Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

schemingbohemia · 04-12-2015 5:33pm

BoatMad wrote: »

The fact is the numbers on WRC have risen considerably since fares were reduced and timetables altered.

They haven't. According to the heavy rail census for 2014, numbers are declining from an already low level.

1,011 2012
886 2013
783 2014

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/heavy-rail-census-for-2014/

Maybe the figures in the summer are higher, but on census day (November) that's the figures.

mayo.mick · 04-12-2015 5:53pm

schemingbohemia wrote: »

They haven't. According to the heavy rail census for 2014, numbers are declining from an already low level.

1,011 2012
886 2013
783 2014

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/heavy-rail-census-for-2014/

Maybe the figures in the summer are higher, but on census day (November) that's the figures.

[IMG][/img]

mayo.mick · 04-12-2015 6:09pm

Reduction in rail journeys 2013 to 2014

2013-2014%20rail%20journeys_zps1jraykum.jpg

tabbey · 04-12-2015 6:59pm

The problem with Athenry - Ennis service is it's orientation. Because of the direct motorway/ high quality dual carriageway between Galway and Limerick, rail was never going to compete successfully on this corridor.
Nevertheless, the rail line has been reopened nearly six years now, and should be used for what rail is good at, namely long distance services to / from Dublin.
A three car ICR running from Ennis to Dublin, perhaps three or four times per day, with limited stops between Athenry and Dublin, would be a useful service, and might be as quick as the motorway via Limerick. Such a train could be coupled at Athenry to a train from Galway, and run express the rest of the journey. The Ennis passengers could enjoy the catering trolley also. The service would be integrated into the Ennis - Limerick schedule, which already enjoys good patronage, as it is fairly frequent and regular.
The other part of the WRC route which needs development of its service is the Athenry - Galway section of the main line. Ideally this should have a 2800 class shuttle fitting in between mainline services, to provide an hourly frequency throughout the day. This I believe would also attract passengers.
Let rail play to it's strengths, not try to compete where it has not a hope.

elastico · 05-12-2015 10:00am

I suppose it will be closed now for a few months after this weekends rain.

BoatMad · 05-12-2015 11:10am

tabbey wrote: »

The problem with Athenry - Ennis service is it's orientation. Because of the direct motorway/ high quality dual carriageway between Galway and Limerick, rail was never going to compete successfully on this corridor.
Nevertheless, the rail line has been reopened nearly six years now, and should be used for what rail is good at, namely long distance services to / from Dublin.
A three car ICR running from Ennis to Dublin, perhaps three or four times per day, with limited stops between Athenry and Dublin, would be a useful service, and might be as quick as the motorway via Limerick. Such a train could be coupled at Athenry to a train from Galway, and run express the rest of the journey. The Ennis passengers could enjoy the catering trolley also. The service would be integrated into the Ennis - Limerick schedule, which already enjoys good patronage, as it is fairly frequent and regular.
The other part of the WRC route which needs development of its service is the Athenry - Galway section of the main line. Ideally this should have a 2800 class shuttle fitting in between mainline services, to provide an hourly frequency throughout the day. This I believe would also attract passengers.
Let rail play to it's strengths, not try to compete where it has not a hope.

100-140 mile motorway journeys ie dub cork , are " short journeys" and people will regularly drive it as a single day return trip.

Rail in Ireland between any city cannot compete against an equivalent road network. The only hope is where high local commuter Traffic into specifically Dublin , and that's more a function of bad road engineering than inherent rail benefits.

Hence rail transport cannot be determined by " competition " , it has to be a function of " public policy ". That policy , should be to offer an alternative to road transport. One that is more comfortable , offers better journey quality etc. Speed is not the issue as rail transit time is now often a fraction of total rail door to door travel time. No point in shaving 5 mins off dub cork , if your then stuck in a traffic jam outside hueston.

By the way ICR can't be coupled up in service, they have to be reconfigured in portlaoise , also with no through companionway, you create service delivery issues with multi driving car sets.

The ICR was probably one of the worst decisions by ie. As it removed the ability to respond to regional and weekly chnsges in traffic patterns and train loading. Given ie had one of the worlds widely acknowledged most comfortable carriages in the mk3 , which they prematurely scrapped, one wonders. , but that's a different story. The decisions related to investment in railways undertaken. Y CIE since its foundation have been a testimoney to poor planning , arbitrary policy reversals, lack of corporate memory, and access to large chunks of political derived investment capital that " had to be spent "

Regional rail , again is the basis of offering alternative transport options., again to counteract a solely car orientated road strategy.

