Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail

westtip

For Lord Glentoran, re your comments recently on press releases. They work with coverage like this.

Lord Glentoran

westtip wrote: »

For Lord Glentoran, re your comments recently on press releases. They work with coverage like this.

I’ve written press releases. Local papers love them because they fill space that they don’t have to themselves.

serfboard

end of the road wrote: »

simply requesting it would in all likely hood not have been enough, they would have had to offer an incentive for the provider to spend the money deviating the pipe from their original plan.

Of course.

But would the gas have come to Tuam without Valeo requesting it? No, is the answer.

westtip

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

I’ve written press releases. Local papers love them because they fill space that they don’t have to themselves.

Very true, which is why they are such a good vehicle to use.

L1011

serfboard wrote: »

Indeed that is the case where a pipeline exists, but there is a little more to it than that in the case of Tuam. The original plan for the Gas pipeline was for it to bypass Tuam and not to come into the town at all.

IIRC, Valeo asked for a diversion, so that the Gas pipeline would actually be brought into the town to supply their factory.

There was no Longford pipeline at all, so realistically there is no difference. Valeo are not magic; anyone that will consume lots of gas will get a pipeline to them.

Muckyboots

L1011 wrote: »

There was no Longford pipeline at all, so realistically there is no difference. Valeo are not magic; anyone that will consume lots of gas will get a pipeline to them.

Just to reference this back to the WRC, the point is that if a substantial FDI provider seeks specific infrastructure they tend to receive it. None of FDIs on the WRC have sought rail infrastructure, passenger or frieght. They did request cycling infrastructure and it was delivered.

end of the road

Muckyboots wrote: »

Just to reference this back to the WRC, the point is that if a substantial FDI provider seeks specific infrastructure they tend to receive it. None of FDIs on the WRC have sought rail infrastructure, passenger or frieght. They did request cycling infrastructure and it was delivered.

they don't get it because they simply request it however.

Muckyboots

end of the road wrote: »

they don't get it because they simply request it however.

They usually do- or did, to be fair.

Sam Russell

Isambard wrote: »

yes everything went by rail pre motor vehicle.

They had canals. Very good for stout.

serfboard

L1011 wrote: »

There was no Longford pipeline at all, so realistically there is no difference. Valeo are not magic; anyone that will consume lots of gas will get a pipeline to them.

Of course Valeo are not magic. Any large multinational making the same request would have fit the bill. Some people seem to be assuming that I am suggesting that only Valeo could have done it. I did not, and I am not.

But, does a large multinational automatically get a pipeline diverted to them simply by being a large multinational? No, they do not. They have to request it first.

And if a large multinational, called, for example, Valeo, does not request a gas pipeline diversion, then it will not be done. Therefore, if Valeo had not requested it, it would not have happened.

intellectual dosser

Infrastructure in Ireland does not only get built if multi-nationals request it.

I don't get the point of this current discussion.

L1011

serfboard wrote: »

Of course Valeo are not magic. Any large multinational making the same request would have fit the bill. Some people seem to be assuming that I am suggesting that only Valeo could have done it. I did not, and I am not.

But, does a large multinational automatically get a pipeline diverted to them simply by being a large multinational? No, they do not. They have to request it first.

And if a large multinational, called, for example, Valeo, does not request a gas pipeline diversion, then it will not be done. Therefore, if Valeo had not requested it, it would not have happened.

I'm really unsure what on earth your point is at this stage.

Any large potential gas consumer gets connected, multinational or not

intellectual dosser

https://www.con-telegraph.ie/2020/05/09/mayo-td-calls-for-fast-tracking-of-rural-infrastructure-in-recovery-drive/

Sinn Fein re-iterating their desire for the WRC completion.

They won the most seats in the last election yet the Government most likely to form will almost certainly favour a greenway.

serfboard

L1011 wrote: »

Any large potential gas consumer gets connected, multinational or not

Without asking for it?

Muckyboots

intellectual dosser wrote: »

https://www.con-telegraph.ie/2020/05/09/mayo-td-calls-for-fast-tracking-of-rural-infrastructure-in-recovery-drive/

Sinn Fein re-iterating their desire for the WRC completion.

They won the most seats in the last election yet the Government most likely to form will almost certainly favour a greenway.

So we won't get our 32 County Nationalist Worker's Socialist Republic either?? ...darn.

marno21

Sinn Fein will be in favour of it until they have to sit down with civil servants who teach them the lesson of what money is and how it works. You can't be in favour of everything in a country with large debt burden, a barely balanced budget (pre-covid) and long term tax sustainability questions.

It's very easy to be pro-WRC with no Government experience hurling from the ditch.

intellectual dosser

marno21 wrote: »

Sinn Fein will be in favour of it until they have to sit down with civil servants who teach them the lesson of what money is and how it works. You can't be in favour of everything in a country with large debt burden, a barely balanced budget (pre-covid) and long term tax sustainability questions.

It's very easy to be pro-WRC with no Government experience hurling from the ditch.

I would agree with you.

However I feel I should state to all thread contributors that I didn't mean to substitute the Valeo debate for a political one

The Green Party are likely to be part of the next Government regardless of who their partners are. Going off their prospectus' it looks like e-vehicles and cycling are their approaches to transport problems. I think most people on both sides of this discussion would probably grit their teeth and go along with a decision, if one was actually made. So if its going to be Greenway, bring it on.

