Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

eastwest · 12-07-2014 7:05pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

What would the cycle from/to Sligo/Colooney be like?
Is it DC all the way?

There's another minor road that starts near the roundabout at Carraroe and runs on the west side of the Dublin-Sligo rail line, parallel to the N4; you come out under the railway arch on the big embankment north of Collooney. Very quiet road, good for biking albeit with a bit of a hill on it.
The proposal passed by the coco includes linking from Collooney to Sligo via Union Wood, which might be a better option.

deisegreenway · 13-07-2014 11:39am

westtip wrote: »

The motion was passed without a vote, however anti greenway councillors kicked up a fuss notably Declan Bree and the two SF (who support the Western Arc concept AKA WOT), cllrs and one FF cllr Jerry Lundy who is against it because we think he doesn't want it going through his land. They were insisting the motion should read "alongside the old railway" cllr Mulvey stuck to his guns that the wording should be on the disused railway, before putting it to a vote - which cllr Mulvey would have won BTW, the motion was amended to read ... " to support a feasibility study for a greenway to be put in place on the disused railway line or alongside the disused railway from Collooney to the County border at Bellaghy/Charlestown." This effectively means the feasibility study which has not yet been approved or funded can look at the entire route as a greenway and the old railway line bedrock foundation can be used for a greenway. It is the nuance of "on" or "alongside" that was critical.

Effectively sligo coco now supports the idea of a greenway on the route and this is now going to be looked at - in other words the greenway idea is now well and truly "in the system". I think I first posted this idea up on the first WRC thread sometime in 2005, although I can't find the post. At that time all the talk was about the railway but many of us on that thread argued differently. I have had a lot of help and support on the way with arguments for this idea and met with some very interesting people on this journey. It has taken 8/9 years to get sligo coco to finally adopt this idea and now it is as I say "in the system" to be processed I only hope it will come to fruition, but I would like to thank all those who have helped with the idea.

Many thanks for the kind comments that have been received about this motion and the work we put into persuading a majority of Sligo Councillors to finally accept the arguments we have put forward re the greenway idea on the Sligo Mayo Greenway Facebook page. Arguments for this greenway by the way were floated out long before there was any talk of Great Western greenways and National cycle networks.

From acorns do oak trees grown and all that. Well done to Dara Mulvey and all the councillors who finally came on board to support the greenway idea.:)

Well done on getting it this far lads, super campaign which we're monitoring closely down here in Waterford. Hopefully ye'll have even better news soon

westtip · 31-07-2014 1:58pm

Westtip announces he had nothing to do with this, but takes his hat off to the man who did it!

A man hired a digger, lowloader and a tractor before stripping the disused Claremorris to Collooney railway line in the west of Ireland of 117 metres of iron track, a court heard. -

See more at:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-used-hired-digger-to-steal-part-of-railway-tracks-30403502.html#sthash.dAtvLY98.dpuf

Rawr · 31-07-2014 2:40pm

westtip wrote: »

Westtip announces he had nothing to do with this, but takes his hat off to the man who did it!

See more at:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-used-hired-digger-to-steal-part-of-railway-tracks-30403502.html#sthash.dAtvLY98.dpuf

Surprising that he managed to get nearly €9000 worth of metal out of the old line. I didn't think a few meters of old rusted rails could be worth that much.

Although most likely CIE property, the scrap value of the entire disused track could potentially go a long way in funding the greenway

eastwest · 31-07-2014 3:00pm

Rawr wrote: »

Surprising that he managed to get nearly €9000 worth of metal out of the old line. I didn't think a few meters of old rusted rails could be worth that much.

