Rail Users Ireland Forum

Rail Users Ireland Forum (http://www.railusers.ie/forum/index.php)
-   Galway - Limerick - Waterford - Rosslare (http://www.railusers.ie/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=55)
-   -   Galway <---> Limerick: The slowest train in Europe? (http://www.railusers.ie/forum/showthread.php?t=12201)

sitric 26-03-2010 14:35

Galway <---> Limerick: The slowest train in Europe?
 
OK - sorry for the provocative title, but it may well be
true. A distance of 70 miles that takes 2 hours. Thats
an average of 35 miles per hour (in old money!).
For comparison, if I was in France, I could travel 265
miles in 2 hours on a train (Paris-Lyon), or put another
way, in 2 hours I could go from Belfast to Cork.

Why is it so slow? The answer it seems is:

1) The trains don't go fast! Another poster on the forum says,
because of the bad track quality, maximum speed is 50 miles/hour.

2) The trains stop _everywhere_, at small towns and villages.
I've never done an exact calculation on this, but my reckoning is
each stop costs 5 minutes in total travel time (.....about
1.5 minutes to slow a heavy train, 2 minutes actual stop, 1.5
minutes to get it back up to speed again).
On the Galway - Limerick line there are 6 stops. So thats 30
minutes just for stops.

The solutions:

Solution to 1):
Well, thats a much bigger political debate, money, etc. Make
the train line better, make the trains better, etc. So thats
a much bigger fight (for another day....)

Solution to 2):
Well, hey presto, the solution to 2) costs nothing: Simply,
run some (not all) non-stop trains between the two cities.
That will shave 30 minutes off the trip (well... 70 miles
distance, for a train at 50 mph - should be travel time of
85 minutes).

For more details (and a longer rant!!) read on!
__________________________________________________ ____________
So, what seems to me to be the best service would be:

1) Frequent "commuter" type trains into/out of the two
cities, at rush hours. I know for a fact many people
who work in Galway city live near athenry/craughwell/ardrahan
even Gort. So run a commuter service (every 20 minutes) from
7am to 9am from Gort in to Galway!
(I guess, at the other end, there are commuters from
Sixmilebridge/Ennis going to Limerick, so do the same there.)

2) Then, intercity services spread throughout the day, half of
them "non stop" and half "stop everywhere". e.g. 3 in each
direction of each type.
(At a limit - maybe the "non-stop" one should stop in Ennis).

What IE does not seem to get on a national basis is what has been
happenning successfully in Europe for years: Trains do not
have to stop everywhere, and moreover they SHOULD not all
stop everywhere. The point is, that by running trains that stop
in small places (and hence providing a _good_ service to the
small numbers of people that live there), you provide a
dis-service to the large numbers of people in the larger (cities),
by having long journeys. This might not be so crucial, if the
trains themselves were electric high-speed, that even by stopping
everywhere, could easily beat the car/bus. But in Ireland, the
train that stops everywhere will never beat the car/bus (at the
moment there are non-stop buses running Galway-Dublin in 2.5
hours, beating the fastest trains 2.9 hours).
And the bottom line is, even with all the other nice aspects of
train travel, if it can't beat fairly significantly the car/bus
(or ....dare I say it... the aeroplane), people won't use it in
numbers.

Lastly.

Of course there will/would be protests from the people who live
in smaller places at trains flying right through their place.
But just, do the numbers:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_popula tion

Galway: 72,000 people
Limerick: 90,000 people
Ennis: 24,000 people.

and all other stops en-route have less than 3,000 people.

Mark Gleeson 26-03-2010 21:29

The reason the WRC is slow is it was never built for passenger services, it was built for freight. Its got too many corners and too many hills to allow a reasonable speed to be maintained. Compare that with Dublin Cork which hasn't a single corner which requires a limit of less than 80mph

The government where given three options

1. Minimum cost option to make safe for passengers circa 40mph
2. Best achieveable within existing route (i.e avoid major civil works) 60mph
3. Build from scratch a new direct and straight line (anything between 400million and 1 billion euro if you go via Shannon)

Option 2 was the chosen option and trains will run at 60mph except where the curves get in the way.

