Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

westtip

Elemonator wrote: »

Tuam-Athenry line runs through my relative's back garden. There isn't a hope of it being re-opened. It's in bits and I'm sure it can be renovated but it seems to have been used as a dumping ground in some areas to facilitate the other projects.

you are right about the railway never re-opening but the issue re your relatives garden is wrong! It does not run through your relatives back garden because it is still owned by Irish Rail. In fact your relative, with all due respect to them are actually squatting on Irish Rail land, their back garden is not actually in their legal ownership; I am sure if they looked at the land registry they would see the Irish Rail land clearly marked out all the way along the route. This is exactly why the greenway campaign has extolled the virtue of a greenway protecting the route in public ownership and not in your relatives backyard! Again no personal issue with your relative, but this is the issue.

westtip

hytrogen wrote: »

I know if I were commuting between two cities or major satellite town to a city I would prefer an efficient and regular serviced train over a long bus or car commute daily.

Bus Eireann every hour both ways for just the 51 route which is a stopping service.

The same company x51 has 9 services one way and 10 the other (galway- limerick) per day at a journey time of 1 hour 20 minutes with one pick up point/drop off point at GMIT on the Dublin road out of Galway. The train cannot begin to manage this regularity of service nor its speed (best train time is 1 hour 55 cf 1 hour 20 for the x51 over half an hour less in transit) and probably the cost too. I would call this an "efficient and regular" service, the fact you would prefer the slower and less efficient train is neither here nor there, the passenger figures reflect what people are choosing for this "intercity" service. The bus service will probably improve the timetable for the xpress service once the N17 upgrade from Gort to Tuam is completed, by staying on the motorway to the Rathmorrisey interchange, which may add a couple of miles to the journey but cut its time by maybe another ten minutes. The facts really speak for themselves.


http://www.buseireann.ie/timetables/1425313234-051X.pdf

Elemonator

westtip wrote: »

you are right about the railway never re-opening but the issue re your relatives garden is wrong! It does not run through your relatives back garden because it is still owned by Irish Rail. In fact your relative, with all due respect to them are actually squatting on Irish Rail land, their back garden is not actually in their legal ownership; I am sure if they looked at the land registry they would see the Irish Rail land clearly marked out all the way along the route. This is exactly why the greenway campaign has extolled the virtue of a greenway protecting the route in public ownership and not in your relatives backyard! Again no personal issue with your relative, but this is the issue.

It runs to the rear of the bushes and wall and the same goes for approx 35 houses. I just always knew it as the back garden. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

westtip

Elemonator wrote: »

It runs to the rear of the bushes and wall and the same goes for approx 35 houses. I just always knew it as the back garden. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

No problem but it is an issue! Believe you me look at attached in Sligo to see what I mean!

Elemonator

westtip wrote: »

No problem but it is an issue! Believe you me look at attached in Sligo to see what I mean!

Oh not its nothing like that! Now that picture is madness

hytrogen

westtip wrote:

The same company x51 has 9 services one way and 10 the other (galway- limerick) per day at a journey time of 1 hour 20 minutes with one pick up point/drop off point at GMIT on the Dublin road out of Galway. The train cannot begin to manage this regularity of service nor its speed (best train time is 1 hour 55 cf 1 hour 20 for the x51 over half an hour less in transit) and probably the cost too. I would call this an "efficient and regular" service, the fact you would prefer the slower and less efficient train is neither here nor there, the passenger figures reflect what people are choosing for this "intercity" service. The bus service will probably improve the timetable for the xpress service once the N17 upgrade from Gort to Tuam is completed, by staying on the motorway to the Rathmorrisey interchange, which may add a couple of miles to the journey but cut its time by maybe another ten minutes. The facts really speak for themselves.

I'm not the target audience you're aiming at. You want the tourists, they want the efficiency & infrastructure they're accustomed to. Do consider too that they think we drive on the wrong side of the road.
What's killing everyones perception of taking the train anywhere is the astronmical prices set, yet it's more environmentally friendly, efficient & now designed for better disabled access: which surpasses a bus on all fronts. Buses are cheaper because the market is open to very good entrepreneurs and successfully.

westtip

hytrogen wrote: »

I'm not the target audience you're aiming at. You want the tourists, they want the efficiency & infrastructure they're accustomed to. Do consider too that they think we drive on the wrong side of the road.
What's killing everyones perception of taking the train anywhere is the astronmical prices set, yet it's more environmentally friendly, efficient & now designed for better disabled access: which surpasses a bus on all fronts. Buses are cheaper because the market is open to very good entrepreneurs and successfully.

