Brian Hanson

Dublin is nothing like Atlanta. I lived in Atlanta for a while and it is truly the most boring and car-orientated city on the planet (more that LA at this point)

Dublin, despite it’s shortcommings and sprawl, is still far more European that the Frank McDoanlds of this world would have you believe.

The City of the Sacred Heart strikes more like Camberra, which is a terible, souless spread of nothing built by people with more money than taste.

The west of Ireland does not need a second large city. The National Spatial Strategy is the ideal solution if the present government and CIE were not trying to destroy it.

I have nothing against building a city in the west of Ireland. But this is just so weird and a bunch of religious headbangers is behind the idea. It’s just so odd and so American-centric. Nothing Irish about it. Aside from the fact it’s a nutcase project, what would be so great about building an Atlanta in Mayo? A soul car-based American bland sprawl of total nothingness except a base for exporting wealth and developing little Irish preists and nuns.

This is simply a fruitcake, “be like the Yanks boyo and all our problems will be solved!” idea taken to the extreme by people who want to move the religious orders into the City of the Sacred Heart and then think about everything else.

Tallaght meets Knock is not my idea of heaven.

“Christ never lived in Temple Bar”

What a great title for a song, or fanzine.

What Spencer Dock needs is a new 10 or 12 station platform to solve the capcity/integration issue once and for all. The difference that would make to the heavy rail network would be incredible – six tracks run into Spencer Dock at the moment form every line. Think about that…6 tracks. Stick a train station on the end of that with enough platforms and you can run massive numbers of trains in and out. The DART line would be free-up to expand the numbers of DART trains to serious frequency levels. If the opertunity is missed to make Spencer Dock a serious rail station it will be looked upon by future generations as a lost opertuninty. Unlike Frank’s metro, it will not impact on exsisting services at all and it won’t have to be electrified from day one either. McDonald’s Metro is not the answer and I am not being smug here, but it just isn’t – the real answer is a major passenger station at Spencer Dock for heavy rail.

:trains are the only way to avoid the 21st
:Century Urban nightmare.

There was no link to this, so sorry for pasting it. It makes facinating reading:

Thoughts on future rail policy in Ireland; a view by Hassard Stacpoole, editor of Irish Railway News

Separation of infrastructure from Rail Company: The ownership and management of the rail infrastructure should be separated from the rail operator (Iarnród Éireann). This is required under EU directives. This would help put the basic rail infrastructure on the same footing as our national road network and allow rail to compete more competitively with road, particularly when it comes to freight.
The infrastructure should be vested in a new non-profit state agency, which would be responsible for the maintenance and development of our rail network. A subvention for the maintenance and improvement of the rail network would be given to the new infrastructure company by government. It would raise revenue in two ways, firstly by charging Iarnród Éireann and any other potential operator a fee for each train operated and secondly by managing the existing railway property portfolio more effectively. With the removal of the ownership and maintenance of the national infrastructure from Iarnród Éireann, it would allow the company to concentrate on developing its existing services. Furthermore this would also bring forward the need to remove Irelands dispensation to open access as is require by EU directives.

The need for Open Access: Ireland has sought to defer the implementation of the EU directives, which allow for open access to its rail system for rail freight. Ireland has not implemented the directive, which came into being in March 2003, to allow open access on Ireland’s only portion of the TransEuropean railfreight network from Cork – Dublin-Belfast. The Department of Transport has sought a deferment from the EU and have no plans to implement this directive or implement the directive which allows total open access to the whole network in March 2008 – As it stands Ireland is likely to be the only country in the EU (including accession countries) that will not be implementing open access for freight. By the end of 2003 the European parliament will have legislated for open access for all international freight services in 2006 and national services in 2008.
The current deferral should be removed and the government should legislate for total open access to allow the development of new freight and other services on the existing rail network in Ireland – this would bring us in line with the more progressive EU states. The Government and Department of Transport inaction is allowing Iarnród Éireann to maintain its unhealthy monopoly.
Mr Vinois, Head of the Railway Transport and Interoperability Unit of the EU Directorate-General for Energy and Transport indicated in the Western Development Commission seminar on rail in Claremorris in April, that if a potential operator did approach the commission, the EU could force the Irish Government to provide open access on the Irish network despite the current dispensation.
These directives must be implemented and open access be legislated to allow potential operator to enter the market place particularly in the areas where the current operator does not provide adequate services. This would allow new operators to come on board and develop new services.
With open access, there will be the need for a rail regulator.

