Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail
Options
Comments
-
-
Deleted User wrote: »I did
After speaking with them, they confirmed one of their biggest constraints is the necessity to avoid as much private land as is possible. This pretty much kills the Ballinasloe to Loughrea route as there is virtually no state owned lands that way. There is a significant amount of state owned lands between Athenry and Ballinasloe though, mostly Coilte & bogs so while they have no route selections announced yet, this will likely be a fore-runner.
They had a very interesting map up showing the ownership of all the various land parcels in the area under review, sorry I didn't take a photo of it.
Also mentioned that running alongside the Dublin-Galway rail line would not be done as it would require too much of a land grab involved due to the second line requirements, additional space for safety, higher spec for fencing etc etc. Would just make it unfeasible
They mentioned that the route would be 3 meters wide so they would be looking at 4-5 meters wide requirements but their preference would be double that to allow for space for fencing, hedging, amenities (benches, water points etc) but where the route needed to go through private land this would likely not be a realistic ask.
They are also very mindful of landowners concerns and 3 different people I spoke with stated that where they had to purchase land, they would do their best to use a route that would mean as little disruption to the landowner as possible i.e. running along field boundaries. This will probably mean a twisty-turny route when using these lands. While I completely understand this approach, lets just hope it doesn't reach silly levels of accommodating landowners which would result in a farcical route
Some interesting comments there Dacor, but it is somewhat disappointing that they are have virtually dismissed the parallel with the existing railway option on the second line issue and height of fence needed FFS what a load of waffle, there is no sign of the double line happening I wish it was but it is simply not happenind! plus taking land under CPO if needs be to make it parallel to the existing route plus an extra railway line is no more disruptive to landowners as it would be akin to a road widening exercise and would not cut a new route through anyones land. If they are having a public consultation process and accepting submissions they should not be telling those that come to the roadshows that "oh that route or option is not happening" if they are what is the bloody point of public consultation - answers on a postcard please. Really I don't mind what route they choose as long as the thing is built, but I cannot see their logic on being so opposed apparently to the parallel to railway idea? can anyone explain it for me? Extra double tracking doesn't do it. excuse about fencing doesn't do it.0 -
Some interesting comments there Dacor, but it is somewhat disappointing that they are have virtually dismissed the parallel with the existing railway option on the second line issue and height of fence needed FFS what a load of waffle, there is no sign of the double line happening I wish it was but it is simply not happenind! plus taking land under CPO if needs be to make it parallel to the existing route plus an extra railway line is no more disruptive to landowners as it would be akin to a road widening exercise and would not cut a new route through anyones land. If they are having a public consultation process and accepting submissions they should not be telling those that come to the roadshows that "oh that route or option is not happening" if they are what is the bloody point of public consultation - answers on a postcard please. Really I don't mind what route they choose as long as the thing is built, but I cannot see their logic on being so opposed apparently to the parallel to railway idea? can anyone explain it for me? Extra double tracking doesn't do it. excuse about fencing doesn't do it.
Easy. Putting a greenway on the railway line kills off the future plan to double the line.0 -
Correct, a greenway that impinges on the unused trackbed will kill any future doubling, but there is nothing stopping them from CPO'ing a strip of land next to the line for the greenway.River Suir wrote: »Easy. Putting a greenway on the railway line kills off the future plan to double the line.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Correct, a greenway that impinges on the unused trackbed will kill any future doubling, but there is nothing stopping them from CPO'ing a strip of land next to the line for the greenway.
Agreed, however the difficulty arises when the line passes under or over bridges. Where does the greenway go then?0 -
Advertisement
-
They're planning to fund the building of a bridge across the Shannon in Athlone, the costs of overbridges or underbridges would be far less on this route, or cheaper still a short path to be level with the road and cross over and also to join/leave the greenway.River Suir wrote: »Agreed, however the difficulty arises when the line passes under or over bridges. Where does the greenway go then?0 -
River Suir wrote: »Easy. Putting a greenway on the railway line kills off the future plan to double the line.
Is that what I said? I don't think so, perhaps it's what you wanted me to say to claim I am antirail. I would welcome double tracking to speed up the trains and allow for fast limited stopping express services but there is nothing to stop a greenway alongside such an idea, as for bridges and pinchpoints, that is why we have people called civic engineers working on these projects, could be easily overcome, the biggest cost involved in this issue and biggest headache in terms of overcoming objections is CPO on new routes through farms, the parallel railway option overcomes this - oh by the way it also means no loss of road frontage, a big issue for landowners still hoping to build one off housing down country boreeens in case parallel with an existing road becomes an issue, parallel with the railway does not involve this potential loss of site values....0 -
A point about the recent granting of €375,000 in funding by the Department of Transport to projects on the Western Rail Trail (300K for Collooney to Bellahy and 75K for the QMG) - given that the Department has had the rail review for more than six months now, how likely is it that the Department would be sanctioning a spend of this amount of money on Greenways if the Department knew that the review was going to recommend a re-establishing of a railway service?