If the taxpayer , subsided rail to the same extent it subsidies road , we'd have railways all over the place. But we see billions invested in expensive road networks as justified , while a fraction invested in rail is " wasted "

The WRC has long term strategic network value , certainly as far as claremorris. Whatever is done should in no way degrade the ability to operate rail facilities, now or in the future. ( remember harcourt st etc )

The greenway movement has become anti rail , because it sees a quick land grab as an easy solution. That's a sad situation for that movement to be in.

BoatMad · 05-12-2015 11:17am

elastico wrote: »

I suppose it will be closed now for a few months after this weekends rain.

No it won't , but certainly cyclists won't be out in it , tends to dirty the Lycra

savagethegoat · 05-12-2015 11:40am

schemingbohemia wrote: »

They haven't. According to the heavy rail census for 2014, numbers are declining from an already low level.

1,011 2012
886 2013
783 2014

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/heavy-rail-census-for-2014/

Maybe the figures in the summer are higher, but on census day (November) that's the figures.

Oh my word , that's damning . Lost quarter of a million passengers plus getting less in the farebox through fare reductions

Grandeeod · 05-12-2015 4:10pm

BoatMad wrote: »

100-140 mile motorway journeys ie dub cork , are " short journeys" and people will regularly drive it as a single day return trip.

Rail in Ireland between any city cannot compete against an equivalent road network. The only hope is where high local commuter Traffic into specifically Dublin , and that's more a function of bad road engineering than inherent rail benefits.

Hence rail transport cannot be determined by " competition " , it has to be a function of " public policy ". That policy , should be to offer an alternative to road transport. One that is more comfortable , offers better journey quality etc. Speed is not the issue as rail transit time is now often a fraction of total rail door to door travel time. No point in shaving 5 mins off dub cork , if your then stuck in a traffic jam outside hueston.

By the way ICR can't be coupled up in service, they have to be reconfigured in portlaoise , also with no through companionway, you create service delivery issues with multi driving car sets.

The ICR was probably one of the worst decisions by ie. As it removed the ability to respond to regional and weekly chnsges in traffic patterns and train loading. Given ie had one of the worlds widely acknowledged most comfortable carriages in the mk3 , which they prematurely scrapped, one wonders. , but that's a different story. The decisions related to investment in railways undertaken. Y CIE since its foundation have been a testimoney to poor planning , arbitrary policy reversals, lack of corporate memory, and access to large chunks of political derived investment capital that " had to be spent "

Regional rail , again is the basis of offering alternative transport options., again to counteract a solely car orientated road strategy.

If the taxpayer , subsided rail to the same extent it subsidies road , we'd have railways all over the place. But we see billions invested in expensive road networks as justified , while a fraction invested in rail is " wasted "

The WRC has long term strategic network value , certainly as far as claremorris. Whatever is done should in no way degrade the ability to operate rail facilities, now or in the future. ( remember harcourt st etc )

The greenway movement has become anti rail , because it sees a quick land grab as an easy solution. That's a sad situation for that movement to be in.

You appear to be contradicting yourself in that post.

Muckyboots · 05-12-2015 9:44pm

BoatMad wrote: »

100-140 mile motorway journeys ie dub cork , are " short journeys" and people will regularly drive it as a single day return trip.

Rail in Ireland between any city cannot compete against an equivalent road network. The only hope is where high local commuter Traffic into specifically Dublin , and that's more a function of bad road engineering than inherent rail benefits.

Hence rail transport cannot be determined by " competition " , it has to be a function of " public policy ". That policy , should be to offer an alternative to road transport. One that is more comfortable , offers better journey quality etc. Speed is not the issue as rail transit time is now often a fraction of total rail door to door travel time. No point in shaving 5 mins off dub cork , if your then stuck in a traffic jam outside hueston.

By the way ICR can't be coupled up in service, they have to be reconfigured in portlaoise , also with no through companionway, you create service delivery issues with multi driving car sets.

