Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

1976 to be exact

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuam_railway_station

Oh, and 1963 for the section beyond to Colooney, so 42 years closed to Tuam and 55 years beyond.

Given the cost overrun of the building of the Ennis to Athenry section was 30 million over budget, you could build greenways all over the country for that alone

Hell, 3-4 years of the subvention of Ennis to Athenry would build the whole greenway AND pay it back many times over

marno21

Doltanian wrote: »

That train line should be the train line to Dublin if there was any proper planning having to go from Killarney and Tralee via Mallow Junction is absolute stupidity.

There is only enough demand out of Kerry for one line. It's one or the other.

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, and 1963 for the section beyond to Colooney, so 42 years closed to Tuam and 55 years beyond.

Given the cost overrun of the building of the Ennis to Athenry section was 30 million over budget, you could build greenways all over the country for that alone

Think of how many greenways you could build from the money being spent on the operating subvention of Ennis-Athenry annually.

marno21

marno21 wrote: »

Think of how many greenways you could build from the money being spent on the operating subvention of Ennis-Athenry annually.

I edited my post while you were posting to say something similar

eastwest

Sam Russell wrote: »

So apart from moving a few loads of seasonal sugar beet and spuds, not much has moved for 40 years.

I think it should close. Oh, wait - it has already closed.

There's a business case, right there!
Plus they have the LUAS in Dublin.

marno21

eastwest wrote: »

There's a business case, right there!
Plus they have the LUAS in Dublin.

Balanced regional development of course.

What about Waterford and West Mayo have a greenway so we should have a greenway? Does balanced regional development not apply there? Does it only apply to colossal wastage of money on heavily subvented underused railways?

eastwest

marno21 wrote: »

Balanced regional development of course.

What about Waterford and West Mayo have a greenway so we should have a greenway? Does balanced regional development not apply there? Does it only apply to colossal wastage of money on heavily subvented underused railways?

Tourists and flutes on bikes isn't development, d'ya see. Development is fathories makin yokes, or cars or stuff. Or somethin.

Lord Glentoran

Deleted User wrote: »

I edited my post while you were posting to say something similar

Think of how many greenways not building the M17/M18 would have funded if you are going down that road.

marno21

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Think of how many greenways not building the M17/M18 would have funded if you are going down that road.

Whilst I don't fully agree with how the M17/M18 was built, it had a proven business case and a positive cost benefit analysis. The western rail corridor does not.

Grandeeod

Doltanian wrote: »

That train line should be the train line to Dublin if there was any proper planning having to go from Killarney and Tralee via Mallow Junction is absolute stupidity.

Funniest post in years on this thread.:D

end of the road

Sam Russell wrote: »

So apart from moving a few loads of seasonal sugar beet and spuds, not much has moved for 40 years.

I think it should close. Oh, wait - it has already closed.

i believe all sorts were caried on the line and freight wasn't seasonal but regular.

Doltanian wrote: »

That train line should be the train line to Dublin if there was any proper planning having to go from Killarney and Tralee via Mallow Junction is absolute stupidity.

i believe that was quite a slow route when it was open. a lot slower then via mallow and limerick junction. or maybe that was just by the end?

Lord Glentoran

marno21 wrote: »

Whilst I don't fully agree with how the M17/M18 was built, it had a proven business case and a positive cost benefit analysis. The western rail corridor does not.

Perhaps we should be buying land north of the M17 then to get some of that groovy cost benefit analysis ourselves.

Sam Russell

eastwest wrote: »

There's a business case, right there!

Unfortunately the potato business folded when the farmers refused to supply the potatoes to the factory when the open market price went above the contracted price. Sugar beet stopped when the Tuam factory closed and the business transferred to Thurles.

With the loss of that business, there was of course a business case for closing and turning it into a greenway.

Del.Monte

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, and 1963 for the section beyond to Colooney, so 42 years closed to Tuam and 55 years beyond.

Given the cost overrun of the building of the Ennis to Athenry section was 30 million over budget, you could build greenways all over the country for that alone

Hell, 3-4 years of the subvention of Ennis to Athenry would build the whole greenway AND pay it back many times over

Repeating factually incorrect information doesn't make it correct. Athenry/Tuam is closed for approx 21 years. Since withdrawal of regular passenger services in 1976 it has seen GAA, Knock Pilgrimage and enthusiast specials. As regards freight traffic this was sugar beet to the Tuam factory, coal and oil to Asahi in Killala, cement and container traffic. Even the Burma Road saw container traffic up until the mid 1970s.



Charlestown in the mid.1970s.
Even ex.railway enthusiasts like myself are resigned to the improbability of the Burma Road reopening, but anybody with slightest knowledge of railways can see the importance of the Athenry/Claremorris section. The very fact that some posters here have to ask basic questions about when closure happened or what traffic was carried speaks volumes.