Although most likely CIE property, the scrap value of the entire disused track could potentially go a long way in funding the greenway

By my calculations, that values the scrap rails at €76,000/km. Given that the GST greenway on the old rail line was built for around €20,000/km, it would leave change to pay the county councils for being involved as well.

corktina · 31-07-2014 7:15pm

there's a cost in their removal though

end of the road · 31-07-2014 9:11pm

whatever about the railway v greenway argument, the removal of this track was simple vandelism, for now the line all be it disused is still a railway and anyone who steals pieces of this infrastructure should have the full force of the law down on top of them

Carawaystick · 31-07-2014 10:13pm

end of the road wrote: »

whatever about the railway v greenway argument, the removal of this track was simple vandelism, for now the line all be it disused is still a railway and anyone who steals pieces of this infrastructure should have the full force of the law down on top of them

Especially those who have built driveways across the line/encroached on the way with buildings etc....

end of the road · 31-07-2014 10:23pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

Especially those who have built driveways across the line/encroached on the way with buildings etc....

i would absolutely have no sympathy for them and would have no problem what so ever with them being dealt with

westtip · 03-08-2014 10:56am

end of the road wrote: »

i would absolutely have no sympathy for them and would have no problem what so ever with them being dealt with

Thing is they probably won't be and will be looking for "compensation" for a greenway going along the route they have stolen. Or compensation for having a greenway running through their land - the change of use from a closed railway to a greenway should not entitle anyone to compensation. It's the entitlement culture we have, putting a greenway on this route should be no problem at all, the route afterall is still classified as a closed railway in the ownership of irish rail - but doubtless the squatters will object and hold out. If this chap got prosecuted for stealing rusting railway lines and rotten sleepers, then those who have stolen the land in parts should be told - if you want compensation you will have to take the state (irish rail) to court to ask for compensation. In the meantime get off the land you don't own, the state should not offer a penny to anyone because of the change of use that is proposed by sligo county council.

Pete_Cavan · 03-08-2014 11:49am

end of the road wrote: »

i would absolutely have no sympathy for them and would have no problem what so ever with them being dealt with

That is fine for those who simply decide to take the land but what of those who got planning permission? Do we know are there many people who were granted planning permission to encroach on the line because I'm sure that legally these people would be entitled to compensation given they have permission, although not the permission of the owner.

westtip · 03-08-2014 12:28pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

That is fine for those who simply decide to take the land but what of those who got planning permission? Do we know are there many people who were granted planning permission to encroach on the line because I'm sure that legally these people would be entitled to compensation given they have permission, although not the permission of the owner.

Not sure the planners are legally bound to check out land ownership issues as part of the planning process; That could be a legal nightmare for planners. I think the onus would have been on the owners to object to the permission being given on grounds that they own the land. Each planning application would need to be looked at to see where the red boundary lines on the plots are in the applications. There is one example near Collooney in which a new dormer bungalow built in the last 15 years has the railway lines running right through the front garden/driveway and the owners have fenced off the railway and another one in which coral fencing has been put around the line.

A photo of the bungalow is enclosed, you can see the one with the coral fencing on the sligo mayo greenway facebook page; if you look at the photo carefully you can see the railway lines covered by the light gravel in this driveway, it's quite astonishing permission was given for this house taking into account the county plan; it makes you wonder what the real agenda was all the time. Clearly there was no agenda to ever build a railway line again and the county plan has very little bearing on planning decisions the council used to take.

Little doubt there are going to be problems on the Collooney - Charlestown greenway section especially near collooney; What is so ironic is the councillors who so vociferously opposed the greenway said nothing about the planning permissions being granted for houses and house extensions so near the line. What's more it shows a level of incompetence on the part of the planning department to have granted these permissions when apparently restoring the railway line was a long term strategic aim of the council as set out in the county plan. They went against their own planning guidelines in this respect.

The good news is we now have the council (sligo coco at least) on our side in respect to wanting a greenway on the route, so lets hope a resolution will be achieved, but there is no escaping the fact any problems there are going to be will largely be of the councils own making from actions taken in the past.

corktina · 03-08-2014 12:45pm

Looking at your photo, I'd suspect that is a modernised crossing keepers cottage rather than a new build , for which planning permission wouldn't be needed

westtip · 03-08-2014 1:12pm

corktina wrote: »

Looking at your photo, I'd suspect that is a modernised crossing keepers cottage rather than a new build , for which planning permission wouldn't be needed