Rail Regulator: If as suggested the arguments for the separation of rail infrastructure from the operator and the provision of open access on the network is accepted, there will be the need for the establishment of a rail regulator. Furthermore the behaviour of Iarnród Éireann in the last 18 months, has illustrated why there is the need for a rail regulator. Iarnród Éireann as a subsidiary of CIE is not directly accountable to the Department of Transport (DoT) but to the board of CIE. The DoT or the Minister cannot intervene when Iarnród Éireann take decisions which may have major national consequences – this can be starkly illustrated by the removal of the physical junction of the Athenry – Claremorris railway line in Athenry in Nov 2002. If a rail regulator existed, Iarnród Éireann would have had to seek approval from the office of the regulator to remove such a vital piece of infrastructure rather than doing it unilaterally, as it did. The rail regulators power should be wide raging and would be responsible for
– Ensuring and maintaining a minimum service on all passenger lines (I would suggest a minimum of 4 trains each way on all existing passenger lines).
– Power to ensure that there is proper timetabling on the system and avoid examples of deliberate and bad timetabling such as exists on the Waterford Limerick line.
– Ensuring that no major infrastructure projects would impede the development of future passenger and freight service. For example if a rail regulator existed IE would have had to go to the rail regulator to get permission to alter junctions like the work carried out recently in Claremorris and Athenry.
– Ensure that train-operating paths are allocated fairly between intercity, suburban and freight services.
– Have the power to licence and allow other operators to enter and operate trains on the Irish Rail network.
– Have the power to regulate and oversee the disposal of redundant locomotives, rolling stock and property particularly if it will affect the future development of future services.
– Have the power to ensure that new housing developments do not encroach
on land required for widened tracks. Recent developments at Kilbarrack,
Portmarnock and Drogheda are a bit close to the line for comfort.

Railway Bill: With the separation of the infrastructure and the creation of a rail Regulator there will be the need for a railway bill. This will give the opportunity to reform the main transport acts, which govern how our railways operate and are regulated.
One of the key reforms needed in such a bill is tighter control on how services can be withdrawn. Currently if a service is to be withdrawn (or not as the case in the Western Rail Corridor), under the 1958 Transport Act, there is no formal system of appeal. The railway company/operator can give two months notice of its intention to withdraw services; there is no formal way for the public, a state body (such as a local authority) to formally object and oppose the withdrawal of a service or total closure of a railway line – this can only be stopped by lobbying the Minister of Transport directly and any final decision is subject to the Minister of Transport discretion. In a proposed bill a formal system where the public etc can state their opposition must be established. Their objections must be formally investigated before permission or refusal is granted with the proposed withdrawal/closure of a service. If another operator wishes to take over the threatened service, it must be given the opportunity to do so. Furthermore the railway bill should formally enshrine and protect closed railway lines. It must become a statutory responsibility for the owner who closes and withdraws rail services that the closed railway’s track and right of way must be maintained in a useable condition for a minimum of 10 years.

Rail Freight: The responsibility and development of rail freight should be separated a way from Iarnród Éireann. Iarnród Éireann freight business should be set up as a stand-alone company separate from Iarnród Éireann and CIE group.
It is vital that a proper workable system of subsidy is put in place to allow the railways to compete and take traffic back from the roads effectively. Earlier in the year we suggested that the government could provide tax relief in the form of capital allowances. This would be an easy and effective way to help stimulate the growth of the rail freight sector. Tax relief in the form of capital allowances would allow companies to invest in infrastructure for using rail freight, which may be in the form of tax right off against investment in plant and physical infrastructure. Why are Capital Allowances available for the construction of toll roads, bridges and multi-storey car parks but not rail?
There should be total open access to our rail network, which as outlined above, would allow any potential rail operator to enter the freight market. Competition to Iarnród Éireann’s existing services can only stimulate growth and innovation to the current stagnant rail freight market. Unfortunately, any potential new rail freight operators have been frightened away from entering the Irish market because of the Minister Brennan and the Dept. of Transport insistence that they deal directly with Dr John Lynch and CIE. Experience from this exercise has shown that Iarnród Éireann wants to maintain its monopoly at all costs and is determined not to allow another operator into the market place to compete against it or develop new services. The threat of another operator coming into the market place forced Iarnród Éireann to negotiate a new deal with Coillte.
The proposed rail regulator would oversee the development and growth of the freight market.
The rail regulator would also ensure that there are safeguards in place to ensure that no major infrastructure such as freight yards, potential land banks on railway owned property where freight facilities can be developed are disposed of.
Finally targets should be set for a minimum growth of rail freight over the next 10 years.

Iarnród Éireann’s Road Freight Operation: Iarnród Éireann should be forced to withdraw and sell its road freight business. Iarnród Éireann’s road freight business is effectively being subsidised by the public purse, which is clearly at odds with both EU and Irish government ideals and is probably contrary to EU competition law. The current situation is perverse in that a company, which is tasked with managing the railways, is instead investing in its biggest modal competitor.

