eastwest wrote: » Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Ah here. Electrification costs a fortune, it's very much worth it on busy lines, but crazy on ones which are barely used. You touch on an issue here that is important. The WRC extension can effectively only be built if it attracts European funding, and this albeit unlikely scenario can only come to pass if the project is electrified. However the only way that a political decision to open a line north of Athenry can ever be made is if it can use some old rolling stock from replacements on busier lines, so in effect it can only happen in the context of full electrification nationally. So the railway campaigners seeking to have trains on this closed line should really start with a campaign to electrify the entire network. It's a great pity the energy of the WOT campaign wasn't focussed on the bigger picture for rail travel on a small island. High speed electric connectivity to Dublin, more double tracking to allow for high speed non stop services point to point or at least with minimal stops. New modern rail alignments that allow high speed service. The focus on re-opening a winding rural one track line from Claremorris to Galway using C19th century infrastructure patched up is their ultimate weakness, Asking for not much and getting nothing. Big picture. They have never seen it.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Ah here. Electrification costs a fortune, it's very much worth it on busy lines, but crazy on ones which are barely used. You touch on an issue here that is important. The WRC extension can effectively only be built if it attracts European funding, and this albeit unlikely scenario can only come to pass if the project is electrified. However the only way that a political decision to open a line north of Athenry can ever be made is if it can use some old rolling stock from replacements on busier lines, so in effect it can only happen in the context of full electrification nationally. So the railway campaigners seeking to have trains on this closed line should really start with a campaign to electrify the entire network.
eastwest wrote: » You touch on an issue here that is important. The WRC extension can effectively only be built if it attracts European funding, and this albeit unlikely scenario can only come to pass if the project is electrified. However the only way that a political decision to open a line north of Athenry can ever be made is if it can use some old rolling stock from replacements on busier lines, so in effect it can only happen in the context of full electrification nationally. So the railway campaigners seeking to have trains on this closed line should really start with a campaign to electrify the entire network.
end of the road wrote: » where are you getting all of this from. 1. that europe will only give funding to lines if it is planned to have them electrified from the start. 2. the politicians will only reopen a line north of athenry if it is electrified and they can use second hand stock, when they will have diesel stock coming free in the next number of years but no electric stock.
eastwest wrote: » Exactly.
cdaly_ wrote: » Don't forget also that electric private cars are still emitting greenhouse gases, just not on the roadside. Instead the emissions are back at the generating station.
serfboard wrote: » Nothing like the same levels, and besides the world is switching massively to renewably-generated electricity, and not just for reasons of climate change - it's now cheaper too, plus it provides better energy security than oil or gas.
end of the road wrote: » exactly what? those are the claims you made, i am asking you where you heard them and where you got your information from.
magicbastarder wrote: » electric cars are still a colossal waste of electricity.
westtip wrote: » Might well be the case but anyone I know who has one loves being able to drive around for a fraction of costs borne by fossil fuel motorists.
westtip wrote: » eastwest wrote: » It's a great pity the energy of the WOT campaign wasn't focussed on the bigger picture for rail travel on a small island. High speed electric connectivity to Dublin, more double tracking to allow for high speed non stop services point to point or at least with minimal stops. New modern rail alignments that allow high speed service. The focus on re-opening a winding rural one track line from Claremorris to Galway using C19th century infrastructure patched up is their ultimate weakness, Asking for not much and getting nothing. Big picture. They have never seen it. A fair point. Double tracking from GY to Athenry is necessary, yes.
eastwest wrote: » It's a great pity the energy of the WOT campaign wasn't focussed on the bigger picture for rail travel on a small island. High speed electric connectivity to Dublin, more double tracking to allow for high speed non stop services point to point or at least with minimal stops. New modern rail alignments that allow high speed service. The focus on re-opening a winding rural one track line from Claremorris to Galway using C19th century infrastructure patched up is their ultimate weakness, Asking for not much and getting nothing. Big picture. They have never seen it.
Geuze wrote: » westtip wrote: » A fair point. Double tracking from GY to Athenry is necessary, yes. With an alongside greenway. This would greatly improve the argument for an extension on to Tuam (of both greenway and rail). The ripple effect is the most poweful force in nature.
westtip wrote: » A fair point. Double tracking from GY to Athenry is necessary, yes.