There is no business case for the line and all the reports say that, compare that with Midleton which had a strong case

The stop at Sixmilebridge seems justified, but Craughwell and Ardahan are a waste of money, considering the low speeds and the type of train a stop costs more like 3-4 minutes.

Given Ennis generates 200,000 journeys per annum, a stop is essential, Sixmilebridge is to have a bus to Shannon Airport. Even non stop the train can't win as the rail distance is much further than by road. the stop in Athenry cannot be ommitted as the train must reverse there, a stop in Gort is required to allow for a train passing the other way

The only workable investment would have been a second track from Athenry to Galway (it was two tracks till the early 1900's), add in a few extra stations and run every 30 minutes, very similar to Cork-Cobh would be cheap, effective and most of all be attractive to use

jscales1 10-06-2010 17:01

Is there a chance in the future that with a good level of passenger use that the line will be brought up to the same standard as the Dublin-Cork line.
Is the passenger number high?

Mark Gleeson 10-06-2010 17:47

Despite some hype the numbers are broadly in line with the 100,000 per annum pre opening estimate.

In comparison Dublin Cork services carry 3-4 million per annum at 4 times lower cost to the taxpayer

ccos 10-06-2010 21:51

Quote:

In comparison Dublin Cork services carry 3-4 million per annum at 4 times lower cost to the taxpayer

In fairness I dont think even the most fanatical WOTer claimed it would compete with the Dubllin Cork route, afterall theres around a million dubs who need bringing to a proper city.:D

dowlingm 12-06-2010 14:18

If the Crusheen station proceeds it will get even slower!

In fairness though, sitric, a search of this forum, not to mention the mightily long threads on boards.ie, will tell you you're preaching to the choir. There were any number of expansion or state-of-good-repair projects that 106m and the design and engineering manpower required could have be employed on to bring in a multiple of the 100k passengers - including improvements to the northern and southern thirds of the WRC alignment itself.

These could have facilitated passengers by allowing more frequent departures rather than crews and trains wasting duty time and diesel sitting in termini waiting for a slot on the single track ahead.

EMD 24-07-2010 06:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Gleeson (Post 56567)
Despite some hype the numbers are broadly in line with the 100,000 per annum pre opening estimate.

In comparison Dublin Cork services carry 3-4 million per annum at 4 times lower cost to the taxpayer

Apples and oranges. How much has been spent on the Dublin-Cork corridor for decades? It was always the GSR's most important corridor, and of course should have seen the level of care it has seen (save being afflicted by Mark 4s). Is it fair to compare LGVs to traditional railway corridors in France?

Also, "too many corners" is not an excuse, unless there is no super-elevation on them, and that's not even safe for freight operations to be excluded. Grades are not a good excuse either, since DMUs have multiple driving axles and can surmount them far better than loco with trailer cars. The track is not the limiting factor in speed, especially when the track is brand new (and, presumably, does not have gauge variation problems through being under-maintained); signalling is.

In spite of the limitations, I still see promising useage of this line, even when one cuts through the (unspecified) "hype". The only buses that could beat it are express buses, and even with the reputedly low city populations (which do not reflect metropolitan area populations), there's a fantastic amount of roads traffic that you just cannot drive through, whereas the train even travelling at a relatively pokey average speed of 58 km/h will by-pass those jams.

dowlingm 24-07-2010 20:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by EMD (Post 57369)
Apples and oranges. How much has been spent on the Dublin-Cork corridor for decades?

Limerick Junction alone would demonstrate how IE have not spent enough on its premier corridor.
  • No east side platform to allow simultaneous NB and SB service stops
  • 25mph speed limit due to the state of the trackage
  • Derailment caused by retention of a life expired switch
  • No platform on the Waterford line thus requiring trains to Waterford to block the mainline even if proceeding back towards Waterford after stopping.
Add to that Portarlington's only recently completed work, the continuing restrictions elsewhere which caused the court case in respect of the engineer involved, the laying of rail too light for a 3000hp loco at 100mph...

