including it in a package of other improvements.

You are just taking reopening to Tuam and tacking on other less ridiculous projects to bring down the ridiculousness average. The Public Spending Code was introduced to avoid these types of situation where an end result is determined and then work backwards to try justify it in any way you can. Other projects on the line are not dependent on reopening Tuam, adding in Tuam just makes other improvements less likely to happen. No matter what way you dress it up, it is still spending €50m+ just to serve Tuam.

ezstreet5

end of the road wrote: »

exactly and it was a very good suggestion.
it would revolutionise the city and the suburban and outer suburban commute.

True. Tuam is the place where all the benefits accrue. If I lived there, I would be livid that there were those insinuating that the town was not worth the investment of 150 million to connect it to the railway network at Athenry and Claremorris. It is a small amount of money, and it is cost effective.

mayo.mick

Has everyone very short memories
The section that was opened, in 2011, Irish Rail were going to close again in 2016

Isambard

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

You are just taking reopening to Tuam and tacking on other less ridiculous projects to bring down the ridiculousness average. The Public Spending Code was introduced to avoid these types of situation where an end result is determined and then work backwards to try justify it in any way you can. Other projects on the line are not dependent on reopening Tuam, adding in Tuam just makes other improvements less likely to happen. No matter what way you dress it up, it is still spending €50m+ just to serve Tuam.

No indeed, I have been fairly vociferous in opposing further reopening of the wrc as I was before the rebuilding of the southern section. I am just being even handed by suggesting a way reopening to Tuam might be possible, gaining some economies of scale perhaps as part of an improvement of suburban rail out of Galway City.

end of the road

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

You are just taking reopening to Tuam and tacking on other less ridiculous projects to bring down the ridiculousness average. The Public Spending Code was introduced to avoid these types of situation where an end result is determined and then work backwards to try justify it in any way you can. Other projects on the line are not dependent on reopening Tuam, adding in Tuam just makes other improvements less likely to happen. No matter what way you dress it up, it is still spending €50m+ just to serve Tuam.

a tiny amount of money to serve a growing and modernising town as part of a much bigger modernisation plan.
a complete bargain.

end of the road

ezstreet5 wrote: »

True. Tuam is the place where all the benefits accrue. If I lived there, I would be livid that there were those insinuating that the town was not worth the investment of 150 million to connect it to the railway network at Athenry and Claremorris. It is a small amount of money, and it is cost effective.

that's exactly how i would feel as well if i'm honest.

mayo.mick wrote: »

Has everyone very short memories
The section that was opened, in 2011, Irish Rail were going to close again in 2016

yes it was likely a politically motivated stunt, either to get more money or because of whoever operated it pre-nationalisation or something.
i wouldn't use that as an argument for or against anything personally tbh.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

a tiny amount of money to serve a growing and modernising town as part of a much bigger modernisation plan.
a complete bargain.

Still not a high enough CB ratio to put it ahead of the other more deserving and beneficial rail projects that are crying out for investment. As a result it will not get built

This is what IE are aiming for

https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1368909934532960260?s=20

The WRC doesn't even get a mention, hell its barely on the map lol

Isambard

Deleted User wrote: »

Still not a high enough CB ratio to put it ahead of the other more deserving and beneficial rail projects that are crying out for investment. As a result it will not get built

This is what IE are aiming for

https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1368909934532960260?s=20
.
The WRC doesn't even get a mention, hell its barely on the map lol

well it wouldn't, surely no one would describe the line as Inter City, even though it is possible to use the current service to travel from a City to a City. (Tuam definitely isn't a City)

ezstreet5

end of the road wrote: »

yes it was likely a politically motivated stunt, either to get more money or because of whoever operated it pre-nationalisation or something.
i wouldn't use that as an argument for or against anything personally tbh.

It was a stunt, and related to the pay dispute with the unions brewing at the time.

Pete_Cavan

ezstreet5 wrote: »

True. Tuam is the place where all the benefits accrue. If I lived there, I would be livid that there were those insinuating that the town was not worth the investment of 150 million to connect it to the railway network at Athenry and Claremorris. It is a small amount of money, and it is cost effective.