Passenger Services: It is interesting to note both Iarnród Éireann’s current business plan as well as the recently published Strategic Rail Review (SRR) have suggested that clock face timetabling should be developed and introduced on the majority of the intercity routes. This has to be welcomed.
However, it is clear that Iarnród Éireann is not interested in developing its non-radial routes such as Limerick- Rosslare, Limerick – Ballybrophy (or indeed the Western Rail Corridor). As suggested earlier there must be a minimum service level that each line must be provided with. If the operator is not interested in developing these services and providing the minimum service level that is required, a potential community based operators should be allowed into the rail passenger market. This is common practice across Europe where local government work in partnership with the community to develop and operate rail services. This could be the way forward in developing lines such as Limerick – Rosslare, Limerick – Ballybrophy where senior Iarnród Éireann management have shown their indifference in the past to improving and developing services. This could also be a way forward for developing commuter services into cities such as Limerick, Galway and Waterford.
Rolling stock utilisation and usage must be improved. With better utilisation more frequent services can be provided. Clearly one of the issues Iarnród Éireann has at the moment is the age of their fleet. Iarnród Éireann must be instructed and allowed to lease rolling stock. This is common practice in the railway industry and is still an alien concept to Iarnród Éireann. It would provide a cost effective method of ensuring that there is suitable and modern rolling stock program with out burdening the taxpayer with vast capital expenditure projects. Leasing of rolling stock would allow for existing services to be enhanced, expanded and new services to be developed.
There is also the clear need to see inter regional service to be developed which I deal with below.

Western Rail Corridor: one of the abject failures of the SRR was the failure to come out in favour in reopening part or the whole of the WRC to passenger and freight traffic. As I wrote in both the Sunday Times and the Limerick Leader the consultants got this aspect of the SRR seriously wrong with some basic and fundamental errors which affected the reports final assessment of the projects viability. Fortunately many commentators as well as many politicians from most political parties have recognised that there were serious omissions in the SRR in respect to the WRC. If the concerns are not address by Government soon it is clear that the WRC corridor is set to become a major political issue in both the forthcoming local and European Elections due next year.
Part of the failure of why the development of the WRC was not recognised as a priority by the SRR is because it is not seen as a preferred project by Iarnród Éireann. The example of the “Athenry incident” last year shows that Iarnród Éireann are determined to dismantle the WRC and want to concentrate on the radial intercity routes.
What is becoming clear is that Iarnród Éireann should not be involved in the development and reopening of the WRC. Senior Management in Iarnród Éireann are not interested in developing inter regional services as exist on all major rail networks with in the EU. As I suggest above, in areas where Iarnród Éireann is clearly not interested in developing new services, like on the WRC, a new community based operator should be allowed to do so.
This new Community operator (CR) could be given the task to raise finance through PPP, from local and state authorities through which the railway passes as well as raising grants from the Exchequer and the EU. CR would also take over the operation of passenger services on Waterford – Limerick – Rosslare line and perhaps The Limerick – Ballybrophy line. With the involvement of local agencies it ensures that the local community has a say and stake in its rail services.
CR could operate interregional services from Cork, Tralee, Waterford and Wexford to Galway, Gort, Tuam, Athenry, Westport, Ballina and Sligo linking the South East and South West with the Western and North Western Seaboard. Furthermore if the Shannon rail link is constructed, with the proposed removal of the Shannon stop over, the introduction of interregional services would bring most major towns within a two hour train journey and allow the airport to survive and compete successfully with both Dublin and Cork airports.
The introduction of CR to develop the WRC and inter regional services would reinforce the need for a rail regulator, who would ensure the fair allocation of train paths to CR, as in certain places there will be potential clashes with existing and proposed Iarnród Éireann services. The rail regulator would ensure that the two operators at strategic junctions and terminals provide adequate train connections.

Dublin Area: Clearly the Phoenix Park tunnel must be utilised. This is a cheaper and more practical alternative to the expensive interconnector as proposed by the SRR and Iarnród Éireann. With the development of a station at Spencer Dock and an interchange station at Phibsborough as proposed by Platform 11 (which would connect the Sligo line with the Heuston – Connolly line), most problems can be overcome.
The issue of capacity needs to be addressed urgently particularly along the loop line (Connolly – Pearse St) and the government should ensure that the DASH programme gets immediate funding and completed ASAP – there can be no further delays to this project due to budgetary or other constraints. However, I would concede that it would be desirable in the medium term to develop a second North South rail link across the Liffey joining Spencer Dock with the DART either at Pearse Street or near Booterstown. This would provide relief to the already congested Loop line and allow further development of Suburban/DART services. This would allow the Maynooth line to be electrified and fully integrated with the DART.
The Spencer Dock area must and should be developed as a major transportation hub. Sufficient space must be preserved for a substantial station at this location. With a DART service introduced on the Maynooth line and a new second North South rail link, Maynooth services would be routed via Spencer Dock and the currently unused low level line between Connolly and Glasnevin Junction. This would require a second Drumcondra station at Binns’ Bridge and some form of station under the Belfast line at Ossory Road with dedicated covered passageways leading to Connolly for interchange purposes. Kildare Arrow services would run to Spencer dock serving Heuston and Drumcondra (existing station).

