Galway <---> Limerick: The slowest train in Europe?

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!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

26-08-2010, 22:35	#1
dowlingm Really Really Regluar Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,371	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.

27-08-2010, 14:10	#2
corktina Regular Poster Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 47	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

28-08-2010, 20:07	#3
Alan French Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 89	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.

28-08-2010, 21:50	#4
corktina Regular Poster Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 47	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!