The ICR was probably one of the worst decisions by ie. As it removed the ability to respond to regional and weekly chnsges in traffic patterns and train loading. Given ie had one of the worlds widely acknowledged most comfortable carriages in the mk3 , which they prematurely scrapped, one wonders. , but that's a different story. The decisions related to investment in railways undertaken. Y CIE since its foundation have been a testimoney to poor planning , arbitrary policy reversals, lack of corporate memory, and access to large chunks of political derived investment capital that " had to be spent "

Regional rail , again is the basis of offering alternative transport options., again to counteract a solely car orientated road strategy.

If the taxpayer , subsided rail to the same extent it subsidies road , we'd have railways all over the place. But we see billions invested in expensive road networks as justified , while a fraction invested in rail is " wasted "

The WRC has long term strategic network value , certainly as far as claremorris. Whatever is done should in no way degrade the ability to operate rail facilities, now or in the future. ( remember harcourt st etc )

The greenway movement has become anti rail , because it sees a quick land grab as an easy solution. That's a sad situation for that movement to be in.

There are more pro-greenway arguments in this than there are pro-rail. Can I be bold and summarise some of what you've said. There is no demand for city to city rail. CIE hasn't learnt from its' mistakes. Political interference, rather than good economic sense has driven CIE policy. Outer city rail options with park and ride makes sense for city to city commuters using the motorway network ( great idea btw).
I drive to Galway to Dublin regularly, park in Hueston and use light rail or bike rental to navigate the city. is that what you mean by "alternative transport options., again to counteract a solely car orientated road strategy"

tabbey · 05-12-2015 10:58pm

I agree with Boatmad in regard to the Mk III coaches v ICR. The Mk III coaches were by far the most superior mainline coaches in Ireland in the past thirty years. Their premature withdrawal and destruction was a shocking waste of taxpayer's investment. The ICR fleet was a waste of money.
Nevertheless, we are stuck with them, and should use them for what they are designed, inter regional services. One advantage of the ICR, is their acceleration compared with a traditional mainline train.
My point about using them to provide a direct service between Ennis and Dublin, is that they would have some hope of attracting passengers, compared with the idea of people from Ennis, Gort, Ardrahan and Craughwell taking the train to Galway via Athenry. Limerick or Ennis to Galway is a comfortable bus journey, and Craughwell to Galway would be just as fast on a bicycle.
Boatmad also states that ICRs cannot be coupled in service, is this the same as the union leaders preventing their DART drivers from coupling DART emus in service? or is it another example of IR purchasing equipment unfit for service.

savagethegoat · 05-12-2015 11:44pm

I don't think the ICRs were a waste of money...I think it was the Mk4s that were the waste of money

tabbey · 06-12-2015 12:06am

savagethegoat wrote: »

I don't think the ICRs were a waste of money...I think it was the Mk4s that were the waste of money

They were both a waste of money, Mk IV because they were unfit for purpose, ICR because they replaced excellent coaches prematurely withdrawn .
ICR s have good acceleration, but their seating is inferior, compared with earlier generations of mainline coaches.
People only think they are good, because they are the best of a bad lot.

Carawaystick · 06-12-2015 2:55am

tabbey wrote: »

Boatmad also states that ICRs cannot be coupled in service,

ICR's can be coupled, I was on a train from Athenry to Dublin that had extra carriages added at Athlone. I didn't have to leave the carriage for that to happen.

end of the road · 06-12-2015 6:05am

Muckyboots wrote: »

There is no demand for city to city rail.

not quite true is it. for the most part city to city rail is doing fine. yes it can do better but to say there is no demand in general for it is being economical with the truth. you may have a point with the current galway limerick service but thats about it.

Muckyboots wrote: »

Outer city rail options with park and ride makes sense for city to city commuters using the motorway network ( great idea btw).

yes that can be part of the system as well along with the current city to city and regional rail services.

westtip · 08-12-2015 11:36am

BoatMad wrote: »

The greenway movement has become anti rail , because it sees a quick land grab as an easy solution. That's a sad situation for that movement to be in.

Says one person on Boards.ie Just to let you know the greenway people are not anti-rail they are anti-waste. What evidence do you have for "anti-rail" anti waste yes.

West on Track presented to Sligo CC on Monday and gave a speech from the dock that Robert Emmet would have been proud of, saying how they have been castigated in social media, pity them, they just can't take robust criticism.

