Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

westtip

eastwest wrote: »

Politics makes for strange bedfellows, and none more strange than this unholy trinity. I'm surprised that O'Mahony hasn't had his knuckles rapped for supporting the SF/WOT alliance on an issue that is clearly contrary to government policy. Maybe Enda knows that O'Mahony is a goner next time anyway, and is letting him scrabble anywhere he can for a few votes. After all, they'll transfer mostly to FG when O'Mahony is eliminated. Likewise if he runs for Europe, Jim Higgins will get the couple of thousand transfers.
Enda may well be happy enough to let local politicians squabble over this strip of land; it keeps their minds off other things. In a way, it's an easy solution for him; the SF/WOT opposition is an excuse not to spend money in East Mayo and Sligo, and his home base is unaffected. Michael Ring must be rubbing his hands as he sits safely on the fence as well.

The really silly thing is on the part of John O'Mahony is I genuinely (OK I am a tad biased) think the creative vote catcher in his constituency would be to vocally back a "greenway now until the railway is possible" campaign as something the public would support. The evidence of public support for the SMG is already clear - nearly 300 submission to Mayo, the Swinford research, and the sheer weight of support in social media on Facebook. John is not being fed the right information and seems to be out of touch with the way people are thinking. If he came out in support of the greenway - showing how it could create jobs immediately in his constituency and protect the route until such time as a railway is possible, he would gain far more kudos and support from the senior members of his own party - including influential people of the future like Leo Varadkar. Instead he is hanging on the coattails of old ideas and a pressure group who belong back in the mad cap days of the CT and are simply no longer being listened to where it matters - central government. John O'Mahony and to a degree Michael Ring are actually missing the boat on this one.

eastwest

westtip wrote: »

The really silly thing is on the part of John O'Mahony is I genuinely (OK I am a tad biased) think the creative vote catcher in his constituency would be to vocally back a "greenway now until the railway is possible" campaign as something the public would support. The evidence of public support for the SMG is already clear - nearly 300 submission to Mayo, the Swinford research, and the sheer weight of support in social media on Facebook. John is not being fed the right information and seems to be out of touch with the way people are thinking. If he came out in support of the greenway - showing how it could create jobs immediately in his constituency and protect the route until such time as a railway is possible, he would gain far more kudos and support from the senior members of his own party - including influential people of the future like Leo Varadkar. Instead he is hanging on the coattails of old ideas and a pressure group who belong back in the mad cap days of the CT and are simply no longer being listened to where it matters - central government. John O'Mahony and to a degree Michael Ring are actually missing the boat on this one.

That is the logical approach, but logic often has no part in politics at local level, and indeed it is true to say that 'all politics is local'.
O'Mahony may well be unaware of the level of support for the greenway option, but it is more likely that he is aware of it but feels constrained by the 'leg-irons' that are local councillors. These councillors, along with a core of 'party faithful' are the drones of party politics; they are the ones who carry leaflets around the doors at election time, who do all the spade-work that gets a TD elected. If O'Mahony goes with logic, he will lose the support of the drones and his already slim chances of being elected to the Dail will disappear down the drain.
I say 'elected to the Dail' because he hasn't a snowball's chance of making it to Europe. (thankfully, because we need a better calibre of representative at that particular table). The days of sending the rejects to Brussels are over; other countries send their brightest and best. With the entry of Mairead McGuinness to this constituency, the likelihood that Susan O'Keefe will stand, and with even the low-performing Marian Harkin still making good headway the likes of O'Mahony will be shown up as having nothing to say.
FG may be tempted to push Jim Higgins aside to make room for O'Mahony, but they will just be making their chances of winning a second seat even worse than by keeping him, even though he is no great shakes as an MEP either. (Higgins' recent missive on the lack of synchronisation of the traffic lights in Galway shows how far out of touch he is on European issues).

serfboard

eastwest wrote: »

Higgins' recent missive on the lack of synchronisation of the traffic lights in Galway shows how far out of touch he is on European issues.

FYP

westtip

If you want one good reason why what's left of the so called Western Rail Corridor north of Claremorris should be given the Greenway treatment read this piece from Mayo News. Unless the route is protected in it's entirety there will be no railway ever. So what's the big issue for the railway enthusiasts, with no route you will have no railway so the need to protect the route is paramount.