Quote:

In spite of the limitations, I still see promising useage of this line, even when one cuts through the (unspecified) "hype". The only buses that could beat it are express buses
If you arrive at Limerick station at 2.30pm you will have to wait 55mins for your next bus which will arrive in Galway approx 2h20m later. Your 1h55 train won't depart for another 3h35m. Even outside of that, the train's headway is of the order of 2h20m, the bus 1hr.

By the way - using terms like superelevation will get this thread disappeared to the members section.

Alan French 23-08-2010 16:54

The slowest train in Europe?

I'm a bit late replying, but this question of average speed has come up in several threads, referring to different lines around the country. The Limerick-Galway service averages about 60km/h; let's not forget that the media chose to emphasise the line's slowness.

But it isn't the slowest in Europe. I can think of the narrow-gauge lines of northern Spain, or the Douro valley line in northern Portugal (especially the part east of Régua), where average speeds are down to 40-50km/h, and yet these lines are thriving. Mountainous terrain is generally what makes them slow. On certain parts of the Spanish narrow-gauge, there are buses doing the journey in half the time, using motorways that cut through the mountains. Yet the trains aren't empty, despite all the theories that they should be.

Obviously, whatever can be done to increase speeds should be done. But let's not be too dismissive of lines with low average speeds, as if everyone would suddenly stop using the trains once the road journey is faster. Frequency and good connections can make as big a difference as speed.

This also applies where the rail route is roundabout compared with the road route. In 1973 they decided that the main Dublin-Galway route would be via Portarlington. This was the longer of the two available routes. But that didn't suddenly mean that the trains would run empty.

corktina 23-08-2010 18:32

well as regards the WRC, its a service between two of the biggest cities in the Country, The road journey is already much faster and soon to be faster still, the fares are more than the competing (faster) bus service, the frequency is quite frankly pants, the line is worked on a one-shift basis afaik which means no early morning or late night trains (need I go on?)

Quite frankly I would be very surprised if it wasn't the slowest inter-city service in Europe.It averages LESS than 60km/h which is pitifully slow, many TRACTORS can maintain that speed.

lasno 23-08-2010 18:47

And Bus Eireann have just introduced a new express service between Limerick and Galway, the 51X. Only two stops, Gort and Oranmore. Journey time is listed as 90 minutes.

Mark Gleeson 23-08-2010 18:56

If we want to be frank about the realities Galway and Limerick are small cities on a European level. You would be surprised what European average actually is, Dublin Belfast believe it or not in journey times is exactly in line with European average

Its slow because it take roundabout route, the route isn't straight and has a lot of up and down.

The media is right to highlight the very clear difference in journey times, all the reports said not to open the line. The money would have been much better spent between Athenry and Galway on providing a commuter service, cost less to build, cost less to run and would generate a large number of passengers.

neoncircles 23-08-2010 19:18

I wonder will many/any improvements be made in the 2011 timetable..

comcor 24-08-2010 07:46

It's not even the slowest service in Ireland.

Limerick-Ballybrophy probably has that title.

And for services linking main cities Limerick-Waterford must have that title.

Alan French 24-08-2010 20:46

Actually, I would call Bilbao-San Sebastián an inter-city route. That’s the one that averages 40km/h, and where the buses are twice as fast. But the trains don’t run empty.

I’m not disputing the slow speed of the WRC; I’m just not sure what everyone is trying to prove. But my line of reason comes from being familiar with the flawed logic behind the arguments used for closing railways. The theory was always that buses could do the job adequately at lower cost. What actually happened was that less people used the replacement bus, since some now went by car and others travelled less often. Connecting traffic on the adjoining lines was also lost. This is why replacement buses were often withdrawn subsequently. Closures undermined the system as a whole.