The WOT leader by the way was in close conversation with the leading SF councillor in the lobby before the presentation, close associations between SF and WOT are still very strong, you had better believe it.

westtip · 08-12-2015 2:18pm

Weather Watch from http://www.irishrail.ie/

Bus Transfers in operation between Athenry/Gort due to Flooding.

I wonder how long for this year!

serfboard · 08-12-2015 2:21pm

westtip wrote: »

Says one person on Boards.ie Just to let you know the greenway people are not anti-rail they are anti-waste. What evidence do you have for "anti-rail" anti waste yes.

It's a typical West-On-Track argument. "Ye're agin us in the Wesht!". When that doesn't work (i.e. when people in the West realise that it isn't going to happen and the publicly-owned alignment might as well be put to use as a Greenway) "Ye're anti-rail!".

Kinda like when they lose the passenger argument, they say "What about freight?"

westtip · 09-12-2015 10:49am

serfboard wrote: »

Kinda like when they lose the passenger argument, they say "What about freight?"

Or when they lose the greenway argument what about Velo-Rail which they now support as a way of preserving the railway line.

West on Track gave a presentation at Sligo coco last monday following a presentation the previous month by Sligo Greenway coop, it really was pathetic to hear them say they are "prepared to talk to the greenway group to find common ground" Their common ground by the way seems to be do exactly as we say. More of the same about freight etc.
The whole thing was designed to stop the greenway, the one thing they are clinging to now is that the county plan in sligo says a greenway can only be allowed "alongside" the old rusting railway, and wait for it..... it must be a "safe distance" from the old rusting railway for fear that someone on the greenway might get hit by a ghost train!!!!!

This is their compromise to "work with" the greenway people - it was laughable - glad I went to hear how pathetic their arguments have become!

Pete_Cavan · 09-12-2015 11:17am

westtip wrote: »

Or when they lose the greenway argument what about Velo-Rail which they now support as a way of preserving the railway line.

Velo-rail isn't great on a single track because you either have it one way (which brings in logistics to people get back to their car which can be done by bus but is that also practical to bring vehicle back to the start?) or when people going in different directions meet, someone has to lift the vehicle off the track to pass. Either way it is more effort and less enjoyable than just heading off on your bike and the flexibility which comes with it. Plus bikes can be used to explore towns and places of interest away from the line, with the velo thing you are confined to the rails and if you did want to stop for a drink in, say Tubbercurry, you have to take it with you, you cant just leave it there and block the track. And with a cycle route, there are business opportunities for local people to rent and/or repair bikes, a velo-rail would pretty much be a closed shop. They really are clutching at straws and havent even thought it through.

westtip · 09-12-2015 3:04pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Velo-rail isn't great on a single track because you either have it one way (which brings in logistics to people get back to their car which can be done by bus but is that also practical to bring vehicle back to the start?) or when people going in different directions meet, someone has to lift the vehicle off the track to pass. Either way it is more effort and less enjoyable than just heading off on your bike and the flexibility which comes with it. Plus bikes can be used to explore towns and places of interest away from the line, with the velo thing you are confined to the rails and if you did want to stop for a drink in, say Tubbercurry, you have to take it with you, you cant just leave it there and block the track. And with a cycle route, there are business opportunities for local people to rent and/or repair bikes, a velo-rail would pretty much be a closed shop. They really are clutching at straws and havent even thought it through.

Pete exactly and there is no guarentee it is going to succeed in Kiltimagh, Are people going to divert onto the beaten track to use a velo rail route through 6 km of Mayo bog. Mayo coco received 300 submissions asking for a greenway but only 1 asking for a velo-rail - guess what they went with in the county plan.....velorail, maybe the planning department were told to put in... This question remains unanswered, why did they ignore 300 submissions????

cgcsb · 09-12-2015 3:34pm

serfboard wrote: »

It's a typical West-On-Track argument. "Ye're agin us in the Wesht!". When that doesn't work (i.e. when people in the West realise that it isn't going to happen and the publicly-owned alignment might as well be put to use as a Greenway) "Ye're anti-rail!".

Kinda like when they lose the passenger argument, they say "What about freight?"

The same people oppose DART underground, rail has nothing to do with it, it's the same satisfaction that is derived by pothole filling in the constituency.

