Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

Muckyboots

Deleted User wrote: »

When the country overall looked like it wasn't going to qualify for full EU grants or something it was split in two and assemblies were created for each part so that the poorer region would continue to qualify for the grants.

"There is an existing unutilised but in care railway line from Galway up to Colloney taking in Tuam, Claremorris and Tubbercurry and other smaller
towns and villages which runs in close proximity to Ireland West Airport Knock. There has been a long standing campaign to re-open this line
as well as a campaign to use the line as a part of a long distance off road cycle/walkway. The relevant development plans in Galway, Mayo
and Sligo acknowledge the need to preserve the line for future potential development for rail purposes. The retention of existing and underused
alignments in public ownership should be a priority, as this cross-radial rail corridor has the capacity to deliver sustainable transport options
proximate to the Atlantic Economic Corridor." Looks like a logical argument for a Greenway to me.

But this, along with the current raising of the line height at Ballyglunin to cross a promised rail bridge over the new road aligment looks like serious public money wasting for political point scoring and should be outed as such by the national media.
"Currently renewal plans for a rail freight line back into Shannon/Foynes Port are being prepared for approval. This opens the possibility of a longer
term re-configuration of freight movement from Claremorris to Shannon/Foynes in the event of increased congestion in and around Dublin"

eastwest

serfboard wrote: »

A body who I'd never heard of - called the "Northern & Western Regional Assembly" - has made a submission to the Government as part of the "Ireland 2040: National Planning Framework" process.

Apparently, this Ballaghadereen-based organisation, was set up, and is funded by the Government as part of the Local Government Reform Act 2014, and comprises 14 paid staff, and "25 elected representatives, in proportion to the population of each county".

Anyway, this organisation has made a submission, which can be found here and is summarised by the Connacht Tribune. Our old friend Gerry Murray of Sinn Fein is in the group and his fingerprints are all over the submission:

The Connacht Tribune wrote:

The construction of the Galway City Outer Bypass, a high-quality road and rail network from Galway to Derry and the re-opening of the Western Rail Corridor have all been identified as critical infrastructure for the development of the Western region.

NWRA wrote:

the unused Western Rail Corridor must remain in public ownership to ensure it can re-open to deal with freight requirements and the potential impact of Brexit

Having failed to make the case for passengers (they're not even bothering now), and having made a piss-poor case for (non-existent) freight (anyone remember the "companies not yet in existence" bit?), they're now throwing Brexit into the mix!

NWRA wrote:

There is an existing unutilised but in care railway line from Galway up to Colloney taking in Tuam, Claremorris and Tubbercurry and other smaller towns and villages which runs in close proximity to Ireland West Airport Knock.

WTF does that mean an "in care railway line"? How is it in care? And I see they're trying the old non-existent Knock Airport link as well.

NWRA wrote:

The relevant Development Plans in Galway, Mayo and Sligo acknowledge the need to preserve the line for future potential development for rail purposes.

NWRA wrote:

The retention of existing and underused alignments in public ownership should be a priority

Holy God - the mind boggles. As Grandeeod rightly points out, the existing alignment is absolutely useless for anything other than a Greenway. But don't let that stop this expenses-collecting crowd from coming up with more bullsh1t reports and submissions.

It was a replacement for the bmw assembly, an essential body to assist county councilors with collecting expenses and all kinds of little extra earnings, often duplicated with similar expenses claims to councils. A right little swamp of a talking shop that runs on grants and powerpoint.

eastwest

Muckyboots wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

When the country overall looked like it wasn't going to qualify for full EU grants or something it was split in two and assemblies were created for each part so that the poorer region would continue to qualify for the grants.

"There is an existing unutilised but in care railway line from Galway up to Colloney taking in Tuam, Claremorris and Tubbercurry and other smaller
towns and villages which runs in close proximity to Ireland West Airport Knock. There has been a long standing campaign to re-open this line
as well as a campaign to use the line as a part of a long distance off road cycle/walkway. The relevant development plans in Galway, Mayo
and Sligo acknowledge the need to preserve the line for future potential development for rail purposes. The retention of existing and underused
alignments in public ownership should be a priority, as this cross-radial rail corridor has the capacity to deliver sustainable transport options
proximate to the Atlantic Economic Corridor." Looks like a logical argument for a Greenway to me.