Corky yes I think that might actually be the case, the two pillars you can see in the foregound, I think were the supports for the gate crossing, nevertheless, the building is very close to the actual track route, and the panel fencing should not have been thrown across the track blocking it as a route and effectively fencing that stretch of track into an enclosed garden. There are undoubtedly going to be issues raised in the feasibility study for a greenway when and if that happens. (dependent on funding and support from department of transport tourism and sport).

corktina · 03-08-2014 2:15pm

this is one of the issues a Greenway will have to address. It could be the cottage is still owned by CIE and rented out or has been bought but the track would not be included in either case surely.
It may be that the Greenway would have to divert around the boundary, which wouldn't be too difficult. As you say the track is very close to the cottage and the occupiers may have grounds to object to the Greenway on that basis

Those posts are not robust enough to be for crossing gates imo

end of the road · 03-08-2014 2:40pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

That is fine for those who simply decide to take the land but what of those who got planning permission? Do we know are there many people who were granted planning permission to encroach on the line because I'm sure that legally these people would be entitled to compensation given they have permission, although not the permission of the owner.

i don't know, but its certainly an interesting question

westtip · 03-08-2014 2:53pm

corktina wrote: »

this is one of the issues a Greenway will have to address. It could be the cottage is still owned by CIE and rented out or has been bought but the track would not be included in either case surely.
It may be that the Greenway would have to divert around the boundary, which wouldn't be too difficult. As you say the track is very close to the cottage and the occupiers may have grounds to object to the Greenway on that basis

Those posts are not robust enough to be for crossing gates imo

Indeed all these issues in cases like this will have to be thrashed out. The point is Corky, the "we must have a railway brigade" have never raised these issues about actually protecting the route; one of the key issues of the greenway is to ensure the full route is retained in public ownership. None of us know what will happen in 30 years time and the route needs protecting, who knows a railway may become possible in half a centuries time. In the case of this photograph the land registry will show who owns the land, my guess is the strip of land the line sits on and either side of rail tracks for at least a couple of metres belongs to the state through irish rail, but again these will all be issues that will come out of the feasibility study.

Re the property I would hope if Irish Rail have sold off the dwelling to private hands that the plot the house sits on does not include the railway/greenway route, if it is a rented property in the ownership of Irish Rail then there are no issues.

monument · 03-08-2014 6:51pm

A few points blocked along the route is not a notable issue for a greenway -- it can be rerouted with relative ease.

I say relative ease because even if the rerouting was a 2km detour, that's nothing in the scheme of things given the total distance of the route.

Most likely however is a few meters or, at most, a few 100 meters detour around houses or notable other obstruction be they man made or natural.

Carawaystick · 04-08-2014 1:35am

westtip wrote: »

Not sure the planners are legally bound to check out land ownership issues as part of the planning process; That could be a legal nightmare for planners. I think the onus would have been on the owners to object to the permission being given on grounds that they own the land. Each planning application would need to be looked at to see where the red boundary lines on the plots are in the applications.

From talking to my cousin, the planning applicant has to sign a doc stating they have the landowner's permission to develop the land.

But as, This Is Ireland,
there is no perjury conviction looming for any false declarations

westtip · 04-08-2014 9:50am

monument wrote: »

A few points blocked along the route is not a notable issue for a greenway -- it can be rerouted with relative ease.

I say relative ease because even if the rerouting was a 2km detour, that's nothing in the scheme of things given the total distance of the route.

Most likely however is a few meters or, at most, a few 100 meters detour around houses or notable other obstruction be they man made or natural.

I agree with you monument, but the whole point is if the route is blocked here and there what have WOT been doing all these years about keeping the route open and accessible. In the last few years their whole focus has been stop the greenway at all costs without seeing the bigger picture, without the integrity of the route being maintained in full there will be no railway - not ever. A greenway along the alignment keeps the possibility of a railway(with greenway then put in alongside the railway) in the future. We know from Irish Rail strategy the route won't be looked at for any possible rail development for at least 20 years. We know Europe has dropped the WRC off the agenda for funding with TEN-T policy. The minor diversions that may be necessary to achieve the greenway will in effect kill off the possibility of a railway for ever, as the route will be gone.

