Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)
Comments
-
Post Brexit, Sligo will still be exporting what it exports now; people.Muckyboots wrote: »Roads and railways are mainly directed to Dublin.
This made sense when almost all exports went thru' Dublin to UK.
Following Brexit more exports will be going out via Rosslare and possibly Cork direct to France. That strengthens the case for restoration of rail services Sligo to LImerick Junction across to Rosslare
Brexit ?? What exactly are these exports you speak of that will be carried via Sligo to Rosslare - post Brexit? Pies in the sky have their own, pre-drone, propulsion system.
Still, at least sligo councillors have recently recognised this and have supported the job-creating greenway proposal. It won't solve all the problems of the county, but every job keeps another person working and living in Sligo.0 -
Roads and railways are mainly directed to Dublin.
This made sense when almost all exports went thru' Dublin to UK.
Following Brexit more exports will be going out via Rosslare and possibly Cork direct to France.
That strengthens the case for restoration of rail services Sligo to LImerick Junction across to Rosslare
Rosslare is a ro-ro only port. It cannot and will not replace Dublin. Plenty of vessels from the continent already go to Dublin.0 -
whisky_galore wrote: »They were on shaky financial ground according to one article I read.
To be fair, North Kerry is not exactly a tourist mecca. Listowel has (or rather had) John B. and that's about it.
Good point about North Kerry, not being a tourist mecca, similar to East Mayo, which is why the Western Rail Trail greenway from collooney to Athenry passing through towns like Kiltimagh, Claremorris, Swinford, will bring tourists in on the long distance cycling greenway from Collooney to Athenry - they will be en-route elsewhere of that there is no doubt but the total journey will be the experience and these towns will benefit from this passing trade., the greenway will be connected to the Dublin- Galway greenway the Enniskillen - sligo greenway and hopefully via Castlebar to Michael Ring Greenway AKA the Mayo Greenway or even known as the Great Western Greenway. This is the logic of it all, that Mayo county council don't get, bringing tourists to places that simply are not on the tourist trail.0 -
A small but significant step forward, not only towards building a greenway but also in ensuring that the alignment stays in public ownership.
The biggest threat to a future rail link on this route was never a greenway, it was loss to roads or sell-off or adverse possession. The closed railway will at all times stay in the hands of CIE Properties and be available for rail or other transport use. It's great that sligo county councillors have seen the sense of that.
The walkers and the lycra-clad masses won't let it become a railway again.
Once they have it, they won't hand it back without a fight.0 -
On the other hand you could just let it continue to rot into the ground along with all the attractive railway structures so that when CIE do wish to reinstate some form of rail it will be rambling through decay and lost heritage. A win win there alright.whisky_galore wrote: »The walkers and the lycra-clad masses won't let it become a railway again.
Once they have it, they won't hand it back without a fight.0 -
Advertisement
-
Muckyboots wrote: »On the other hand you could just let it continue to rot into the ground along with all the attractive railway structures so that when CIE do wish to reinstate some form of rail it will be rambling through decay and lost heritage. A win win there alright.
That may be so, but assuming they will hand it back meekly if rail was viable at some point in the future is wishful thinking.0 -
whisky_galore wrote: »That may be so, but assuming they will hand it back meekly if rail was viable at some point in the future is wishful thinking.
I've always felt that the idea of reactivating a greenway into a railway has the potential of actually enhancing that greenway in the process.
Westip has often shared an image of a greenway running parallel to an active line (with safety barriers between), which illustrated the possibility of having both at the same time. If for example the Western Rail Corridor was turned into a greenway, and then at a future date rail became viable again; the tracks could be re-laid on the original track-bed and the greenway could at the same time be 'shifted' to a safe distance beside the alignment. Since a greenway is typically just a standard pedestrian pathway, it won't have the same load requirements as heavy rail. Replacement bridges for the greenway (where needed) would be relatively quiet cheap compared to the bridges that the railway would need to re-acquire from the greenway.
One massive bonus for greenway users in relation to a reactivated rail-line, is that would then be possible to cycle/walk some of the greenway and then have the option to complete their journey via rail.
It's a sweeping generalization to assume that those who advocate for Greenways are similar to the more hard-core elements of WOT, who would hold onto their precious greenway with a "lycra-clad" death grip and would never ever listen to a compelling argument for rail re-activation.
As with many who are pro-greenway, the primary objective is alignment preservation though actually using the alignment for *something*. A Greenway is a simple, cheap and fairly fast-to-build option which requires relatively very little in the way maintenance costs (no massive rail subvention) and has the bonus of encouraging cycle commuting and cycle tourism.
A successful Greenway might even be the driving force to getting a line reactivated, by generating more traffic via the route and also creating broader awareness of a pre-exisitng railway (I feel that artifacts of the original railway should be preserved as much as possible).
