Greenways [greenway map of Ireland in post 1]

MJohnston

I'd like to read some reasons why some believe CIE is sabotaging rail routes in order to make them less profitable.

I can buy a certain level of incompetence, but it couldn't explain it all over such a long period of time. The routes genuinely being unworkable would explain what is happening, but some here seem to strongly think that is not the case?

riddlinrussell

MJohnston wrote: »

I'd like to read some reasons why some believe CIE is sabotaging rail routes in order to make them less profitable.

I can buy a certain level of incompetence, but it couldn't explain it all over such a long period of time. The routes genuinely being unworkable would explain what is happening, but some here seem to strongly think that is not the case?

I think there are certain practices that certainly imply either gross incompetence or sabotage, personally I'd err towards gross incompetence.

Case in point the Rosslare/Waterford line (and Waterford/New Ross) looks like services were basically only happening during the day, during normal working hours, instead of running a purely commuter schedule/looking at what optimal routes could be run on it like a New Ross/Waterford shuttle in the early morning for commuting.

(The same could be done on the 2 train a day Waterford to Limerick Junction - Run Clonmel to Waterford commuter services)

marno21

I've posted on the Limerick Junction-Waterford line in the past. The current timetable is not fit for purpose, and it reeks of a line being left open for political reasons (e.g. "we can't be seen to close it").

There are 3 choices here

1. Close the line.
2. Continue to run a barebones service which is of little use to passengers, and as a result low patronage and headlines of massive per passenger subsidies.
3. Invest in the line and run a useful service on the line which would cost more, but would attract more passengers, and as a result would be a lower per passenger subsidy.

Option 2 has been chosen for the LJ-Waterford line. Option 3 has been chosen for the Western Rail Corridor, where subsidised fares and other perks have enticed more passengers on the line, and although the subvention is relatively the same as before, there are more passengers using the service, giving a smaller per passenger subsidy and providing a social benefit of the line.

For me, there should be a conclusive review of these lines and either option 1 or option 3 chosen. There are no winners when option 2 is chosen, except perceived less vote losses for certain TDs

Sam Russell

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I think there are certain practices that certainly imply either gross incompetence or sabotage, personally I'd err towards gross incompetence.

Case in point the Rosslare/Waterford line (and Waterford/New Ross) looks like services were basically only happening during the day, during normal working hours, instead of running a purely commuter schedule/looking at what optimal routes could be run on it like a New Ross/Waterford shuttle in the early morning for commuting.

(The same could be done on the 2 train a day Waterford to Limerick Junction - Run Clonmel to Waterford commuter services)

I think there is a sub-optimising going on here.

Why do IR run Darts on a ten minute service using 8 coach trains during off peak?

Well, they would require extra drivers to couple or uncouple the trains and that would cost extra. Using 8 coach sets costs extra because of extra electricity and extra maintenance on the trains, but that comes out of a different budget and is not visible as an extra cost, only a larger cost.

So they run longer trains than needed to 'save' labour cost, while not saving running cost which I would think is much greater.

I would estimate that Darts are less than 25% full during off peak, and probably less than 10% full in late evening.

[Edit:]

Just to add:

Why run trains to Rosslare Europort that do not connect with the ferries?

Why run trains to Rosslare Europort when a bus service from Wexford Stn would get there quicker and cheaper, and carry as many passengers, and could easily be scheduled to meet the ferries?

Del.Monte

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think there is a sub-optimising going on here.

Why do IR run Darts on a ten minute service using 8 coach trains during off peak?

Well, they would require extra drivers to couple or uncouple the trains and that would cost extra. Using 8 coach sets costs extra because of extra electricity and extra maintenance on the trains, but that comes out of a different budget and is not visible as an extra cost, only a larger cost.

So they run longer trains than needed to 'save' labour cost, while not saving running cost which I would think is much greater.

I would estimate that Darts are less than 25% full during off peak, and probably less than 10% full in late evening.

[Edit:]

Just to add:

Why run trains to Rosslare Europort that do not connect with the ferries?

Why run trains to Rosslare Europort when a bus service from Wexford Stn would get there quicker and cheaper, and carry as many passengers, and could easily be scheduled to meet the ferries?