How can it be more environmentally friendly for a train weighing god knows what fuelled by diesel carrying 10 people from Galway to Limerick than a bus using less fuel to carry 20 passengers in 2/3 of the time and at a lesser cost to each passenger. Trains are designed for the mass transport of hundreds of people, if the passenger numbers aren't there the environmental argument falls flat on its face, it might be much "nicer" and more comfortable to take the train, and I fully agree on that - but the environmental/carbon emission argument, seems to me to fall down. Which is probably why the passenger argument seems to have faded from the rhetoric of West on Track. The passenger numbers in the West of Ireland simply aren't there for this railway, either north or south of Athenry. Re your arguments on entrepreneurs - well so be it - shouldn't we be glad such people and companies exist - BTW I don't consider the service I quoted provided by the publicly owned Bus Eireann to be that of an entrepreneurial company from the private sector - do you?

savagethegoat

you are right it can't be more environmentally friendly, especially as a train has more than one engine running. You could run three buses with the same impact as a three car train presumably.

westtip

savagethegoat wrote: »

you are right it can't be more environmentally friendly, especially as a train has more than one engine running. You could run three buses with the same impact as a three car train presumably.

TBH I have no idea of the mechanics or physics of it, I don't know how heavy a three car train is, but presume the energy level to move a three car train (or put it in laymans terms the litres of diesel used per kilometre) is much higher than a single engine bus. But there does seem to be some kind of romantic unproven assumption that trains are automatically more environmentally friendly than any form of road transport. In the case of public transport my guess is the fuel consumption of a bus going from Galway to Limerick in one hour 20 minutes will be a lot less than a three car train doing the journey in nearly two hours. If the train is packed to capacity and carrying say 200 passengers the consumption per passenger may be less - herein lies the problem, the WRC limerick Galway route averages about 10 passengers per train on the through journey, I am not sure how many use the bus perhaps someone could enlighten us.

eastwest

A train is hauling an awful lot of steel around the countryside, and is only green if the ratio of steel to people (to put it crudely) is low. Empty trains are not green, not by any stretch of the imagination.
The other issue is subsidy. Rail transport sucks up a big percentage of the taxpayer subsidy but carries a disproportionately small fraction of the passenger load. I'm sure somebody can give the figures; I heard them quoted but can't rememberer the detail. In many cases the private sector can provide a service at no cost to the taxpayer, so guess what option the DOT favours when making decisions on transport infrastructure? roads have to be provided for the private car and road haulage in any case, so the argument for bus transport in rural areas in particular is massive. It is clear that the intention is to upgrade the N17 over time, and to let the private sector and Bus Eireann provide an efficient service in the western corridor. Trains aren't in anyone's plan, except for a handful of councillors drawing expenses from the inter-county railway committee meetings.
And by the way, when it comes to delivering infrastructure to meet the needs of the population, when did an ambulance ever travel on a rail line? People in the west need a few decent main roads, not a meandering railway going nowhere.

GM228

eastwest wrote: »

A train is hauling an awful lot of steel around the countryside, and is only green if the ratio of steel to people (to put it crudely) is low

From an article I read:-
A better phrase than green train/transportation would be ‘Sustainable Transportation’. The word ‘Sustainable’ clearly means activities that support the long term livelihood of our society.

The negative effects of our transportation system is large and the “greening” of the transportation system is very important. Unfortunately “Green such-and-so” is widely used in many areas, without a precise meaning. That leaves us lacking precision for “Green Transportation”. Even the phrase Sustainable Transportation is not very clear. Basically, sustainable means something that can survive for a very very long time. For example sustainable farming practices would produce food for several generations without applying external inputs like fertilizers.