So the result was more car journeys, less travelling overall, and perhaps not even a saving in public funds. Notice that the period of the most closures (1958-63) was also a time of rapidly increasing deficit. We as taxpayers might not even have gained anything from the closures.

Transport theories of that era, sometimes called “predict and provide”, assumed that the demand for any service was independent of its quality. They thought that a service could deteriorate and everyone would still have to use it. Aspects of quality obviously include journey time and fares, but they also include comfort, reliability, frequency, minimum number of changes, and regularity (whether the timetable is clock-face or not). Experience also shows that a train has a definite advantage over a bus in perceived quality. Curiously, this seems to be true no matter how good the bus service is.

This has lots of implications. One is that where trains and buses run parallel, they have distinct but overlapping markets. The growth in inter-city buses hasn’t destroyed the market for the parallel railways – even when the buses are faster. You may say, “No one will use the train if the bus is cheaper and quicker”, but experience shows otherwise. Trains have a lot more success in getting people out of their cars.

So in re-opening services, we are trying to reverse the process that happens in closures. Where a route is well served by buses, and it looks like we should leave things as they are, the two main motives for introducing a train service are:

1. Connections with adjoining lines mean more people making longer journeys. This may go a long way to covering costs, and

2. There will be a benefit to the wider community in reducing car journeys.

This is very much a summary, but there is a range of factors that RUI members should be familiar with. There was a mentality and a set of mistaken assumptions that led to the closures. Too many economists, sadly, still cling to this mentality, with their predict-and-provide approach and their dreams of a bus-only system. Let us make sure we don’t unwittingly make the same mistaken assumptions.

Much needs to be done on the WRC. In the short term this means improving frequency and regularity, running through trains to other lines, and improving connections generally (see my contribution to the timetable consultation). This will not all be negated just because road journeys can be faster.

Sealink 24-08-2010 21:50

Don't want to take this off topic, but have "done" the Bilbao-San Sebastien route. Bayjaysus it's slow!!!!

ACustomer 25-08-2010 08:22

Yesterday at Limerick station, there were timetables posted up for all routes except Limerick-Galway. (There were however some Limerick-Galway little booklet timetables on a shelf).

There is no excuse for this.

corktina 25-08-2010 10:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan French (Post 58018)
Actually, I would call Bilbao-San Sebastián an inter-city route. That’s the one that averages 40km/h, and where the buses are twice as fast. But the trains don’t run empty.

I’m not disputing the slow speed of the WRC; I’m just not sure what everyone is trying to prove. But my line of reason comes from being familiar with the flawed logic behind the arguments used for closing railways. The theory was always that buses could do the job adequately at lower cost. What actually happened was that less people used the replacement bus, since some now went by car and others travelled less often. Connecting traffic on the adjoining lines was also lost. This is why replacement buses were often withdrawn subsequently. Closures undermined the system as a whole.

So the result was more car journeys, less travelling overall, and perhaps not even a saving in public funds. Notice that the period of the most closures (1958-63) was also a time of rapidly increasing deficit. We as taxpayers might not even have gained anything from the closures.

Transport theories of that era, sometimes called “predict and provide”, assumed that the demand for any service was independent of its quality. They thought that a service could deteriorate and everyone would still have to use it. Aspects of quality obviously include journey time and fares, but they also include comfort, reliability, frequency, minimum number of changes, and regularity (whether the timetable is clock-face or not). Experience also shows that a train has a definite advantage over a bus in perceived quality. Curiously, this seems to be true no matter how good the bus service is.

This has lots of implications. One is that where trains and buses run parallel, they have distinct but overlapping markets. The growth in inter-city buses hasn’t destroyed the market for the parallel railways – even when the buses are faster. You may say, “No one will use the train if the bus is cheaper and quicker”, but experience shows otherwise. Trains have a lot more success in getting people out of their cars.