Muckyboots wrote: » Geuze wrote: » With an alongside greenway. This would greatly improve the argument for an extension on to Tuam (of both greenway and rail). The ripple effect is the most poweful force in nature. Yes. I have been told that the GY to Athenry line was originally double-tracked. Is that true? If so, then adding a second track should not involve any/much land acquisition? Could two tracks and a greenway fit in? Given climate change, the requirement for huge modal change across Ireland, we need to increase IE pax from 48m to 100m+.
Geuze wrote: » With an alongside greenway. This would greatly improve the argument for an extension on to Tuam (of both greenway and rail). The ripple effect is the most poweful force in nature.
Geuze wrote: » Muckyboots wrote: » Yes. I have been told that the GY to Athenry line was originally double-tracked. Is that true? If so, then adding a second track should not involve any/much land acquisition? Could two tracks and a greenway fit in? Given climate change, the requirement for huge modal change across Ireland, we need to increase IT pax from 48m to 100m+. The whole Galway line to Dublin was built double tracked but was largely singled by the end of the 1930s. Building a parallel greenway alongside a railway line has about as much appeal as building a greenway next to a road. Pointless as there is a plan to build an off road greenway to Galway already in place.
Muckyboots wrote: » Yes. I have been told that the GY to Athenry line was originally double-tracked. Is that true? If so, then adding a second track should not involve any/much land acquisition? Could two tracks and a greenway fit in? Given climate change, the requirement for huge modal change across Ireland, we need to increase IT pax from 48m to 100m+.
Sligo eye wrote: » Geuze wrote: » Building a parallel greenway alongside a railway line has about as much appeal as building a greenway next to a road. . Really, then ask these people they seem to quite like it, never make assumptions about what appeals to others, there are plenty of examples of walking/cycling paths alongside existing railway that actually appeal to a lot of people who want to walk/cycle on a traffic free environment.Attachment not found.
Geuze wrote: » Building a parallel greenway alongside a railway line has about as much appeal as building a greenway next to a road. .
Geuze wrote: » Muckyboots wrote: » Yes. I have been told that the GY to Athenry line was originally double-tracked. Is that true? If so, then adding a second track should not involve any/much land acquisition? Could two tracks and a greenway fit in? Given climate change, the requirement for huge modal change across Ireland, we need to increase IE pax from 48m to 100m+. Double tracking is definitely possible, there will be some civil works with bridges, embankments and cuttings but no land acquisition as was stated earlier the profile was built for double track. Definitely no room for a greenway and double track. Don't think I'd fancy a greenway along a live railway though. Palisade fence on one side and crossings only at bridges and existing level crossings. That would seem very restrictive.
Muckyboots wrote: » Yes. I have been told that the GY to Athenry line was originally double-tracked. Is that true? If so, then adding a second track should not involve any/much land acquisition? Could two tracks and a greenway fit in? Given climate change, the requirement for huge modal change across Ireland, we need to increase IE pax from 48m to 100m+.
westtip wrote: » Not double checked it but I have a feeling it is part of the conditions of TEN-T that any new railway lines have to be electrified and I heard some SF/WOT MEP going on about it sometime in the last 18 months, Matt Carthy was having a whinge about it in regard to the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), there is a link of his comments here, about how SF/WOT still whitter on about the Western Rail Corridor as if it is going to be the saviour of the West.https://www.con-telegraph.ie/news/roundup/articles/2019/03/29/4171738-government-accused-of-blocking-eu-funding-for-western-rail-corridor/ So yes I think EW is right, the edict is that any grants for new railway lines is conditional on them being electrified. I might be wrong that is always a possibilty but go check it out, I think that is where EW has got it from .
monument wrote: » Posters have been warned on this before -- cut out the SF/WOT nonsense. -- mod [/quote
Sligo eye wrote: » monument wrote: » Posters have been warned on this before -- cut out the SF/WOT nonsense. -- mod [/quote Matt Carthy is a SF MEP who lobby's for WOT in Europe. That's a fact is it not?