To me, this funding indicates that rail is dead on this corridor for the next couple of decades at least. May as well get on and build a Greenway in the meantime.0 -
Without having spoken to anyone or heard those comments directly, I would assume the desire tonot follow the railway line is more for the entire route. On approach to Galway, there really isn't much option other than going parallel and fairly close to the rail tracks. I assume going alongside it would also be done further out if necessary to bridge a gap between two suitable sections.0
-
-
Advertisement
-
A point about the recent granting of €375,000 in funding by the Department of Transport to projects on the Western Rail Trail (300K for Collooney to Bellahy and 75K for the QMG) - given that the Department has had the rail review for more than six months now, how likely is it that the Department would be sanctioning a spend of this amount of money on Greenways if the Department knew that the review was going to recommend a re-establishing of a railway service?
To me, this funding indicates that rail is dead on this corridor for the next couple of decades at least. May as well get on and build a Greenway in the meantime.
Yep it kind of says it doesn't it.0 -
So let's get this straight, a greenway alongside a railway from Ballinasloe to Athenry is a good idea with broad political consensus (including from some so-called anti-greenway campaigners), but the project drivers have their eye on another route that includes under-visited attractions and under-used hotels elsewhere. Hmmm!! A greenway alongside a disued railway between Athenry and Claremorris is not up for discussion. Stalemate over putting it beyond one particular use will probably keep it beyond use for everyone forever. That's just great..... for Dublin and Waterford.0
-
A point about the recent granting of €375,000 in funding by the Department of Transport to projects on the Western Rail Trail (300K for Collooney to Bellahy and 75K for the QMG) - given that the Department has had the rail review for more than six months now, how likely is it that the Department would be sanctioning a spend of this amount of money on Greenways if the Department knew that the review was going to recommend a re-establishing of a railway service?
To me, this funding indicates that rail is dead on this corridor for the next couple of decades at least. May as well get on and build a Greenway in the meantime.
I wouldn't think so. A study should have been conducted years ago, and should still be done regardless of what the WRC report says to give people both viewpoints and not just anecdotal ideas. €75k from a DTT&S budget of €2.7bn (2019) isnt a lot lets be honest.
Here's a counter argument based on the same logic. Eamon O'Cuiv (in favour of rail) made a public request for the report to be released last week. If the details of the report are as well known as some posters on this forum would have you believe then why would O'Cuiv make the request - maybe he knows that the report favours pursuit of the next phase? In the end no, we're just speculating without any real basis.Muckyboots wrote: »So let's get this straight, a greenway alongside a railway from Ballinasloe to Athenry is a good idea with broad political consensus (including from some so-called anti-greenway campaigners), but the project drivers have their eye on another route that includes under-visited attractions and under-used hotels elsewhere. Hmmm!! A greenway alongside a disued railway between Athenry and Claremorris is not up for discussion. Stalemate over putting it beyond one particular use will probably keep it beyond use for everyone forever. That's just great..... for Dublin and Waterford.
I think a few posters here (myself included) have stated they'd be all for having both - there may be a few who wouldnt. In any case I don't think the discussion has been had in any official capacity (local/national authorities).0 -
Muckyboots wrote: »So let's get this straight, a greenway alongside a railway from Ballinasloe to Athenry is a good idea with broad political consensus (including from some so-called anti-greenway campaigners), but the project drivers have their eye on another route that includes under-visited attractions and under-used hotels elsewhere. Hmmm!! A greenway alongside a disued railway between Athenry and Claremorris is not up for discussion. Stalemate over putting it beyond one particular use will probably keep it beyond use for everyone forever. That's just great..... for Dublin and Waterford.
I for one am completely opposed to having a greenway along the railway between Ballinasloe and Athenry as I fear it would interfere with the proposed doubling of the line. For the same reasons I support a greenway between Athenry and Sligo as long as it does not use the railway line.
I support greenways but not where they are used to stop or hinder railway expansion...we should actively CPO land for Greenways and plan where they should run rather than taking the lazy option of seizing railways.0 -
River Suir wrote: »I for one am completely opposed to having a greenway along the railway between Ballinasloe and Athenry as I fear it would interfere with the proposed doubling of the line. For the same reasons I support a greenway between Athenry and Sligo as long as it does not use the railway line.