My main point is a Greenway offers a lot of future potential that doesn't necessarily end with a greenway. On the other hand reactivating the line now, regardless of how wise it might be, might serve as proof to IE that the line isn't profitable, and trigger them to close and sell off the line in a few years. Thus removing it from public use. (Possibly never to be reacquired).0 -
whisky_galore wrote: »The walkers and the lycra-clad masses won't let it become a railway again.
Once they have it, they won't hand it back without a fight.
The 'walkers and the lycra-clad masses' as you disparagingly call them won't own it; Irish Rail will always own it and can do anything they like with it.
Clearly you miss the point of the whole greenway project; it is as important as a means of route preservation as it is for job creation and amenity.
If by some miracle, say in twenty or thirty years time, there is suddenly a case for rail then it can be put in place on as much or as little of the existing alignment as necessary. If by another miracle, and flying in the face of all known experience we find the greenway doesn't work, then there's no harm done. However if a railway is ever to be built on the route it would be easy to re-route a greenway alongside it as part of the same project, diverting away from it wherever there isn't room, such as under bridges etc.
So, why not build the greenway alongside the existing rusty track in the first place? Well, it would cost three to four times as much as a stand-alone greenway project, it wouldn't protect the entire route, and it assumes that the existing rails, sleepers and stone base have anything other than scrap value, and it continues the dereliction and eyesore of the decaying tracks.
The best friend that the railway lobby has is actually the greenway campaign. The alternative is a gradual loss of the asset to roads and private interests, same as has happened everywhere. Already, we see the possible loss of a section at Kiltimagh to the velorail project, a private venture that will be a lot harder to shift than a greenway if the need ever arises.
The notion that 'walkers and the lycra-clad masses' could decide that Irish rail or the Local Authority couldn't build a railway on a railway alignment is so daft as to defy belief; it is akin to suggesting that the 'drivers and car owners' could object (say) to every road improvement scheme and effectively stop it.
There is no group called 'the greenway users' or even the 'walkers and the lycra-clad masses'. There is just the random collection of commuters, children, families and tourists who use footpaths and cycle-ways everywhere. Stop looking for conspiracies!0 -
whisky_galore wrote: »The walkers and the lycra-clad masses won't let it become a railway again.
Once they have it, they won't hand it back without a fight.
If the route isn't protected properly - such as by building a greenway - by the time that happens it'll have driveways and gardens across that have gone over even the significantly extended periods for adverse possession of state owned land. And the structures will almost certainly all need replacement.
The idea that you can't reopen a railway after a greenway has gone in is ludicrous and frankly is just clung to as an excuse by people.0 -
Definitely the rail lobby, if they are serious about the survival of the Ennis Athenry line, need to be pressing for a greenway alongside that line. Even an average of ten or so customers per train, cycling one way and returning by train, would make a substantial difference to the viability of the route.whisky_galore wrote: »That may be so, but assuming they will hand it back meekly if rail was viable at some point in the future is wishful thinking.
I've always felt that the idea of reactivating a greenway into a railway has the potential of actually enhancing that greenway in the process.
Westip has often shared an image of a greenway running parallel to an active line (with safety barriers between), which illustrated the possibility of having both at the same time. If for example the Western Rail Corridor was turned into a greenway, and then at a future date rail became viable again; the tracks could be re-laid on the original track-bed and the greenway could at the same time be 'shifted' to a safe distance beside the alignment. Since a greenway is typically just a standard pedestrian pathway, it won't have the same load requirements as heavy rail. Replacement bridges for the greenway (where needed) would be relatively quiet cheap compared to the bridges that the railway would need to re-acquire from the greenway.
One massive bonus for greenway users in relation to a reactivated rail-line, is that would then be possible to cycle/walk some of the greenway and then have the option to complete their journey via rail.
It's a sweeping generalization to assume that those who advocate for Greenways are similar to the more hard-core elements of WOT, who would hold onto their precious greenway with a "lycra-clad" death grip and would never ever listen to a compelling argument for rail re-activation.
As with many who are pro-greenway, the primary objective is alignment preservation though actually using the alignment for *something*. A Greenway is a simple, cheap and fairly fast-to-build option which requires relatively very little in the way maintenance costs (no massive rail subvention) and has the bonus of encouraging cycle commuting and cycle tourism.
A successful Greenway might even be the driving force to getting a line reactivated, by generating more traffic via the route and also creating broader awareness of a pre-exisitng railway (I feel that artifacts of the original railway should be preserved as much as possible).
My main point is a Greenway offers a lot of future potential that doesn't necessarily end with a greenway. On the other hand reactivating the line now, regardless of how wise it might be, might serve as proof to IE that the line isn't profitable, and trigger them to close and sell off the line in a few years. Thus removing it from public use. (Possibly never to be reacquired).