BoatMad · 10-12-2015 12:38pm

Says one person on Boards.ie Just to let you know the greenway people are not anti-rail they are anti-waste. What evidence do you have for "anti-rail" anti waste yes.

having just read 5 anti rail rants, I stand by my contention

serfboard · 10-12-2015 1:23pm

BoatMad wrote: »

having just read 5 anti rail rants, I stand by my contention

I can't speak for other people's motivations, but from my own point of view, I'm in favour of Greenways on unused lines.

You wouldn't hear me advocating ripping up the Belfast->Dublin->Cork lines for example. We need investment in rail, no doubt about it, particularly on the Belfast->Dublin->Cork corridor and in the GDA to facilitate Dublin commuters.

(Personally, I'd be in favour of double-tracking the Dublin->Galway line - at least as far as Athlone where it splits with the Mayo line. And that double-tracking could have been (partly/mostly/all) done with the over 100 million that was spent on Ennis->Athenry.)

We certainly do not need to throw more good money after bad on the Western Rail Corridor.

BoatMad · 10-12-2015 1:33pm

serfboard wrote: »

I can't speak for other people's motivations, but from my own point of view, I'm in favour of Greenways on unused lines.

You wouldn't hear me advocating ripping up the Belfast->Dublin->Cork lines for example. We need investment in rail, no doubt about it, particularly on the Belfast->Dublin->Cork corridor and in the GDA to facilitate Dublin commuters.

(Personally, I'd be in favour of double-tracking the Dublin->Galway line - at least as far as Athlone where it splits with the Mayo line. And that double-tracking could have been (partly/mostly/all) done with the over 100 million that was spent on Ennis->Athenry.)

We certainly do not need to throw more good money after bad on the Western Rail Corridor.

all Rail operations loose money, i dont see why you should single out one,

serfboard · 10-12-2015 1:54pm

BoatMad wrote: »

all Rail operations loose money, i dont see why you should single out one,

It's fairly simple - it's about subsidy per passenger - which is why loss-making urban rail is far more justifiable than loss-making rural rail. It's all about the numbers ...

Like, if we're going to keep or re-open railways no matter what the subsidy per passenger, why not re-open the line to Clifden? Or any of the other abandoned lines around the country?

Why not? Because there isn't an infinite pot of cash, that's why, and our scarce resouces would be far better utilised on turning unused lines into Greenways, and investing what little we have into where there is demand.

savagethegoat · 10-12-2015 7:05pm

BoatMad wrote: »

all Rail operations loose money, i dont see why you should single out one,

because the northern section it is shut and should stay so and resources concentrated where there is the best return.

monument · 11-12-2015 9:15am

Moderator warning for both sides on here:

Drop the anti-rail, anti-greenway etc talk -- deal with points made by posters and do not label posts or posters, but if there's no actual arguments to be had that has not been said before, just don't post.

If you really have to say X post is against Y you have to detail why you think such.

Generally both can and must tone it down a bit!

-- moderator

loyatemu · 11-12-2015 12:04pm

BoatMad wrote: »

all Rail operations loose money, i dont see why you should single out one,

because it loses a huge amount of money. This is why we do cost/benefit analyses. They all lose money, but at least in the case of (e.g.) Dublin-Galway, a lot of people use the service and it's better than the bus; you can't say that about the WRC.

Dublin commuter services lose money (except maybe the Dart) but if you cancelled them the city would grind to a halt - there's a clear benefit to subsidising them.

BoatMad · 11-12-2015 1:58pm

monument wrote: »

Moderator warning for both sides on here:

Drop the anti-rail, anti-greenway etc talk -- deal with points made by posters and do not label posts or posters, but if there's no actual arguments to be had that has not been said before, just don't post.

If you really have to say X post is against Y you have to detail why you think such.

Generally both can and must tone it down a bit!

-- moderator

I agree, I have tried to argue that rail infrastructure is there for railways now or in the future

greenways should be self justifying , not simply as a method of "comsuming" rail infrastructure. A greenway argument should justify its own pathway

Muckyboots · 11-12-2015 3:19pm

BoatMad wrote: »

I agree, I have tried to argue that rail infrastructure is there for railways now or in the future

greenways should be self justifying , not simply as a method of "comsuming" rail infrastructure. A greenway argument should justify its own pathway

Greenways are self justifying ( deliverable and cost effective) and because of this they are the perfect method for consuming disused rail infrastructure, while protecting it at the same time.

serfboard · 11-12-2015 5:55pm

BoatMad wrote: »

greenways should be self justifying , not simply as a method of "comsuming" rail infrastructure

From my perspective, Greenways don't "consume" infrastructure they protect it from squatting and encroachment until a decision is made (if ever) to use it again.

