Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

eastwest

westtip wrote: »

For once not sure will need to double check, in hindsight it appears high, although there was an increase when fares were cut significantly, which resulted I think in a net loss on income. I seem to recall a figure of about 37,000 been quoted for the Ennis/Athenry bit and that was the new figure, let me do some research and clarify, I may have substantially over quoted the numbers! Not like me to give an inch on this subject.:D

In fact the 102,000 came from the Independent last week, but yes it is probably wrong, The Irish Times reported this figure on January 7th 2015:



I cannot believe figures have doubled from 50,000 in 2014 to 100,000 in 2015 but have asked Irish Rail for the correct figures.

here is the link, http://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/government-does-not-intend-to-complete-western-rail-corridor-1.2056968

If the figures include commuter traffic on Ennis-Limerick and Athenry-Galway, they are meaningless in the context of investment in new lines. The key figure is the usage on Ennis-Athenry, on the newly built section.

BoatMad

eastwest wrote: »

If the figures include commuter traffic on Ennis-Limerick and Athenry-Galway, they are meaningless in the context of investment in new lines. The key figure is the usage on Ennis-Athenry, on the newly built section.

not really the its the usage of the line of any passenger that passes over part or all of it that counts

it should be pointed out that historically railway companies never really measured branch lines or secondary lines in stark terms , they saw the network as just that

Carawaystick

It should be pointed out that historically, all railway companies go bust. This may or may not be correlated to their poor record keeping.

If you are going to use passenger numbers on a Line from Galway to Dublin to justify the spending of money to re-open a new line to a different place, why not include the line on from Limerick to LJ, and sher why stop there, why not count Dublin-Cork Passengers too. :rolleyes:

BoatMad

Carawaystick wrote: »

It should be pointed out that historically, all railway companies go bust. This may or may not be correlated to their poor record keeping.

If you are going to use passenger numbers on a Line from Galway to Dublin to justify the spending of money to re-open a new line to a different place, why not include the line on from Limerick to LJ, and sher why stop there, why not count Dublin-Cork Passengers too. :rolleyes:

there are a myriad of reasons as to why most railways went bust. the quick answer being that the development of the road network out of the public purse was the biggest factor , coupled by the rising post war affluence and the relatively cheapness of cars and freight based road transport that was largely unaffected by " common carrier " obligations


Im not a fan of the WRC , because IE was not sufficiently supported to maintain its running costs without scavenging other parts of its network. It could equally revitalise its waterford to limerick services in the same way , but it will not ( and cannot )

I favour the diversion of further funds from the public purse to rail based activity, but I dont favour the way CIE runs the current network

savagethegoat

eastwest wrote: »

If the figures include commuter traffic on Ennis-Limerick and Athenry-Galway, they are meaningless in the context of investment in new lines. The key figure is the usage on Ennis-Athenry, on the newly built section.

certainly if passengers travelling from/top Galway and Dublin are included in the figured for the Galway to/from Limerick line, it makes them totally useless.
I'd accept including the pre-existing Limerick to/from Ennis figures in the total, but including Dublin (and Galway to/from Athenry) passengers is a fudge.

westtip

BoatMad wrote: »

not really the its the usage of the line of any passenger that passes over part or all of it that counts

it should be pointed out that historically railway companies never really measured branch lines or secondary lines in stark terms , they saw the network as just that

Nonsense. Measuring the traffic exclusively on Ennis/Athenry is defacto a headcount on the Limerick/Galway line, this is a true measure of the success or failure of spending 105 million plus ++++ subvention each year.

Mind you one thing you are right about - talking about branch lines when discussing this nonsense.

what_traffic

http://galwaybayfm.ie/economic-review-rail-line-athenry-claremorris/
and
http://connachttribune.ie/economic-review-of-rail-line-from-athenry-to-claremorris-022/
(Same NEWS org/group hence identical posting)

eastwest

savagethegoat wrote: »

certainly if passengers travelling from/top Galway and Dublin are included in the figured for the Galway to/from Limerick line, it makes them totally useless.
I'd accept including the pre-existing Limerick to/from Ennis figures in the total, but including Dublin (and Galway to/from Athenry) passengers is a fudge.