But this, along with the current raising of the line height at Ballyglunin to cross a promised rail bridge over the new road aligment looks like serious public money wasting for political point scoring and should be outed as such by the national media.
"Currently renewal plans for a rail freight line back into Shannon/Foynes Port are being prepared for approval. This opens the possibility of a longer
term re-configuration of freight movement from Claremorris to Shannon/Foynes in the event of increased congestion in and around Dublin"

To carry what? ðŸ˜႒ðŸ˜႒

Muckyboots

eastwest wrote: »

To carry what? ðŸ˜႒ðŸ˜႒

The hopes and dreams of a new generation, with young families, for a place of pride to live and dump it in the sea at Foynes.

westtip

Muckyboots wrote: »

" There has been a long standing campaign to re-open this line
as well as a campaign to use the line as a part of a long distance off road cycle/walkway. The relevant development plans in Galway, Mayo
and Sligo acknowledge the need to preserve the line for future potential development for rail purposes. "

Actually, I think this submission from the North West Regional Assembly is tantamount to an admission that a greenway is now the right solution, without overtly saying it; it is a fudge and compromise but is hugely different from past thinking. One poster said this submission had Gerry Murray all over it, I don't think so. Gerry Murray famously said the "Western Rail corridor is not up for discussion" so in this context let's examine this sentence above from the NWRA submission. Ten years ago, a submission from any of these Western cronie organisations packed with one way thinking WOT supporting cllrs, would never even have mentioned the greenway campaign; and would only have only focussed on we must have the railway to save the west type thinking. Now read what is being said.

Firstly the greenway campaign is given equal mention at dispatches, which is hardly the Gerry Murray stance, second, the reference to the county development plans refers to need to protect the alignment, a core part of the greenway argument. Believe you me, take Gerry Murray thinking out of the equation, many of the cllrs on this body now back the greenway and would have insisted on this type of wording in the submission, whilst accepting the old guard view on the railway is still embedded it also contains a much more subtle acceptance of the greenway arguments. One cllr in this body referred to the WRC as the Thomas the Tank engine line a couple of years ago at a BMW regional assembly debate, that statement is a matter of public record and was reported in western media, this submission actually means the greenway is most definitiely "up for discussion" and is actually very encouraging. The submission is open for interpretation that a greenway is what the NWRA would accept even though the railway is still a long term goal.

Far from being a submission using the old mantra we must have the railway, I believe this submission is written in a subtle civil service speak to say a greenway is actually now quite acceptable to protect the route in public ownership and the way is open for government to push the button on the greenway without anyone losing face. This is my interpretation anyway!

eastwest

westtip wrote: »

Muckyboots wrote: »

" There has been a long standing campaign to re-open this line
as well as a campaign to use the line as a part of a long distance off road cycle/walkway. The relevant development plans in Galway, Mayo
and Sligo acknowledge the need to preserve the line for future potential development for rail purposes. "

Actually, I think this submission from the North West Regional Assembly is tantamount to an admission that a greenway is now the right solution, without overtly saying it; it is a fudge and compromise but is hugely different from past thinking. One poster said this submission had Gerry Murray all over it, I don't think so. Gerry Murray famously said the "Western Rail corridor is not up for discussion" so in this context let's examine this sentence above from the NWRA submission. Ten years ago, a submission from any of these Western cronie organisations packed with one way thinking WOT supporting cllrs, would never even have mentioned the greenway campaign; and would only have only focussed on we must have the railway to save the west type thinking. Now read what is being said.