Hotblack Desiato

intellectual dosser wrote: »

Sinn Fein re-iterating their desire for the WRC completion.

They won the most seats in the last election

They won the second largest number of seats in the last election.

The spin must really be working!

intellectual dosser

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They won the second largest number of seats in the last election.

The spin must really be working!

Ooops!

I guess so!

ShaneC1600

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They won the second largest number of seats in the last election.

The spin must really be working!

Actually they "won" the joint highest number of seats but hey whos counting!
Ceann Comhairle automatically returned so FF didn't "win" that one.
Or spin it another way, SF did have the highest percentage of first preference votes!

westtip

intellectual dosser wrote: »

https://www.con-telegraph.ie/2020/05/09/mayo-td-calls-for-fast-tracking-of-rural-infrastructure-in-recovery-drive/

Sinn Fein re-iterating their desire for the WRC completion.

They won the most seats in the last election yet the Government most likely to form will almost certainly favour a greenway.

She clearly doesn't realise the whole thing hinges on the contents of the top secret report into the WRC, if she was properly up to speed on the subject she would be yelling from the rooftops asking for the report, instead she is following the party line in the west as dictated by Gerry "not up for discussion" Murray and Matt " we will get the money from Europe" Carthy. Funny how silent the SF/WOT campaign is in wanting to see that report, I remember the day it was announced I recall the WOT spokesperson in Claremorris saying he welcomed the report and was sure it would come up with a confident recommendation to build the railway, none of us have seen it, it is being kept from us, if it says build the railway get on with it, if it doesn't then lets all move on .....on our bikes.:D

Lord Glentoran

westtip wrote: »

SF/WOT

Very “informative”.

westtip

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Very “informative”.

Ah sure LG where has your sense of humour gone, thought you might pick up on the "WOT spokesperson" mind you from what I recall he truly would be the SF/WOT spokesperson. The whole thing is safe as houses at this stage to be in the PFG to ensure nothing happens.

Sligo eye

westtip wrote: »

Ah sure LG where has your sense of humour gone, thought you might pick up on the "WOT spokesperson" mind you from what I recall he truly would be the SF/WOT spokesperson. The whole thing is safe as houses at this stage to be in the PFG to ensure nothing happens.

Perhaps 30 years ago there would be some point in using the “SF” bogey man thing as a weapon against whatever. At this stage (and I’m speaking as someone who is not a SF supporter) relying on a “oh but SF” attack is a bit like trying to fire a gun loaded with paper bullets. A lot of bang but no impact.

donvito99

Sligo eye wrote: »

A lot of bang but no impact.

A bit like Sinn Fein

end of the road

donvito99 wrote: »

A bit like Sinn Fein

a substantial amount of the electorate would disagree with you.

donvito99

end of the road wrote: »

a substantial amount of the electorate would disagree with you.

I don't think SF voters would. The left 'won' the election and SF organised celebratory public meetings up and down the country (the bang)... and can't form a Government (the impact).

westtip

Sligo eye wrote: »

Perhaps 30 years ago there would be some point in using the “SF” bogey man thing as a weapon against whatever. At this stage (and I’m speaking as someone who is not a SF supporter) relying on a “oh but SF” attack is a bit like trying to fire a gun loaded with paper bullets. A lot of bang but no impact.

Ah now Shligo don't ya know da history of this thread and the spoofing around on SF/WOT, not suggesting SF is the bogey man but they are the only party that seems to have a fixation with this West on Track stuff, sure even the Greens dropped the WRC from their manifesto as a named project in both 2016 manifesto and the more recent one in January. Did you not know that, the only party that listed the WRC in their election manifesto was SF, therefore SF/WOT is perfectly legitimate to use in that context, and when you consider it is only SF that try and drive the WOT agenda with public meetings about spoof money from Europe, I am afraid Shligo Aye, the association of SF/WOT is perfectly explainable.

Sligo eye

westtip wrote: »

Ah now Shligo don't ya know da history of this thread and the spoofing around on SF/WOT, not suggesting SF is the bogey man but they are the only party that seems to have a fixation with this West on Track stuff, sure even the Greens dropped the WRC from their manifesto as a named project in both 2016 manifesto and the more recent one in January. Did you not know that, the only party that listed the WRC in their election manifesto was SF, therefore SF/WOT is perfectly legitimate to use in that context, and when you consider it is only SF that try and drive the WOT agenda with public meetings about spoof money from Europe, I am afraid Shligo Aye, the association of SF/WOT is perfectly explainable.

I’m sure you are trying to make a point there with the funny spellings etc but what that point is even St Brendan himself the patron saint of Commuting and Transport would struggle to understand what it is.

donvito99

Sligo eye wrote: »

I’m sure you are trying to make a point there with the funny spellings etc but what that point is even St Brendan himself the patron saint of Commuting and Transport would struggle to understand what it is.

Pot calling kettle black.

He's saying - quite understandably - that as SF is now the only party pushing the expansion of the WRC, it is fair to associate them with the project, not as bogey men but as proponents.