Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

Losty Dublin

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

There is a huge difference between a bridge to carry some cyclists and a bridge to carry a train. If a greenway was being being built, a lightweight structure would suffice. Sizing the bridge to carry a train would be a huge cost increase and completely change the economics of the project. If the train service is being reinstated a suitable bridge can be built then, such a bridge would be required anyway if a greenway has not been already built. Building a bridge to carry a train before the actual project to provide the train service would be a colossal waste of money.

Unless the line is formally abandoned then any bridge built on the alignment must be fit for purpose. That is to say, it must be ready and able to carry a bonafide standard gauge railway.

To go with a non railway bridge requires planning permission, the requisite paperwork, legal papers, architectural reports, a probable heritage report if it uses old stonework or pillars and so on. Sure, so long as the railway act which facilitated the lines construction is still in place, to plan a non railway bridge in lieu is illegal and will just be rejected, if not initially then at appeal stage.

Ironically it will be more economical, legally sound and a lot less hassle to simply reinstate a replacement rail bridge.

Pete_Cavan

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Unless the line is formally abandoned then any bridge built on the alignment must be fit for purpose. That is to say, it must be ready and able to carry a bonafide standard gauge railway.

To go with a non railway bridge requires planning permission, the requisite paperwork, legal papers, architectural reports, a probable heritage report if it uses old stonework or pillars and so on. Sure, so long as the railway act which facilitated the lines construction is still in place, to plan a non railway bridge in lieu is illegal and will just be rejected, if not initially then at appeal stage.

Ironically it will be more economical, legally sound and a lot less hassle to simply reinstate a replacement rail bridge.

My post clearly addresses a greenway bridge in the context where a greenway is being built on the line. This could only happen having received all relevant permissions (from CIE, CoCo, etc.). If that wete the case, it would mean that rail is off the table for the foreseeable future in which case a full rail bridge would not be required.

I was making the point that there is no point in building any bridge if it not going to be used. Building a rail bridge without also upgrading the rest of the line to provide rail services would be a waste of money.

ezstreet5

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Unless the line is formally abandoned then any bridge built on the alignment must be fit for purpose. That is to say, it must be ready and able to carry a bonafide standard gauge railway.
[...]
Ironically it will be more economical, legally sound and a lot less hassle to simply reinstate a replacement rail bridge.

Exactly. No other private or public railway company would have allowed that outcome if there were even a 1% chance of reactivation. A new bridge was part of the plan and TII agreed to fund it with the view that "reinstatement of this bridge is consistent with government objectives and ensures that there is no prejudice caused by this development to the reinstatement of the western rail corridor and redevelopment of same." But a few wanted to play poverty politics by conspicuously eschewing Government funding at a level slightly exceeding chump change.

How is it economically sound to reinstate a bridge to a standard that would take a train, that will probably never take a train again?

The reported budget to replace it was EUR 1,000,000.
For a 1% probability?

For those that haven't been in the area recently, Google street view has been updated and this is what it looks like now:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/MHD6CUbeQfCftLh2A

If/when the greenway is built, I imagine no bridge will be built. Ramp it up and down, build some traffic calming and a crossing of some sort and link it into the other path which runs all the way to Abbeyknockmoy.

For a contrast if on a computer you can select the version of streetview from 2009.

Losty Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

How is it economically sound to reinstate a bridge to a standard that would take a train, that will probably never take a train again?

The reported budget to replace it was EUR 1,000,000.
For a 1% probability?

For those that haven't been in the area recently, Google street view has been updated and this is what it looks like now:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/MHD6CUbeQfCftLh2A

If/when the greenway is built, I imagine no bridge will be built. Ramp it up and down, build some traffic calming and a crossing of some sort and link it into the other path which runs all the way to Abbeyknockmoy.

For a contrast if on a computer you can select the version of streetview from 2009.

The railway bridge will be replaced by TII at their expense when they are required to do so by CIE. It's probably the sensible option for all parties to take a wait and see approach on the replacement.