Unfortunately while greenway campaigners see their campaign as a means of preserving routes, rail lobbyists see the greenway campaign as their enemy and blindly try to stop it, without thinking it through. Their support for the velorail project in Kiltimagh is a case in point; they have been cheerleaders for this project for years because for them it keeps rails in place and keeps tourists out, a position that defies logic.0 -
Advertisement
-
Good point about North Kerry, not being a tourist mecca, similar to East Mayo, which is why the Western Rail Trail greenway from collooney to Athenry passing through towns like Kiltimagh, Claremorris, Swinford, will bring tourists in on the long distance cycling greenway from Collooney to Athenry - they will be en-route elsewhere of that there is no doubt but the total journey will be the experience and these towns will benefit from this passing trade., the greenway will be connected to the Dublin- Galway greenway the Enniskillen - sligo greenway and hopefully via Castlebar to Michael Ring Greenway AKA the Mayo Greenway or even known as the Great Western Greenway. This is the logic of it all, that Mayo county council don't get, bringing tourists to places that simply are not on the tourist trail.
I doubt if even Michael RIng would claim that there is a MR Greenway. The Achill-Westport Greenway was planned and being developed 2008/9/10 and parts of it were open and working in 2010.0 -
I've always felt that the idea of reactivating a greenway into a railway has the potential of actually enhancing that greenway in the process.
Westip has often shared an image of a greenway running parallel to an active line (with safety barriers between), which illustrated the possibility of having both at the same time. If for example the Western Rail Corridor was turned into a greenway, and then at a future date rail became viable again; the tracks could be re-laid on the original track-bed and the greenway could at the same time be 'shifted' to a safe distance beside the alignment. Since a greenway is typically just a standard pedestrian pathway, it won't have the same load requirements as heavy rail. Replacement bridges for the greenway (where needed) would be relatively quiet cheap compared to the bridges that the railway would need to re-acquire from the greenway.
One massive bonus for greenway users in relation to a reactivated rail-line, is that would then be possible to cycle/walk some of the greenway and then have the option to complete their journey via rail.
It's a sweeping generalization to assume that those who advocate for Greenways are similar to the more hard-core elements of WOT, who would hold onto their precious greenway with a "lycra-clad" death grip and would never ever listen to a compelling argument for rail re-activation.
As with many who are pro-greenway, the primary objective is alignment preservation though actually using the alignment for *something*. A Greenway is a simple, cheap and fairly fast-to-build option which requires relatively very little in the way maintenance costs (no massive rail subvention) and has the bonus of encouraging cycle commuting and cycle tourism.
A successful Greenway might even be the driving force to getting a line reactivated, by generating more traffic via the route and also creating broader awareness of a pre-exisitng railway (I feel that artifacts of the original railway should be preserved as much as possible).
My main point is a Greenway offers a lot of future potential that doesn't necessarily end with a greenway. On the other hand reactivating the line now, regardless of how wise it might be, might serve as proof to IE that the line isn't profitable, and trigger them to close and sell off the line in a few years. Thus removing it from public use. (Possibly never to be reacquired).
The Downpatrick and County Down heritage railway has cited the botched provision of a cycle path in Derry as the main factor in the health and safety related closure of the Foyle Valley Railway in Derry.We are certainly not against Greenways in principle, but given the DCDR's significant contribution to tourism in the district we feel that careful consideration needs to be given by Council and the consultants on including the railway's view on the potential future use of railway trackbeds in any plans to avoid unnecessary and divisive competition for use of the former routes, as has regrettably been seen in Great Britain where heritage railways and cycleways have met.
Whilst a shared approach is certainly possible, as many of the civil engineering and land acquisition issues are the same, there will be sections where embankments, cuttings and bridges are too narrow for any safe shared use, and it needs to be established at an early stage that the railway would have to have primacy in these locations. If any of the alignment is lost we can well and truly forget any ideas of worthwhile and meaningful expansion of the DCDR.
It is also worth remembering that it was a poorly implemented Greenway that was the reason for the closure of the Foyle Valley Railway.
Journalists looking for copy on this subject please note!0 -
I've always felt that the idea of reactivating a greenway into a railway has the potential of actually enhancing that greenway in the process.
Westip has often shared an image of a greenway running parallel to an active line (with safety barriers between), which illustrated the possibility of having both at the same time. If for example the Western Rail Corridor was turned into a greenway, and then at a future date rail became viable again; the tracks could be re-laid on the original track-bed and the greenway could at the same time be 'shifted' to a safe distance beside the alignment. Since a greenway is typically just a standard pedestrian pathway, it won't have the same load requirements as heavy rail. Replacement bridges for the greenway (where needed) would be relatively quiet cheap compared to the bridges that the railway would need to re-acquire from the greenway.
One massive bonus for greenway users in relation to a reactivated rail-line, is that would then be possible to cycle/walk some of the greenway and then have the option to complete their journey via rail.
Wishful thinking to think that a pathway could be maintained alongside a railway that is being relaid, sadly. The amount of space required for access for plant hire, lifting ballast and excavation and lining the former track bed, route realignment, comms cable laying, temporary storage of ballast and track panels; it will all infringe on any pathway along the side.0 -
The railway would be laid in sections, and the greenway would need to be diverted around these sections while the work was being done and the new trail laid. It's basic project management, it's done every day on a project somewhere. Nothing difficult about it at all, it's a lot easier than most traffic management jobs. You just develop a traffic management plan for the greenway traffic, it's very basic stuff.Losty Dublin wrote: »I've always felt that the idea of reactivating a greenway into a railway has the potential of actually enhancing that greenway in the process.