Not wishing to fight with you but why run trains at all outside Dublin - buses are cheaper.

Sam Russell

Del.Monte wrote: »

Not wishing to fight with you but why run trains at all outside Dublin - buses are cheaper.

Ok, the Rosslare to Connolly train service carries very few passengers Rosslare to Wexford because it does not connect with the ferries. A bus service could. Not every service needs to be cancelled, but there are very few passengers past Wexford.

The extra time taken to run to Rosslare could be used to provide another service from Wexford to Connolly. Currently there is no train service that arrives in Wexford from Connolly before midday.

I would favour turning some of the Wexford Dublin trains at Bray to increase the service, and particularly to give an AM arrival time into Wexford, say at 10 AM. If the train stopped on the bay platform, passengers could alight onto a waiting Dart, which could run in the same slot with the same stopping pattern.

Zubeneschamali

Del.Monte wrote: »

Not wishing to fight with you but why run trains at all outside Dublin - buses are cheaper.

And there we have CIEs management strategy since the bus was introduced.

spacetweek

Back to greenways, please.

veryangryman

Athlone extension to shannon is ongoing. Late summer opening according to local politician.

Machinery seen up there last week so things are moving

spacetweek

veryangryman wrote: »

Athlone extension to shannon is ongoing. Late summer opening according to local politician.

Machinery seen up there last week so things are moving

Where will it meet the Shannon exactly?

veryangryman

spacetweek wrote: »

Where will it meet the Shannon exactly?

Marina apparently. Just beside radison. There will be a new bridge built. According to same politician that part is 2 years away

mr spuckler

veryangryman wrote: »

Athlone extension to shannon is ongoing. Late summer opening according to local politician.

Machinery seen up there last week so things are moving

the rail line was closed pretty much all weekend just west of the station in Athlone (at Montree) to facilitate the installation of an underpass under the rail line.
see here for local reporting relating to it.

spacetweek

veryangryman wrote: »

Marina apparently. Just beside radison. There will be a new bridge built. According to same politician that part is 2 years away

Ah - *in* Athlone. I thought you meant in some other part of the country. So only a short section then.

mr spuckler

spacetweek wrote: »

Ah - *in* Athlone. I thought you meant in some other part of the country. So only a short section then.

yes, it'll take a while to get it from where it currently finishes to the west side of the Shannon, despite it being such a short distance.

veryangryman

mr spuckler wrote: »

yes, it'll take a while to get it from where it currently finishes to the west side of the Shannon, despite it being such a short distance.

Due to the lack od disused railway to use for it. Needs to use existing or new roadway which involves negotiations with crusties. This may take time due to the rural crime off the M8 etc

spacetweek

veryangryman wrote: »

Due to the lack od disused railway to use for it. Needs to use existing or new roadway which involves negotiations with crusties. This may take time due to the rural crime off the M8 etc

Hard to understand most of that post.

flazio

Because there is no disused railway to claim, the greenway must use either existing roads or sharing roads in use.
Any Compulsory Purchasing Orders are likely to meet with opposition from home owners who believe a greenway might give burglars new access routes to their property which Gardaí are unable to monitor.
At least I think thats the point being made.

Zubeneschamali

A tunnel under the Dublin Galway line was built over the Easter weekend:

https://twitter.com/westmeathcoco/status/1121332700856639488?s=19

Zubeneschamali

flazio wrote: »

Any Compulsory Purchasing Orders are likely to meet with opposition from home owners who believe a greenway might give burglars new access routes to their property which Gardaí are unable to monitor.

Land to be CPO's would be farmers land, and while rural crime is one issue, land being more precious than blood (when the government wants to buy it) is probably more of an issue there.

mr spuckler

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Land to be CPO's would be farmers land, and while rural crime is one issue, land being more precious than blood (when the government wants to buy it) is probably more of an issue there.

especially as the council pretty much went with a CPO first approach the last time around and completely disenfranchised landowners as a result. the Great Western Greenway and the Waterford one have shown the importance of getting landowners on board. I see the crime issue as something of a red herring.

riddlinrussell

Information on an extension planned to the Douglas Cycleway to Marybrough Hill. (This was the first I'd heard of that cycleways existence, its been added to the map.)