I support greenways but not where they are used to stop or hinder railway expansion...we should actively CPO land for Greenways and plan where they should run rather than taking the lazy option of seizing railways.
"opposed to"..." support but" "intefere with". Stale, mate.0 -
River Suir wrote: »I for one am completely opposed to having a greenway along the railway between Ballinasloe and Athenry as I fear it would interfere with the proposed doubling of the line. For the same reasons I support a greenway between Athenry and Sligo as long as it does not use the railway line.
Yep that is why people have said the width of the strip of land owned by Irish Rail can be widened to allow for any track doubling and to prevent the need to cut through farmland to create another contentious route. So presume you agree with that idea andRiver Suir wrote: »I support greenways but not where they are used to stop or hinder railway expansion...we should actively CPO land for Greenways and plan where they should run rather than taking the lazy option of seizing railways.
Nobody is seizing a railway - I presume this a reference to the closed railway, which is falling into the bog at one stage, has had a critical bridge taken down at another place and the railway line has been closed for decades and is now open for squatting along its route. The Railway from Athenry to Milltown does not exist, the land the old railtracks - no longer fit for purpose - does exist and needs to be protected. The license Irish Rail would insist on effectively protects the route as a potential railway forever. A greenway on the route is not seizing a railway it is protecting the potential for a railway in the future. I guess after 33 posts from River Suir we can agree to differ in view. Indeed as MB says stalemate but that suits certain lobby groups.0 -
I don't think that your counter argument refutes what I said.intellectual dosser wrote: »I wouldn't think so. A study should have been conducted years ago, and should still be done regardless of what the WRC report says to give people both viewpoints and not just anecdotal ideas. €75k from a DTT&S budget of €2.7bn (2019) isnt a lot lets be honest.
Here's a counter argument based on the same logic. Eamon O'Cuiv (in favour of rail) made a public request for the report to be released last week. If the details of the report are as well known as some posters on this forum would have you believe then why would O'Cuiv make the request - maybe he knows that the report favours pursuit of the next phase? In the end no, we're just speculating without any real basis.
What I said was that the Rail Review, submitted more than six months ago to the Department, is presumably known to the Department (unless they haven't gotten around to reading it). So if the Department knows what is in it, and if what is in it recommends re-establishing a rail service, it would be a pretty scandalous waste of €375,000 for the Department to sanction Greenway-related work on the route.
The report was not delivered to Eamonn O'Cuiv and there is no indication that he knows anything more than anyone here about what is in it.0 -
I don't think that your counter argument refutes what I said.
What I said was that the Rail Review, submitted more than six months ago to the Department, is presumably known to the Department (unless they haven't gotten around to reading it). So if the Department knows what is in it, and if what is in it recommends re-establishing a rail service, it would be a pretty scandalous waste of €375,000 for the Department to sanction Greenway-related work on the route.
Doesn't the scope of the Financial/Economic Appraisal prepared by EY-DKM only include from Athenry to Claremorris? And doesn't the €300k granted to Sligo Council only include planning from Charlestown to Collooney? So there is no real overlap except for the €75k given to Galway Co. Council, but even that will (in theory) discuss a side-by-side option, which it should. So I don't see anything rising to the level of a scandal here.0 -
Doesn't the scope of the Financial/Economic Appraisal prepared by EY-DKM only include from Athenry to Claremorris? And doesn't the €300k granted to Sligo Council only include planning from Charlestown to Collooney? So there is no real overlap except for the €75k given to Galway Co. Council, but even that will (in theory) discuss a side-by-side option, which it should. So I don't see anything rising to the level of a scandal here.
I don't know about that. The RSES say the railway is still an objective all the way to Sligo, but also identifies the route as a greenway, Sligo coco have given up on any hope of the railway and completely support the greenway, Mayococo have the velorail in tow even though nothing appears to have happened and lets face it even having a feasibility study on Athenry- Milltown is enough to send west on track into a spin. All the signs are there that the Rail report has already kicked the railway into touch we just need official confirmation, it is not so much a scandal it is the department basically saying lets get on with the feasibility study because we know full well what is actually going to happen, and it is not a railway. Remember the department officials who recommended the 75K for the greenway study are the same ones who wrote the QMG into the first draft Greenway strategy.... which Canney and Ross took out. All we are seeing here is the long slow strangulaton of the western rail corridor as a concept.0 -
Doesn't the scope of the Financial/Economic Appraisal prepared by EY-DKM only include from Athenry to Claremorris? And doesn't the €300k granted to Sligo Council only include planning from Charlestown to Collooney? So there is no real overlap except for the €75k given to Galway Co. Council, but even that will (in theory) discuss a side-by-side option, which it should. So I don't see anything rising to the level of a scandal here.