Harcourt Street

Del.Monte wrote: »

Repeating factually incorrect information doesn't make it correct. Athenry/Tuam is closed for approx 21 years. Since withdrawal of regular passenger services in 1976 it has seen GAA, Knock Pilgrimage and enthusiast specials. As regards freight traffic this was sugar beet to the Tuam factory, coal and oil to Asahi in Killala, cement and container traffic. Even the Burma Road saw container traffic up until the mid 1970s.



Charlestown in the mid.1970s.
Even ex.railway enthusiasts like myself are resigned to the improbability of the Burma Road reopening, but anybody with slightest knowledge of railways can see the importance of the Athenry/Claremorris section. The very fact that some posters here have to ask basic questions about when closure happened or what traffic was carried speaks volumes.

sacrificing a piece of transport infrastructure to replace it with a vanity leisure facility is pure father ted.

westtip

Del.Monte wrote: »

21 years to be accurate - I thought that you maintain Canney and WOT are the ones who are bad at figures.

Fake news if you say it often enough people believe it, indeed it is only 40 years north of Claremorris but who really gives a toss.

Isambard

it's surely pointless to be arguing about when freight last ran, when freight nationwide has all but disappeared. The line closed some decades ago (maybe only 2, possibly 4). It's not "transport infrastructure", it's a derelict former railway.

westtip

Isambard wrote: »

it's surely pointless to be arguing about when freight last ran, when freight nationwide has all but disappeared. The line closed some decades ago (maybe only 2, possibly 4). It's not "transport infrastructure", it's a derelict former railway.

Exactly, but as we know some people just don't gettit. It would be a bit like calling the piazza at Covent Garden a wholesale fruit and veg market, or the O2 a tramway depot; it is indeed a derelict former railway line, in fact north of Claremorris it is officially a closed railway line, a mute point of words just ask Mayo county council about their definitions, or better still go ask their solicitors who I had threatening letters from about this very definition; Yes Mayo coco wasted money on sending me threatening solicitors letters about the line being defined as a former railway line or closed railway line. What a bunch of t*ssers.

It most definitely is no longer transport infrastructure, it is a strip of continuous public land about 20 metres wide running from Athenry to Collooney, north of Claremorris there are serious incursions of squatting, which the railway campaigners have never mentioned, and have only been highlighted by the pro-tourism lobbyists.

But yes it is a joke to call it a piece of transport infrastructure!

Harcourt Street

westtip wrote: »

Exactly, but as we know some people just don't gettit. It would be a bit like calling the piazza at Covent Garden a wholesale fruit and veg market, or the O2 a tramway depot; it is indeed a derelict former railway line, in fact north of Claremorris it is officially a closed railway line, a mute point of words just ask Mayo county council about their definitions, or better still go ask their solicitors who I had threatening letters from about this very definition; Yes Mayo coco wasted money on sending me threatening solicitors letters about the line being defined as a former railway line or closed railway line. What a bunch of t*ssers.

It most definitely is no longer transport infrastructure, it is a strip of continuous public land about 20 metres wide running from Athenry to Collooney, north of Claremorris there are serious incursions of squatting, which the railway campaigners have never mentioned, and have only been highlighted by the pro-tourism lobbyists.

But yes it is a joke to call it a piece of transport infrastructure!

Well you would say that, wouldn't you? And you aren't the only pro-tourism lobbyists, but you know that.

eastwest

This asset isn't anything except a long strip of land that connects Athenry to Collooney, with just a few small bits missing along the way. It's not a railway, and hasn't been for a long time.
Splitting hairs about whether this piece of public land is a former railway, a piece of transport infrastructure, a wildlife habitat or a linear dump is immaterial, in a sense. The ongoing debate about this issue, and the unwillingness of a handful of railway enthusiasts to concede that the party is over will have only one end game, and it won't be a railway.
It probably won't be a greenway either, except in Sligo where the County Council has plans to develop one. The remainder of the laughingly named 'western rail corridor' is condemned to being increasingly overgrown, falling into the bog, gathering an increasing harvest of illegal dumping and attack from squatters. The money that could have been used to turn this around -- to develop something useful that would protect this strip of public land from loss to the state until some time in the future when a railway or other piece of infrastructure might be developed on part or all of it -- is being hoovered up by savvy politicians for their own areas. Some of them are clapping our local drongoes on the back and encouraging them to oppose greenways, while quietly pumping our money into their own areas for just that purpose.
Despite what the song says, the west is only awake in selected parts.

Harcourt Street

Your ideas for the line aren't there to protect it for future rail use. Yet you and others keep saying you want to protect it, like for instance running a gas pipe under it in the full knowledge this would render the line useless for future rail use. At the same time you are all describing the line as a "joke" and "laughable". Like your political cohort Boris Johnson, you can't have your cake and eat it. Fortunately many more of us in the West are awake to your tactics and tricks.

Lord Glentoran

Harcourt Street wrote: »

Your ideas for the line aren't there to protect it for future rail use. Yet you and others keep saying you want to protect it, like for instance running a gas pipe under it in the full knowledge this would render the line useless for future rail use. At the same time you are all describing the line as a "joke" and "laughable". Like your political cohort Boris Johnson, you can't have your cake and eat it. Fortunately many more of us in the West are awake to your tactics and tricks.