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Folk were actively campaigning against reinstating that bridge, which would have been usable for either option. Those same folk also claiming that they want to preserve the line. There's a serious disconnect in their mindset.

It is not rocket science, the bridge was taken down to widen the road, ok if the railway gets built in 40 or 50 years time put a new bridge in meantime as I said a pedestrian crossing will suffice with ramps down the embankment, I would not advocate a greenway bridge it would be better spent elswhere a safe road crossing will be perfectly acceptable. Get a sense of realism would ya.

Sam Russell

westtip wrote: »

It is not rocket science, the bridge was taken down to widen the road, ok if the railway gets built in 40 or 50 years time put a new bridge in meantime as I said a pedestrian crossing will suffice with ramps down the embankment, I would not advocate a greenway bridge it would be better spent elswhere a safe road crossing will be perfectly acceptable. Get a sense of realism would ya.

A pedestrian style bridge might suffice - maybe off set from the railway track so that it will remain if the line is ever restored. I am thinking of the bridge at the end of the Tuam bypass.

ezstreet5

westtip wrote: »

I said a pedestrian crossing will suffice with ramps down the embankment, I would not advocate a greenway bridge it would be better spent elswhere a safe road crossing will be perfectly acceptable. Get a sense of realism would ya.

Aim low. Additional savings can be realized if we don't tarmac your greenway.

monument

westtip wrote: »

It is not rocket science, the bridge was taken down to widen the road, ok if the railway gets built in 40 or 50 years time put a new bridge in meantime as I said a pedestrian crossing will suffice with ramps down the embankment, I would not advocate a greenway bridge it would be better spent elswhere a safe road crossing will be perfectly acceptable. Get a sense of realism would ya.

If you're honestly advocating for a decent greenway, you need to get past the idea that an at-grade crossing of a national road is any way a good idea. It's not.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Unless the line is formally abandoned then any bridge built on the alignment must be fit for purpose. That is to say, it must be ready and able to carry a bonafide standard gauge railway.

To go with a non railway bridge requires planning permission, the requisite paperwork, legal papers, architectural reports, a probable heritage report if it uses old stonework or pillars and so on. Sure, so long as the railway act which facilitated the lines construction is still in place, to plan a non railway bridge in lieu is illegal and will just be rejected, if not initially then at appeal stage.

Ironically it will be more economical, legally sound and a lot less hassle to simply reinstate a replacement rail bridge.

Who's taking the court case?

What old stone work? Where?

ezstreet5

monument wrote: »

If you're honestly advocating for a decent greenway, you need to get past the idea that an at-grade crossing of a national road is any way a good idea. It's not.



Who's taking the court case?

What old stone work? Where?

Good question. Where did the stone go?

"The proposed bridge will replace the existing one on the same railway alignment. The bridge will have reinforced concrete foundations and abutment walls. It is proposed from an architectural and heritage point of view that the stonework used on the existing bridge be re-used as masonry facing to the bridge abutments."

http://gccapps.galwaycoco.ie/viewexternaldocuments/ViewPDF?ref=1933107#page=9

westtip

monument wrote: »

If you're honestly advocating for a decent greenway, you need to get past the idea that an at-grade crossing of a national road is any way a good idea. It's not.



Who's taking the court case?

What old stone work? Where?

Cut and cover underpass then, I don't think that road is so busy that it couldn't take a traffic light pedistrian crossing, I know of a busier road just outside Luton Airport parkway that takes more traffic and has a pedestrian crossing with lights, you simply hit the button and ask for traffic to stop, it works rather well in the rest of the world.

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Aim low. Additional savings can be realized if we don't tarmac your greenway.

Just to correct your statement, I will have no ownership of the QMG, and personally I have no problem with it not been tarmacadamed, rolled and ready to go compound will be fine. I don't consider it aiming high or low just want to see the route used whilst we while away the next 40 years waiting for a freight train.