The alternative is to let the line be squatted on and encroached until, when a decision is finally made in 50 years time to use the line as a Greenway, the state has to ask pretty please for its land back - or even worse, to compensate the land grabbers family.

As a matter of interest, what do you think should be done with unused lines ? Just keep leaving them unused?

monument · 11-12-2015 8:48pm

This applies to all...

BoatMad wrote: »

monument wrote: »

Moderator warning for both sides on here:

Drop the anti-rail, anti-greenway etc talk -- deal with points made by posters and do not label posts or posters, but if there's no actual arguments to be had that has not been said before, just don't post.

If you really have to say X post is against Y you have to detail why you think such.

Generally both can and must tone it down a bit!

-- moderator

I agree, I have tried to argue that rail infrastructure is there for railways now or in the future

greenways should be self justifying , not simply as a method of "comsuming" rail infrastructure. A greenway argument should justify its own pathway

Even if you're agreeing with the message, do not reply to moderation in-thread.

-- moderator

westtip · 14-12-2015 1:11am

loyatemu wrote: »

because it loses a huge amount of money. This is why we do cost/benefit analyses. They all lose money, but at least in the case of (e.g.) Dublin-Galway, a lot of people use the service and it's better than the bus; you can't say that about the WRC.

Dublin commuter services lose money (except maybe the Dart) but if you cancelled them the city would grind to a halt - there's a clear benefit to subsidising them.

+1 Loyatemu its called common sense reasoning. Public transport is about enabling wealth to be created but it has to be realistic in terms of what is on offer, trains running through the west of ireland just so "we can have the same as Dublin" is not a rational argument. It is the common sense reasoning bit that has been lost on too many people.

savagethegoat · 14-12-2015 10:17am

It's a bit rich to be expecting "Dublin" to pay for both it's own rail system and the wrc isn't it!

Muckyboots · 15-12-2015 10:01pm

So West on Track are backing (for all that might be worth) a Valorail proposal for Kiltimagh as a means of protecting the track. One would have to assume for safety reasons there would probably be a track alongside it for people to walk or cycle ( a kind of Greenway ). What am I missing, lads? http://www.advertiser.ie/mayo/article/75789/velorail-could-bring-major-tourism-boost-to-kiltimagh

mayo.mick · 15-12-2015 10:08pm

Muckyboots wrote: »

So West on Track are backing (for all that might be worth) a Valorail proposal for Kiltimagh as a means of protecting the track. One would have to assume for safety reasons there would probably be a track alongside it for people to walk or cycle ( a kind of Greenway ). What am I missing, lads? http://www.advertiser.ie/mayo/article/75789/velorail-could-bring-major-tourism-boost-to-kiltimagh

Article is dated February 20th 2015

Muckyboots · 15-12-2015 10:26pm

mayo.mick wrote: »

Article is dated February 20th 2015

It's just been posted on West on Track FB page. An olive branch or a red herring ? ( Do you get moderated for over use of idioms?)

Grandeeod · 15-12-2015 11:12pm

The WRC debate has to be the most rediculous debate ever!

The Velorail idea is based on the 30+ years (and counting) concept of not taking the rotting to **** rails out of the ground. Why oh why this holy grail aspect of protecting these actual rails is still an issue, is beyond the intelligence of any reasonable person. Its overgrown, torn up or buried in a lot of parts. The entire Claremorris - Collooney aspect has gone beyond a joke at this stage. Even a Greenway will face a level of objection.

These life expired rails are literally the only pieces of metal still in the ground after the 1960s closure process. Lines closed in the 70s have long since gone the route of Greenways or simply caved into farmland.

Can someone in the west please shout stop?

Muckyboots · 16-12-2015 11:20am

Big breakthrough in Tuam where Tuam Municipal Council have voted to seek central funding for Greenway on WRC.

westtip · 16-12-2015 12:37pm

Muckyboots wrote: »

Big breakthrough in Tuam where Tuam Municipal Council have voted to seek central funding for Greenway on WRC.