Every person in every town in the country can be equally livid that €150m investment isn't being made in their pet project in their town. Some people seem to think that the taxpayer owes Tuam a rail connection. This isn't the Late Late Show, there isn't a €150m investment for everyone in the audience. The government has to prioritise spending based on economic justification for any particular project (cost v benefit) and alignment with national strategies, on both fronts there are many many projects ahead of WRC.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Still not a high enough CB ratio to put it ahead of the other more deserving and beneficial rail projects that are crying out for investment. As a result it will not get built

This is what IE are aiming for

https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1368909934532960260?s=20

The WRC doesn't even get a mention, hell its barely on the map lol

the fact there are other projects ahead of it is a non-issue as nobody is saying put it at the top of the list of things to do.
however it should be built and if the campaign continues then i reccan eventually it will be, whatever about to claremorris.

ezstreet5 wrote: »

It was a stunt, and related to the pay dispute with the unions brewing at the time.

ah yes that's right actually.



now that you mention it the usual suspects are threatened with closure every time there is a pay issue, it's to try and pit passengers against the staff most likely, which is disgusting and offensive in my opinion.

Sam Russell

end of the road wrote: »

the fact there are other projects ahead of it is a non-issue as nobody is saying put it at the top of the list of things to do.
however it should be built and if the campaign continues then i reccan eventually it will be, whatever about to claremorris.





ah yes that's right actually.



now that you mention it the usual suspects are threatened with closure every time there is a pay issue, it's to try and pit passengers against the staff most likely, which is disgusting and offensive in my opinion.

Just to adjust the argument slightly, would you rather a Luas for Galway?

It would be more useful by providing a line from Knocknacarra out to Ballybrit, with a spur out to Claregalway where there would be a P&R. It would take a lot more passengers, and alleviate the traffic problems in Galway CC.

The M17 already provides fast access to Galway from Tuam.

Greaney

Sam Russell wrote: »

The M17 already provides fast access to Galway from Tuam.

A very car-centric view. For those who cannot drive/ haven't a car, a motorway is not an automatic option.

Isambard

Greaney wrote: »

A very car-centric view. For those who cannot drive a motorway is not an automatic option.

but a coach may be...

Greaney

Isambard wrote: »

but a coach may be...

1) Coaches have to apply for licences for route changes and they have not done here to fore
2) They don't take bikes
3)They're not wheelchair/mobility scooter accessible
4) They're not part of a greater network in the same way rail is.
5) They are not the preferred choice of public transport by those seeking long term treatment in UCHG

Sam Russell

Greaney wrote: »

A very car-centric view. For those who cannot drive/ haven't a car, a motorway is not an automatic option.

Neither is a train in Tuam for someone who lives out the road - say in Clonacurry, seven and a half Km north of Tuam on the N17. How does someone living there get to Tuam?

Railways are great if you live in walking distance of the station, but not so great if you do not.

I am not car centric in my approach, I just think there are a lot more pressing projects - like a Luas (or BRT) for Galway CC - to rebalance public transport there.

The concentration is always on big ticket capital projects, like the ring road, or the WRC extension to Tuam, with no regard to the obvious projects like bus lanes and cycle ways, or P&R, or even more and better buses.

How about more one-way streets to speed the current buses through the city centre?

Isambard

Greaney wrote: »

1) Coaches have to apply for licences for route changes and they have not done here to fore
2) They don't take bikes
3)They're not wheelchair/mobility scooter accessible
4) They're not part of a greater network in the same way rail is.
5) They are not the preferred choice of public transport by those seeking long term treatment in UCHG

pretty weak argument really.

Liceneses could be obtained and already exist

Not impossible to carry a bike.

wheelchair capable buses and coaches are the norm nowadays
you won't get a mobility scooter on a train either

They don't need to be part of a netwrok to run from Tuam to Galway, loads of buses doing that everyday in normal times

UCHG? is that rail accessible?

Greaney

Greaney wrote: »

2) They don't take bikes

Yes they do. At least I've yet to be refused. In fact there are less restrictions regarding bikes on buses versus bikes on trains

Greaney wrote: »

3)They're not wheelchair/mobility scooter accessible

Yes they are

From BE themselves: "As we continue to invest in new fleet, the overall percentage of wheelchair-accessible vehicles continues to grow. At present, Bus Éireann’s City and Town services are 100% wheelchair accessible, with Commuter and Expressway services at 78%. Overall, 86% of Bus Éireann vehicles are accessible to wheelchair users."