Alun · 04-08-2014 10:16am

monument wrote: »

A few points blocked along the route is not a notable issue for a greenway -- it can be rerouted with relative ease.

I say relative ease because even if the rerouting was a 2km detour, that's nothing in the scheme of things given the total distance of the route.

Most likely however is a few meters or, at most, a few 100 meters detour around houses or notable other obstruction be they man made or natural.

It's not so much the distance that's the problem with the detours but the route they have to take when doing so. There are a couple of such detours on the Mulranny - Newport section of the GWG, where the old railway line basically contours along the side of a hillside, and is reasonably flattish. The detours, though, force you steep uphill, along a bit and then steep downhill again, along some fairly narrow, newly built gravel paths which isn't ideal.

westtip · 04-08-2014 10:52am

Alun wrote: »

It's not so much the distance that's the problem with the detours but the route they have to take when doing so. There are a couple of such detours on the Mulranny - Newport section of the GWG, where the old railway line basically contours along the side of a hillside, and is reasonably flattish. The detours, though, force you steep uphill, along a bit and then steep downhill again, along some fairly narrow, newly built gravel paths which isn't ideal.

Those detours were because they couldn't get permissive access from the landowner who had taken over the old railway as Irish Rail had sold it off or allowed it to be squatted on since the 1930s. The ironic thing is one of the landowners who wouldn't give permissive access is a hotel owner from Newport which clearly has gained business from those coming to do the greenway. The permissive access model to build cycleways is very fragile, which is why I have always banged on about maintaining the integrity of the collooney claremorris section of the so called Western Rail corridor as a greenway to keep it in public ownership. There are going to be some issues with the likes of the bungalow photo posted a few posts back and one or two other places but now is the time for both irish rail and the council to simply say - sorry this is public land and we are going to change its use from redundant rail line for the time being to greenway to ensure the route is kept in public ownership. If you want compensation or want to object they can take the landowners to court, but the landowners (ie the public through irish rail) owe the squatters nothing. The attitude must be strong, if you want to stop us from using our land to create a greenway - you can take us to court and not attitude of asking for permission to use public land for the public good we need to stop any cowtowing to land thieves. The same attitude should be taken with farmers in Kerry trying to stop the extension of the Great Southern Greenway to Listowel. The railway route there belongs to Irish Rail, get on with it, there is no debate, at one time you had steam trains coming through your fields now you will have money spending tourists, grab the opportunity to make money by earning it and not waiting for entitlement grants/payouts.

BrianD3 · 04-08-2014 11:59am

westtip wrote: »

The permissive access model to build cycleways is very fragile

Very fragile indeed. Landowner owns a strip of poor land part of an old railway, not worth much. Greenway proposed, landowner gives permissive access for the greenway. Waits for it to become popular and of economic benefit then withdraws access and looks for money.

I actually think we will see a greenway on the WRC in a few years as CIE owns the trackbed and the issues with squatting, objections and WOT lobbyists are surmountable.

However for other proposed greenways on closed lines where some/most/all of the land has been sold off, embankments removed, cuttings filled in, bridge decks removed and relying on permissive access from landowners - I can't see them working.

I have a thread in the trains subforum here about abandonment orders and some stuff on the West Clare railway which may be of relevance.

Grandeeod · 05-08-2014 9:18pm

westtip wrote: »

Not sure the planners are legally bound to check out land ownership issues as part of the planning process; That could be a legal nightmare for planners. I think the onus would have been on the owners to object to the permission being given on grounds that they own the land. Each planning application would need to be looked at to see where the red boundary lines on the plots are in the applications. There is one example near Collooney in which a new dormer bungalow built in the last 15 years has the railway lines running right through the front garden/driveway and the owners have fenced off the railway and another one in which coral fencing has been put around the line.

A photo of the bungalow is enclosed, you can see the one with the coral fencing on the sligo mayo greenway facebook page; if you look at the photo carefully you can see the railway lines covered by the light gravel in this driveway, it's quite astonishing permission was given for this house taking into account the county plan; it makes you wonder what the real agenda was all the time. Clearly there was no agenda to ever build a railway line again and the county plan has very little bearing on planning decisions the council used to take.