So in re-opening services, we are trying to reverse the process that happens in closures. Where a route is well served by buses, and it looks like we should leave things as they are, the two main motives for introducing a train service are:

1. Connections with adjoining lines mean more people making longer journeys. This may go a long way to covering costs, and

2. There will be a benefit to the wider community in reducing car journeys.

This is very much a summary, but there is a range of factors that RUI members should be familiar with. There was a mentality and a set of mistaken assumptions that led to the closures. Too many economists, sadly, still cling to this mentality, with their predict-and-provide approach and their dreams of a bus-only system. Let us make sure we don’t unwittingly make the same mistaken assumptions.

Much needs to be done on the WRC. In the short term this means improving frequency and regularity, running through trains to other lines, and improving connections generally (see my contribution to the timetable consultation). This will not all be negated just because road journeys can be faster.


The reality is millions of euro of OUR taxes have been spent building a second rate line. Theres not much you can do to imrove a moribund existing line perhaps but to WASTE it on this project is ridiculous and unforgivable and whats more it will now cost us countless millions in subsidies to keep it going to the detriment of other (perhaps more viable) bits of the system.

Mark Gleeson 25-08-2010 13:32

Exactly thats why we should have looked at Galway commuter services first.

Everyone is waiting for passenger numbers which are real, not guesswork

The numbers onboard on departure from Athenry for Limerick and on arrival from Limerick at Athenry are what we are interested in. Business is good Galway Athenry but that didn't need 100+ million spent to achieve.

corktina 25-08-2010 13:38

I fully agree.A park and Ride stattion at Oranmore would seem a good idea but the plans i have heard of do not include a passing loop there and have only a small car park whereas at least a site should be chosen with potential for a larger car park. It wouls make sense to me if there were also P&R buses from here to parts of the city not served by the railway.

Colm Moore 26-08-2010 00:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by corktina (Post 58025)
The reality is millions of euro of OUR taxes have been spent building a second rate line. Theres not much you can do to imrove a moribund existing line perhaps but to WASTE it on this project is ridiculous and unforgivable and whats more it will now cost us countless millions in subsidies to keep it going to the detriment of other (perhaps more viable) bits of the system.

Given that the money has been spent aleady, surely we should give it a chance? Better to promote the service and see it try to break even than just give up.

corktina 26-08-2010 00:45

break even? even IE concede it will lose millions per year. Even with an efficent owner it can't thrive given the ham-strung way it is built with the Motorway covering the same route only shorter. It would be cheaper to shut it down and hire the existing passengers taxis!

Ronald Binge 26-08-2010 18:09

I've just seen an empty coach running from the Airport to Rosslare at the Port Tunnel.

[parody]This route must be scrapped IMMEDIATELY [/parody]

Alan French 26-08-2010 20:01

Colm Moore is right – the service could break even, provided that we define breaking even as making a net contribution to the system as a whole.

I said that my understanding of the transport market “has lots of implications” (#15). One of them is that the traditional profit/loss account for each line is wildly misleading. For a closure, the relevant figure is not what the line itself is losing, but the saving made to the whole system (and to the whole country) when all effects of the closure are allowed for. Staff redeployed elsewhere, for example, are not a saving. But most importantly, loss of revenue to connecting services is a real loss to the whole system. So the real saving will always be less than the losses shown in an itemised account.

So I am applying the reverse of this logic to re-openings. If the WRC, with an improved timetable and connections, will contribute to the rest of the network more than it loses on operating costs, then the entire argument about being a drain on taxpayers’ money collapses. It is possible, given a few years, that the line may be a net contributor. Then where will all this rhetoric about saving taxpayers’ money be?

Of course, the contribution to the rest of the network is difficult to estimate, and needs to be based on actual experience. But the traditional profit/loss account is not the “next best thing”: it is seriously wide of the mark. Quoting such figures in the media is misleading, and I would even call it fraudulent accounting.

