[article] Western rail corridor passengers fall short of anticipated numbers

[Mark Gleeson]

Originally Posted by Irish Times

Western rail corridor passengers fall short of anticipated numbers

Irish Rail says the first phase of the western rail corridor has recorded “a credible performance” in spite of passenger numbers falling well short of the anticipated numbers, writes Gordon Deegan.

Figures released yesterday by Irish Rail for the route’s first 12 months show that 53,187 passengers travelled on the the new €106 million Ennis-Athenry service.

The numbers fall far short of the anticipated 100,000 in its business case for reopening the line. Irish Rail also said there were 252,607 rail passengers between Limerick and Galway.

Irish Rail corporate communications manager Barry Kenny said: “The business case obviously did not provide for the calamitous recession, which has impacted on demand for all transport due to reduced economic activity”.

© Irish Times 2011
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...298690086.html

[Mark Gleeson]

The detailed breakdown is

Total: 252,607
Ennis-Athenry: 53,187
Ennis-Limerick: 72,452
Athenry-Galway: 126,968

What is telling is the month on month numbers show a decline. Even if the first months loadings were sustained the route would still not have made 100k. Reality is the numbers for 2011 will be worse.

For reference Irish Rail carried 3% more in 2010 than in 2009. The Midleton route is actually meeting expectations. So the recession excuse is bull.

[sean]

Gee ... what a surprise

[Inniskeen]

Problems are not confined to the WRC - Dunboyne, Docklands, Adamstown, Clondalkin and Parkwest are hardly booming. I am afraid the WRC is to a great extent a micrcosm of the problems facing the railway as a whole.

How are these figures calculated - is a journey from Limerick to Galway counted as part of the Limerick/Ennis figures, the Ennis/Athenry figure or the Athenry/Galway figure or all three ?

[Mark Gleeson]

53,187 is the total number of journeys which in any way travelled on the WRC

So Limerick Ennis is not in the 53,187 number, but Sixmilebridge - Gort is as is Limerick Galway

There is no double counting so a Limerick Galway journey is not counted in Limerick Ennis

For the record the Limerick - Ennis numbers remained stable 2009 v 2010 showing a fall of only 1000

Dunboyne is suffering due the lack of Hansfield but the new timetable will serve Connolly/Pearse and stop enroute at all stations so it will see significant use. The fact that numbers overall are up 3% 2009 v 2010 shows that rail is holding on. Dublin Bus/Bus Eireann are seeing quarterly falls of 3-5%

The reality is Dublin Suburban is running at less than 1 euro a passenger subsidy as is Cork, WRC is 45 euro a head based on these numbers.

[Inniskeen]

You say that Limerick/Galway and Sixmilebridge/Gort trips are counted as WRC (by this do you mean Ennis/Athenry ?). If this is so then the figures are biased in favour of Ennis/Athenry thus underestimating usage of the other two segments.

What you appear to be saying is that any trip that originates or terminates between Ennis and Athenry or that transits Ennis/Athenry is counted as WRC and as there is no double counting these trips are excluded from Athenry/Galway and/or Limerick/Ennis. Am I interpreting this correctly ?

[comcor]

I wonder how many passengers a day would have used Rosslare-Waterford if 4 trains a day were provided... And all for no capital investment.

More seriously, the sooner Irish Rail realise that what is required is a speedy service from Galway to Limerick Junction (with either connections to or possibly travelling on to Cork and Waterford) that doesn't stop at all stations on the way, the sooner it might start attracting passengers.

[Mark Gleeson]

The 53,187 is the number of passengers who travelled in any way over the Ennis Athenry section. 100k was the business case requirement.

Galway - Limerick - Limerick Junction has been discussed with Irish Rail several times, no progress

The load factor on the Waterford Rosslare was between 30-50 depending on time of year. A cost neutral option of 3 trains a day was rejected which would have driven total numbers up and balanced its extra costs with extra revenue. Bear in mind the Waterford Rosslare had a 20-30 minute time advantage to all stations served.

[shweeney]

Originally Posted by Mark Gleeson

The 53,187 is the number of passengers who travelled in any way over the Ennis Athenry section. 100k was the business case requirement.

I think 100K was the estimate rather than the "business case requirement" - there was no business case no matter how they skewed the figures. If its costing €45 per head, doubling the numbers is not going to suddenly make it good value.

[Traincustomer]

The piece regarding the option for a thrice daily service on the South Wexford having been cost neutral is very interesting as I read in a publication that significant costs would attach their provision. I'm inclined to believe though that they would indeed have been cost neutral (as per Mark's post).

[Jamie2k9]

It would be ideal if the train would run from Galway to Waterford. People would use the service.

Last year there was an 800% increase in the amount of passengers flying between Waterford and Galway compared to the year before.

[comcor]

I guess a new platform would be required at Limerick Junction to make that feasible.

That said, a platform like that could really help with general connectivity on the Limerick-Waterford line.

And yet it's still a much lower priority than a 2nd platform on the Dublin-Cork line...

[Mark Gleeson]

Originally Posted by Jamie2k9

It would be ideal if the train would run from Galway to Waterford. People would use the service.

Last year there was an 800% increase in the amount of passengers flying between Waterford and Galway compared to the year before.

Would be no problem to do, but Irish Rail has ignored requests for this

800% of a very small number is still a small number and only by an accident of scheduling of an aer arann flight out of Galway does the option even exist

[Thomas Ralph]

Indeed; it was more due to the fact that Aer Arann decided to combine some of its Galway-Luton and Waterford-Luton services by going Galway-Waterford-Luton instead (and v/v) that generated this. I think it's a red herring.

[Colm Moore]

Originally Posted by Traincustomer

The piece regarding the option for a thrice daily service on the South Wexford having been cost neutral is very interesting as I read in a publication that significant costs would attach their provision. I'm inclined to believe though that they would indeed have been cost neutral (as per Mark's post).

Most of the costs of South Wexford were fixed costs. To operate the services, about 10 level crossing keepers were needed, whether there was 1 or 10 trains a day.

[Jack O'Neill]

Corrections and Clarifications

An Irishman's Diary - An article in the edition of June 10th, concerning the western rail corridor, said that the number of passengers has fallen short of that forecast in the business case.

However, the business case forecasts were based on 14 trains a day while there are only 10 trains a day currently. The service was described as Ennis-Athenry but these are towns on the route. The service extends from Galway to Limerick.

Are ye right there Madam, are ye right!

[Thomas J Stamp]

The IE press release was a great case of massaging the figures, and more importantly, hiding in plain sight. It expressly stated that its figures included Athenry-Galway and Limerick-Ennis, both of which, of course, existed before the WRC Phase one. It was a linguistic sleight of hand that RUI picked up just as the WRC was to include suddenly Limerick-Ennis in the term WRC. Clever. Question remains as to just why IE would put out a PR that would be so misleading in the first place?

[ACustomer]

Thomas: you ask:"Question remains as to just why IE would put out a PR that would be so misleading in the first place?"

In the PR game, misleading statements are the rule rather than the exception, especially in the CIE group.

[Thomas J Stamp]

Originally Posted by ACustomer

Thomas: you ask:"Question remains as to just why IE would put out a PR that would be so misleading in the first place?"

In the PR game, misleading statements are the rule rather than the exception, especially in the CIE group.

i dont think it was done for the benefit of IE. I dont believe they were ever madly in love with the project in the first place. Just good to see that the political string pulling has survived the FG/Labour Coup.

[dowlingm]

Is 2009 a good comparison year? If Broadmeadow hadn't happened we'd probably see zero growth year/year or even decline in 2010.