Echo Live

loyatemu

re: Rosslare - Waterford, surely if someone has a freight flow that's suited to rail they can bring it in via Waterford port (or Dublin, or Foynes if it is re-connected).

I'm just back from a week in Holland and having seen what they have there, my attitude to pretty much every cycling project here is "just bloody get on with it".

They have cycle paths running through forests, across country between towns and villages, along rivers and canals. As far as I can see, environmental armageddon has not resulted from having cyclists passing nearby to nature.

In towns most streets have fully separate driving lanes, cycle lanes and footpaths - I didn't see any aggro between motorists and cyclists, presumably because most motorists there are cyclists too and know to watch out for them at all times. Plenty of locations where cyclists and pedestrians mix too, again without any issues.

Del.Monte

loyatemu wrote: »

re: Rosslare - Waterford, surely if someone has a freight flow that's suited to rail they can bring it in via Waterford port (or Dublin, or Foynes if it is re-connected).

I'm just back from a week in Holland and having seen what they have there, my attitude to pretty much every cycling project here is "just bloody get on with it".

They have cycle paths running through forests, across country between towns and villages, along rivers and canals. As far as I can see, environmental armageddon has not resulted from having cyclists passing nearby to nature.

In towns most streets have fully separate driving lanes, cycle lanes and footpaths - I didn't see any aggro between motorists and cyclists, presumably because most motorists there are cyclists too and know to watch out for them at all times. Plenty of locations where cyclists and pedestrians mix too, again without any issues.

Whatever about freight flows, the Rosslare/Waterford line has potential as a through passenger route if the will was there.

spacetweek

flazio wrote: »

Any Compulsory Purchasing Orders are likely to meet with opposition from home owners who believe a greenway might give burglars new access routes to their property which Gardaí are unable to monitor.

If you were going to rob someone’s house you wouldn’t approach on a bicycle on a greenway.

listermint

flazio wrote: »

Because there is no disused railway to claim, the greenway must use either existing roads or sharing roads in use.
Any Compulsory Purchasing Orders are likely to meet with opposition from home owners who believe a greenway might give burglars new access routes to their property which Gardaí are unable to monitor.
At least I think thats the point being made.

It's an idiotic point.

And I say that with a stone cold face.

Our motorways did more rural theft than anything before it. Are you arguing we close the motorways.

And for clarities sake. No criminals are cycling greenways for theft. Only a moron would believe that.

flazio

listermint wrote: »

It's an idiotic point.

And I say that with a stone cold face.

Our motorways did more rural theft than anything before it. Are you arguing we close the motorways.

And for clarities sake. No criminals are cycling greenways for theft. Only a moron would believe that.

I'm not making that point, I was just trying to clarify and expand on a post from veryangryman that spacetweek was having trouble understanding. By doing so I did not post my colours on any mast.

veryangryman

listermint wrote: »

And for clarities sake. No criminals are cycling greenways for theft. Only a moron would believe that.

Read the local papers concerned. The landowners are using that as a stick to beat the greenways with. This has slowed down the planning.

I don't agree with them, hence referring to them as crusties.

holly8

Planning board rules against Kiltimagh Velorail project.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/planning-board-rules-against-michael-ringbacked-project-38056876.html?fbclid=IwAR2gU1D3obg5FxvLc_xMZC03ULaw3jQNMorDVtpUs2ZNdCf_eVbMKNG208w

Del.Monte

holly8 wrote: »

Planning board rules against Kiltimagh Velorail project.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/planning-board-rules-against-michael-ringbacked-project-38056876.html?fbclid=IwAR2gU1D3obg5FxvLc_xMZC03ULaw3jQNMorDVtpUs2ZNdCf_eVbMKNG208w

Did you read the article before posting? It says that the development will be subject to planning rules. As for the article - typical ill researched rubbish which mentions velorail 'carriages' several times.:rolleyes:

Muckyboots

Del.Monte wrote: »

Did you read the article before posting? It says that the development will be subject to planning rules. As for the article - typical ill researched rubbish which mentions velorail 'carriages' several times.:rolleyes:

APB did rule against the Velo cycle promotors who insisted that it was exempt. It isn't. The promotors being a local authority surely knew that but tried to behave like bullies instead. Both you and I know that APB will be ruling on it again, for sure.