Westip has often shared an image of a greenway running parallel to an active line (with safety barriers between), which illustrated the possibility of having both at the same time. If for example the Western Rail Corridor was turned into a greenway, and then at a future date rail became viable again; the tracks could be re-laid on the original track-bed and the greenway could at the same time be 'shifted' to a safe distance beside the alignment. Since a greenway is typically just a standard pedestrian pathway, it won't have the same load requirements as heavy rail. Replacement bridges for the greenway (where needed) would be relatively quiet cheap compared to the bridges that the railway would need to re-acquire from the greenway.
One massive bonus for greenway users in relation to a reactivated rail-line, is that would then be possible to cycle/walk some of the greenway and then have the option to complete their journey via rail.
Wishful thinking to think that a pathway could be maintained alongside a railway that is being relaid, sadly. The amount of space required for access for plant hire, lifting ballast and excavation and lining the former track bed, route realignment, comms cable laying, temporary storage of ballast and track panels; it will all infringe on any pathway along the side.0 -
I'm laughing my ass off at some of the BS being spouted here.:D By both sides.
Lets get something straight. A greenway along the wrc between Colooney and Claremorris may or may not be a great success. I don't care either way. But can the pro greenway side please stop talking about it protecting the alignment, because that alignment will never ever be of any use to public transport no matter how many factories or houses we build along it. Can the pro wrc people please stop talking about a greenway destroying any possibility of this railway reopening. I cite what I said above as the reason.
It seems both sides are consuming themselves in similar BS tactics. So greenway side, grow a pair of balls and tell it like it is - the alignment is useless as a railway no matter what happens. Its poorly built, outdated and irrelevent to 21st century public transport needs. Pro wrc side - accept that you are promoting a dead donkey possibility based on the fact that this ancient infrastructure is useless.
No more talk of protecting alignments. No more talk of reinstating a railway with a greenway being repositioned alongside it. Its all utter BS. Build a greenway or let it rot. But at least be honest.0 -
The truth is, and I think I've stuck with it over my posts, is that (a) the alignment is public property and should be protected, and (b) It may have a future, in whole or in part as a transport link or for other uses. It should not be allowed to be lost to public use in the way that many other closed lines have been. I also believe that the best way to preserve it, given current conditions, is by building a greenway on it.
If you read one of my earlier posts today you will see that I referred to putting rail on the alignment where suitable, at some future date. Whereas a rail option is unlikely, we can't rule it out entirely, and some sections of the route are certainly suited to rail from an engineering standpoint.
The only people not being honest about this are the politicians who know (and indeed often admit privately) that there is no future for rail on the wrc, but who publicly wear the wot hat because it suits their electoral purposes. The local councillors who think that the good old days will come back and the slow train will carry five pensioners on a heavily subsidised day out are just deluded.0 -
The railway would be laid in sections, and the greenway would need to be diverted around these sections while the work was being done and the new trail laid. It's basic project management, it's done every day on a project somewhere. Nothing difficult about it at all, it's a lot easier than most traffic management jobs. You just develop a traffic management plan for the greenway traffic, it's very basic stuff.
Best of luck to them in rerouting a cycle path when several miles of railway line are at varied stages of being dug up and chock a block with trucks, wagons, vans, plant hire, materials, slag and waste and not to mention workmen, all of whom are working within a space that's little wider than one traffic lane.
It's totally blocked up and with no room and is, as you said, very basic stuff.0 -
The truth is, and I think I've stuck with it over my posts, is that (a) the alignment is public property and should be protected, and (b) It may have a future, in whole or in part as a transport link or for other uses. It should not be allowed to be lost to public use in the way that many other closed lines have been. I also believe that the best way to preserve it, given current conditions, is by building a greenway on it.
If you read one of my earlier posts today you will see that I referred to putting rail on the alignment where suitable, at some future date. Whereas a rail option is unlikely, we can't rule it out entirely, and some sections of the route are certainly suited to rail from an engineering standpoint.
The only people not being honest about this are the politicians who know (and indeed often admit privately) that there is no future for rail on the wrc, but who publicly wear the wot hat because it suits their electoral purposes. The local councillors who think that the good old days will come back and the slow train will carry five pensioners on a heavily subsidised day out are just deluded.
I'm specifically talking about Collooney - Claremorris. It has absolutely no relevance to modern rail infrastructure and never will. Its a donkey track. The greenway side need to piss or get off the pot in relation to how they talk about it.0 -
You can never say that a political decision won't be made about an unsuitable route. Look at ennis to athenry.The truth is, and I think I've stuck with it over my posts, is that (a) the alignment is public property and should be protected, and (b) It may have a future, in whole or in part as a transport link or for other uses. It should not be allowed to be lost to public use in the way that many other closed lines have been. I also believe that the best way to preserve it, given current conditions, is by building a greenway on it.