Greaney wrote: »

4) They're not part of a greater network in the same way rail is.

I'm baffled by that statement. Below, a comparison of BE vs IE networks

Greaney wrote: »

5) They are not the preferred choice of public transport by those seeking long term treatment in UCHG

You don't do major infrastructural projects for niche markets, however emotive the topic is.

ohographite

Sam Russell wrote: »

For example the number of passengers Dublin Rosslare is given as 384,000 while Dublin Wicklow as 338,000, which implies Wicklow Rosslare is only 46,000 - or just 884 per week, an average of about a dozen passengers per train. A very different story for the Wicklow Rosslare portion.

I would imagine that the 384, 000 journeys made on the Dublin-Rosslare line in 2019 included just the journeys made to or from somewhere on the line south of Wicklow, with the 338, 000 journeys labelled as Dublin-Wicklow including just the journeys made from Wicklow or Kilcoole to Dublin(and possibly also a handful from Kilcoole to Wicklow).

On the 2019 Heavy Rail Census, in Appendix A, the number of daily northbound boardings in all the stations combined from Rosslare Europort to Rathdrum was 413, and in Appendix B, the number of daily southbound alightings was 552.
That meant that at least 965 journeys were made on the section of railway between Wicklow and Rosslare Europort on the day that census was taken*, and that was an average of 96 passengers per train.
I accept that the number of journeys made on any railway is different every day, but 965 journeys a day is significantly higher than 126 journeys a day, which would be the daily journeys in 2019 if 46, 000 journeys were made in 2019.
That is why I imagine that the 338, 000 Dublin-Wicklow journeys are not included in the 384, 000 Dublin-Rosslare journeys.

Here is the 2019 Heavy Rail Census:
http://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/NTA_Heavy_Rail_Census_Report_2019..pdf

*I am not sure if the daily boardings and alightings in the census are only the number of journeys each station was used for one one particular day, or the average number of journeys they were used for in one day that year(in other words, all the journeys made in a year divided by the number of days the station was open for that year).

end of the road

Sam Russell wrote: »

Just to adjust the argument slightly, would you rather a Luas for Galway?

It would be more useful by providing a line from Knocknacarra out to Ballybrit, with a spur out to Claregalway where there would be a P&R. It would take a lot more passengers, and alleviate the traffic problems in Galway CC.

The M17 already provides fast access to Galway from Tuam.

do both projects and have even more passengers and less congestion.
M17on it's own is not enough, it can only be a part solution and it will be at capacity eventually.

Sam Russell

end of the road wrote: »

do both projects and have even more passengers and less congestion.
M17on it's own is not enough, it can only be a part solution and it will be at capacity eventually.

The only congestion on the M17 is not on the M17, or the M6, but on the N6 at the Coolagh roundabout. Sort that out, and you will be fine.

You could propose sorting out Claregalway while you are at it.

Now I would like to see both sorted by an ambitious Luas solution that would provide P&R nearby both problems, feeding across Galway CC to Knocknacarra. I am not proposing a route as that would best be done by a qualified person.

ezstreet5

Sam Russell wrote: »

The only congestion on the M17 is not on the M17, or the M6, but on the N6 at the Coolagh roundabout. Sort that out, and you will be fine.

You could propose sorting out Claregalway while you are at it.

Now I would like to see both sorted by an ambitious Luas solution that would provide P&R nearby both problems, feeding across Galway CC to Knocknacarra. I am not proposing a route as that would best be done by a qualified person.

We've devolved into SimCity to avoid the reality of our hated railway. One lad is placing busses all over his patch to serve the diverse needs of the populous, while another (more generous) lad with several billion euros is building a Luas to Claregalway.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

Well the passing loop at Oranmore is more than a proposal.

https://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/119009/passing-bay-at-oranmore-station-first-phase-of-possible-double-tracking

The council and IE are applying for funding for it.


As for the larger project to double to Athenry, I don't know what stage that is at.

Funding has been approved for the passing loop at Oranmore.

https://www.rte.ie/news/connacht/2021/0312/1203564-west-regeneration/

jmlfc

https://vivarail.co.uk/
Here is an option for a battery powered train which would be eco friendly to run the WRC
Plus much less expensive than laying heavy rail and the other option of electrification.