Pete_Cavan

If a greenway is provided on the line, a lightweight bridge there would make sense, far better than a road crossing. It would be far cheaper than a rail bridge and could be easily removed if rail use was to be reinstated. The bridge would likely see many years of use before being removed (if ever) to justify the cost of installing it.

Isambard

I wonder if a bridge is justified when there are presumably dozens of busier places in the Country where a footpath or cycle path crosses a road.

A pedestrian crossing-type arrangement might be adequate

Pete_Cavan

Isambard wrote: »

I wonder if a bridge is justified when there are presumably dozens of busier places in the Country where a footpath or cycle path crosses a road.

A pedestrian crossing-type arrangement might be adequate

It would suffice but would be suboptimal. Crossing a lesser road at would be fine but this is a National Secondary with good alignment so traffic would be moving pretty fast.

Isambard

as i said, there must be dozens of similar crossings nationwide, providing a bridge just because there once was a bridge there is not sufficient reason.

eastwest

Isambard wrote: »

I wonder if a bridge is justified when there are presumably dozens of busier places in the Country where a footpath or cycle path crosses a road.

A pedestrian crossing-type arrangement might be adequate

It's a dead straight road that is lightly trafficked, except when people are going or coming to and from work. It's no busier than a suburban street, it doesn't need a bridge or an underpass, just a stop barrier at either end of the greenway and a marked crossing point.

eastwest

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Unless the line is formally abandoned then any bridge built on the alignment must be fit for purpose. That is to say, it must be ready and able to carry a bonafide standard gauge railway.

To go with a non railway bridge requires planning permission, the requisite paperwork, legal papers, architectural reports, a probable heritage report if it uses old stonework or pillars and so on. Sure, so long as the railway act which facilitated the lines construction is still in place, to plan a non railway bridge in lieu is illegal and will just be rejected, if not initially then at appeal stage.

Ironically it will be more economical, legally sound and a lot less hassle to simply reinstate a replacement rail bridge.

It wasn't reinstated for a number of reasons.
Primarily, the idea was dropped because it was silly, there was no rail project proposed for this route by anybody, and building a bridge would have exposed anyone building it to ridicule and the Minister wouldn't agree to it either, for the same reason. The best any local politician could get out of TII was for them to pay for the design of a new bridge. According to the national press they spent 70k on design work on a bridge they knew wasn't going to be built, which was a bit of a scandal in itself, but would have paled into insignificance compared to the public outcry if the bridge had actually been built.
The other reason was that the original road had been dipped to go under the old bridge. The new road had the carriageway leveled for safety reasons, effectively raised closer to the original deck, and any new bridge would have had to be raised by a considerable amount above the old track level, about two metres as I recall from memory. Apparently there was some discussion about it, but again it was felt that it would be such a visual example of a daft idea that nobody would sign off on it. The other option, the cost of raising the track for about a mile in each direction but again with no rail project in plan was also dismissed as being too blatant a waste of public funds.

end of the road

eastwest wrote: »

It wasn't reinstated for a number of reasons.
Primarily, the idea was dropped because it was silly, there was no rail project proposed for this route by anybody, and building a bridge would have exposed anyone building it to ridicule and the Minister wouldn't agree to it either, for the same reason. The best any local politician could get out of TII was for them to pay for the design of a new bridge. According to the national press they spent 70k on design work on a bridge they knew wasn't going to be built, which was a bit of a scandal in itself, but would have paled into insignificance compared to the public outcry if the bridge had actually been built.
The other reason was that the original road had been dipped to go under the old bridge. The new road had the carriageway leveled for safety reasons, effectively raised closer to the original deck, and any new bridge would have had to be raised by a considerable amount above the old track level, about two metres as I recall from memory. Apparently there was some discussion about it, but again it was felt that it would be such a visual example of a daft idea that nobody would sign off on it. The other option, the cost of raising the track for about a mile in each direction but again with no rail project in plan was also dismissed as being too blatant a waste of public funds.