I think you are fully correct in this assesment. Side by side will be part of the feasibility study. It may prove substantially more expensive than "on". It may not. We will find out one way or another. If it aligns everyone up politically in Galway Co Co (it's not going to happen without this) and a Minister is willing to stump up the makes to keep everyone happy - what's the problem?0 -
Advertisement
-
Muckyboots wrote: »I think you are fully correct in this assesment. Side by side will be part of the feasibility study. It may prove substantially more expensive than "on". It may not. We will find out one way or another. If it aligns everyone up politically in Galway Co Co (it's not going to happen without this) and a Minister is willing to stump up the makes to keep everyone happy - what's the problem?
Indeed MB. The sligo feasibility said alongside was feasible but a lot more expensive, they have taken the pragmatic view and the tracks will come up. At this stage if the Galway report for QMG shows both on and alongside are feasible but one alongside is a lot more expensive, I really don't care! If we are given the money and can walk/cycle alongside the old rustheap the likes of some of the cllrs who still favour the railway can continue with their campaign and the benefits of the alongside greenway can be enjoyed by everyone for the next century until the railway just rusts away. Frankly my dear I couldn't give a dam if it is on or alongside as long as its built.0 -
I don't know about that. The RSES say the railway is still an objective all the way to Sligo, but also identifies the route as a greenway, Sligo coco have given up on any hope of the railway and completely support the greenway, Mayococo have the velorail in tow even though nothing appears to have happened and lets face it even having a feasibility study on Athenry- Milltown is enough to send west on track into a spin. All the signs are there that the Rail report has already kicked the railway into touch we just need official confirmation, it is not so much a scandal it is the department basically saying lets get on with the feasibility study because we know full well what is actually going to happen, and it is not a railway. Remember the department officials who recommended the 75K for the greenway study are the same ones who wrote the QMG into the first draft Greenway strategy.... which Canney and Ross took out. All we are seeing here is the long slow strangulaton of the western rail corridor as a concept.
I think you're trying to read novels between the lines. We simply don't know what will happen (if anything), and it's entirely likely that the decision-makers don't know yet either. It's probably time to adjust the stale narrative (I hate that word) away from Sean Canney and Shane Ross, and for that matter, Ciaran Cannon, Anne Rabbitte, Marian Harkain, or any other TD. Or really any individual politician at any level. Local Authorities will have nearly equal zero influence, but may tend to favour a greenway, since that is under their purview (whereas railways are not). Also, West on Track have little influence either. And perhaps this is all a positive - we still want to be a government of laws and not of men, don't we? I would also suggest the idea that a delayed release of a rail financial/economic appraisal is not preventing any greenway, and may not be indicative of anything at all. With my own bias, I tend to think (hope) it will be released concurrently with an announcement for funding for reactivation of rail service to Tuam or Claremorris, perhaps as a "regional development" counterbalance to rail projects funded in the Dublin area.0 -
Indeed, but once you accept that Charlestown to Collooney can go ahead, then you have destroyed the notion of a "Western Rail Corridor" and the fanciful dreams of a line from Galway to Derry on the "traditional" alignment.doesn't the €300k granted to Sligo Council only include planning from Charlestown to Collooney?
Once Collooney to Charlestown goes, then there is no point in objecting to Claremorris to Charlestown since no service can run to Collooney then anyway. And when the line north of Claremorris goes, south of Claremorris will begin to look a whole lot different.
WOT are fighting rearguard on this all the time. First it had to be Athenry to Collooney, then Athenry to Claremorris, now even Athenry to Tuam seems to be acceptable to them.
... then we know what's going to happen. The existing alignment will not be widened to accommodate an alongside, leaving a Greenway on the existing alignment as the only realistic alternative to rusting rail.if the Galway report for QMG shows both on and alongside are feasible but ... alongside is a lot more expensive ...0 -
I tend to think (hope) it will be released concurrently with an announcement for funding for reactivation of rail service to Tuam or Claremorris, perhaps as a "regional development" counterbalance to rail projects funded in the Dublin area.