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18870:greenway-closed-over-dispute&catid=23:news&Itemid=46

A one-mile section of the Great Western Greenway in Achill has been closed off due to a dispute between a local individual and Mayo County Council.
The Greenway was closed off in the last two weeks, and cyclists must now cycle along the main R319 for close to two miles at Owenduff and Tonragee East, between Mulranny and Achill Sound.

eastwest

I have a theory about why SF/WOT opposes this logic so vehemently. Anyone with half a brain will agree that a greenway is now the only option to keep the Claremorris-Collooneyroute in public ownership, and the rail lobby must know that. I think that the opposition to tourism in that area by SF/WOT is rooted in their fear that a successful Achill-Sligo tourist trail would mean huge pressure from places south of Claremorris to lay a greenway on the WRC. That's the big fear, I believe.

westtip

eastwest wrote: »

I have a theory about why SF/WOT opposes this logic so vehemently. Anyone with half a brain will agree that a greenway is now the only option to keep the Claremorris-Collooneyroute in public ownership, and the rail lobby must know that. I think that the opposition to tourism in that area by SF/WOT is rooted in their fear that a successful Achill-Sligo tourist trail would mean huge pressure from places south of Claremorris to lay a greenway on the WRC. That's the big fear, I believe.

Got it in one East West. The successful Claremorris/Collooney Sligo Mayo Greenway would result in pressure from hoteliers and businesses south of Claremorris for more of the same, in particular if the Galway-Dublin Greenway happens, it would be a shoe in of an idea to connect, a greenway coming directly from our one major urban area with a greenway that takes tourists north from Athenry toward the GWG and upto Sligo. Of course SF/WOT don't want to see this invasion of the west by D4 tourists spending money.

serfboard

westtip wrote: »

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18870:greenway-closed-over-dispute&catid=23:news&Itemid=46

Thanks for posting this, disgusting and all as it seems.

Of course, the most popular political ideology in Ireland is not Sinn Féin - it's Mé Féin.

Copyerselveson

Even though the original line was built under the Light Railway Acts, it isn’t a “light railway” as we know them today. As and when a replacement line is built on the old route, this would be effectively a brand new railway line capable of running speeds of up to 75 or 90 mph should be possible, along with the ability to handle heavy locomotives such as the 071 or 201 class.

It would be madness to allow a parallel path to be open to the public under these circumstances without a reasonable degree of separation between the railway line and such a path. Fencing would also need to be installed between any walkway or cycle path and the operational railway. Even if this were feasible, such an arrangement would impose significant speed restrictions on rail traffic.

Source:http://irishrailwaydevelopments.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/claremorris-to-collooney-is-a-parallel-path-feasible-part-1/

Couldn't have put it better myself!

errigalclimber

What is madness is allowing the old route to be lost to adverse possession claims, as is now quite clearly happening along large sections of the way. What do the West On Track advocates expect, a whole raft of compulsory purchase orders and the associated compensation to be paid from the public purse to 'buy back' the former publicly owned land already taken in adverse possession claims, on top of the public funding required to reinstate a ghost railway? Talk of a brand new railway line along the old route is fantasist nonsense. It will not happen in our lifetime and while that is the case, the route could be preserved and put to good economic use as a greenway. Whoever runs the "Irish Railway Developments" website might better employ themselves putting up some google maps pictures of the land grabbing that has gone on along the old route, which I wager has got much worse since the Google cars performed their sweep of Ireland in 2009.

Grandeeod

Copyerselveson wrote: »

Source:http://irishrailwaydevelopments.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/claremorris-to-collooney-is-a-parallel-path-feasible-part-1/

Couldn't have put it better myself!

That blog is written by a trainspotter. I'm not a Greenway person and I don't care either way. What I do care about is the totally misguided content of that blog. For example, 75 - 90 mph on the Claremorris - Collooney section? Can't wait to read it going forward. I like a laugh.

eastwest

Grandeeod wrote: »

That blog is written by a trainspotter. I'm not a Greenway person and I don't care either way. What I do care about is the totally misguided content of that blog. For example, 75 - 90 mph on the Claremorris - Collooney section? Can't wait to read it going forward. I like a laugh.

Given the sheer number of road crossings, I'd imagine that 30 mph would be about as ambitious as you could get on this section.
The notion of an express train rocketing through people's gardens at 90 mph is an interesting one though!
Still, when you're dealing in a basic premise that is based on a lack of reality, you can add any parameters you like, so why not make the WRC a high-speed bullet train, cutting travel times from Galway to Sligo to about half an hour? Now wouldn't that be a great thing to promise the 'non-Dublin 4 people' at the next election?
Handbrake turns at Athenry would be needed, obviously.

eastwest

errigalclimber wrote: »

What is madness is allowing the old route to be lost to adverse possession claims, as is now quite clearly happening along large sections of the way. What do the West On Track advocates expect, a whole raft of compulsory purchase orders and the associated compensation to be paid from the public purse to 'buy back' the former publicly owned land already taken in adverse possession claims, on top of the public funding required to reinstate a ghost railway? Talk of a brand new railway line along the old route is fantasist nonsense. It will not happen in our lifetime and while that is the case, the route could be preserved and put to good economic use as a greenway. Whoever runs the "Irish Railway Developments" website might better employ themselves putting up some google maps pictures of the land grabbing that has gone on along the old route, which I wager has got much worse since the Google cars performed their sweep of Ireland in 2009.