Firstly the greenway campaign is given equal mention at dispatches, which is hardly the Gerry Murray stance, second, the reference to the county development plans refers to need to protect the alignment, a core part of the greenway argument. Believe you me, take Gerry Murray thinking out of the equation, many of the cllrs on this body now back the greenway and would have insisted on this type of wording in the submission, whilst accepting the old guard view on the railway is still embedded it also contains a much more subtle acceptance of the greenway arguments. One cllr in this body referred to the WRC as the Thomas the Tank engine line a couple of years ago at a BMW regional assembly debate, that statement is a matter of public record and was reported in western media, this submission actually means the greenway is most definitiely "up for discussion" and is actually very encouraging. The submission is open for interpretation that a greenway is what the NWRA would accept even though the railway is still a long term goal.

Far from being a submission using the old mantra we must have the railway, I believe this submission is written in a subtle civil service speak to say a greenway is actually now quite acceptable to protect the route in public ownership and the way is open for government to push the button on the greenway without anyone losing face. This is my interpretation anyway!

Yes and no, as they say.
There is no doubt that the assembly has come a long way from its determination to toe the wot line. The route is definitely 'up for discussion' now, which is progress of a sort, but any grudging acknowledgement of the facts is still couched in fence-sitting phraseology so as not to offend the handful of railway nuts and associated clergymen.
Things happen a lot slower in the west than elsewhere, often because of organisations like this. Just look at what was achieved in waterford in recent times, even with opposition from nine councillors (who now seem to suggest it was all their doing).

serfboard

Meanwhile in Athlone ...

JCX BXC

It must be said though, once it becomes a Greenway there's no going back. I know there's all this talk of preserving the route, but once it becomes an established walkway it won't be allowed to go back to a railway.

The WRC will likely never be reopened, especially the Claremorris to Colloney section, hence making a Greenway ideal, but for other routes with potential (eg Waterford to Rosslare) it would be a poor idea.

Basically my point is I don't buy this idea of a Greenway ever becoming a railway.

marno21

JCX BXC wrote: »

It must be said though, once it becomes a Greenway there's no going back. I know there's all this talk of preserving the route, but once it becomes an established walkway it won't be allowed to go back to a railway.

The WRC will likely never be reopened, especially the Claremorris to Colloney section, hence making a Greenway ideal, but for other routes with potential (eg Waterford to Rosslare) it would be a poor idea.

Basically my point is I don't buy this idea of a Greenway ever becoming a railway.

For most of the WRC the alignment is so poor it's only fit for a greenway. If a railway north of Athenry is to open it should be on a new alignment, not the old one

Sam Russell

marno21 wrote: »

For most of the WRC the alignment is so poor it's only fit for a greenway. If a railway north of Athenry is to open it should be on a new alignment, not the old one

But if the alignment is OK now, is it not just a case of widening the alignment? It is already, in most cases, a single track with room for double track, so there should be room for both a train and a bicycle.

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

But if the alignment is OK now, is it not just a case of widening the alignment? It is already, in most cases, a single track with room for double track, so there should be room for both a train and a bicycle.

I mean the geometry and the running speeds, and also the level crossings. There's 3 level crossings with the N17 around Ballindine alone, and the railway wouldn't be able to compete with running speeds on an upgraded N17. This is south of Claremorris where the alignment is considered better than north of there.

Del.Monte

marno21 wrote: »

For most of the WRC the alignment is so poor it's only fit for a greenway. If a railway north of Athenry is to open it should be on a new alignment, not the old one

What's wrong with the alignment north of Athenry?

JCX BXC

Sam Russell wrote: »

But if the alignment is OK now, is it not just a case of widening the alignment? It is already, in most cases, a single track with room for double track, so there should be room for both a train and a bicycle.

I'll take this quote from two weeks ago "Wishful thinking to think that a pathway could be maintained alongside a railway that is being relaid, sadly. The amount of space required for access for plant hire, lifting ballast and excavation and lining the former track bed, route realignment, comms cable laying, temporary storage of ballast and track panels; it will all infringe on any pathway along the side."

eastwest

Del.Monte wrote: »

marno21 wrote: »

For most of the WRC the alignment is so poor it's only fit for a greenway. If a railway north of Athenry is to open it should be on a new alignment, not the old one

What's wrong with the alignment north of Athenry?