If you read one of my earlier posts today you will see that I referred to putting rail on the alignment where suitable, at some future date. Whereas a rail option is unlikely, we can't rule it out entirely, and some sections of the route are certainly suited to rail from an engineering standpoint.
The only people not being honest about this are the politicians who know (and indeed often admit privately) that there is no future for rail on the wrc, but who publicly wear the wot hat because it suits their electoral purposes. The local councillors who think that the good old days will come back and the slow train will carry five pensioners on a heavily subsidised day out are just deluded.
I'm specifically talking about Collooney - Claremorris. It has absolutely no relevance to modern rail infrastructure and never will. Its a donkey track. The greenway side need to piss or get off the pot in relation to how they talk about it.0 -
You can never say that a political decision won't be made about an unsuitable route. Look at ennis to athenry.
Ennis to Athenry is the best built part of the route and that's saying something because after 100 million spent on it, its hardly a stunningly expedient rail route. It was the first part to get investment because it linked two cities despite WOT wanting it to be the last part opened. FACT. No comparison.
While I despise the competence of politicians, none will be daft enough to sign off on Collooney - Claremorris. In fact I doubt they would sign off on Claremorris-Tuam. Tuam-Athenry may still be in the mix. But we are digressing.0 -
Advertisement
-
GD, look yes I hear what you are saying but political correctness has to be allowed for. The route claremorris - collooney will never be a railway again, I doubt it will be a velorail either when you consider the state of the track (or in some cases the track completely gone), protecting the alignment is the official speak, so we stick to it. in truth you are quite right, the greenway will protect the alignment in the knowledge the railway will never happen again. but hey ho it is a game of words.
A bit like Mayo coco telling us all the railway line is not closed but disused, when it comes to bull S**t merchants on this subject Mayo county council planning executives are the masters of deceit.0 -
-
-
The Downpatrick and County Down heritage railway has cited the botched provision of a cycle path in Derry as the main factor in the health and safety related closure of the Foyle Valley Railway in Derry.
Is the idea of restoring a railway closed for 40 years now entering the realms of real fantasy with referrals to heritage railways? I don't think even West on Track would have the audacity to suggest re-opening the line as a heritage railway; the heritage railway argument doesn't even get on the agenda when debating what to do with the closed railway from Athenry to Collooney. Surely not?0 -
Roads and railways are mainly directed to Dublin.
This made sense when almost all exports went thru' Dublin to UK.
Following Brexit more exports will be going out via Rosslare and possibly Cork direct to France.
That strengthens the case for restoration of rail services Sligo to LImerick Junction across to Rosslare
If Brexit leads to a change where very large amounts of exports have to go out through Rosslare/Cork directly to France instead of to or via the UK then there will have been so much disruption to the irish economy that the railway will be the least of our worries. :pac:0 -
Believe it or not, I have heard one WOT stalwart clutch at that straw, basing his argument on guests in Ashford castle wanting to visit Ballyglunin station.The Downpatrick and County Down heritage railway has cited the botched provision of a cycle path in Derry as the main factor in the health and safety related closure of the Foyle Valley Railway in Derry.
Is the idea of restoring a railway closed for 40 years now entering the realms of real fantasy with referrals to heritage railways? I don't think even West on Track would have the audacity to suggest re-opening the line as a heritage railway; the heritage railway argument doesn't even get on the agenda when debating what to do with the closed railway from Athenry to Collooney. Surely not?0 -
-
-
A body who I'd never heard of - called the "Northern & Western Regional Assembly" - has made a submission to the Government as part of the "Ireland 2040: National Planning Framework" process.
Apparently, this Ballaghadereen-based organisation, was set up, and is funded by the Government as part of the Local Government Reform Act 2014, and comprises 14 paid staff, and "25 elected representatives, in proportion to the population of each county".
Anyway, this organisation has made a submission, which can be found here and is summarised by the Connacht Tribune. Our old friend Gerry Murray of Sinn Fein is in the group and his fingerprints are all over the submission:The Connacht Tribune wrote:The construction of the Galway City Outer Bypass, a high-quality road and rail network from Galway to Derry and the re-opening of the Western Rail Corridor have all been identified as critical infrastructure for the development of the Western region.
Having failed to make the case for passengers (they're not even bothering now), and having made a piss-poor case for (non-existent) freight (anyone remember the "companies not yet in existence" bit?), they're now throwing Brexit into the mix!NWRA wrote:the unused Western Rail Corridor must remain in public ownership to ensure it can re-open to deal with freight requirements and the potential impact of Brexit
WTF does that mean an "in care railway line"? How is it in care? And I see they're trying the old non-existent Knock Airport link as well.NWRA wrote:There is an existing unutilised but in care railway line from Galway up to Colloney taking in Tuam, Claremorris and Tubbercurry and other smaller towns and villages which runs in close proximity to Ireland West Airport Knock.NWRA wrote:The relevant Development Plans in Galway, Mayo and Sligo acknowledge the need to preserve the line for future potential development for rail purposes.