The Athenry-Galway and Ennis-Linerick lines were there before the Ennis-Athenry line was built, and any business that these two routes do is unrelated to the new section -- that business would have been there without the investment in the WRC. Therefore the only figure that can be used to justify the investment in the WRC is the passenger numbers on the new section.
That's not rocket science, it's just common sense and basic accounting. If I opened a second shop and added its turnover to the turnover of my existing shop in order to justify the investment in the second shop, I'd be guilty of false accounting.

Grandeeod

eastwest wrote: »

The Athenry-Galway and Ennis-Linerick lines were there before the Ennis-Athenry line was built, and any business that these two routes do is unrelated to the new section -- that business would have been there without the investment in the WRC. Therefore the only figure that can be used to justify the investment in the WRC is the passenger numbers on the new section.
That's not rocket science, it's just common sense and basic accounting. If I opened a second shop and added its turnover to the turnover of my existing shop in order to justify the investment in the second shop, I'd be guilty of false accounting.

Isn't it very sad that you have to repeat this fact to those that will never get it, or should I say, own up to the fact.

Muckyboots

""However, Deputy Seán Canney says the programme for government, which he partly negotiated, will give a definitive cost for Phase 2 of the Western Rail Corridor."" It'll cost nothing.

eastwest

Muckyboots wrote: »

""However, Deputy Seán Canney says the programme for government, which he partly negotiated, will give a definitive cost for Phase 2 of the Western Rail Corridor."" It'll cost nothing.

He's our hero! The man who delayed the inevitable for long enough to get reelected.
As long as he's sitting comfortably, with his pencil sharpened to fill in his expenses claim every month.
(Or does his spouse do that? After all, we're paying her enough!)

serfboard

The Programme For Government wrote:

The new Government will provide for an independent costing and review of the Western Rail Corridor Phase Two between Athenry and Claremorris for passenger and freight use. No measures will be taken to prevent the future reactivation of this corridor for rail use, as set out in the McCann Report.

From the Programme for Government, we're going to have another "independent" taxpayer-funded report into trying to make the case for the WRC after the previous "independent" taxpayer-funded report (carried out by the Western Development Commission) was less than enthusiastic.

If the new report shows there is no case, do we then keep comissioning and paying for reports until we get the "right" result?

Who is going to carry out this "independent" report?

I also notice that "No measures will be taken". Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. A committment to doing nothing. In fact "measures" have already been "taken to prevent the future reactivation of this corridor for rail use" - by private citizens grabbbing public land. But there is no commitment to doing anything about it like for example:

"We will take measures to enusre that the public property that is the railway alignment is not encroached on and any previously-encroached on property will be reclaimed".

Oh no, sure we couldn't do that ...

BoatMad

serfboard wrote: »

From the Programme for Government, we're going to have another "independent" taxpayer-funded report into trying to make the case for the WRC after the previous "independent" taxpayer-funded report (carried out by the Western Development Commission) was less than enthusiastic.

If the new report shows there is no case, do we then keep comissioning and paying for reports until we get the "right" result?

Who is going to carry out this "independent" report?

I also notice that "No measures will be taken". Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. A committment to doing nothing. In fact "measures" have already been "taken to prevent the future reactivation of this corridor for rail use" - by private citizens grabbbing public land. But there is no commitment to doing anything about it like for example:

"We will take measures to enusre that the public property that is the railway alignment is not encroached on and any previously-encroached on property will be reclaimed".

Oh no, sure we couldn't do that ...

sounds good to me , no greenway at least and the outside chance of a railway

Markcheese

BoatMad wrote:

sounds good to me , no greenway at least and the outside chance of a railway

Or no chance of a railway now, can kicked down road, probability of allignment being permanently lost, and of no economic value to anyway...

Is a railway for its own sake a good thing ??