Little doubt there are going to be problems on the Collooney - Charlestown greenway section especially near collooney; What is so ironic is the councillors who so vociferously opposed the greenway said nothing about the planning permissions being granted for houses and house extensions so near the line. What's more it shows a level of incompetence on the part of the planning department to have granted these permissions when apparently restoring the railway line was a long term strategic aim of the council as set out in the county plan. They went against their own planning guidelines in this respect.

The good news is we now have the council (sligo coco at least) on our side in respect to wanting a greenway on the route, so lets hope a resolution will be achieved, but there is no escaping the fact any problems there are going to be will largely be of the councils own making from actions taken in the past.

Your photo does not appear to be a former crossing keeper house location. The nearest to Collooney is still a derelict site, unless your definition of near Collooney is further out. There are driveways across the line nearer Collooney, but they weren't there when the line was operational and were added long after closure to access land and new builds. Regardless of a Greenway, these obstacles would seriously inhibit the reopening of the line and these issues have been consistantly ignored by WOT and Government reps. Claremorris to Collooney has been subsumed into so much illegal land grabbing, with a blind eye thrown in from CIE, that its laughable a guy stealing rails was convicted.

westtip · 11-08-2014 4:49pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

Your photo does not appear to be a former crossing keeper house location. The nearest to Collooney is still a derelict site, unless your definition of near Collooney is further out. There are driveways across the line nearer Collooney, but they weren't there when the line was operational and were added long after closure to access land and new builds. Regardless of a Greenway, these obstacles would seriously inhibit the reopening of the line and these issues have been consistantly ignored by WOT and Government reps. Claremorris to Collooney has been subsumed into so much illegal land grabbing, with a blind eye thrown in from CIE, that its laughable a guy stealing rails was convicted.

Absolutely laughable, in 30 years time the sons of WOT will be thanking the greenway campaigners of yesteryear for having the vision to keep the route intact with a greenway.

eastwest · 04-09-2014 10:45am

What is very clear from all the previous discussion is that the pro-rail lobby, including WOT, did absolutely nothing to protect the route. Ditto the political wing of WOT -- the inter-county railway committee. In fact, given their opposition to the greenway proposal and their success in delaying it be several years, and the role that a greenway will have in protecting the route, it could be said that their entire effect on the rail route and the future possibility of a rail link was negative.
So, was the entire rationale for the pro-rail lobby just a massive expenses-gathering scam, or what were they thinking?
On the subject of WOT, have they now faded away or are they regrouping to try to stop the proposed tourism development? I haven't seen a single whimper from them anywhere since Sligo county council voted to make a start on the greenway project.

serfboard · 04-09-2014 12:49pm

eastwest wrote: »

On the subject of WOT, have they now faded away or are they regrouping to try to stop the proposed tourism development? I haven't seen a single whimper from them anywhere since Sligo county council voted to make a start on the greenway project.

Colman was on Sean O'Rourke recently - but not talking (very much) about the WRC. He was debating with the owner of DublinCoach about buses versus railways in this country.

He actually came across quite reasonable (:eek:), saying things like we need a mix of transport alternatives and that he was in favour of scrapping the universal travel pass for the elderly (to be replaced with discounted travel instead for those who can afford it).

corktina · 04-09-2014 1:22pm

I don't see that bus vs Rail is an argument that needs discussion. Rail in terms of speed and comfort is better, bus in terms of cost is better. The real competitor to rail is the car and in most cases it has already won that battle.

westtip · 04-09-2014 3:22pm

serfboard wrote: »

Colman was on Sean O'Rourke recently -.......that he was in favour of scrapping the universal travel pass for the elderly (to be replaced with discounted travel instead for those who can afford it).

Won't win friends and influence people advocating what has almost become enshrined in the constitution - the free travel pass.

corktina · 09-09-2014 7:18pm

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-28955045

COastal path makes £16 million pa in Wales

Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

Comments