JJJackal wrote: » I was on the Galway to Dublin train last week. I was delayed about 40 minutes. We spent most of the 40 waiting for a train going the opposite way to pass us by as a single track. The Galway Dublin train will be underused until its faster and more reliable. The bus is cheaper and gets u to O'Connell street mostly on time every time. With the train you still have to get a second mode of transport to O'Connell street
ShaneC1600 wrote: » Geuze wrote: » Double tracking is definitely possible, there will be some civil works with bridges, embankments and cuttings but no land acquisition as was stated earlier the profile was built for double track. Definitely no room for a greenway and double track. Don't think I'd fancy a greenway along a live railway though. Palisade fence on one side and crossings only at bridges and existing level crossings. That would seem very restrictive. If a railway route in public ownership is wide enough to accomodate a greenway alongside that would be a perfectly acceptable solution whether you "fancy it" or not. A train is only likely to pass - on any Irish Mainline track beyond the Pale - at most once every 40 minutes to one hour or so and on a summers evening as we don't have trains after 8.00 pm offering a service on our mainline tracks it would be once every two hours, so please, like others, don't assume that a greenway alongside an existing railway would have no appeal, in fact it makes a lot of common sense to utilise the single strip of land in public ownership, what's more there is no need for big ugly pallisade fencing, those kind of fences are completely over the top. Just look at the photo's I have posted on these kind of paths they have in the UK, three lengths of wire running between concrete poles every 20 yards or so. The only thing from stopping it from happening is the fear it might actually be highly successful, it is certainly a preferable option to a greenway alongside a busy N. road. Once again please look at the photo in a post a few back above this one do you see marauding lunatics running onto the railway line? or do we behave differently from the seemingly harmless folk in this photo simply walking and cycling along a footpath/cyclepath that happens to run parallel with a railway? Get a grip on reality this would work in Ireland just as it does in other countries, people would welcome it.
Geuze wrote: » Double tracking is definitely possible, there will be some civil works with bridges, embankments and cuttings but no land acquisition as was stated earlier the profile was built for double track. Definitely no room for a greenway and double track. Don't think I'd fancy a greenway along a live railway though. Palisade fence on one side and crossings only at bridges and existing level crossings. That would seem very restrictive.
westtip wrote: » ShaneC1600 wrote: » If a railway route in public ownership is wide enough to accomodate a greenway alongside that would be a perfectly acceptable solution whether you "fancy it" or not. A train is only likely to pass - on any Irish Mainline track beyond the Pale - at most once every 40 minutes to one hour or so and on a summers evening as we don't have trains after 8.00 pm offering a service on our mainline tracks it would be once every two hours, so please, like others, don't assume that a greenway alongside an existing railway would have no appeal, in fact it makes a lot of common sense to utilise the single strip of land in public ownership, what's more there is no need for big ugly pallisade fencing, those kind of fences are completely over the top. Just look at the photo's I have posted on these kind of paths they have in the UK, three lengths of wire running between concrete poles every 20 yards or so. The only thing from stopping it from happening is the fear it might actually be highly successful, it is certainly a preferable option to a greenway alongside a busy N. road. Once again please look at the photo in a post a few back above this one do you see marauding lunatics running onto the railway line? or do we behave differently from the seemingly harmless folk in this photo simply walking and cycling along a footpath/cyclepath that happens to run parallel with a railway? Get a grip on reality this would work in Ireland just as it does in other countries, people would welcome it. "Perfectly acceptable solution to you" Are you the only one allowed an opinion here? "I wouldn't fancy it" is my opinion. Have you ever stood within 2m of a train travelling at 100mph? I have and I would want a better cordon between my kids and the train but again thats my opinion. (Btw I know that section is not 100mph) And it doesn't make sense just because you say so. And the "Get a grip on reality" dude relax its an opinion.