Del.Monte

I need Athenry/Claremorris reinstated as I've done the line by beet train, RPSI steam, various diesel tours, a Knock special but not by 'service' train. Same goes for Claremorris/Collooney.

westtip

BoatMad wrote: »

sounds good to me , no greenway at least and the outside chance of a railway

didn't you read this post some way back?

The final phrase in this agreement was I think Sean Canney throwing in what he thinks will stop the greenway at all costs. Actually it doesn't. Irish Rail are on record of saying this: Interviewed on The Right Hook, Newstalk on Thursday August 1st, 2013, When asked about using old rail lines as Greenways Mr. Barry Kenny, PR director of Irish Rail said

"Greenways actually protect the alignment in case we ever want to use them as railways again"

Ergo A greenway will not contravene the government agreement with the independents as in the view of irish rail it will not undermine the use of this corridor for future rail use.

And then as further evidence of Irish Rail backing this position is the agreement in place with Sligo greenway co-op agreed last year in September part of the press release put out by the Western Rail Trail campaign on September 28th 2015 said this>

Following consultation with Irish Rail in recent days, Sligo Greenway Co-op has been informed that Irish Rail is prepared to enter into an agreement with Sligo County Council for the development of a greenway on the route of the closed rail line from Bellaghy to Collooney, similar to the situation with the Navan-Kingscourt line. Irish Rail typically only enters into such agreements with Local Authorities or similar statutory bodies. Irish rail recognises that a greenway is an effective way of protecting the asset that is the publicly-owned route.
Irish Rail confirms that the licence to use the land for such a purpose would be conditional upon the company remaining as exclusive landowners and that the licence would be restricted on the basis that if Irish Rail wanted to use the land to re-open the railway route as an operational railway at any time in the future then the right to have a greenway along the route could be extinguished.

And then of course there is what the immediate predecessor to the current minister, Paschal Donohoe wrote in an email to Brendan Quinn on June 22nd 2015

•

“Iarnród Éireann has confirmed that when Greenways are being developed along closed and abandoned railways, there is specific provision in the licence agreement to ensure that the corridor could be brought back to use as a working railway, should it be required at a future date.” and the Minister has stated
• “In addition to the tourism and business benefits that Greenways bring, the development of a Greenway along a rail corridor would of course also fully protect the integrity of the corridor in the event of its future reopening as an operational railway.”

Not forgetting of course what Don Cunningham Director of Infrastructure at Irish Rail said on March 4th 2015 at an oireachtas transport committee meeting chaired by West on Track supporter TD John O'Mahony - this is what Mr Cunningham said: (By the way is that Director of Infrastructure title anything to do with building things like railways?)

“The Company (Irish Rail) is open to non operational lines being developed for alternative uses as long as there is an understanding that they can revert to operational use in the future”

All in all, I would say that the Independent economic survey/feasibility study is the best thing to make a greenway happen for donkeys years. Of course this independent report will not be the mickey mouse ladybird report that historically got us into this mess in the first place, AKA The McCann Report. This so called Expert working group I don't think had a single well qualified professional Transport Economist among its membershop. Mind you it did have the impartial views of West on Track, and Frank Dawson at the time a county manager who reputedly had a toy train set in his office, and has written several papers in support of the Western Rail Corridor, oh and it also had Deirdre Frost of the Western Development Commission, another proponent and advocate of the Western Rail Corridor and has said as much on national television (see the clip of said programme on RTE), it also had the input of several councillors in the West who are members of the Western Rail committee from various counties in the west. This time a truly independent study will be needed and will be audited for it's independence by those who are watching it like me and others.

Actually I think Sean Canneys initiative is bloody marvelous as far as the greenway campaign is concerned.

jd

serfboard wrote:

If the new report shows there is no case, do we then keep comissioning and paying for reports until we get the "right" result?

They could get the same crowd that gave Pascal the desired result for DU :-)

eastwest

BoatMad wrote: »

sounds good to me , no greenway at least and the outside chance of a railway

You're reading it wrong, I'm afraid. The aim of this stunt by Canney is to stop the greenway, while knowing full well that a railway is never going to happen. If the report is independent, it can hardly come up with some pie-in-the-sky reason to justify a railway.
The pro rail lobby has now become a de facto anti-greenway group, determined to stop tourism and leisure development at all costs. They won't succeed; the swell of public opinion will overtake this outmoded thinking. The inclusion of a clause about no development to prevent rail use is a red herring; Irish Rail and the DOT are on record as accepting that a greenway is the best way to preserve the route for future rail use.