So if you resent tax money going on the WRC, ask yourself this. Of all the dubious spending by Government, why pick on this line (which might yet make a net contribution), and not, for example, the motorway system? In particular, have the same people protested against the Limerick-Galway motorway as an extravagance? There is something strange in the way that railway projects attract more white-elephant type comments than almost any other area of public expenditure. This “presumption of extravagance” needs to be explored further.

Ronald Binge’s parody (#23) hits the nail on the head: it shows how differently people think about railways as against other public services.

Colm Moore 26-08-2010 20:39

That is much how Luas work out their figures "If we add this, how many extra passengers on the system?".

corktina 26-08-2010 21:17

but the reason why this line cannot be a sucess is the way its been built. How exactly do you propose improving the timetable when there are at least two more stations planned? Im sure everyone would have welcomed this line if it had been sensibly built.As it is , its an anachchronism doomed to fail through lack of usage as it did the first time round.

dowlingm 26-08-2010 22:35

Alan French - criticism of the WRC on this forum and others does not come down to "we should build a motorway instead" and you shouldn't imply that the critics here believe that. This is a rail passenger forum, after all. I doubt there's many here who don't think the rail-road funding levels are imbalanced - one of the reasons I think NRA should assume the role of rail infrastructure operator is in part to force them to produce alternatives analyses to new roads in addition to more design and engineering resources as part of a larger organisation.

It comes down to the fact that Clonsilla-Pace is opening now and not last year - Pace-Navan should have been on the way to being done. It comes down to Oranmore, Hansfield, Longpavement and Blarney having no stations, Sixmilebridge no passing loop and Craughwell no passengers. It's about the line being done on the cheap to match the bullsh!t cost estimates coming from West On Track meaning there's a 5mph limit out of Ennis and the sight of an LC underwater at Kiltartan.

If it wasn't for political sleeveens, we would have more track, more stations and more passengers on the rails today - just not north of Ennis, yet.

corktina 27-08-2010 14:10

Yup. Im a life-long railiac and would love to see trains dashing round everywhere, but not at ANY price. If rail travel is to boom in this part of the world then whats needed is investment in the lines to Dublin. Improve them to give a first-world service and you just might start enticing passengers in from the hinterland. More-of-the-same is not progress

Alan French 28-08-2010 20:07

I would distinguish between giving a project a lower priority, and saying that it shouldn’t be done. I’m not saying that the WRC should have been high priority. But now that it’s actually operating, we should do everything to make it work. Besides, there will always be different opinions on priority.

If the case against this line is so clear-cut, then let’s remember how many other lines are or have been in similar circumstances. About 15 or 20 years ago, the Dublin-Sligo line hung in the balance. The track was deteriorating, no money was being invested, and people feared a closure by stealth. The average speed was just over 60km/h, the current value for the WRC. This line might well have been closed as many other lines were, and people would have said, “Pity it closed, but of course, it was losing money and there wasn’t the population. Sligo is a small city by European standards.”

What changed it into one of the most successful lines in the country? The track was re-laid, increasing speeds, but not all that much – at 72km/h it is still one of the slower radial routes. New trains were introduced, but most significantly, the number of trains per day was increased from three, first to five, then to eight, running every two hours on a clock-face basis. Were political sleeveens (Dowlingm, #27) in any way responsible for initiating the turnaround, I wonder? This is why I beg to disagree with Corktina: “There’s not much you can do to improve a moribund existing line” (#18). What I’m advocating on the WRC is a two-hourly service, as well as improved connections and through running.

We have the benefit of hindsight, of course, but I think the big difference between the Sligo line and the WRC is that the former never closed. A line can be closed at the stroke of a pen, and quite soon a terrible inertia sets in, turning public opinion around to the idea that the closure was inevitable.

I take Dowlingm’s point about the line being done “on the cheap”, but this raises a more general issue. A few years ago, when we were Platform 11, there was a lot of talk about “Rolls-Royce” schemes – quality projects where there was always a suspicion that someone had over-designed or over-priced them, to make them less likely to happen. So do you design for high quality from the start, or do you build cheap and improve things later? There are pros and cons on both sides; consequently both methods can be criticised. But starting cheap puts places on the railway map.