In short, nobody wants it for a railway, apart from a small group of anoraks, and the only practical use for it doesn't suit three or four politicians.
I could tease that out ad infinitum, but that's a summary of what's wrong with it.

Del.Monte

eastwest wrote: »

In short, nobody wants it for a railway, apart from a small group of anoraks, and the only practical use for it doesn't suit three or four politicians.
I could tease that out ad infinitum, but that's a summary of what's wrong with it.

That doesn't answer the question as to what is wrong with the Athenry/Claremorris alignment. The answer is that there's nothing wrong with it and it shouldn't be mixed up with the Burma Road alignment.

eastwest

Del.Monte wrote: »

eastwest wrote: »

In short, nobody wants it for a railway, apart from a small group of anoraks, and the only practical use for it doesn't suit three or four politicians.
I could tease that out ad infinitum, but that's a summary of what's wrong with it.

That doesn't answer the question as to what is wrong with the Athenry/Claremorris alignment. The answer is that there's nothing wrong with it and it shouldn't be mixed up with the Burma Road alignment.

Nothing that a train load of money wouldn't fix in terms of relaying tracks etc, if anyone (other than the aforementioned 'enthusuasts') wanted to put a railway on it. And nobody does, nobody relevant anyway.

marno21

Del.Monte wrote: »

That doesn't answer the question as to what is wrong with the Athenry/Claremorris alignment. The answer is that there's nothing wrong with it and it shouldn't be mixed up with the Burma Road alignment.

Apologies if I'm wrong, is it not the same standard as Athenry-Ennis? Which is slow and winding as is and is open?

There are several level crossings on the N17 south of Claremorris that would be a major issue to begin with.

JCX BXC

eastwest wrote: »

Nothing that a train load of money wouldn't fix in terms of relaying tracks etc, if anyone (other than the aforementioned 'enthusuasts') wanted to put a railway on it. And nobody does, nobody relevant anyway.

Nothing, and I really mean nothing to do with the point at hand here.

Muckyboots

JCX BXC wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

But if the alignment is OK now, is it not just a case of widening the alignment? It is already, in most cases, a single track with room for double track, so there should be room for both a train and a bicycle.

"Wishful thinking to think that a pathway could be maintained alongside a railway that is being relaid, sadly. The amount of space required for access for plant hire, lifting ballast and excavation and lining the former track bed, route realignment, comms cable laying, temporary storage of ballast and track panels; it will all infringe on any pathway along the side."

Fair point, but where is the railway being relaid or planned to be relaid ?

serfboard

The alignment is very good between Athenry and Tuam - almost dead straight. Between Tuam and Claremorris it deteriorates and involves a lot of level crossings north of Milltown onto the N17 - a situation I couldn't see being tolerated.

North of Claremorris is a different story with the alignment between Kiltimagh and Swinford being particularly shocking and definitely not suited to runnning a rail service that would have any aspirations towards competing either with buses or cars.

The point about the alignment is moot anyway, since north of Athenry will never be built. We are going to continue to keep (re)building roads to cater for our scattered population, and we are going to (have to) provide park and rides outside major urban centres to combat heavy traffic. There is an excellent rail park and ride at Oranmore, for example, but this doesn't cover the thousands of people who work in Ballybrit/Parkmore/Mervue.

Sam Russell

JCX BXC wrote: »

I'll take this quote from two weeks ago "Wishful thinking to think that a pathway could be maintained alongside a railway that is being relaid, sadly. The amount of space required for access for plant hire, lifting ballast and excavation and lining the former track bed, route realignment, comms cable laying, temporary storage of ballast and track panels; it will all infringe on any pathway along the side."

You mean a bit like laying a railway line in the middle of a city like Dublin? That did not stop them digging up O'Connell St, or College Green. Out in the country, there is a lot more room and a lot less traffic.

