Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

Del.Monte

L1011 wrote: »

There are minimum requirements for a new station which do not apply to grandfathered old stations. Lighting, fencing etc would be required at a new build request stop also.

Actually - if you've no lighting how the hell do you expect the driver to see you flag them down?

I didn't say no lighting - overkill is what I'm on about - even in my local station where the Up platform is out of use all the lights are blazing away. As for minimum requirements - they need changing and that's a feeble, CIE type, excuse.

L1011

Del.Monte wrote: »

I didn't say no lighting - overkill is what I'm on about - even in my local station where the Up platform is out of use all the lights are blazing away. As for minimum requirements - they need changing and that's a feeble, CIE type, excuse.

Safety requirements are not going to be rolled back for the laugh

Your poorly equipped request stop would be illegal to build as new

Del.Monte

L1011 wrote: »

Safety requirements are not going to be rolled back for the laugh

Your poorly equipped request stop would be illegal to build as new

My point is that it shouldn't be! Common sense seems to have gone the way of the Dodo but some day it will have to come back.

L1011

Del.Monte wrote: »

My point is that it shouldn't be! Common sense seems to have gone the way of the Dodo but some day it will have to come back.

Common sense was never common. Accidental death rates were huge in the past, nostalgia doesn't excise the figures

Sam Russell

L1011 wrote: »

Common sense was never common. Accidental death rates were huge in the past, nostalgia doesn't excise the figures

Death rates on the roads are lower than for ever.

It is illegal :
1: to travel without a seat belt.
2: To drink and drive.
3: Carry more passengers than the vehicle is equipped to carry.
4: Infants must be in an approved child seat.
5: Young infants must be carried in a rear facing child seat.
6: Speeding and drink driving enforcement etc etc.

Must be a coincidence that all these regulations have come in and the death rates have been reduced.

Isambard

those are some of the factors, but safety cells and airbags are probably just as important.

Sam Russell

Isambard wrote: »

those are some of the factors, but safety cells and airbags are probably just as important.

I could not list them all. Better road design is another factor.

We as a society take safety much more seriously than in the past.

L1011

L1011 wrote: »

There are minimum requirements for a new station which do not apply to grandfathered old stations. Lighting, fencing etc would be required at a new build request stop also.

Actually - if you've no lighting how the hell do you expect the driver to see you flag them down?

PIR sensors, if anyone is at the station at night, the lights come on - else it stays dark. As for hailing the driver, there are many simple technical solutions that can be used.


A button connected to a signal
An intercom to call the driver
etc

Del.Monte

Deleted User wrote: »

PIR sensors, if anyone is at the station at night, the lights come on - else it stays dark. As for hailing the driver, there are many simple technical solutions that can be used.


A button connected to a signal
An intercom to call the driver
etc

It seems that people in Britain are able to hail a train from one of these unmanned death trap stations without injuring themselves.

Del.Monte

Del.Monte wrote: »

It seems that people in Britain are able to hail a train from one of these unmanned death trap stations without injuring themselves.

Sure, people do it from bus stops everyday everywhere.

westtip

jasper100 wrote: »

The growth is being experienced across the route, with city to city journeys surging and a particularly strong student demand. The Ennis to Limerick service and the Athenry to Galway commuter services have shown significant growth.

We can all massage figures as much as we want.

Irish Rail released these new figures recently and the official figure for the total line went up from 352K for 2017 to 387K for 2018 an increase of 35k.

In their press release they did not give the breakout this year for Ennis Athenry, they have been asked for this.

Previously they have given the breakout and in 2017 of the 352K travellers 134k actually used the new line, about 38% of all journies on the new line line.

Even if the new line accounts for 40% of all journies in 2018 that is 40% of 387k which is about 155k.

The business case for the Western Rail Corridor was for 250k passengers by year 5. We are now in year 10. It has hit about 62% of its business case after ten years. Clearly this is not a success story, but I am sure this will be pointed out to EY DKN.