what public outcry?
the reality is most people wouldn't care a less, they might think it a bit stupid but would just get on with their lives.


as neither option has been chosen to reuse the line currently, then presumably the bridge, and the reasons for not replacing it currently, are irrelevant, but would only become relevant once either one of the options is chosen, if losty dublin is correct.

ezstreet5

end of the road wrote: »

what public outcry?
the reality is most people wouldn't care a less, they might think it a bit stupid but would just get on with their lives.


as neither option has been chosen to reuse the line currently, then presumably the bridge, and the reasons for not replacing it currently, are irrelevant, but would only become relevant once either one of the options is chosen, if losty dublin is correct.

I completely agree with you. No one would have batted an eyelash had the bridge project been framed as, "We need to replace this bridge because the railway may one day be reactivated, and if that does not happen, it might alternatively be used as part of a greenway." But there are a few who were poised to ridicule and try to turn this bridge into the Children's Hospital of the West, and they may have won themselves a crappier greenway for that effort.

eastwest wrote: »

The other option, the cost of raising the track for about a mile in each direction but again with no rail project in plan was also dismissed as being too blatant a waste of public funds.

And this is another exaggeration. The Part 8 application materials stated:

"The railway line either side of the proposed railway bridge will be regraded to tie in to the revised bridge levels. The extents of the railway regrading works will be approximately 250m to the north of the bridge and approximately 100m to the south of the bridge. It is proposed that all works to the railway line be undertaken within the railway property boundary."

Personally I'm looking forward to cycling over that road, should be nice views from that height for the greenway

Losty Dublin

ezstreet5 wrote: »

I completely agree with you. No one would have batted an eyelash had the bridge project been framed as, "We need to replace this bridge because the railway may one day be reactivated, and if that does not happen, it might alternatively be used as part of a greenway." But there are a few who were poised to ridicule and try to turn this bridge into the Children's Hospital of the West, and they may have won themselves a crappier greenway for that effort.

...And this is another exaggeration. The Part 8 application materials stated:

"The railway line either side of the proposed railway bridge will be regraded to tie in to the revised bridge levels. The extents of the railway regrading works will be approximately 250m to the north of the bridge and approximately 100m to the south of the bridge. It is proposed that all works to the railway line be undertaken within the railway property boundary."

Ah here, you can't be using fact and logic and common sense here! Where's all your hyperbolics and tangents and irrelevances?

You do touch on a point here, mind. A replacement railway bridge fitted and replaced immediately would surely suit those wanting a greenway. As it stands the line will get a new bridge if and when it's needed by CIE for railway purposes.

However the cycleway advocates appear to want the opposite, that being no railway bridge to be put into place here. And what of the users of a greenway? Well they can be told to either risk a road crossing of some sort or to lay their own bridge. The former will be a less safe option even with traffic calming measure and will take away from the safe car free climate that a greenway is supposed to offer up. The latter will again mean a costly bridge only without the tab being picked up by CIE or TII.

You'd almost swear that they want an impediment on the old trackbed; the $64,000 question is what and why would they want such an impediment on situ? As they used to say to Bunny Carr, stop the lights!

Ah lads, make up your minds lol

Its
- silly to not ask for a bridge for a greenway
and
- a pointless waste of money to put a bridge for a greenway
and
- illegal to build a bridge for anything other than a railway
and
- critical that a bridge be built for the greenway

Ok, got it

Its all moot anyway. The greenway feasibility study will make a series of recommendations, none of which will mention a railway bridge option, the council will draw up plans one way or another and the govt will either fund it or not.

My guess is it will recommend a walking/cycling bridge, the council will get it designed and the govt will pay for it to be built for 10-15% of what a railway bridge would cost.

At no point will any bridge capable of taking trains be funded unless there is an immediate likelihood of trains running over it.

ezstreet5

Lower cost options need to be fully considered:

1. Rope Bridge.
2. Evel Knievel Ramps.
3. However E.T. got those kids' bikes to fly.

All add to the tourism amenity.

Pete_Cavan

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Lower cost options need to be fully considered:

1. Rope Bridge.
2. Evel Knievel Ramps.
3. However E.T. got those kids' bikes to fly.

All add to the tourism amenity.

And all equally suitable to carry the number of trains which will be passing there over the next 20 years, perfect.

The reports (EY & JASPERS) have just dropped

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/1174d-review-of-western-rail-corridor-phases-2-and-3-athenry-to-claremorris/

eastwest

Deleted User wrote: »

The reports (EY & JASPERS) have just dropped

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/1174d-review-of-western-rail-corridor-phases-2-and-3-athenry-to-claremorris/

So much for the railway dream. Particularly the JASPERS report, it completely rubbishes both the passenger and freight arguments, and says that it would be 'challenging' to make a case for EU funding on the route.
But that won't stop the debate, I reckon. The favoured position for most politicians is for nothing to happen on the route, and nothing is what people are going to get. Except for Sligo obviously.

MayoForSam

As expected, there is zero business case for investing in a new rail line along the WRC, the figures don't just don't add up. An extremely high CAPEX in comparison to expected returns on investment, ongoing subsidy and maintenance costs and lack of significant future population growth in the West means it's a dead duck. Interesting that 73% of public submissions were in favour of a rail line and only 10% for a greenway, WOT must have gotten the troops out.

Since the report was prepared, the landscape has changed even more due to Covid - there will be long term implications for financing (the country will be essentially broke for the next 10+ years) as well the impact of Brexit and possibly a change in travel patterns due to WFH, online learning, virtual medical appointments, etc.

I won't be holding my breath for a greenway - all this confirms is that the railway will never happen, therefore the entire WRC from Athenry to Charlestown will probably just disappear into the undergrowth over the coming years.

eastwest

MayoForSam wrote: »

As expected, there is zero business case for investing in a new rail line along the WRC, the figures don't just don't add up. An extremely high CAPEX in comparison to expected returns on investment, ongoing subsidy and maintenance costs and lack of significant future population growth in the West means it's a dead duck. Interesting that 73% of public submissions were in favour of a rail line and only 10% for a greenway, WOT must have gotten the troops out.

Since the report was prepared, the landscape has changed even more due to Covid - there will be long term implications for financing (the country will be essentially broke for the next 10+ years) as well the impact of Brexit and possibly a change in travel patterns due to WFH, online learning, virtual medical appointments, etc.

I won't be holding my breath for a greenway - all this confirms is that the railway will never happen, therefore the entire WRC from Athenry to Charlestown will probably just disappear into the undergrowth over the coming years.

It shows a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of 0.21, which implies that for every €1 invested, society would only gain €0.21. Bad odds, I'd say, unless you're taking a bet on the undergrowth option.
And 'project financing of the proposal in its current form would be a challenge.' That's from the Jaspers report. Now seeing as they're the ones with the possible funds, what are the odds?
And on the freight debate: '
'As such, the proposed project is unlikely to lead to any significant changes in strategic connectivity.'
And 'The line will not generate a financial return and will have an overall negative impact on the exchequer finances throughout its lifetime.'

Still, these two reports have between them come up with one line of information that might settle arguments around one 'train of thought' if I can be excused the words. 'A link to Knock airport is not feasible due to its location on top of a hill.'
Now, if they had only built the airport down in the valley. Still, maybe they could move it, or buy a big escalator?
I agree though, it will disappear into the undergrowth, but a few people will be happy enough, particularly those who already have a foothold on this strip of state land.

L1011

Knock will be lucky to survive as a scheduled passenger airport if full inbound tourism isn't in place this summer and with a booking run-in. Which won't happen.

Every incremental road improvement brings its catchment closer to Shannon and Dublin time-wise - even those that make it quicker to get to Knock too + and makes the premium to fly from a small regional airport to save the dwindling drivetime less palatable.