ShaneC1600 wrote: » If a railway route in public ownership is wide enough to accomodate a greenway alongside that would be a perfectly acceptable solution whether you "fancy it" or not. A train is only likely to pass - on any Irish Mainline track beyond the Pale - at most once every 40 minutes to one hour or so and on a summers evening as we don't have trains after 8.00 pm offering a service on our mainline tracks it would be once every two hours, so please, like others, don't assume that a greenway alongside an existing railway would have no appeal, in fact it makes a lot of common sense to utilise the single strip of land in public ownership, what's more there is no need for big ugly pallisade fencing, those kind of fences are completely over the top. Just look at the photo's I have posted on these kind of paths they have in the UK, three lengths of wire running between concrete poles every 20 yards or so. The only thing from stopping it from happening is the fear it might actually be highly successful, it is certainly a preferable option to a greenway alongside a busy N. road. Once again please look at the photo in a post a few back above this one do you see marauding lunatics running onto the railway line? or do we behave differently from the seemingly harmless folk in this photo simply walking and cycling along a footpath/cyclepath that happens to run parallel with a railway? Get a grip on reality this would work in Ireland just as it does in other countries, people would welcome it.
ShaneC1600 wrote: » westtip wrote: » "Perfectly acceptable solution to you" Are you the only one allowed an opinion here? "I wouldn't fancy it" is my opinion. Have you ever stood within 2m of a train travelling at 100mph? I have and I would want a better cordon between my kids and the train but again thats my opinion. (Btw I know that section is not 100mph) And it doesn't make sense just because you say so. And the "Get a grip on reality" dude relax its an opinion. Indeed. however you won't get many trains at 100 mph on any section of line in this country, trains go through stations and the only prevention from people including children from falling on the track is a yellow line and a painted notice saying stand back from the edge, I have stood on platforms when fast trains go through stations, if I had children with me I would hold their hands. Its all called common sense. If children are walking along a pavement of a busy road they would be in greater danger, so I stick by the comment, get a grip on reality. Opinion, that's all.
westtip wrote: » "Perfectly acceptable solution to you" Are you the only one allowed an opinion here? "I wouldn't fancy it" is my opinion. Have you ever stood within 2m of a train travelling at 100mph? I have and I would want a better cordon between my kids and the train but again thats my opinion. (Btw I know that section is not 100mph) And it doesn't make sense just because you say so. And the "Get a grip on reality" dude relax its an opinion.
westtip wrote: » ShaneC1600 wrote: » Indeed. however you won't get many trains at 100 mph on any section of line in this country, trains go through stations and the only prevention from people including children from falling on the track is a yellow line and a painted notice saying stand back from the edge, I have stood on platforms when fast trains go through stations, if I had children with me I would hold their hands. Its all called common sense. If children are walking along a pavement of a busy road they would be in greater danger, so I stick by the comment, get a grip on reality. Opinion, that's all. Plenty sections at 100mph in this country actually, fact not opinion. Question though, if a greenway is built along a rail line or on a closed section of line or a green field through CPO what is the purpose? Who is it for, why build it?
ShaneC1600 wrote: » Indeed. however you won't get many trains at 100 mph on any section of line in this country, trains go through stations and the only prevention from people including children from falling on the track is a yellow line and a painted notice saying stand back from the edge, I have stood on platforms when fast trains go through stations, if I had children with me I would hold their hands. Its all called common sense. If children are walking along a pavement of a busy road they would be in greater danger, so I stick by the comment, get a grip on reality. Opinion, that's all.
westtip wrote: » ShaneC1600 wrote: » Indeed. however you won't get many trains at 100 mph on any section of line in this country, trains go through stations and the only prevention from people including children from falling on the track is a yellow line and a painted notice saying stand back from the edge, I have stood on platforms when fast trains go through stations, if I had children with me I would hold their hands. Its all called common sense. If children are walking along a pavement of a busy road they would be in greater danger, so I stick by the comment, get a grip on reality. Opinion, that's all. Common sense would suggest not building a greenway beside active rail lines unless you are 100% sure there will be no risk to those using the greenway. Realistically I would not be happy with a greenway beside a train line if there was less than a 1 in 100,000 chance of injury to a person using the greenway due to a train accident or incident
[Deleted User] wrote: » How has everyone suddenly lost the ability to quote properly on this thread? On topic, a greenway beside an active rail line is not an issue and done all over the world Interested, where is there a greenway along an operational railway? Any idea of train speeds and type of fencing? Sorry if its me not quoting correctly, I'm new to boards
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