Absolutely Fabulous news and I see todays Tuam Herald hasn't held back on its coverage!

Carawaystick · 16-12-2015 12:53pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

The WRC debate has to be the most rediculous debate ever!

The Velorail idea is based on the 30+ years (and counting) concept of not taking the rotting to **** rails out of the ground. Why oh why this holy grail

I think its a holy McGreil actally

tabbey · 16-12-2015 1:35pm

Muckyboots wrote: »

Big breakthrough in Tuam where Tuam Municipal Council have voted to seek central funding for Greenway on WRC.

Tuam does not have a municipal council. Like all other town councils, Tuam UDC or town council was abolished by Hogan, with effect from last year.
Local area committees may like to claim to be municipal councils, but they are just talking shops.

For better or for worse, for all practical purposes, Hogan abolished all semblance of local democracy.

Muckyboots · 16-12-2015 1:54pm

tabbey wrote: »

Tuam does not have a municipal council. Like all other town councils, Tuam UDC or town council was abolished by Hogan, with effect from last year.
Local area committees may like to claim to be municipal councils, but they are just talking shops.

For better or for worse, for all practical purposes, Hogan abolished all semblance of local democracy.

You are incorrect. They have decision making and budgetary powers, a Chairperson and a democratic structure and take decisions that take effect within clearly defined Tuam Area boundaries. Regardless of this it is a clear signal back to the Minister of Transport and Irish Rail that the Council has removed its' opposition to a Greenway. Ultimately it's the Minster and property owners, CIE, who will decide and they were seeking a green light from Councillors - which they now have received.

westtip · 16-12-2015 4:52pm

tabbey wrote: »

Tuam does not have a municipal council. Like all other town councils, Tuam UDC or town council was abolished by Hogan, with effect from last year.
Local area committees may like to claim to be municipal councils, but they are just talking shops.

For better or for worse, for all practical purposes, Hogan abolished all semblance of local democracy.

http://www.galway.ie/en/services/yourcouncil/councillors/#d.en.22973 I think you will find that under the re-org of local goverment the local electoral areas meet on a regular basis to discuss and vote on local issues, the issue in Tuam has been trying to get progress on the tourism initiative through the Tuam Electoral Area meetings, until this major breakthrough the Anti-tourism West on Track cllrs had been blocking this idea been taken to Galway coco. Rather than Tuam District council I think Muckyboots was referring to the Tuam Electoral area council meeting; I understand that the general rule of thumb is that if contentious issues such as the need to invest in tourism infrastructure like the Tuam Greenway project gets carried by the local electoral area meetings they will get through at general county council level as the council will generally support initiatives supported by local electoral area meetings. Now that the Tuam Electoral area has voted in favour of the tourism infrastructure to create jobs in the Tuam area, it has to be hoped that Galway coco will support the vote of the Tuam Electoral area and push for this tourism infrastructure to go ahead. My guess is we will have to wait and see how strong the anti-tourism lobby is on the whole Galway coco, but I feel this vote at Electoral Area level is a major breakthrough for the pro-tourism lobby in Galway, we hope the anti-tourism lobby are not allowed to scupper it. They will try of that we can be sure.

serfboard · 16-12-2015 6:18pm

westtip wrote: »

Absolutely Fabulous news and I see todays Tuam Herald hasn't held back on its coverage!

westtip wrote: »

http://www.galway.ie/en/services/yourcouncil/councillors/#d.en.22973 I think you will find that under the re-org of local goverment the local electoral areas meet on a regular basis to discuss and vote on local issues, the issue in Tuam has been trying to get progress on the tourism initiative through the Tuam Electoral Area meetings, until this major breakthrough the Anti-tourism West on Track cllrs had been blocking this idea been taken to Galway coco. Rather than Tuam District council I think Muckyboots was referring to the Tuam Electoral area council meeting; I understand that the general rule of thumb is that if contentious issues such as the need to invest in tourism infrastructure like the Tuam Greenway project gets carried by the local electoral area meetings they will get through at general county council level as the council will generally support initiatives supported by local electoral area meetings. Now that the Tuam Electoral area has voted in favour of the tourism infrastructure to create jobs in the Tuam area, it has to be hoped that Galway coco will support the vote of the Tuam Electoral area and push for this tourism infrastructure to go ahead. My guess is we will have to wait and see how strong the anti-tourism lobby is on the whole Galway coco, but I feel this vote at Electoral Area level is a major breakthrough for the pro-tourism lobby in Galway, we hope the anti-tourism lobby are not allowed to scupper it. They will try of that we can be sure.