In fact, that is very probably what they do expect, and would explain why councillors and TDs are not too concerned about squatters (aka voters to whom they can be seen to deliver compensation).
In order to understand the lack of logic in the current impasse, you have to look at it from a political standpoint, something that often stands logic on its head.

monument

Copyerselveson wrote: »

Source:http://irishrailwaydevelopments.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/claremorris-to-collooney-is-a-parallel-path-feasible-part-1/

Couldn't have put it better myself!

You see a line speed of up to 90mph as something possable without a full rebuild?

Re bridges: few of the many crossings on the line are grade segregated using bridges, but please do tell why the walking and cycling route can't divert at these bridges and at cuttings... It seems the author is clueless about greenway construction.

corktina

eastwest wrote: »

Given the sheer number of road crossings, I'd imagine that 30 mph would be about as ambitious as you could get on this section.
The notion of an express train rocketing through people's gardens at 90 mph is an interesting one though!
Still, when you're dealing in a basic premise that is based on a lack of reality, you can add any parameters you like, so why not make the WRC a high-speed bullet train, cutting travel times from Galway to Sligo to about half an hour? Now wouldn't that be a great thing to promise the 'non-Dublin 4 people' at the next election?
Handbrake turns at Athenry would be needed, obviously.

somewhere between your 30mph and the deluded 90 mph quoted. Is the Galway to Limerick section 90 mph? NO? well that is starting from a better base than the northern section would be.

The author of that blog is seriously out of touch with reality, but then again, he isn't alone! It's the unacceptable face of Trainspotting, the one the Public judge the rest of us by mores the pity

relaxed

errigalclimber wrote: »

What is madness is allowing the old route to be lost to adverse possession claims, as is now quite clearly happening along large sections of the way. What do the West On Track advocates expect, a whole raft of compulsory purchase orders and the associated compensation to be paid from the public purse to 'buy back' the former publicly owned land already taken in adverse possession claims, on top of the public funding required to reinstate a ghost railway? Talk of a brand new railway line along the old route is fantasist nonsense. It will not happen in our lifetime and while that is the case, the route could be preserved and put to good economic use as a greenway. Whoever runs the "Irish Railway Developments" website might better employ themselves putting up some google maps pictures of the land grabbing that has gone on along the old route, which I wager has got much worse since the Google cars performed their sweep of Ireland in 2009.

I thought the line was fenced off recently and cleared of vegetation, in order to maintain public ownership (be it for a greenway or railway I am pretty sure the work has been done)

If you are aware of trespassers why not inform Irish Rail, or call the Gardaí?

Grandeeod

relaxed wrote: »

I thought the line was fenced off recently and cleared of vegetation, in order to maintain public ownership (be it for a greenway or railway I am pretty sure the work has been done)

If you are aware of trespassers why not inform Irish Rail, or call the Gardaí?

Nope. Not all of it and in particular the bits under garden lawns or driveways. You must know this or you're trying to stir it up.

Banjoxed

corktina wrote: »

It's the unacceptable face of trainspotting

Phowar! What is it, oiled up nekkid wimmin gronking? Must have a look so

errigalclimber

Relaxed, just have a look at Google Streetview, take a random selection of towns the line passes through. You will see driveways, gardens, garage forecourts and all manner of private use of the former line. Have they purchased the land from Irish Rail? I have no idea. It is simply not good enough for you or for WRC campaigners like West On Track to say it is for the Gardai (outside their domain as it is a civil law matter) or Irish Rail to deal with trespassers (again, at public expense), while West On Track to my knowledge pointedly refuse to utter one single word condemning or even discouraging adverse possession of the way, presumably the expectation being that those who squat on the land will be compulsorily purchased and receive compensation at that time in the Alice in Wonderland future when the ghost trains start running again.

eastwest

I understand that not only were CIE notified, several people provide them with 'chapter and verse', photos, locations etc.
They did nothing.
This kind of squatting is not only acceptable politically, it is almost encouraged. The SF/WOT side will be happy to be the bringers of largesse in the form of compensation if the railway or greenway is built. CIE would probably be happy to lose ownership of the line; it's just a nuisance to them at this stage.

Grandeeod

None of the track "aquired" on the claremorris - collooney stretch was done with CIEs agreement. It was just done. CIE ignored it because they never had any intention of reopening it and were under instruction from the state to leave the track in place and not formally abandon the line.

eastwest

Grandeeod wrote: »

None of the track "aquired" on the claremorris - collooney stretch was done with CIEs agreement. It was just done. CIE ignored it because they never had any intention of reopening it and were under instruction from the state to leave the track in place and not formally abandon the line.