If they are going to relay the track, then that will happen. However, the fact that it is not going to happen in the foreseeable future is no reason to not relay the pathway when the rail is actually relaid in the distant future.

JCX BXC

Sam Russell wrote: »

You mean a bit like laying a railway line in the middle of a city like Dublin? That did not stop them digging up O'Connell St, or College Green. Out in the country, there is a lot more room and a lot less traffic.

If they are going to relay the track, then that will happen. However, the fact that it is not going to happen in the foreseeable future is no reason to not relay the pathway when the rail is actually relaid in the distant future.

I don't really grasp your point. First of all with the Luas, yes it runs through busy streets but it pays for that by going at slow speeds. However economically dud the WRC is, if it was going at 50km/h on new relaid you can imagine how much of a white elephant that would be!

I don't believe the track will ever be relaid, hence the Greenway idea is suitable and will deliver some economic benefit to the area.

My point is, that if there was genuinely a case for the reopening of the track, a Greenway would be the death of the case. Once it becomes a Greenway, it most certainly won't be allowed to become a railway, businesses would have developed as a result of it, walking routes established and all sorts of tourism. It would never happen politically.

Sam Russell

JCX BXC wrote: »

I don't really grasp your point. First of all with the Luas, yes it runs through busy streets but it pays for that by going at slow speeds. However economically dud the WRC is, if it was going at 50km/h on new relaid you can imagine how much of a white elephant that would be!

I don't believe the track will ever be relaid, hence the Greenway idea is suitable and will deliver some economic benefit to the area.

My point is, that if there was genuinely a case for the reopening of the track, a Greenway would be the death of the case. Once it becomes a Greenway, it most certainly won't be allowed to become a railway, businesses would have developed as a result of it, walking routes established and all sorts of tourism. It would never happen politically.

If the greenway is built, it is usually built beside the old railway line (as it would be costly to remove the old line) and there is generally room. So, if the line is to be relaid, then it is built beside the greenway, which would be closed during the line work. After the work is finished, the greenway is made good again, with whatever extra work is needed. For example, if a bridge is derelict and is needed to be rebuilt, it will be done for greenway use, but if the line is relaid, it might need significant engineering work to make it suitable for a train service.

It is much easier to acquire a few metres extra width if it is needed than have to get a new alignment - just look along the Dart and see how many paths are left beside the railway line.

marno21

Sam Russell wrote: »

If the greenway is built, it is usually built beside the old railway line (as it would be costly to remove the old line) and there is generally room. So, if the line is to be relaid, then it is built beside the greenway, which would be closed during the line work. After the work is finished, the greenway is made good again, with whatever extra work is needed. For example, if a bridge is derelict and is needed to be rebuilt, it will be done for greenway use, but if the line is relaid, it might need significant engineering work to make it suitable for a train service.

It is much easier to acquire a few metres extra width if it is needed than have to get a new alignment - just look along the Dart and see how many paths are left beside the railway line.

The present alignment north of Claremorris is absolute rubbish. It's not worth saving bar the approaches to towns which may be difficult to do on a new realignment due to sprawl

Quackster

Sam Russell wrote: »

If the greenway is built, it is usually built beside the old railway line (as it would be costly to remove the old line) and there is generally room.

That has happened in certain situations where there is a double-width permanent way and one track remains as it hasn't been abandoned (e.g. Athlone-Mullingar and alongside the heritage railway in Waterford). Otherwise the entire permanent way is converted to greenway with any extant track removed as part of the construction process.

Is much/any of Athenry-Collooney double-width?

mayo.mick

Claremorris - Colooney is 47 miles long, with 48 level crossings, this is the section that's referred to as the "Burma Road" if I'm not mistaken?

eastwest

The cheapest way to build a greenway is to use the existing track bed as a base; that's how it's done everywhere else. Remember that the existing ballast is of no value to Irish Rail, and would be replaced anyway if ever someone found the money to build and subsidise a railway. So, until that unlikely scenario develops, why not just build a greenway?
If a rail project ever happens, it will.be built in sections. As each section us built, the greenway would be diverted on to roads or temporary tarmac, and the completed railway sections would include a new greenway alongside the railway. It's not rocket science; that's the way traffic management plans are done every day on civil engineering jobs.
So, the real question is, why isn't logic applied and the immediate potential of the asset realised? Why are politicians so set against improving the environment, bringing jobs and amenities, and preserving the asset in public ownership?