I too hope that when the report is finally "released" there will by a concurrent announcement of funding for something. I fear though that the now mythical and ridiculous provenance being given to this report, a report that was explicitly tasked to deliver a business case for rail lest we forget, has greatly over-exaggerated its importance. Behold the report.... meanwhile...... then, another report......meanwhile......pushing up ragworth.0 -
I wonder if anyone's looked into the cost of providing a greenway, and building the railway alongside in the future. I doubt the cost would be a lot more if some specific measures were taken such as a cheaper bike bridge alongside any one-track rail bridges on the route.Indeed MB. The sligo feasibility said alongside was feasible but a lot more expensive, they have taken the pragmatic view and the tracks will come up. At this stage if the Galway report for QMG shows both on and alongside are feasible but one alongside is a lot more expensive, I really don't care! If we are given the money and can walk/cycle alongside the old rustheap the likes of some of the cllrs who still favour the railway can continue with their campaign and the benefits of the alongside greenway can be enjoyed by everyone for the next century until the railway just rusts away. Frankly my dear I couldn't give a dam if it is on or alongside as long as its built.0 -
Yep that is why people have said the width of the strip of land owned by Irish Rail can be widened to allow for any track doubling and to prevent the need to cut through farmland to create another contentious route. So presume you agree with that idea and
Nobody is seizing a railway - I presume this a reference to the closed railway, which is falling into the bog at one stage, has had a critical bridge taken down at another place and the railway line has been closed for decades and is now open for squatting along its route. The Railway from Athenry to Milltown does not exist, the land the old railtracks - no longer fit for purpose - does exist and needs to be protected. The license Irish Rail would insist on effectively protects the route as a potential railway forever. A greenway on the route is not seizing a railway it is protecting the potential for a railway in the future. I guess after 33 posts from River Suir we can agree to differ in view. Indeed as MB says stalemate but that suits certain lobby groups.
River Suir might have 34 posts but I (the person who is writing this post) have been posting on boards since the Cloud days. So don’t give me your arrogant lectures on who is entitled to say what.0 -
River Suir wrote: »River Suir might have 34 posts but I (the person who is writing this post) have been posting on boards since the Cloud days. So don’t give me your arrogant lectures on who is entitled to say what.
Of course I was aware you were trolling under a different identity, poor form doing that old chap, not cricket and all that, never hidden my identity no point really, as for giving you arrogant lectures. oh please don't make me laugh; not really my old boy, just responding in a rational way to challenge your views, Isn't that the point of this little chuckle farm? As far as I am aware I did not challenge your entitlement to say whatever you want, but lets not make it personal eh? You are clearly angry about something, go out for a walk and scream loudly, no one listens, like us lot here, nobody is actually listening. So don't take it too seriously me old cocker spaniel.0 -
Muckyboots wrote: »I too hope that when the report is finally "released" there will by a concurrent announcement of funding for something. I fear though that the now mythical and ridiculous provenance being given to this report, a report that was explicitly tasked to deliver a business case for rail lest we forget, has greatly over-exaggerated its importance. Behold the report.... meanwhile...... then, another report......meanwhile......pushing up ragworth.
MB not sure about that, wasn't it asked to examine the business case, not to deliver a business case, would have to go back to the terms of reference, I agree about the mythical provenance surrounding this report, but it was used as the excuse to block any progress on QMG for at least three years in galway coco by the cllrs well known to your goodself; and false delivery dates for the report were used endlessly to delay the tiniest progress QMG might make....... and it has been written in tablets of stone as having meaning in the Regional Plans not to mention Ireland 2040. So we are kind of stuck with it. My view has always been if it says the Railway is the best idea since sliced bread then get on with it; who knows despite what many of us say including myself it may have come to this conclusion, it is more likely to be the great fudge of what if maybe you never know lets kick the can another ten years..... I think the point is we are sick of this pussyfooting around at this stage. Publish the damn thing.0 -
Can everyone who is doing so please stop acting like children? Ie stop commenting on other people and focus on what is being said and not who is saying it.
— Moderator0 -
Advertisement
-
I tend to think (hope) it will be released concurrently with an announcement for funding for reactivation of rail service to Tuam or Claremorris, perhaps as a "regional development" counterbalance to rail projects funded in the Dublin area.
But if it is released and there is no conclusive argument to say the railway should be built how can it be sanctioned on the they have the Luas up in Dublin argument. That is not a rational to build a railway, as well you know EZ.
Imagine the scenario> Here is a report that we have been waiting for that says at best there is a luke warm argument to build this railway, and because they have the Luas up in Dublin we are going to go ahead with the project.
EZ you me and the dogs on street know this is not going to happen (I think!)0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement