Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail

Sam Russell

What stage is the Velorail project at in Kiltimagh?

If the Velorail project goes ahead, how will they be able to put a train down the track?
And how do the Velorail vehicles pass each other?
Why not use rubber tyres on the vehicles so they can pass each other?
Why not have a pedestrian/cycle option next to it?

It just seems daft to me. like the gondolas in Co Meath that was the inspiration to the 'Who will feed the Gondolas' comedy series on RTE.

Lord Glentoran

Sam Russell wrote: »

What stage is the Velorail project at in Kiltimagh?

Haven't a clue. I'm pretty sure that Kiltimagh's promoters can answer that.

If the Velorail project goes ahead, how will they be able to put a train down the track?

Existing Velorail projects work on disused railways.

And how do the Velorail vehicles pass each other?

There are YouTube videos available of the quite a few that operate in different parts of France.

Why not use rubber tyres on the vehicles so they can pass each other?
Why not have a pedestrian/cycle option next to it?

It just seems daft to me. like the gondolas in Co Meath that was the inspiration to the 'Who will feed the Gondolas' comedy series on RTE.

Perhaps having a look on what's available online may help with developing your view of the project? Here's something to start you off, if you want. http://veloraildefrance.com/wp-content/uploads/veloraildefrance_velorail-federation-2020.pdf

Sam Russell

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Haven't a clue. I'm pretty sure that Kiltimagh's promoters can answer that.

Existing Velorail projects work on disused railways.

There are YouTube videos available of the quite a few that operate in different parts of France.

Perhaps having a look on what's available online may help with developing your view of the project? Here's something to start you off, if you want. http://veloraildefrance.com/wp-content/uploads/veloraildefrance_velorail-federation-2020.pdf

Hardly answers any of the issues I raised.

How can a single track railway operate such a scheme? Do the riders have ro remove their vehicle from the line for an opposing one to pass? Or do they have to swap vehicles?

It seems to be perverse that Velorails are proposed when a conventional vehicle with rubber wheels would function much better, considering the line is single track.

I have looked at U tube videos and it just makes no sense. Why limit the appeal of the greenway to such a strange vehicle?

donvito99

Sam Russell wrote: »

Hardly answers any of the issues I raised.

How can a single track railway operate such a scheme? Do the riders have ro remove their vehicle from the line for an opposing one to pass? Or do they have to swap vehicles?

It seems to be perverse that Velorails are proposed when a conventional vehicle with rubber wheels would function much better, considering the line is single track.

I have looked at U tube videos and it just makes no sense. Why limit the appeal of the greenway to such a strange vehicle?

I think that's where the fun lies, you don't have to worry about balance and if the kids get tired they can lounge about whilst the adults keep pushing/pedalling.

It looks as though they (the operators in France) only let groups out in one direction at any one time, with the last vehicle to arrive at the turning point being the first to leave on the return.

Sam Russell

donvito99 wrote: »

I think that's where the fun lies, you don't have to worry about balance and if the kids get tired they can lounge about whilst the adults keep pushing/pedalling.

It looks as though they (the operators in France) only let groups out in one direction at any one time, with the last vehicle to arrive at the turning point being the first to leave on the return.

I just cannot see the attraction of such a vehicle in comparison with one that runs on tarmac. It has all the disadvantages of rail with no advantages - given that it is a single track line.

Lord Glentoran

Sam Russell wrote: »

I just cannot see the attraction of such a vehicle in comparison with one that runs on tarmac. It has all the disadvantages of rail with no advantages - given that it is a single track line.

Yeah - well not everyone is a bike user, or is able to enjoy one. It is unfortunate that every potential outdoor activity has to be bike related in the perspective of many vocal campaigners.

I am reminded of a community council meeting I attended in Kildare about the installation of a playground and a significant minority at it didn’t understand the desirability of having one, as “all children” had access to sports clubs. In the old phrase, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Del.Monte

Why does every old railway trackbed and peaceful long distance footpath in the country have to be made suitable to accommodate, bikes, buggies and wheelchairs?

Lord Glentoran

Del.Monte wrote: »

Why does every old railway trackbed and peaceful long distance footpath in the country have to be made suitable to accommodate, bikes, buggies and wheelchairs?

Peaceful off road walking and hard surfaces do not mix. Every accessible desire path in the country would be tarmaced over if some vocal campaigners had their way.

Sam Russell

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Yeah - well not everyone is a bike user, or is able to enjoy one. It is unfortunate that every potential outdoor activity has to be bike related in the perspective of many vocal campaigners.

I am reminded of a community council meeting I attended in Kildare about the installation of a playground and a significant minority at it didn’t understand the desirability of having one, as “all children” had access to sports clubs. In the old phrase, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I am not suggesting a 'bike' as the vehicle, but a similar vehicle to the Velorail one but with rubber wheels and steering so they can pass and overtake each other.

The surface does not need to be tarmac but I would think it might be easier for wheeled vehicles.

What happens when two Velorails meet? - or even want to pass each other?

The French use of Velorails would appear to have greater structure than the proposed scheme for Kiltimagh, and so have greater management and infrastructure. How far is the scheme in Mayo - 10 kms?

ezstreet5

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Peaceful off road walking and hard surfaces do not mix. Every accessible desire path in the country would be tarmaced over if some vocal campaigners had their way.

In my younger years, I lived in a city with a 48 km dedicated use, traffic free mixed use (walk, equestrian, cycle) greenway within a scenic corridor (along a river). I was also a cyclist at the time, and spent hundreds of hours after work and on weekends. The greenway was dotted with community parks with parking, picnic, BBQ, and toilet facilities, with large parks at each terminus.

In my mind, these facilities were crucial to the overall success of the greenway. I remember passing through those parks, annoyed (at the time), at all of the children erratically riding their bicycles, tricycles, and rollerblades all over the bicycle trail. Fortunately, once you got 1 km outside of the parks, the spandex cyclists ruled again.

My point being that in order to reap the benefits of a potential "Quiet Man Greenway," these facilities must be built, especially since the route is inland, and dependent on heritage sites and towns much more so than scenery or other outdoor activities. Just a musing....

donvito99

"Lord wrote:

It is unfortunate that every potential outdoor activity has to be bike related in the perspective of many vocal campaigners.

I don't know how you've managed to conflate a disused railway being turned into a greenway with "every potential outdoor activity".

Well I do actually but we won't go there.

donvito99

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Peaceful off road walking and hard surfaces do not mix.

Another extraordinary statement.

Tarmac breaches the peace.

River Suir

donvito99 wrote: »

Another extraordinary statement.

Tarmac breaches the peace.

It might be an “extraordinary statement” to you but as a serious Long distance Walker I don’t want spandex jockeys whizzing past me. The Wicklow Way and other long distance footpaths aren’t tarmacced.

Lord Glentoran

donvito99 wrote: »

Another extraordinary statement.

Tarmac breaches the peace.

I’m sorry you feel offended about a statement.

Del.Monte

River Suir wrote: »

It might be an “extraordinary statement” to you but as a serious Long distance Walker I don’t want spandex jockeys whizzing past me. The Wicklow Way and other long distance footpaths aren’t tarmacced.

YET!

River Suir

River Suir wrote: »

The Wicklow Way and other long distance footpaths aren’t tarmacced.

They are not greenways.

Per the government greenway strategy, to use the greenway classification and receive govt greenway funding, the greenways must be built to a certain standard.

You may not like it but the criteria is clearly laid out - https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/661161-greenway-strategy-guideline-documents/

You want to walk on a road, go ahead, you know what to expect as the criteria for the construction of it is clearly defined.

You want to walk on a greenway, go ahead, you know what to expect as the criteria for the construction of it is clearly defined.

It's all there in black and white.

Now, if you want to walk on an unpaved track, go ahead but f knows what lies ahead for you in terms of surface, gradient, width etc. but that's part of the attraction of that type of route and that's totally fine.

Just like those users of Greenways know that they can rock up with a child's buggy, a wheelchair, a bike, a trishaw, a bakifest, a skateboard, a pair of rollerblades, a pair of running shoes etc etc because part of the attraction is knowing (somewhat) what's in store.

I hope that clears things up

Lord Glentoran

Deleted User wrote: »

Now, if you want to walk on an unpaved track, go ahead but f knows what lies ahead for you in terms of surface, gradient, width etc. but that's part of the attraction of that type of route and that's totally fine.

Just like those users of Greenways know that they can rock up with a child's buggy, a wheelchair, a bike, a trishaw, a bakifest, a skateboard, a pair of rollerblades, a pair of running shoes etc etc because part of the attraction is knowing (somewhat) what's in store.

I hope that clears things up

It does. Greenways are not for long distance walkers. Let the rollerbladers and bikers have their fun on their designated safe space then.

Lord Glentoran

River Suir wrote: »

It might be an “extraordinary statement” to you but as a serious Long distance Walker I don’t want spandex jockeys whizzing past me. The Wicklow Way and other long distance footpaths aren’t tarmacced.

Isn’t it gas when peace breaks out over parallel greenways there’s an outbreak of faux outrage and WUMmery. Ignore list is your friend.

donvito99

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Isn’t it gas when peace breaks out over parallel greenways there’s an outbreak of faux outrage and WUMmery. Ignore list is your friend.

Says your man who can't go for a walk on a bit of a macadam without losing the plot.

westtip

River Suir wrote: »

It certainly would be a win-win situation. There’s been enough toxicity around the Western Rail Corridor debate. Time to collectively move forward positively!

Approaches were made to West on Track years ago, and turned down. Attempts have been made by groups in Mayo to have a shared vision for the 12 km of line the velorail is planned to go on, Mayo coco turned down that opportunity to involve both points of view and include a parallel greenway alongside the velorail. West on Track presented to Sligo coco several years virtually telling them the only use of leisure they would tolerate on the line was a velorail. They were given a short shrift on that attitude. The reason why there is absolutely no future in taking the argument that we want a railway with a greenway alongside at this point in time is that the railway would cost ten twenty or even thirty times more than the greenway, and let's face it building the railway will take another 30 years of campaigning. The arguments remain the same, and they are not "anti-rail" arguments they are purely pragmatic, put a bloody greenway down now and keep campaigning for the railway. It seems from the most recent posts that there will be plenty of room for a greenway when and if the railway is built, and the additional cost of the alongside greenway then would be a minimal part of the overall railway build. it's a load of guff about the current closed railway tracks having any meaning in terms of the future of the railway, the tracks will have to be taken up in any event. So as we always say ad finitum or even ad nauseum, put the greenway down now and keep campaigning for the railway. There is no point in a joint campaign, as the railway is unachievable at the moment....unless the infamous report says its the best idea since sliced white bread, in which case I will gladly eat humble pie and say get on with it. I personally don't think that is going to happen I might be wrong, I have been many times in my life, but you never know. Until we see that report this whole debate is rather pointless really isn't it?

Muckyboots

westtip wrote: »

Approaches were made to West on Track years ago, and turned down. ..... I personally don't think that is going to happen I might be wrong, I have been many times in my life, but you never know. Until we see that report this whole debate is rather pointless really isn't it?

1.You are giving WOT far too much value and credence. 2. Yes, you might be wrong, and if you know Ryan and Green politics and policies- you probably are 3. Waiting for the report is the attitude of a dead fish. Ryan needs to be encouraged to offer a plan that best meets the demands of local people. He has every right to throw the Canney report in the bin (I really hope he does) and offer his own green solution. That might just be rail. If your goal is to improve cycling infrastructure you better start accepting the concept of parallel use on the WRC as it is proffered on other rail lines. Better to be doing this now rather than running up with a begging bowl to perceived victors and generated enemies.

westtip

Muckyboots wrote: »

1.You are giving WOT far too much value and credence. 2. Yes, you might be wrong, and if you know Ryan and Green politics and policies- you probably are 3. Waiting for the report is the attitude of a dead fish. Ryan needs to be encouraged to offer a plan that best meets the demands of local people. He has every right to throw the Canney report in the bin (I really hope he does) and offer his own green solution. That might just be rail. If your goal is to improve cycling infrastructure you better start accepting the concept of parallel use on the WRC as it is proffered on other rail lines. Better to be doing this now rather than running up with a begging bowl to perceived victors and generated enemies.

MB you know me I have no problem with any of what you have said, I'm being purely pragmatic. ER is in a coalition and he cannot get all he wants or the GP desire, and the WRC might be one on the list they cannot get past their colleagues in government. Re a parallel greenway to a railway by all means if it can be achieved, I don't think it can at this point in time so really no point in campaigning for it. Nothing will happen until that report is published, you know that I know it and so does everyone else, I like the dead fish view though!

Muckyboots

westtip wrote: »

Re a parallel greenway to a railway by all means if it can be achieved, I don't think it can at this point

Why not?

Isambard

westtip wrote: »

MB you know me I have no problem with any of what you have said, I'm being purely pragmatic. ER is in a coalition and he cannot get all he wants or the GP desire, and the WRC might be one on the list they cannot get past their colleagues in government. Re a parallel greenway to a railway by all means if it can be achieved, I don't think it can at this point in time so really no point in campaigning for it. Nothing will happen until that report is published, you know that I know it and so does everyone else, I like the dead fish view though!

It's been shown on here that there is plenty of room for both. You want it all though and you are damaging your own Greenway campaign .

Just run the greenway to one side and leave a clear path for the railway next to it, it's not impossible. We all know if you build the Greenway on the existing trackbed, then you will fight tooth and nail to keep it should the chance to rebuild the rail line ever occur.

Muckyboots

westtip wrote: »

I don't think it can at this point in time so really no point in campaigning for it. Nothing will happen until that report is published, you know that I know it and so does everyone else,

A kind of "not up for discussion" slant to that, which I'm sure you don't really mean.

Lord Glentoran

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

It does. Greenways are not for long distance walkers. Let the rollerbladers and bikers have their fun on their designated safe space then.

I've seen plenty of long distance walkers on greenways

whisky_galore

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've seen plenty of long distance walkers on greenways

How do you know they've walked a long distance?

Losty Dublin

whisky_galore wrote: »

How do you know they've walked a long distance?

He checked the stamps on their Starbucks card.

Del.Monte

Deleted User wrote: »

I've seen plenty of long distance walkers on greenways

I can't imagine anything more soul destroying.

donvito99

Del.Monte wrote: »

I can't imagine anything more soul destroying.

Journey time by train from Limerick to Galway?