Sam Russell

eastwest wrote: »

The cheapest way to build a greenway is to use the existing track bed as a base; that's how it's done everywhere else. Remember that the existing ballast is of no value to Irish Rail, and would be replaced anyway if ever someone found the money to build and subsidise a railway. So, until that unlikely scenario develops, why not just build a greenway?
If a rail project ever happens, it will.be built in sections. As each section us built, the greenway would be diverted on to roads or temporary tarmac, and the completed railway sections would include a new greenway alongside the railway. It's not rocket science; that's the way traffic management plans are done every day on civil engineering jobs.
So, the real question is, why isn't logic applied and the immediate potential of the asset realised? Why are politicians so set against improving the environment, bringing jobs and amenities, and preserving the asset in public ownership?

Your last paragraph sums up the perennial question of Irish polotics - Why is nothing done properly? Why is so much time and money spent chasing projects that then they are changed and redesigned or just forgotten about?

Once it was because there was no money, now it is because of begrudgery and political opportunism. Perhaps corruption (or at least vested interests) plays a part as well.

serfboard

eastwest wrote: »

Why are politicians so set against improving the environment, bringing jobs and amenities, and preserving the asset in public ownership?

That's a very interesting question.

I think the answer is that, so far, the most vocal campaign has been for rail, and so some politicians believe, wrongly IMO, that rail is what the public wants. This perception may be based on some polling that asked people - "Would you like the railway back?" - to which they replied "sure". However, as Ennis->Athenry has shown, saying you would like a railway, and actually using it are two different things.

My suspicion is that some politicians know that it's the wrong thing, but think that it's the popular thing - therefore, they keep advocating it, but not funding it.

I think though, that reality is setting in amongst both the electorate and politicans, with a growing number of politicians in Galway County Council, for example, favouring a Greenway on the route - the best example being Galway County Councillor Pete Roche who has changed his position from being pro-railway to pro-greenway.

eastwest

Sam Russell wrote: »

eastwest wrote: »

The cheapest way to build a greenway is to use the existing track bed as a base; that's how it's done everywhere else. Remember that the existing ballast is of no value to Irish Rail, and would be replaced anyway if ever someone found the money to build and subsidise a railway. So, until that unlikely scenario develops, why not just build a greenway?
If a rail project ever happens, it will.be built in sections. As each section us built, the greenway would be diverted on to roads or temporary tarmac, and the completed railway sections would include a new greenway alongside the railway. It's not rocket science; that's the way traffic management plans are done every day on civil engineering jobs.
So, the real question is, why isn't logic applied and the immediate potential of the asset realised? Why are politicians so set against improving the environment, bringing jobs and amenities, and preserving the asset in public ownership?

Your last paragraph sums up the perennial question of Irish polotics - Why is nothing done properly? Why is so much time and money spent chasing projects that then they are changed and redesigned or just forgotten about?

Once it was because there was no money, now it is because of begrudgery and political opportunism. Perhaps corruption (or at least vested interests) plays a part as well.

To be fair, many of the councillors opposed to the achievable targets have simply adopted the railway position because for a long time it was the only proposal, and they are understandably reluctant to commit the great sin in Irish politics -- changing their minds. Peter Roche's honest reappraisal of the situation hasn't done him any harm however, so the others will change in time and logic will prevail. It's just a pity it all has to take so long.
My problem is with TDs who are close to the decision making and the realities of budgets. I can understand them taking the pro rail stance when they are councillors, but once they move to the Dail and become aware of the realities, a bit of honesty wouldn't go amiss.