BoatMad

Ive said this before, Its sad to see this " zero sum " argument, proponents of a greenway , feel the need to run down a railway system, simply to " get there hands on part of it"

Greenways should be justified as a standalone argument, and acquiring their own pathways. There are only a relatively tiny number of disused ( remember harcourt was also disused!) railways in this country that remain capable of ever being utilised every again as a railway. What happens when one or two greenways consume these, where next ladies . Sure we dont need them motorways neither.....

savagethegoat

No-one is trying to get their hands on a railway....they are wanting to use an ex-railway , disused for decades.

BoatMad

savagethegoat wrote: »

No-one is trying to get their hands on a railway....they are wanting to use an ex-railway , disused for decades.

Ennis was " disused" , as was the WRC was also " disused" , as was harcourt, as was " Middleton, as is " youghal", as was the line to Foynes port , as was broadstone ( Luas BXD)

you get my point

savagethegoat

no...they are places where people live and want to travel. The WRC section is not wanted for any railway purpose, nor will it ever be

BoatMad

savagethegoat wrote: »

no...they are places where people live and want to travel. The WRC section is not wanted for any railway purpose, nor will it ever be

A reading of any railway history , will show you that exactly the same thing was said of the Harcourt line, the line to Middleton, WRC, navan, etc etc etc

The fact is that rail lines are the only option open for an alternative transport strategy that is not road based

Disused rail lines are just that , not in use, they remain railways capable of being reopened. Only when the route is lost are they gone.

Carawaystick

Where's the line from New ross to Macmine now?
A bit under a road, and the rest gone
The South Link in Cork is a road now.
They are disused railways that'll never be re-opened.

Pete_Cavan

BoatMad wrote: »

Ive said this before, Its sad to see this " zero sum " argument, proponents of a greenway , feel the need to run down a railway system, simply to " get there hands on part of it"

Greenways should be justified as a standalone argument, and acquiring their own pathways. There are only a relatively tiny number of disused ( remember harcourt was also disused!) railways in this country that remain capable of ever being utilised every again as a railway. What happens when one or two greenways consume these, where next ladies . Sure we dont need them motorways neither.....

Disused railway lines should be looked at in terms of being a public asset to be used for the benefit of the public. Previous use should be of no consequence to future use. Should disused army barracks around the country be protected from other uses too, you know, just in case?

If rail services are not a possibility in the short to medium term, and there is another use with low conversion costs giving good value for money over the short to medium term, while not preventing rail services in the longer term, than that should be exploited. The opportunity cost of not doing so in this case is the potential income from cyclist in the short to medium term and potentially the loss of the line entirely over the long term.

A greenway will not prevent the line from being used for rail services in the future, allowing it to be consumed by nature and/or adverse possession, thus no longer existing as a public asset in the long term, will.

westtip

BoatMad wrote: »

Only when the route is lost are they gone.

Yep we agree on something which is why we want to keep the route protected with a greenway.

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

Only when the route is lost are they gone.

Considering the fact that the Chinese are building islands in the middle of the China sea, even if the route is lost, there's noting to stop it being reinstated.
An authoritarian government would make it so!

BoatMad

Deleted User wrote: »

Considering the fact that the Chinese are building islands in the middle of the China sea, even if the route is lost, there's noting to stop it being reinstated.
An authoritarian government would make it so!

after this election , Ib be glad of any Government !!!

BoatMad

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Disused railway lines should be looked at in terms of being a public asset to be used for the benefit of the public. Previous use should be of no consequence to future use. Should disused army barracks around the country be protected from other uses too, you know, just in case?

If rail services are not a possibility in the short to medium term, and there is another use with low conversion costs giving good value for money over the short to medium term, while not preventing rail services in the longer term, than that should be exploited. The opportunity cost of not doing so in this case is the potential income from cyclist in the short to medium term and potentially the loss of the line entirely over the long term.

A greenway will not prevent the line from being used for rail services in the future, allowing it to be consumed by nature and/or adverse possession, thus no longer existing as a public asset in the long term, will.

The evidence in England and elsewhere is that recovering a railway from a greenway is extremely difficult .

Greenways should be justified on their own , not as a way of acquiring railway ways.

BoatMad

BoatMad wrote: »

The evidence in England and elsewhere is that recovering a railway from a greenway is extremely difficult .

Greenways should be justified on their own , not as a way of acquiring railway ways.