Re students. Ah bless them. You do not build new railways so students can get home on a Friday, there has to be a seven day a week demand. Get the bus, hitch or get a lift with a mate, but don't expect the state to build a railway for a Friday night special or Sunday night special.

jasper100

westtip wrote: »

We can all massage figures as much as we want.

Irish Rail released these new figures recently and the official figure for the total line went up from 352K for 2017 to 387K for 2018 an increase of 35k.

In their press release they did not give the breakout this year for Ennis Athenry, they have been asked for this.

Previously they have given the breakout and in 2017 of the 352K travellers 134k actually used the new line, about 38% of all journies on the new line line.

Even if the new line accounts for 40% of all journies in 2018 that is 40% of 387k which is about 155k.

The business case for the Western Rail Corridor was for 250k passengers by year 5. We are now in year 10. It has hit about 62% of its business case after ten years. Clearly this is not a success story, but I am sure this will be pointed out to EY DKN.

Re students. Ah bless them. You do not build new railways so students can get home on a Friday, there has to be a seven day a week demand. Get the bus, hitch or get a lift with a mate, but don't expect the state to build a railway for a Friday night special or Sunday night special.

It must be killing you all the same to see passenger numbers ever on the increase.

If it got to 1 million journeys a year you would probably still find cause to criticise everything.

Del.Monte

Del.Monte wrote: »

It seems that people in Britain are able to hail a train from one of these unmanned death trap stations without injuring themselves.

Above: Llanbedr - what a threat to life and limb!

More here about the 60 Welsh Request Stops:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/train-stations-wales-you-ask-12625986


and here: https://www.countryfile.com/go-outdoors/days-out/britains-best-request-stop-train-stations/

Muckyboots

Del.Monte wrote: »

Above: Llanbedr - what a threat to life and limb!

More here about the 60 Welsh Request Stops:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/train-stations-wales-you-ask-12625986


and here: https://www.countryfile.com/go-outdoors/days-out/britains-best-request-stop-train-stations/

You could easily lay one of those railways alongside a greenway. All new rail projects have to be electric and there's plenty of room on the WRC alignment for rail after a greenway. If they need to secure half a billion yo yos from the EU for a western rail, and they would, they should have no problem funding it.

Isambard

imo there is plenty of room, but I do wonder about the integrity of greenway supporters who say it's cheaper to put the Greenway on the ballast of the rail alignment, rather than saying lets put it to one side and leave room for rail. That action makes me think they would have no intention of allowing a rail return at some future time.

Isambard

Isambard wrote: »

imo there is plenty of room, but I do wonder about the integrity of greenway supporters who say it's cheaper to put the Greenway on the ballast of the rail alignment, rather than saying lets put it to one side and leave room for rail. That action makes me think they would have no intention of allowing a rail return at some future time.

Athlone - Mullingar line used to be double track, but was reduced to a single track before eventually closing. the greenway mainly uses the empty trackbed of the removed line, except where bridges were removed.

westtip

jasper100 wrote: »

It must be killing you all the same to see passenger numbers ever on the increase.

If it got to 1 million journeys a year you would probably still find cause to criticise everything.

Slight exageration. If the numbers couldn't go up with cheap fares which mean more subvention it would surprise me. As I said, achieving 60% of business case after ten years is hardly a success, and the current figures and what has been achieved would have meant the line would never have been opened. The wool can only be pulled over the eyes once, I accept the line is probably here to stay, and have never advocated its closure, but the figures speak for themselves, they are not a succees and do not point to an obvious extension of the line northwards, if an intercity route can only hit 160,000 what will a route from Claremorris to Galway expect to achieve? half that? quarter that? you can beef the figures up all they want, they do no point at success nor do they any longer point at abject failure, but against the business plan, yes a failure they are. That doesn't kill me to say that, it just means to say I told you so. Don't foget wool over the eyes once, never again.

Re the million journies a year, ah yes the Athenry Field of dreams.

westtip

Isambard wrote: »

imo there is plenty of room, but I do wonder about the integrity of greenway supporters who say it's cheaper to put the Greenway on the ballast of the rail alignment, rather than saying lets put it to one side and leave room for rail. That action makes me think they would have no intention of allowing a rail return at some future time.

Not really, it means the cost of building the "temporary" greenway until such time as a railway is possible would be relatively cheap if built on the old ballast base. Afterall if a railway is going to be built on this alignment to make it an acceptable standard the whole ballast base will have to be ripped up and relaid, At that time of building the new railway a small service path alongside to act as a greenway will not be that great as an extra price in the total project cost. It would mean closing the greenway for a year or so whilst the new railway was built with the new greenway alongside. But there is no point building a greenway alongside the rust heap that exists now and the old ballast base which will have to be ripped up anyway it would make the cost prohibitive. This is why the "alongside" argument does not merit any consideration, it is only valid if the actual railway is going to be built, at the moment and in the foreseeable future that is not going to happen.

Isambard

i didn't suggest building it next to the existing line, which will have very little in the way of foundations anyway as it was very cheaply built in the first place. Nor did I say build it alongside.I said to built it to one side so that there is room for a rail line to be reinstated at some future date. Your insistence on using the actual trackbed where the rails are now is damaging to your project imo and won't help your cause at all.

Isambard

Isambard wrote: »

i didn't suggest building it next to the existing line, which will have very little in the way of foundations anyway as it was very cheaply built in the first place. Nor did I say build it alongside.I said to built it to one side so that there is room for a rail line to be reinstated at some future date. Your insistence on using the actual trackbed where the rails are now is damaging to your project imo and won't help your cause at all.

What you are asking for would turn a couple million project into a 50 million one.... For no logical reason.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

What you are asking for would turn a couple million project into a 50 million one.... For no logical reason.

on what basis. the land exists and presumably belongs to the railway. so i'm afraid i'm not seeing anything here that could cause this to go from a couple of million to 50 million unless they

over engineer it to an absolute extreme. perhapse the same standards as a motor way.

Isambard

the logical reason is that if the Greenway people declared that the cyclepath would be built leaving space for a railway to be built at a later date, then the opposition would be without an argument.
Insisting that the greenway is built right up the middle will convince the opposition that it is very unlikely they would willingly give up space for a railway at a later date.
The difference between the two scenarios is that you may get a Greenway the first way and you never will the second.
Compromise is the solution.

Isambard

Isambard wrote: »

the logical reason is that if the Greenway people declared that the cyclepath would be built leaving space for a railway to be built at a later date, then the opposition would be without an argument.
Insisting that the greenway is built right up the middle will convince the opposition that it is very unlikely they would willingly give up space for a railway at a later date.
The difference between the two scenarios is that you may get a Greenway the first way and you never will the second.
Compromise is the solution.

The problem with your argument is that Irish rail retain ownership of the line and only lease it to the relevant body. There are clear stipulations in the leases (as seen in other locations) that allow Irish Rail to take it back and put in rails again as and when the business case exists.

Regardless of whether the greenway is on the line now or beside it now, it will have no bearing on the future reopening of this line at some point in the future. The only difference is that the greenway would allow for the alignment to be protected in the interim, a valuable community amenity would be created and there would be economic benefit.

There is not a single greenway advocate that I can think of that wants to stop trains from ever using the line.

The argument has always been, use it now for a greenway, use it later for both.

Letting it sit and rot is just a waste for all sides.

Isambard

i didn't say anything about letting it sit rot. Build the Greenway off centre leaving the rest of the available land for a railway at some stage.

My point is, without compromise, it will never get built.

Eliminate the opposition by reserving land to the other side of centre, which guarantees there won't be issues of dog in a manger when the time comes to build the line.

The opposition will not believe that the Greenway people will meekly close down to allow a line to be built and the simplest way for them to ensure the line might be rebuilt one day is to stop the Greenway being built. If it is guaranteed that the land is there and available at all stages, there is a chance a Greenway might be built, without that guarantee, they'll keep opposing it forever.

Isambard

Isambard wrote: »

i didn't say anything about letting it sit rot. Build the Greenway off centre leaving the rest of the available land for a railway at some stage.

My point is, without compromise, it will never get built.

Eliminate the opposition by reserving land to the other side of centre, which guarantees there won't be issues of dog in a manger when the time comes to build the line.

The opposition will not believe that the Greenway people will meekly close down to allow a line to be built and the simplest way for them to ensure the line might be rebuilt one day is to stop the Greenway being built. If it is guaranteed that the land is there and available at all stages, there is a chance a Greenway might be built, without that guarantee, they'll keep opposing it forever.

Your point is illogical and fallacious. Irish Rail, as the landlord, will have the final say when a rail service on that line eventually becomes a viable prospect.

Any lease signed to use the line in the meantime has that stipulation. Please provide me with something that shows otherwise. Fyi, you lose any argument if you try bring up Comber, it's been disproven multiple times.

Isambard

well the Rail line will probably never happen but nor will the Greenway without some compromise. The opposition will fight it tooth and nail, as we've already seen. It's not helpful for greenway supporters to be insisting their path is built actually where the rails are now, such an attitude guarantees the rail supporters won't believe they will give it up one day and I don't believe they would either,without a long and protracted fight.

Show willing and share the available land from Day One and you might get somewhere..

New businesses open along Waterford’s Greenway

https://www.wlrfm.com/2019/04/21/new-businesses-open-along-waterfords-greenway/?fbclid=IwAR0nQzt_zwBi_ecuIrDNPYy8cuSigggBQb6bMsGWUuw2udb30PX5EKATYhA#

Markcheese

Isambard wrote: »

well the Rail line will probably never happen but nor will the Greenway without some compromise. The opposition will fight it tooth and nail, as we've already seen. It's not helpful for greenway supporters to be insisting their path is built actually where the rails are now, such an attitude guarantees the rail supporters won't believe they will give it up one day and I don't believe they would either,without a long and protracted fight.

Show willing and share the available land from Day One and you might get somewhere..

Hang on, I'm a bit late to this debate.. There's current ballast, which the greenway could use, but a new railway couldn't...
And that should be left there, unused in perpetuity in case the railway ever gets reinstated, (even though it'd then have to be removed to accomadate the new rails)
, and if you did put down a new trackway for the greenway, it also would probably need to be removed, should the rail be reinstated to accomadate the new ballast/track bed...

Perfectly clear...?

Isambard

The line was built to a very cheap standard from new, and after all this time, there will be very little ballast of any use.

The fact is you have two diametrically opposed bodies of opinions and if neither of them are willing to compromise, nothing will happen.

The rail people will not move an inch, (why would they?), whilst they think that the cycle people won't willingly give back the route if needed for rail. It serves their purposes perfectly to continue to block the Greenway, which they've shown they are pretty good at.

So rip up the track, bulldoze the ballast over a few feet (if there's any value to it)and lay your greenway off centre, leaving room for a rail track which will need deep excavation and a new foundation (like the Ennis to Athenry section needed). A cyclepath needs a lot less foundation than a rail line.

That makes sense to me but I doubt it will to either the rail or cycle lobbies who both want it all to themselves .

Isambard

Isambard wrote: »

The line was built to a very cheap standard from new, and after all this time, there will be very little ballast of any use.

The fact is you have two diametrically opposed bodies of opinions and if neither of them are willing to compromise, nothing will happen.

The rail people will not move an inch, (why would they?), whilst they think that the cycle people won't willingly give back the route if needed for rail. It serves their purposes perfectly to continue to block the Greenway, which they've shown they are pretty good at.

So rip up the track, bulldoze the ballast over a few feet (if there's any value to it)and lay your greenway off centre, leaving room for a rail track which will need deep excavation and a new foundation (like the Ennis to Athenry section needed). A cyclepath needs a lot less foundation than a rail line.

That makes sense to me but I doubt it will to either the rail or cycle lobbies who both want it all to themselves .

You keep touting this line that the greenway folks want to forever prevent a rail service.

I'm going to have to ask you to back that assertion up with evidence or admit that it is just a random ass feeling that you have in your head that has no basis in reality.