The Airport line as proposed by is Iarnród Éireann the most practical of all the current proposals and should be supported, as this would provide a cheaper alternative to the proposed Metro Line. The link must be built in such a way as to allow for continuation northwards to Swords and to a suggested junction with the Dublin – Belfast line at Donabate. Donabate would become an interchange point with
the potential for onward connection to Belfast and NI. It also has the merit that it has the potential to provided a bypass around the already crowded and congested Northern Suburban, as it would leave the Sligo line near Liffey Jct. It is very important that this line is built to the Irish Gauge as this will allow the line to be integrated into the rest of the Irish network and allow intercity trains to call at the airport.

If the Metro goes ahead as proposed by the government it must be built to the Irish Gauge. This will allow the line to be integrated into the rest of the Irish network. If it is as proposed to build it to the international Standard gauge this can and will provide future problems in integrating services with the rest of the network.

Navan: The Failure of Iarnród Éireann to develop any service to the town must be reversed. Again this is a case of the company not being interested or motivated to do so by government rather than a lack of available traffic. The existing freight line from Drogheda to Navan can and should be upgraded to provide a basic commuter rail service into the capital and consideration should also be made to develop a possible parkway station for Slane in the Beauparc area. From an operational point of view there is no significant reason why a direct service to the town cannot be provided from Connolly Station, if resources are managed properly. Such a project if given adequate political support could be in place within 18 months.
In the long term the route from Clonsilla to Navan should be rebuilt as this alignment (with some minor alterations from the original) is best suited to serve the growing population centres in South Meath as well as Navan itself.

Cork Suburban: It is important that funding is put into place for this project. Additional funding can be raised through PPP (Particularly in partnership with property developers) to fund the reopening of the whole line. Proper disposal of non-vital railway property in the Cork area would also help fund the reopening of this line. However many commentators have pointed out to that the high cost figure to reopen and develop the Cork suburban project as quoted in both the SRR and the Faber Maunsell report. This is illustrated in particular when it came to costing given for the provision of railway stations. The SRR and Maunsell report recommend developing commuter services only as far as Midleton. Serious consideration must be made to reopening the whole line to Youghal as a long-term strategic project, which will benefit the development of the whole of the East Cork region.

© Hassard Stacpoole, Editor Irish Railway News, 30th June 2003

Hassard Stacpoole is editor of Irish Railway News which is a free email based newsletter reporting on all Irish Railways which is distributed to over 600 subscribers. Under the Irish Railway News banner he has been responsible for 5 submissions to the Strategic Rail Review.

METRO…METRO..METRO… BIG DEAL!

Am I the only person who thinks the Metro to the airport is a joke (concieved by the incompetent and now discredited DTO in their silly ‘Platform for Change’ doc), unneeded and is being fought over by various self-proclaimed “transport experts” who don’t know what they are doing?

What is this obsession with underground? The bus services into Dublin city centre works fine – why then a Metro that dumps people and their bags in the midle of O’Connell Street? It all seems nuts to me and has more to do with contractors under bidding each other in order to get the construction and then the public is left with a half-arsed system that unintegrated.

I would much rather Dublin follow reality and the rest of the world and build a heavy rail spur off the Maynooth line near Clonsilla, run it up the old Navan branch (which should be reopened regardless) and then into the Airport from the west. Once the trains are at high speed they shoot across north county Dublin to the airport in minutes. Terminate ithem in the City Centre at Spencer Dock, and more importantly this will connect Dublin Airport to the entire rail system and not unload people in O’Connell Street to get stranded and without transport again – this how the DB ICE network in Germany serves the Airports there and Oslo and Manchester have heavy rail connections that serve more than just the nearest city, but entire sections of the country. Not everybody is going into town – certainly not O’Connell Street.

The whole Metro thing is just some passing political fetish for underground trains and we really don’t need it. We need a heavy rail service to Dublin Airport with national connections and direct services. The Metro was born in the minds of the same eejits who demolished the ramp at Connolly and the LUAS across the M50, they do not know what they are doing – scrap the Metro and built the heavy rail link to the Airport.

There, I said it! *ducks*