For some reason I can't see the photo you posted, but there is part of the article online here.

I presume you are right in that I presume "Tuam Municipal District" refers to the councillors from the Tuam Electoral Area of Galway County Council.

There are nine councillors in the Tuam Electoral Area. The report says that after "heated exchanges ... the result was split four in favour and four against the proposal" and that "Cathaoirleach Cllr Donagh Killilea had the casting vote" which he used to vote in favour.

I'd be interested to know how that vote broken down. Shaun Cunniffee proposed the motion, Donagh Kililea supported it, and I imagine Karey McHugh did as well as she is on the record of being in favour of it, IIRC.

I'm not sure that this will necessarily translate to Council-wide support. One would imagine that the councillors from Ballinasloe, Loughrea and Connemara would be indifferent, since it won't affect them. Likewise, the Athenry councillors probably won't be too bothered either since they already have 16 services a day to Galway so they're all right Jack.

Which leaves the Tuam councillors, who could at best be described as "divided" as to whether they want this or not.

However, it's progress, even if it is small steps ...

Muckyboots · 16-12-2015 6:39pm

serfboard wrote: »

For some reason I can't see the photo you posted, but there is part of the article online here.

I presume you are right in that I presume "Tuam Municipal District" refers to the councillors from the Tuam Electoral Area of Galway County Council.

There are nine councillors in the Tuam Electoral Area. The report says that after "heated exchanges ... the result was split four in favour and four against the proposal" and that "Cathaoirleach Cllr Donagh Killilea had the casting vote" which he used to vote in favour.

I'd be interested to know how that vote broken down. Shaun Cunniffee proposed the motion, Donagh Kililea supported it, and I imagine Karey McHugh did as well as she is on the record of being in favour of it, IIRC.

I'm not sure that this will necessarily translate to Council-wide support. One would imagine that the councillors from Ballinasloe, Loughrea and Connemara would be indifferent, since it won't affect them. Likewise, the Athenry councillors probably won't be too bothered either since they already have 16 services a day to Galway so they're all right Jack.

Which leaves the Tuam councillors, who could at best be described as "divided" as to whether they want this or not.

However, it's progress, even if it is small steps ...

Cllr Peter Roche, a former member of the Western Rail Committee who now says that rail is just a pipe dream, was the fourth. One Cllr was absent.

The minutes will show it as a proposal passed in favour of a Greenway - regardless of the numbers.
The main Council Chamber tend to respect the views of local area committees but I wouldn't take it for granted in this case. Correct, a small but very significant Greenway victory.

westtip · 17-12-2015 12:04pm

serfboard wrote: »

For some reason I can't see the photo you posted, but there is part of the article online here.

.

Yep don't know what the problem is there will try again here, it seems to be working now

what_traffic · 17-12-2015 3:25pm

Muckyboots wrote: »

Cllr Peter Roche, a former member of the Western Rail Committee who now says that rail is just a pipe dream, was the fourth. One Cllr was absent.

The main Council Chamber tend to respect the views of local area committees but I wouldn't take it for granted in this case. Correct, a small but very significant Greenway victory.

That's a big U-Turn for Cllr Peter Roche. A pragmatist?

Potential for Greenways to exist in all Wards in Galway County and City so am sure Cllr's are more attuned to it than 5 years ago? Galway City to Ballinasloe(Dublin) which is Eurovelo2, Galway City to Clifden, Athenry to Tuam/Ballindine

Muckyboots · 18-12-2015 1:37pm

"We must now ensure that the railway is protected from any form of interference and fast-track the development of our rail network in line with the urgent requirements of reducing carbon emissions and accelerating economic recovery in the regions"

The railway sleepers in WOT have been awoken again and regurgitated the old "freight is great" press release in retaliation to the Tuam Greenway vote. I hope that, if by some miracle and the reignition of the Mayo Industrial Revolution, freight trains come tumbling down the track at a top speed of 25KM per hour to Athenry Junction via Tuam, that the Greenway campaign will get its' due acknowledgment for keeping the old rail campaign fueled. I know anger is an energy- but can you call "spite" a fuel? .

Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

Comments