Grandeeod

eastwest wrote: »

You're reading it wrong, I'm afraid. The aim of this stunt by Canney is to stop the greenway, while knowing full well that a railway is never going to happen. If the report is independent, it can hardly come up with some pie-in-the-sky reason to justify a railway.
The pro rail lobby has now become a de facto anti-greenway group, determined to stop tourism and leisure development at all costs. They won't succeed; the swell of public opinion will overtake this outmoded thinking. The inclusion of a clause about no development to prevent rail use is a red herring; Irish Rail and the DOT are on record as accepting that a greenway is the best way to preserve the route for future rail use.

We need to seperate this. Athenry - Claremorris - you can kiss your ass goodbye on a Greenway during the term of this Government due to the Canney factor. (How pathetic that the formation of a Government depended on the WRC aspect.)

As for Claremorris - Collooney - there shouldn't be a problem, but I predict one. I find it very naieve that people think IE and the previous DOT attitudes, mean something. They mean nothing. Absolutely nothing. This railway alignment will rot further into the ground and will never see ANYTHING except maybe a train to Tuam. We are dealing with a 500 year old attitude that has been handed down from generation to generation in the West of Ireland. Its the begging bowl/entitlement attitude and that has permeated its way into this pitiful railway debate. As long as there are TDs in the west, this will never go away.

I'm following this charade since 1981 and the first report. There will be many many reports to come.

marno21

It would be much more in the line of the local people to get the N17 dualled from Tuam to Claremorris than a white elephant railway to open

mayo.mick

BoatMad wrote: »

sounds good to me , no greenway at least and the outside chance of a railway

westtip

marno21 wrote: »

It would be much more in the line of the local people to get the N17 dualled from Tuam to Claremorris than a white elephant railway to open

Well the extensive work by European Transport planners and putting together TEN-T Transport policy happened to agree with you on this matter as TEN-T does include both the N17 and N18 on this matter. Pity Canney can't focus his efforts on has been approved by European TEN-T policy he might actually be able to pull that one off, instead this independent TD propping up a minority government on an off shore island of Europe believes he has the influence to change European Transport planning legislation! The Germans will have a good laugh at the wee Wesht of Ireland man.

Muckyboots

Del.Monte wrote: »

I need Athenry/Claremorris reinstated as I've done the line by beet train, RPSI steam, various diesel tours, a Knock special but not by 'service' train. Same goes for Claremorris/Collooney.

Sean Canney is organising that for you. It will be put back to rot again shortly after, so don't blink. Sean will be selling hats, badges and mugs track side on the day.

westtip

Another ally in D4 that will no doubt be lambasted, Peter Molloy of Glenageary. Letters page todays Irish Times.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/greenways-and-rail-lines-1.2644181

and just to remind folk this is the exact wording below, that is in the programme for Government document, as per usual it is allowing for can kicking and nothing to be done, either way, railway or greenway (or both!), but notice rather subtly it is no longer a cost/benefit analysis (which would have kicked it into touch), instead we have a softer word, "review", the word independent stayed in , so that will need to be monitored as for the reference to the bible according to the holy father Mcgreil, The McCann report, the infamous Ladybird book on transport planning in the west of ireland has done more damage than is imaginable already!