Holy God - the mind boggles. As Grandeeod rightly points out, the existing alignment is absolutely useless for anything other than a Greenway. But don't let that stop this expenses-collecting crowd from coming up with more bullsh1t reports and submissions.NWRA wrote:The retention of existing and underused alignments in public ownership should be a priority0 -
Advertisement
-
When the country overall looked like it wasn't going to qualify for full EU grants or something it was split in two and assemblies were created for each part so that the poorer region would continue to qualify for the grants.A body who I'd never heard of - called the "Northern & Western Regional Assembly" - has made a submission to the Government as part of the "Ireland 2040: National Planning Framework" process.
Apparently, this Ballaghadereen-based organisation, was set up, and is funded by the Government as part of the Local Government Reform Act 2014, and comprises 14 paid staff, and "25 elected representatives, in proportion to the population of0 -
"There is an existing unutilised but in care railway line from Galway up to Colloney taking in Tuam, Claremorris and Tubbercurry and other smallerDeleted User wrote: »When the country overall looked like it wasn't going to qualify for full EU grants or something it was split in two and assemblies were created for each part so that the poorer region would continue to qualify for the grants.
towns and villages which runs in close proximity to Ireland West Airport Knock. There has been a long standing campaign to re-open this line
as well as a campaign to use the line as a part of a long distance off road cycle/walkway. The relevant development plans in Galway, Mayo
and Sligo acknowledge the need to preserve the line for future potential development for rail purposes. The retention of existing and underused
alignments in public ownership should be a priority, as this cross-radial rail corridor has the capacity to deliver sustainable transport options
proximate to the Atlantic Economic Corridor." Looks like a logical argument for a Greenway to me.
But this, along with the current raising of the line height at Ballyglunin to cross a promised rail bridge over the new road aligment looks like serious public money wasting for political point scoring and should be outed as such by the national media.
"Currently renewal plans for a rail freight line back into Shannon/Foynes Port are being prepared for approval. This opens the possibility of a longer
term re-configuration of freight movement from Claremorris to Shannon/Foynes in the event of increased congestion in and around Dublin"0 -
It was a replacement for the bmw assembly, an essential body to assist county councilors with collecting expenses and all kinds of little extra earnings, often duplicated with similar expenses claims to councils. A right little swamp of a talking shop that runs on grants and powerpoint.A body who I'd never heard of - called the "Northern & Western Regional Assembly" - has made a submission to the Government as part of the "Ireland 2040: National Planning Framework" process.
Apparently, this Ballaghadereen-based organisation, was set up, and is funded by the Government as part of the Local Government Reform Act 2014, and comprises 14 paid staff, and "25 elected representatives, in proportion to the population of each county".
Anyway, this organisation has made a submission, which can be found here and is summarised by the Connacht Tribune. Our old friend Gerry Murray of Sinn Fein is in the group and his fingerprints are all over the submission:The Connacht Tribune wrote:The construction of the Galway City Outer Bypass, a high-quality road and rail network from Galway to Derry and the re-opening of the Western Rail Corridor have all been identified as critical infrastructure for the development of the Western region.
Having failed to make the case for passengers (they're not even bothering now), and having made a piss-poor case for (non-existent) freight (anyone remember the "companies not yet in existence" bit?), they're now throwing Brexit into the mix!NWRA wrote:the unused Western Rail Corridor must remain in public ownership to ensure it can re-open to deal with freight requirements and the potential impact of Brexit
WTF does that mean an "in care railway line"? How is it in care? And I see they're trying the old non-existent Knock Airport link as well.NWRA wrote:There is an existing unutilised but in care railway line from Galway up to Colloney taking in Tuam, Claremorris and Tubbercurry and other smaller towns and villages which runs in close proximity to Ireland West Airport Knock.NWRA wrote:The relevant Development Plans in Galway, Mayo and Sligo acknowledge the need to preserve the line for future potential development for rail purposes.
Holy God - the mind boggles. As Grandeeod rightly points out, the existing alignment is absolutely useless for anything other than a Greenway. But don't let that stop this expenses-collecting crowd from coming up with more bullsh1t reports and submissions.NWRA wrote:The retention of existing and underused alignments in public ownership should be a priority0 -
To carry what? ðŸ˜႒ðŸ˜႒Muckyboots wrote: »
"There is an existing unutilised but in care railway line from Galway up to Colloney taking in Tuam, Claremorris and Tubbercurry and other smallerDeleted User wrote: »When the country overall looked like it wasn't going to qualify for full EU grants or something it was split in two and assemblies were created for each part so that the poorer region would continue to qualify for the grants.
towns and villages which runs in close proximity to Ireland West Airport Knock. There has been a long standing campaign to re-open this line
as well as a campaign to use the line as a part of a long distance off road cycle/walkway. The relevant development plans in Galway, Mayo
and Sligo acknowledge the need to preserve the line for future potential development for rail purposes. The retention of existing and underused
alignments in public ownership should be a priority, as this cross-radial rail corridor has the capacity to deliver sustainable transport options
proximate to the Atlantic Economic Corridor." Looks like a logical argument for a Greenway to me.
But this, along with the current raising of the line height at Ballyglunin to cross a promised rail bridge over the new road aligment looks like serious public money wasting for political point scoring and should be outed as such by the national media.
"Currently renewal plans for a rail freight line back into Shannon/Foynes Port are being prepared for approval. This opens the possibility of a longer
term re-configuration of freight movement from Claremorris to Shannon/Foynes in the event of increased congestion in and around Dublin"0 -
-
Muckyboots wrote: »" There has been a long standing campaign to re-open this line
as well as a campaign to use the line as a part of a long distance off road cycle/walkway. The relevant development plans in Galway, Mayo
and Sligo acknowledge the need to preserve the line for future potential development for rail purposes. "
Actually, I think this submission from the North West Regional Assembly is tantamount to an admission that a greenway is now the right solution, without overtly saying it; it is a fudge and compromise but is hugely different from past thinking. One poster said this submission had Gerry Murray all over it, I don't think so. Gerry Murray famously said the "Western Rail corridor is not up for discussion" so in this context let's examine this sentence above from the NWRA submission. Ten years ago, a submission from any of these Western cronie organisations packed with one way thinking WOT supporting cllrs, would never even have mentioned the greenway campaign; and would only have only focussed on we must have the railway to save the west type thinking. Now read what is being said.
Firstly the greenway campaign is given equal mention at dispatches, which is hardly the Gerry Murray stance, second, the reference to the county development plans refers to need to protect the alignment, a core part of the greenway argument. Believe you me, take Gerry Murray thinking out of the equation, many of the cllrs on this body now back the greenway and would have insisted on this type of wording in the submission, whilst accepting the old guard view on the railway is still embedded it also contains a much more subtle acceptance of the greenway arguments. One cllr in this body referred to the WRC as the Thomas the Tank engine line a couple of years ago at a BMW regional assembly debate, that statement is a matter of public record and was reported in western media, this submission actually means the greenway is most definitiely "up for discussion" and is actually very encouraging. The submission is open for interpretation that a greenway is what the NWRA would accept even though the railway is still a long term goal.
Far from being a submission using the old mantra we must have the railway, I believe this submission is written in a subtle civil service speak to say a greenway is actually now quite acceptable to protect the route in public ownership and the way is open for government to push the button on the greenway without anyone losing face. This is my interpretation anyway!0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes and no, as they say.Muckyboots wrote: »" There has been a long standing campaign to re-open this line
as well as a campaign to use the line as a part of a long distance off road cycle/walkway. The relevant development plans in Galway, Mayo
and Sligo acknowledge the need to preserve the line for future potential development for rail purposes. "
Actually, I think this submission from the North West Regional Assembly is tantamount to an admission that a greenway is now the right solution, without overtly saying it; it is a fudge and compromise but is hugely different from past thinking. One poster said this submission had Gerry Murray all over it, I don't think so. Gerry Murray famously said the "Western Rail corridor is not up for discussion" so in this context let's examine this sentence above from the NWRA submission. Ten years ago, a submission from any of these Western cronie organisations packed with one way thinking WOT supporting cllrs, would never even have mentioned the greenway campaign; and would only have only focussed on we must have the railway to save the west type thinking. Now read what is being said.
Firstly the greenway campaign is given equal mention at dispatches, which is hardly the Gerry Murray stance, second, the reference to the county development plans refers to need to protect the alignment, a core part of the greenway argument. Believe you me, take Gerry Murray thinking out of the equation, many of the cllrs on this body now back the greenway and would have insisted on this type of wording in the submission, whilst accepting the old guard view on the railway is still embedded it also contains a much more subtle acceptance of the greenway arguments. One cllr in this body referred to the WRC as the Thomas the Tank engine line a couple of years ago at a BMW regional assembly debate, that statement is a matter of public record and was reported in western media, this submission actually means the greenway is most definitiely "up for discussion" and is actually very encouraging. The submission is open for interpretation that a greenway is what the NWRA would accept even though the railway is still a long term goal.
Far from being a submission using the old mantra we must have the railway, I believe this submission is written in a subtle civil service speak to say a greenway is actually now quite acceptable to protect the route in public ownership and the way is open for government to push the button on the greenway without anyone losing face. This is my interpretation anyway!
There is no doubt that the assembly has come a long way from its determination to toe the wot line. The route is definitely 'up for discussion' now, which is progress of a sort, but any grudging acknowledgement of the facts is still couched in fence-sitting phraseology so as not to offend the handful of railway nuts and associated clergymen.
Things happen a lot slower in the west than elsewhere, often because of organisations like this. Just look at what was achieved in waterford in recent times, even with opposition from nine councillors (who now seem to suggest it was all their doing).0 -
-
It must be said though, once it becomes a Greenway there's no going back. I know there's all this talk of preserving the route, but once it becomes an established walkway it won't be allowed to go back to a railway.