I’m not implying that other forum users want more motorways built instead. I mean that road projects don’t get the same scrutiny from public opinion (at least, not on the grounds of cost). Look at it this way – in most public spending, people look for the best service for their locality. It falls to the Department of Finance, and those administering the budget in Government bodies, to decide which things the country can’t afford. So for example, education suffers badly, with prefabs and large classes, but that is driven by Government, not by popular fear of extravagance. As for road-building, people assume it’s all needed, regardless of price. But when it comes to spending on rail projects, suddenly popular opinion puts on its Department-of-Finance hat, and decides what the country definitely can’t afford.

In the consultation on sustainable transport (2008), I mentioned this under the subject of attitudes that need to change. I called it the “presumption of extravagance”. This isn’t a Dublin-versus-country issue either. Some of the worst examples are to do with the Dublin rail and tram projects – including the Navan line, which I would regard as a priority. (See also Events, Happenings and Media > New Luas stops will not open due to downturn > #4 for Ronald Binge’s take on this subject. I’ll let him explain who “teenage economists” are!)

Another statistic: If they had good connections, the Galway-Cork journey would take about 3½ hours, making an average of about 70km/h at existing line speeds. If that’s too slow, so are several other lines.

corktina 28-08-2010 21:50

How would you get 3 1/2 hours? the wrc bit alone takes nearly two! I assume you are advocating a through train to Cork with that timimg and I would doubt you would do Colbert to Kent in an hour and a half.
The Sligo line had two advantages over the WRC..namely it was capable of having the speds increased because it was built as a proper railway when foirst built not a cheap rural line like the WRC when first built.It was therefore straighter(and had no reversal), secondly it leads to Dublin and therefore had a naturally higher usage thasn the WRC would have

Let me ask you, would you prefer money to be spent opening to Tuam or on improving the Galway to Dublin in some way?

To quote someone else, the WRC is a Camel.... a horse designed by ...well not a committte but by ill-informed people in the west who wanted their railway back without a thought as to how that money could be used better.

PS would anyone actually want to take 3 1/2 hours riding from Galway to Cork? I used to travel to Ballina in a truck and could do it in 4!

Colm Moore 28-08-2010 22:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan French (Post 58071)
I take Dowlingm’s point about the line being done “on the cheap”, but this raises a more general issue. A few years ago, when we were Platform 11, there was a lot of talk about “Rolls-Royce” schemes – quality projects where there was always a suspicion that someone had over-designed or over-priced them, to make them less likely to happen. So do you design for high quality from the start, or do you build cheap and improve things later? There are pros and cons on both sides; consequently both methods can be criticised. But starting cheap puts places on the railway map.

One needs to be more careful about what is gold plated and what isn't.

Its important to get the basics right, spend money on them. Be more careful on spending money on shiny things. So declining the use of Mark 2s on the Sligo line because commuter trains were newer / shinier(sp?) or putting stations were very few people live or want to go - at the expense of places where many more people live or want to go - is succumbing to the shiny front end syndrome.

corktina 29-08-2010 04:58

Like putting a station in Craughwell (well in a field outside it) instead of Oranmore you mean.... have to agree there. It amazes me that the stattion wasnt built alongside the level crossing just west of Craughwell on the old N road. I get the feeling it was built where theold station USED to be for no better reason than thats was where it used to be. A station west of the village would be on the mainline and have far more potential.


disclaimer...I'm not 100% sure of my geography here, so feel free to shoot me down.

Colm Moore 29-08-2010 15:18

Station is here: http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V1,550840,719812,5 Level crossing further north.

I imagine its down to they owned the land and they weren't going buying new land.

I was going to say its nearer more of the housing, but every boreen in the area is full of houses.

Operationally, its probably better to have the level crossing slightly away from the level crossing to cut down gate time, but I'll defer to others on that point.

Interchange-wise it is retrograde to have to drag buses off the N6.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:35.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.