J) Western Rail Corridor
The new Government will provide for an independent costing and review of the Western
Rail Corridor Phase Two between Athenry and Claremorris for passenger and freight use. No
measures will be taken to prevent the future reactivation of this corridor for rail use, as set
out in the McCann Report.

savagethegoat

eastwest wrote: »

The Athenry-Galway and Ennis-Linerick lines were there before the Ennis-Athenry line was built, and any business that these two routes do is unrelated to the new section -- that business would have been there without the investment in the WRC. Therefore the only figure that can be used to justify the investment in the WRC is the passenger numbers on the new section.
That's not rocket science, it's just common sense and basic accounting. If I opened a second shop and added its turnover to the turnover of my existing shop in order to justify the investment in the second shop, I'd be guilty of false accounting.

you misunderstand me.
If figures are being quoted for the Limerick to Galway service, it is perfectly acceptable to include all journeys except those on Galway to Dublin services between Galway and Athenry. It is perfectly acceptable for these figures to be used provided they are correctly described.

Determining traffic levels on the "new" section is a different calculation.

The only passengers that can be counted between Galway and Athenry are those on WRC trains.

eastwest

savagethegoat wrote: »

you misunderstand me.
If figures are being quoted for the Limerick to Galway service, it is perfectly acceptable to include all journeys except those on Galway to Dublin services between Galway and Athenry. It is perfectly acceptable for these figures to be used provided they are correctly described.

Determining traffic levels on the "new" section is a different calculation.

The only passengers that can be counted between Galway and Athenry are those on WRC trains.

Not quite. If a commuter service had been introduced on Athenry Galway, without the enormous investment in new track from Ennis to Athenry, the numbers on Athenry Galway would have been achieved anyway.
The only Athenry Galway numbers relevant to an argument in support of the WRC are those originating along the line from Linerick to Athenry.

savagethegoat

I know what you're saying but you could also argue that anywhere up to 100% of those travelling Galway to Athenry and return are extra passengers created by the enhanced service on that section, which is a direct result of the investment south of Athenry.

That's why I say the figures need to be correctly described and can of course be contrasted with the figures for Athenry to Ennis .

Adding Dublin passengers in is falsification, quoting end to end figures is not.

eastwest

savagethegoat wrote: »

I know what you're saying but you could also argue that anywhere up to 100% of those travelling Galway to Athenry and return are extra passengers created by the enhanced service on that section, which is a direct result of the investment south of Athenry.

That's why I say the figures need to be correctly described and can of course be contrasted with the figures for Athenry to Ennis .

Adding Dublin passengers in is falsification, quoting end to end figures is not.

Quoting end-to-end figures still doesn't give the true picture vis-à-vis the investment in the new track and stations on Ennis-Athenry.
The real question is whether satisfying a demand-led service on Athenry-Oranmore-Galway should have been done by adding commuter services to the existing line, or by building what is effectively a low-use feeder line from Limerick to top up this route. Could the end result not have been achieved at much less cost and ongoing subsidy from the public purse?
It all comes down to the principle of using or not using railways to service areas of low population density, essentially the crux of the whole debate around the wrc. If a government decides to build a railway to serve an area where there is real demand, should they then extend it ever backwards to service areas of decreasing population density? Where should they make the cut-off point? The arguments supporting the WRC generally suggest that there is no cut-off point based on demand, but that the criteria should be either (a) there used to be a railway there, or (b) they have one in Dublin.

Carawaystick

savagethegoat wrote: »

quoting end to end figures is not.

There are 0 end to end passengers, because the line is closed due to flooding between Limerick and Ennis.

savagethegoat

eastwest wrote: »

Quoting end-to-end figures still doesn't give the true picture vis-à-vis the investment in the new track and stations on Ennis-Athenry.
The real question is whether satisfying a demand-led service on Athenry-Oranmore-Galway should have been done by adding commuter services to the existing line, or by building what is effectively a low-use feeder line from Limerick to top up this route. Could the end result not have been achieved at much less cost and ongoing subsidy from the public purse?
It all comes down to the principle of using or not using railways to service areas of low population density, essentially the crux of the whole debate around the wrc. If a government decides to build a railway to serve an area where there is real demand, should they then extend it ever backwards to service areas of decreasing population density? Where should they make the cut-off point? The arguments supporting the WRC generally suggest that there is no cut-off point based on demand, but that the criteria should be either (a) there used to be a railway there, or (b) they have one in Dublin.

But I did say you can then contrast the overall figures with the Athenry to Ennis figures to show what a poor investment it was.