The WRC will likely never be reopened, especially the Claremorris to Colloney section, hence making a Greenway ideal, but for other routes with potential (eg Waterford to Rosslare) it would be a poor idea.
Basically my point is I don't buy this idea of a Greenway ever becoming a railway.0 -
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 14152
It must be said though, once it becomes a Greenway there's no going back. I know there's all this talk of preserving the route, but once it becomes an established walkway it won't be allowed to go back to a railway.
The WRC will likely never be reopened, especially the Claremorris to Colloney section, hence making a Greenway ideal, but for other routes with potential (eg Waterford to Rosslare) it would be a poor idea.
Basically my point is I don't buy this idea of a Greenway ever becoming a railway.
For most of the WRC the alignment is so poor it's only fit for a greenway. If a railway north of Athenry is to open it should be on a new alignment, not the old one0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19526
For most of the WRC the alignment is so poor it's only fit for a greenway. If a railway north of Athenry is to open it should be on a new alignment, not the old one
But if the alignment is OK now, is it not just a case of widening the alignment? It is already, in most cases, a single track with room for double track, so there should be room for both a train and a bicycle.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 14152
Sam Russell wrote: »But if the alignment is OK now, is it not just a case of widening the alignment? It is already, in most cases, a single track with room for double track, so there should be room for both a train and a bicycle.
I mean the geometry and the running speeds, and also the level crossings. There's 3 level crossings with the N17 around Ballindine alone, and the railway wouldn't be able to compete with running speeds on an upgraded N17. This is south of Claremorris where the alignment is considered better than north of there.0 -
-
Sam Russell wrote: »But if the alignment is OK now, is it not just a case of widening the alignment? It is already, in most cases, a single track with room for double track, so there should be room for both a train and a bicycle.
I'll take this quote from two weeks ago "Wishful thinking to think that a pathway could be maintained alongside a railway that is being relaid, sadly. The amount of space required for access for plant hire, lifting ballast and excavation and lining the former track bed, route realignment, comms cable laying, temporary storage of ballast and track panels; it will all infringe on any pathway along the side."0 -
In short, nobody wants it for a railway, apart from a small group of anoraks, and the only practical use for it doesn't suit three or four politicians.
I could tease that out ad infinitum, but that's a summary of what's wrong with it.0 -
In short, nobody wants it for a railway, apart from a small group of anoraks, and the only practical use for it doesn't suit three or four politicians.
I could tease that out ad infinitum, but that's a summary of what's wrong with it.
That doesn't answer the question as to what is wrong with the Athenry/Claremorris alignment. The answer is that there's nothing wrong with it and it shouldn't be mixed up with the Burma Road alignment.0 -
Nothing that a train load of money wouldn't fix in terms of relaying tracks etc, if anyone (other than the aforementioned 'enthusuasts') wanted to put a railway on it. And nobody does, nobody relevant anyway.In short, nobody wants it for a railway, apart from a small group of anoraks, and the only practical use for it doesn't suit three or four politicians.
I could tease that out ad infinitum, but that's a summary of what's wrong with it.
That doesn't answer the question as to what is wrong with the Athenry/Claremorris alignment. The answer is that there's nothing wrong with it and it shouldn't be mixed up with the Burma Road alignment.0 -
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 14152
Apologies if I'm wrong, is it not the same standard as Athenry-Ennis? Which is slow and winding as is and is open?That doesn't answer the question as to what is wrong with the Athenry/Claremorris alignment. The answer is that there's nothing wrong with it and it shouldn't be mixed up with the Burma Road alignment.
There are several level crossings on the N17 south of Claremorris that would be a major issue to begin with.0 -
-
Sam Russell wrote: »But if the alignment is OK now, is it not just a case of widening the alignment? It is already, in most cases, a single track with room for double track, so there should be room for both a train and a bicycle.
"Wishful thinking to think that a pathway could be maintained alongside a railway that is being relaid, sadly. The amount of space required for access for plant hire, lifting ballast and excavation and lining the former track bed, route realignment, comms cable laying, temporary storage of ballast and track panels; it will all infringe on any pathway along the side."
Fair point, but where is the railway being relaid or planned to be relaid ?0 -
The alignment is very good between Athenry and Tuam - almost dead straight. Between Tuam and Claremorris it deteriorates and involves a lot of level crossings north of Milltown onto the N17 - a situation I couldn't see being tolerated.
North of Claremorris is a different story with the alignment between Kiltimagh and Swinford being particularly shocking and definitely not suited to runnning a rail service that would have any aspirations towards competing either with buses or cars.
The point about the alignment is moot anyway, since north of Athenry will never be built. We are going to continue to keep (re)building roads to cater for our scattered population, and we are going to (have to) provide park and rides outside major urban centres to combat heavy traffic. There is an excellent rail park and ride at Oranmore, for example, but this doesn't cover the thousands of people who work in Ballybrit/Parkmore/Mervue.0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement