Sligo eye wrote: » This is a classic example of propaganda put out by the anti rail movement that makes all sorts of false statements about the railway without any actual data to back those statements up.
Greaney wrote: » Crikey, I don't know where you're getting your information!! Everyone knows the number are climbing very healthily... This is from Feb 2020PASSENGER NUMBERS SOAR ON WESTERN RAIL CORRIDOR
Deleted User wrote: » That's all good and well however the shockingly poor performance of the Ennis - Athenry section has put the rest of the line to bed forever. As for your earlier posts about oodles of students using it, that's just not true. There is publicly available data from the schools themselves that show bugger all students use the existing rail line. If you have data that says otherwise, I invite you to show it.
[Deleted User] wrote: » That's all good and well however the shockingly poor performance of the Ennis - Athenry section has put the rest of the line to bed forever. Sligo CoCo are now committed to changing the use to a greenway. Galway CoCo applied for funding also for a feasibility study on converting it to a greenway. As for your earlier posts about oodles of students using it, that's just not true. There is publicly available data from the schools themselves that show bugger all students use the existing rail line. If you have data that says otherwise, I invite you to show it. Btw, anecdotal evidence doesn't merit further discussion
Greaney wrote: » The Western Rail Corridor isn't ultimatly going to Tuam, it's going to Sligo. Tuam is just phase 2 (which was suppossed to be finished in 2011. Phase 1: Ennis to Athenry 58 km / 36 miles (€74.7 million) Phase 2: Athenry to Tuam 25 km / 15.5 miles (€34.7 million) Phase 3: Tuam to Claremorris (subject to study of rail freight demand or in conjunction with phase 2) 27 km / 17 miles (€58.9 million) Phase 4: Claremorris to Collooney (subject to further feasibility studies and possibly justifiable on the grounds of balanced regional development) 74.43 km / 46.25 miles (€197.4 million) Transport 21 On 1 November 2005 the Transport 21 plan was launched committing government expenditure of €34 billion between 2006 and 2015 on road, rail and light rail projects. The Western Railway Corridor commitments under this plan were largely those recommended by the McCann Report: 2009 – Opening of Ennis-Athenry section 2011 – Opening of Athenry-Tuam section 2014 – Opening of Tuam-Claremorris section
end of the road wrote: » i suspect he is talking about diesel sets, dart expansion will clear out the 29s from dublin in all likely hood, or at least that is what should happen. tuam wouldn't be electrified anyway i would imagine, so no EMUS being available wouldn't effect it.
Losty Dublin wrote: » So the M17 should have gone from Tuam to Galway?
Isambard wrote: » If the money was available to build new rail routes as you suggest, there would be perhaps dozens of places ahead of Tuam in the queue. Just in Cork off the top of my head, I'd say Mitchelstown, Fermoy, Bandon, Macroom .
Sligo eye wrote: » The point is though that they aren’t in the queue. But if you want to start a campaign to get rails back to those towns I for one will gladly join in.
Sam Russell wrote: » But we have just built a motorway from Ennis to Athenry and then Tuam, do we need another major piece of infrastructure to join them up? Galway is the trip generator, not Tuam, not Gort, and not Ennis. The Motorway should have gone to Galway, not Athenry.
Sam Russell wrote: » If one were to be building a new rail connection between Tuam and Galway, would it not be better to build it along the N83 (old N17) which is 35 km, open countryside for the most part, and direct. Google gives the time for a car as 35 mins and 33 km, and surely a modern train on a new alignment would beat that. Put a few P&R stops along the way, and it might make sense. I think the old alignment makes no sense at all as it is a long way round (46 km vs 33 km), needs a complete rebuild, and there are no trip generators, nor any locals to use it. Plus the Athenry to Galway line needs to be upgraded (but that is needed anyway).
Sam Russell wrote: » There is insufficient rolling stock throughout IR. Even new stock will not be enough to cover the Dart expansion, as they need more to run the current 10 min Dart service. Dart expansion is for extra services to Maynooth, and Drogheda and Hazelhatch, plus the shortfall on the current Dart service. There will be no spare. The intercity ones are currently running the PPT service when it should be commuter trains. Those Intercity ones are needed elsewhere on the network. They will be short of rolling stock for years. Anyway, I doubt that this bit of land will ever see a train again this century.
Sligo eye wrote: » Exactly. New Dart sets mean existing trains will be cascaded to new services. And I did already make that point.
Losty Dublin wrote: » Except the line wasn't laid to directly link Tuam to Galway but Tuam to Limerick via the Galway line. It would be easier to open a direct cycle path to Galway instead, thus leaving the railway line for the trains.
Sam Russell wrote: » Except that it is 12 km more than the direct route - that is it is nearly 30% longer.
end of the road wrote: » that stretch is shorter then ennis athenry i think so it would likely be less then 100 million. trains would likely be cascaded ones rather then brand new so only average running and maintenence costs which would exist anyway with the railway. it wouldn't be built just to bring children to school, school children was just 1 example of the potential usership all be it he could have used better ones perhapse, but an example is an example. probably no point in this as in all likely hood we would end up having to stick in the railway in the end anyway. if not that, at least there would be a recognition that we should have stuck in the railway instead. not in the middle of winter they wouldn't i would expect. cycling to school would really only be an option for a short part of the year and even then the school would in all likely hood need to be near by.
Sam Russell wrote: » I do not know the cost of reinstatement of the line, but would guess it is upwards of €100 million, and that is before trains are purchased and running and maintenance is factored in.
Sam Russell wrote: » All that to provide school transport for kids to go to school - you cannot be serious! How many kids are we talking about? 100? 200? 50? Where do they currently live and how do they get to school currently?
Sam Russell wrote: » Put in a tarmac surface and run light buses on it for school runs, or some other low cost idea.
Sam Russell wrote: » Maybe if it was a greenway, they could cycle to school. There are plenty of other places that could do with their own little railway to ferry their kids to school.
Losty Dublin wrote: » There isn't a lot wrong with the old alignment. Contrary to popular belief the Athenry to Tuam line was intended to be part of a trunk route for the west. As such it was built to rather a good standard with less in the way of sharp curves, it has a more level track plain and, most significantly, it has a lack of road crossings bar the one at Tuam station. The line northward came a good 30 years later and, in keeping with many other Baronial Guarantee projects, it was built somewhat more modestly.
Greaney wrote: » Personally, I'd love if the country was awash with public transport (I didn't have a car for years) however with regard to your suggestion... 1) The old alignment is 'owned' by Irish Rail. You're in the realm of CPO's if you want to change the route, and folk know how troublesome they can be, some politicians don't even want them used for greenways. Rail would be way more disruptive for farmers, livestock etc.https://connachttribune.ie/cannon-rules-out-cpos-for-future-greenway-routes/ ''UNDER no circumstances will a farmer in East Galway be slapped with a compulsory order for the acquisition of their land for the provision of a walking and cycling greenway. This was the commitment given by a Government Minister of State who has informed Galway landowners that they will never be subjected to a CPO.''
2) The local Authorities are already seeking that the line be upgraded And since that's the case, the double track they're looking for would cover all those lines 3) If you know the area, you'd know the students living along that line go to school in Tuam & Athenry (Ballyglunin, Abbeyknockmoy etc.) ... so it's got a different catchment from the Tuam road, but an important catchment never the less. I know from using the train at school times, Students are big users, Iarnrod Eireann have priced it very affordably. I've been out to Ballyglunin, they'd love it for school & college commutes. Tuam has a centre for the Irish Wheelchair assoc, and they were welcoming the pending opening of the line a few years back.
Sam Russell wrote: » If one were to be building a new rail connection between Tuam and Galway, would it not be better to build it along the N83 (old N17) which is 35 km, open countryside for the most part, and direct. Google gives the time for a car as 35 mins and 33 km, and surely a modern train on a new alignment would beat that. Put a few P&R stops along the way, and it might make sense..
Deleted User wrote: » The extra areas it would serve are very limited. - Tuam town to the centre of Galway - the existing private bus services collect before and after Tuam and serve employment and trip hotspots like Parkmore (Tuam Road), Liosban / Mervue Industrial Estate and GMIT and NUIG during college terms.
Deleted User wrote: » The line further north of Tuam, even in the era of building railways everywhere was built to a much lighter standard and wouldn't take modern trains - it would have to be totally rebuilt.
Deleted User wrote: » This line also crosses the main road three times around Ballinrobe.
Deleted User wrote: » There is a practical, relatively cheap and quick proposal which would protect the line for future use while generating local amenity. This proposal has generated enough local support to get thousands out for a protest march, nevermind a few showing up at a meeting on a wet Tuesday.
Deleted User wrote: » To put it into scale, you reference someone getting leader funding for something. Reopening the railway would take the whole countries leader funding for 2 - 3 years.
Deleted User wrote: » E]The subsidy to keep it open would be more than the whole county receives in Leader funding each year.
Deleted User wrote: » An indirect train on a congested route serving a dispersed population while competing with unsubsidised busses and a motorway is very poor value for public money.
Deleted User wrote: » Take the money on the table, open the greenway, generate local amenitiy and protect the route for possible future use.
Deleted User wrote: » Reopening the Athenry to Tuam railway will deliver poor value for money.
Deleted User wrote: » The line itself is slipping into bog where the bog has been drained and too much turf has been extracted.
Deleted User wrote: » The railway bridge on the N63 has been removed, without any local protest, and would have to be reinstated, cutting off bigger trucks from the motorway.
Deleted User wrote: » The station at Tuam would have to be reinstated at great cost.
Deleted User wrote: » The station at Ballyglunin probably wouldn't be reinstated (it is similar to Crusheen - small and served by a motorway)
Deleted User wrote: » The line itself would have very limited capacity- maybe running at most one train per hour.
Deleted User wrote: » The line it would be joining is already congested, so less capacity to go to Tuam.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I answered a publically funded online survey, which fed into the report asked for by Sean Canney as his price for supporting the last government creation four years ago. We are still waiting on the report. It's great that you are active and interested in your town and want to see it develop. I'm sure all of us want to see small town Ireland develop and progress. It doesn't mean that we want to see good money thrown after bad though. Reopening the Athenry to Tuam railway will deliver poor value for money. The line itself is slipping into bog where the bog has been drained and too much turf has been extracted. The railway bridge on the N63 has been removed, without any local protest, and would have to be reinstated, cutting off bigger trucks from the motorway. The station at Tuam would have to be reinstated at great cost. The station at Ballyglunin probably wouldn't be reinstated (it is similar to Crusheen - small and served by a motorway) The line itself would have very limited capacity- maybe running at most one train per hour. The line it would be joining is already congested, so less capacity to go to Tuam. The extra areas it would serve are very limited. - Tuam town to the centre of Galway - the existing private bus services collect before and after Tuam and serve employment and trip hotspots like Parkmore (Tuam Road), Liosban / Mervue Industrial Estate and GMIT and NUIG during college terms. The line further north of Tuam, even in the era of building railways everywhere was built to a much lighter standard and wouldn't take modern trains - it would have to be totally rebuilt. This line also crosses the main road three times around Ballinrobe. There is a practical, relatively cheap and quick proposal which would protect the line for future use while generating local amenity. This proposal has generated enough local support to get thousands out for a protest march, nevermind a few showing up at a meeting on a wet Tuesday. To put it into scale, you reference someone getting leader funding for something. Reopening the railway would take the whole countries leader funding for 2 - 3 years. The subsidy to keep it open would be more than the whole county receives in Leader funding each year. An indirect train on a congested route serving a dispersed population while competing with unsubsidised busses and a motorway is very poor value for public money. Take the money on the table, open the greenway, generate local amenitiy and protect the route for possible future use.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
