Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST UPDATE | 31 Jul 2024
TRAIN JOURNEY TIMES between some of Ireland’s major cities could be halved under a new ambitious rail plan due to be published today.
Allowing top speeds of 200km per hour on routes connecting Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Waterford and Derry aims to make train journeys significantly faster than travelling by car.
There had originally been plans to allow for tops speeds of 300km per hour.
The All-Island Rail Review was published today by Transport Minister Eamon Ryan and Northern Ireland’s Infrastructure Minister John O’Dowd.
It sets out 32 strategic recommendations to enhance and expand the rail system in Ireland and Northern Ireland up to 2050.
It includes “significantly” reducing train journey times between some cities with the roll out of new 200kmh intercity trains.
At least hourly services between cities and at least every two hours on regional and rural routes is also to be prioritised.
More direct services between Ireland’s West and South Coasts such as between Galway, Limerick and Cork are to be established, with increased regional and rural line speeds to at least 120km/h.
The report estimates the capital cost of implementing all the recommendations by 2050 would be between €35-€37 billion in 2023 prices.
Speaking today to reporters at Dundalk Railway Station, Ryan said the money will come from the exchequer and added that “we are in a fortunate position because we have a sound public finance system which will allow us to invest in the future”.
He also called on political parties to “show us your colours”.
“Do you intend to invest in public transport? Which one would you scrap? Would you get rid of Limerick Metropolitan rail or Cork Metropolitan rail? Would you not build the Western Rail Corridor?
“I would build it, and that’s a political choice. We have the arguments on our side, we have all the strategy and policy work done.
“It’s down to political decision, and I think the political decision will be to go on public transport, because it’s what the people want.”
The plan details the reinstatement of the Western Rail Corridor between Claremorris and Athenry, as well as the extension of the railway into County Tyrone (from Portadown to Dungannon, Omagh, Strabane), Derry and Letterkenny.
Ryan said this line to Letterkenny would run into several billion euro.
The South Wexford Railway line is also to be extended, connecting to Wexford to Waterford, with the development of a rail line to boost connectivity in the North Midlands, from Mullingar to Cavan, Monaghan, Armagh and Portadown.
Additional capacity is also to be added by upgrading much of the single-track rail network to double-track, with four-track in some areas.
The rail network route length is also set to increase under the plan from approximately 2,300km to almost 3,000km with the reopening of former and new rail lines.
New routes in the North Midlands and North West are to be launched, which would allow some 700,000 more people to live within 5km of a railway station.
The plan, which aims to improve links between the island’s regions and major cities across all 32 counties, aims to triple the number of people using the rail system annually
from 65 million to over 180 million by 2050.
Decarbonisation of the rail network is also on the cards, with ambitions for a net carbon zero rail system, primarily through the overhead electrification of intercity routes and new electric and hybrid trains.
When asked why the plan leaves out Enniskillen in Co Fermanagh as well as large parts of Donegal, John O’Dowd said the report is “open to review every 10 years”.
“There are opportunities to open up the railway in Enniskillen. It is not in the report at this stage, but this is not a definitive end to this story,” said O’Dowd.
However, Ryan remarked that Letterkenny is included in the plan and that “Donegal will benefit from that” and that it was “really important to include Donegal”.
If the review’s recommendations are implemented in full by 2050, the capital cost across the Republic and Northern Ireland is estimated to be in the order of €35-€37 billion in 2023 prices.
For Ireland, if this investment is split evenly across 25 years, then it amounts to circa €1 billion per annum over and above existing plans. For Northern Ireland, the equivalent total capital annual cost is approximately £0.31 billion.
When asked this morning if it was “realistic” for the Government to spend €1 billion a year on rail projects, Ryan replied: “Why wouldn’t we do that?”
He added: “This is not just an investment in transport, it’s also an investment in housing, because 700,000 people will be newly living within five kilometers of a railway station and will start to have a really sustainable housing solution as well as a transport solution.
“This is about, are we willing to invest in housing, not just transport, and the costs come down when you see it in that way, and the investment makes all the more sense.
“This is the future of our housing strategy as well as our transport strategy, because if we go the other route, where it’s all along motorways and sprawled development, the housing doesn’t work, congestion is a huge issue, this is the only way forward.”
The minister said he would like to see the recommendations actioned as soon as possible, stating that with European Investment Bank assistance, the plan can move forward.
O’Dowd said the review has been an excellent example of joint collaboration on cross-border priorities, which is key to realising its ambitions.
-With additional reporting from Diarmuid Pepper
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
31% of the board are women but 25% of the work force are female. Surely that signifies over representation?? What about the gender gap in prisons?
@mick wall: c’mon Mick the gender pay gap & equality program only applies to certain industries and functions with in society. The nice and comfy ones.
Prisons, construction & refuse plants etc are not in scope, ya can have them all to yourselves.. it’s the Monday to Friday C-suite jobs only please.
@Greg Daniel: agree. the gender pay gap is a myth. Why would an employer hire a man if they could hire a woman to do the same job for less money. The social welfare queue should exclusively compromise of men if it is the case
@mick wall: Since the role of choice for many/most women is home maker and nurturer, and since that role doesn’t appeal or is impossible for many/most men, it would be logical to assume that there are/will be more men in the workforce. Maybe the 50%/50% An Post management team has chosen not to see this fact of modern life because it would suggest that it already favours the appointment of women over men in management positions. They should fix that first.
Dangerous game, the best person male or female should get the job end of story this gender qoata stuff need’s to stop.
@Ciaran O ‘Reilly: The Employment Equality Acts prohibit discrimination in relation to employment on the basis of gender (and other issues). Taking a person’s gender into consideration when making an appointment is illegal.
@Earth Traveller: so how can we explain the 50/50 ratio ratio between women and men in management?
@Eric Vdc: because maybe that’s how ” the best person for the job” worked out
TheJournal really needs to wake up a bit. This article is phrased as if everybody accepts there is a gender pay gap – completely forgetting that some readers may be intelligent.
@Use Your Head: I think we all agree that every job/role should be paid a rate regardless of the plumbing of the person doing it. That doesn’t mean there will be some roles where the majority of people in them will be either men or women, they’re still going to be paid the same for the hours they work however.
There is no gender *pay* gap, there’s a gender *earnings* gap. It’s illegal to pay someone less because of their gender.
@jacquoranda: Being illegal doesn’t mean it doesnt happen
But will they……wait for it…… deliver on time!
@Keelan O’neill: Nope! Spent €10 last week, to send an important letter by Express, cos the regular post can’t be trusted. And now they’ve lost the letter! Been on to customer service twice, and still awaiting the promised callback.
So this is really just about management positions.
@Dave Thomas: Precisely. Gender equality in the boardroom is an absolute must, and they’re almost there. However when it comes to horsing a heavy bag of post around on a wet and cold Winters day it’s still viewed as a man’s job. Regardless of who does it, they’re both going to be paid the same for the same hours worked. That’s equality. Having the best person do a job instead of insisting half must be women (it never seems to be men) is not equality.
If someone you love is being operated upon, would you prefer to be told the surgeon is the best in their profession or totally equal in every way possible.
Facebook gender list, California’s gender list, the BBC’s gender list?, or are we talking just about two genders here. If it’s cheaper to have women in the workforce then surely the workforce would compromise of just women.
Work as hard and u will get paid as much there is no such thing as a gender pay gap or “we need more women in this career” if women wanted them jobs they would apply, if women worked as hard as men do they would get the job and the same pay but the fact is they just dont do the hours men do but want the same pay
What are they going to do make the women work the same hours as the men? That is the leading cause of the gender pay gap, working less paid hour than men.
Hmmm giving a person a job based on what genitals they have rather than who’s best for the job – just to hit some ridiculous quota is not only sexist but asking for trouble. Imagine if it was the opposite way around and creches had to by law have a 50 / 50 mix
Most would close down through lack of staff
Why stop at gender. An Post should weigh, measure the height of and objectively judge the attractiveness of all their employees and correlate this with earnings.
Are the people who come up with this dumb enough to assume that males and females are attracted to exactly the same types of jobs/roles and therefore expect 50/50 outcomes? Equality of opportunity is what is needed and everyone would support, but equality of outcome is incredibly discriminatory as you obviously have to discriminate to get a 50/50 outcome, by definition.
More of this silly nonsense. If they really want so-called gender equality they will have to introduce a law compelling women to stay in the workforce after they have children and deny them the right to choose to stay at home. Choice is the root cause of all this alleged gender inequality.
I’ve never seen a woman deliver mail.
This is such a disgraceful issue, women are just as good if not better than their male counterparts in every industry!
Pay them the same wage ffs!
@Bumder: They getting equal pay for equal work. Pay discrimination based on sex has been illegal since 1974. The discrepancy in earnings is due to the choices women make, not discrimination.
have your say