They certainly never agreed to give any if it away, but lines like this are a nuisance to them because they effectively have no budget to protect them from squatters. I believe that they would be just as happy if they were lost to public ownership; it would solve an embarrassing problem for them.
Certainly they seem delighted to hand them over in other areas where greenway groups want to take them over under licence.

eastwest

relaxed wrote: »

I thought the line was fenced off recently and cleared of vegetation, in order to maintain public ownership (be it for a greenway or railway I am pretty sure the work has been done)

If you are aware of trespassers why not inform Irish Rail, or call the Gardaí?

You're joking, right? You only have to walk along almost any section of the Claremorris-Collooney line and you'll hit barbed wire in five minutes. Or worse.

Markcheese

Would have thought sending a digger /bulldozer down a closed line once every five to 10 years would be a simple way of preserving the way ?? Also if the line is still technically there (in a legal sense) does it matter who owns it the way would still exist..?? ,(technically I own to the middle of the road outside my house, but I'm not allowed put cattle on the road or graze the verge,if I had cattle)

errigalclimber

Markcheese, in legal terms it's called adverse possession. If you squat on someone else's land unhindered for long enough you eventually take legal possession. The line will fall prey (it probably has already done so) to a chequer board of adverse possession claims meaning that even though physically its imprint may still exist on the landscape, its ownership will have passed by default into the ownership of numerous private individuals staking their claim. So the bulldozer could only proceed with the consent of those new owners. That horse has well and truly bolted.

Grandeeod

Markcheese wrote: »

Would have thought sending a digger /bulldozer down a closed line once every five to 10 years would be a simple way of preserving the way ?? Also if the line is still technically there (in a legal sense) does it matter who owns it the way would still exist..?? ,(technically I own to the middle of the road outside my house, but I'm not allowed put cattle on the road or graze the verge,if I had cattle)

You really need to see it to appreciate it. We are not just talking about a few bits of land grabs. We are talking about houses being built where access is required across the line and driveways were just slapped over it. Now I don't know if these houses were built requiring retention or outright planning permission, but its obvious that certain CCs didn't give a fiddlers ****! If we are to be absolutely honest, WOTs campaign is disingenuous and supported by CCs that never cared about the WRC until the original WOT campaign started in the first place. Its all parish pump political bull**** devoid of any logic. Its always been that way since the SRR upset them.

The only effort at argument in favour of reinstating any of the WRC was left to suspect accounts here on boards, WOTs insular campaign and trainspotters that want reinstated lines at any cost so they can ride the special over it. All true and ultimately resulting in bans from boards.ie to people that simply spoke reality. A very divisive subject and sad in the extreme, because its a worthless piece of infrastructure that has commanded more game time than what is really needed elsewhere.

Markcheese

I realise for much of WRC it's too late,(10 years of exclusive use ??) but surely any other line that cie had decomissioned in more recent past ...
Also what does a railway order legally allow/call for ,and is it still in force (technically) on the disused line ?

eastwest

Markcheese wrote: »

I realise for much of WRC it's too late,(10 years of exclusive use ??) but surely any other line that cie had decomissioned in more recent past ...
Also what does a railway order legally allow/call for ,and is it still in force (technically) on the disused line ?

As far as I'm aware the northern section of the so-called WRC doesn't have a railway order -- essentially planning permission for a railway.

errigalclimber

Markcheese, yes indeed, any action that is contrary to a squatter's exclusive use taken within the statutory time limit would defeat an adverse possession claim. But once the land falling into private ownership all bets are off and the state then has to dip into public funds and buy it back again if it wishes to reclaim the land. That takes not only money but the political will.

westtip

Grandeeod wrote: »

You really need to see it to appreciate it. We are not just talking about a few bits of land grabs. We are talking about houses being built where access is required across the line and driveways were just slapped over it. .

Too right Grandeod, houses built for which planning permission had to be given by the very councils (sligo and Mayo) opposed to the greenway but they gave planning permission - despite the declared "strategic objective" to restore the rail line. The point is the county councils have broken their own planning guidelines by ignoring the county and regional development plans which support the objective of the railway re-opening - The councils are now using these regional development plans as a pathetic excuse as to why they can't back a greenway - Spineless is one way of describing them.

westtip

Markcheese wrote: »

I realise for much of WRC it's too late,(10 years of exclusive use ??) but surely any other line that cie had decomissioned in more recent past ...
Also what does a railway order legally allow/call for ,and is it still in force (technically) on the disused line ?

I have a feeling the number of years for adverse possession of public land are slightly longer than ten years but not sure if the law has been tested on this one.