Can you imagine the greenway lobbyists advocating running a gas main under the route of the M17? I can't either.

westtip

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Can you imagine the greenway lobbyists advocating running a gas main under the route of the M17? I can't either.

If you could just grasp this idea and embrace it you might just see how it would actually help develop the so called Atlantic Economic Corridor concept. natural gas available along this route would have the potential to create an entire new food processing industry; an industry which loves natural gas. Re the M17, well I actually think these kind of corridors should be used for all kinds of facilities, I am surprised the railway lobbyists haven't always argued that a high speed railway line along the central reservation of the new motorway network would and should have been part of the central planning thinking from day one. The problem is the focus has been too much on the closed C19th century railway alignments, or trying to fix the existing railway lines; a weakness of the railway lobby from day one. If rail is going to be a major force in the future; fighting for entirely new alignments more fitting for a modern rail cars should have produced better results for rail. That is the fundamental failing of the railway lobby, its' a pity really.

eastwest

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Can you imagine the greenway lobbyists advocating running a gas main under the route of the M17? I can't either.

Running a gas pipeline under the alignment doesn't mean running it under any future railway, which would run on a narrow strip up the middle of the alignment, like the remains of the closed one that is there.
It is increasingly becoming obvious that the pro rail lobby is not only opposed to tourists and leisure users, but also to any kind of infrastructure orher than rail.
You'd have to wonder at the logic.

westtip

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Then you haven't been paying close enough attention to what has been said. Shall I unearth a ream of posts from this thread and the earlier one, for the craic, like?

frankly my dear I couldn't give a dam.

westtip

Harcourt Street wrote: »

Well you would say that, wouldn't you? And you aren't the only pro-tourism lobbyists, but you know that.

Please show this to the other "pro tourism" lobbyists. West on Track to my knowledge have never uttered a word about incursions on the closed railway, it is an old document with references to previous election campaigns but the incursions on the line remain the same, There has never been a word from West on Track about these well identified problems, which now by the way are problems for the Sligo Greenway, which wants to follow the closed railway route but may have issues at points the line has been trespassed on and nothing has been done about it.... and what's more nothing has ever been said about by anyone but the greenway campaign.

Isambard

westtip wrote: »

frankly my dear I couldn't give a dam.

you don't need a dam, south of Ennis anyway. Waterwings maybe.

A greenway would also have the added benefit of being a focal point for education on the importance of the environment for school students as evident by a recent excursion of the 5th and 6th class students of Ballyvary school

Moy Trust takes students on trip to the wild side of Mayo

http://www.advertiser.ie/mayo/article/99775/moy-trust-takes-students-on-trip-to-the-wild-side-of-mayo

I wonder, when was the last time the closed section between Athenry and Tuam (closed 42 years to passengers) or the Tuam to Colooney section (closed 50+ years) was used for something like this?

eastwest

westtip wrote: »

Please show this to the other "pro tourism" lobbyists. West on Track to my knowledge have never uttered a word about incursions on the closed railway, it is an old document with references to previous election campaigns but the incursions on the line remain the same, There has never been a word from West on Track about these well identified problems, which now by the way are problems for the Sligo Greenway, which wants to follow the closed railway route but may have issues at points the line has been trespassed on and nothing has been done about it.... and what's more nothing has ever been said about by anyone but the greenway campaign.

The bigger risk to the alignment is the road sections of County Councils. A lot of lost railway alignments around Ireland are as a result of road widening or the removal of bends on roadways. There is a view that it is easier to use this land than to negotiate with private owners.

westtip

Harcourt Street wrote: »

It's not West on Track's land, it's CIE's. Suggest you call Barry Kenny and ask him to assert CIE's property rights. And next time you trespass on CIÉ land ring up Barry Kenny and ask him permission first.

Perhaps I will next time we meet him. Nice chap. I didn't realise West on Track were a pro-tourism lobby group, I do know they objected to the greenway on the mayo section of the line as it has "no scenery" or something like that when making an observation on the mayo county plan a few years back, so if a line has no scenery I presume they weren't going to be promoting it as a potential tourism line. Mind you many of us happen to disagree with them on the no scenery argument.

I am not sure what the stance of West on Track on tourism is, I know they have not objected to any encroachment on the line, so perhaps they really don't give a dam either, as long as a greenway doesn't go on it.

eastwest

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Can you imagine the greenway lobbyists advocating running a gas main under the route of the M17? I can't either.

Why would they do that?
Services are usually run parallel to motorways, in the green land alongside the carriageway.
None of which is of any interest to greenway campaigners, and none of which is remotely relevant to this debate.
There is a curious paradox with the suggestion that pro-rail campaigners are opposed to parallel services in rail corridors. In the olden days, the days that they constantly hark back to, the telegraph wires were carried along railway alignments as a matter of course.
Is their current problem with parallel services nowadays just a part of being anti-everything except the strips of rusty iron?
Sometimes, it's really hard to know what they want.