Most of the issues in the UK have nothing to do with greenways, just simple NIMBYism, as the current residents living near a former railway line simply won't hear of it being reopened as it will generate noise.

Carawaystick

Railways should be justified on their own, not just a dog in a manger, preventing a greenway

hytrogen

eastwest wrote:

A train is hauling an awful lot of steel around the countryside, and is only green if the ratio of steel to people (to put it crudely) is low. Empty trains are not green, not by any stretch of the imagination. The other issue is subsidy. Rail transport sucks up a big percentage of the taxpayer subsidy but carries a disproportionately small fraction of the passenger load. I'm sure somebody can give the figures; I heard them quoted but can't rememberer the detail. In many cases the private sector can provide a service at no cost to the taxpayer, so guess what option the DOT favours when making decisions on transport infrastructure? roads have to be provided for the private car and road haulage in any case, so the argument for bus transport in rural areas in particular is massive. It is clear that the intention is to upgrade the N17 over time, and to let the private sector and Bus Eireann provide an efficient service in the western corridor. Trains aren't in anyone's plan, except for a handful of councillors drawing expenses from the inter-county railway committee meetings. And by the way, when it comes to delivering infrastructure to meet the needs of the population, when did an ambulance ever travel on a rail line? People in the west need a few decent main roads, not a meandering railway going nowhere.

savagethegoat wrote:

no...they are places where people live and want to travel. The WRC section is not wanted for any railway purpose, nor will it ever be

Fair opinion of those living adjacent to the lines from their perspective, however consider we're still trying to get business & industry to setup in the west, what is the easiest way to ship freight these days?
In containers on specifically designed train carriages to a shipping port, As is practised globally these days.
Precious cargoes require sensitive transportation that may not contaminate or disrupt the type of cargo, rail offers that smoothness & convenience over road any day.
Also I believe the NDP specifically targeted rail as the main alternative to road shipment across our island and were looking into resuming the viability of it on the rail network. given the road congestion around our major cities this is the only sustainable option.

hytrogen

westtip wrote:

How can it be more environmentally friendly for a train weighing god knows what fuelled by diesel carrying 10 people from Galway to Limerick than a bus using less fuel to carry 20 passengers in 2/3 of the time and at a lesser cost to each passenger. Trains are designed for the mass transport of hundreds of people, if the passenger numbers aren't there the environmental argument falls flat on its face, it might be much "nicer" and more comfortable to take the train, and I fully agree on that - but the environmental/carbon emission argument, seems to me to fall down. Which is probably why the passenger argument seems to have faded from the rhetoric of West on Track. The passenger numbers in the West of Ireland simply aren't there for this railway, either north or south of Athenry. Re your arguments on entrepreneurs - well so be it - shouldn't we be glad such people and companies exist - BTW I don't consider the service I quoted provided by the publicly owned Bus Eireann to be that of an entrepreneurial company from the private sector - do you?

I take your point, airlines are also guilty of this when they have to relocate a plane along an unpopular route, it's a loss maker no doubt but necessary during off-peak times to setup for the next peak period of use.
But also consider that freight too needs to relocate empty carriages to be able to run the next shipment on time, that too would be viewed as a carbon costing schedule and rightly so but that's a logistics management failure for not filling those empty carriages with freight.

Markcheese

BoatMad wrote:

Ennis was " disused" , as was the WRC was also " disused" , as was harcourt, as was " Middleton, as is " youghal", as was the line to Foynes port , as was broadstone ( Luas BXD)

How many of those have been proposed as greenways . youghal. ??
And theres not much chance of that reopening in the next 20 years, so make use of it ( while remaining in cie ownership)

BoatMad

Markcheese wrote: »

How many of those have been proposed as greenways . youghal. ??
And theres not much chance of that reopening in the next 20 years, so make use of it ( while remaining in cie ownership)

or let greenway promoters just campaign for greenways using alternative routes.sure if theres all the support they claim , it will be a piece of cake

bagels

Opponents of Greenways on disused railways are Luddites.

BoatMad

bagels wrote: »

Opponents of Greenways on disused railways are Luddites.

People that want to remove the potential of developing rail transport in ireland are luddites



there we both have moved this debate on :pac::pac: