nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

[Deleted User]

Carrying on with the discussion as the other thread is full

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2055766866/1

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sam Russell

What is a dynamic loop? I understand a passing loop, as at a station, say.

Isambard

L1011 wrote: »

Still wouldn't make it competitive to the existing Galway route, not that it diminishes the purpose of doing that for Sligo/Longford/Mullingar purposes

Dynamic loops to start with wouldn't be too dear as the track was also singled

certainly if you could contrive it to merge two existing station loops into a dynamic loop, the cost would be very small as signalling alterations would be minimal.

L1011

goingnowhere wrote: »

Mullingar Maynooth is not about straight line, going double will end the pain of waiting at stations for the section to be clear, even at current line speeds you could see 10-15 minutes saved at peak.

Getting rid of the level crossings on the Maynooth line will save several minutes as will new signalling as Clonsilla - Connolly is 1970's its not really setup for the high frequency we need today

Still wouldn't make it competitive to the existing Galway route, not that it diminishes the purpose of doing that for Sligo/Longford/Mullingar purposes

Dynamic loops to start with wouldn't be too dear as the track was also singled

westtip

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I remember it when they were that short that they borrowed track off the WRC to use on the mainline :pac:

Who mentioned the WRC for one moment I thought that is what this thread is about but I guess there is nothing left to be said until we we see that report:D

Losty Dublin

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Beware the modern-day scavengers of our rail system.

I remember it when they were that short that they borrowed track off the WRC to use on the mainline :pac:

Muckyboots

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Beware the modern-day scavengers of our rail system.

You can only scavenge broken down wrecks. If it's not worth fixing -it's just not worth fixing. I loved my Renault 4 with go faster stripes, but...... sorry, there's me going on about cars again.

ezstreet5

Sam Russell wrote: »

Lines were singled so the track could be reused to repair other bits around he network. The country and the train companies were broke and it was the best that they could do to keep the trains running. We were on our own.

Beware the modern-day scavengers of our rail system.

Sam Russell

Sligo eye wrote: »

My understanding was that the GSR singled the line in the 1930s?

Deleted User wrote: »

not the Athlone - Portarlington line, the Athlone Mullingar line was singled.

Lines were singled so the track could be reused to repair other bits around he network. The country and the train companies were broke and it was the best that they could do to keep the trains running. We were on our own.

goingnowhere

Mullingar Maynooth is not about straight line, going double will end the pain of waiting at stations for the section to be clear, even at current line speeds you could see 10-15 minutes saved at peak.

Getting rid of the level crossings on the Maynooth line will save several minutes as will new signalling as Clonsilla - Connolly is 1970's its not really setup for the high frequency we need today

[Deleted User]

L1011 wrote: »

There is very little scope to improve the line between Mullingar and Dublin. The section from Maynooth inwards is going to have an ever increasing number of commuter trains on an appalling, effectively unchangeable alignment.

An entirely new alignment might be possible Kilcock-Mullingar at immense expense as it would be an entirely new railway, nowhere near the existing appalling (except for before Killucan where they diverge from the canal) alignment. Could get the win of serving Kinnegad; but any time savings there would not counteract the Maynooth section.

Yes, it would need major investment. The question is, would it be worth it?
With the "new Normal" of WFH and fewer commuters, it may never be viable.

[Deleted User]

Sligo eye wrote: »

My understanding was that the GSR singled the line in the 1930s?

not the Athlone - Portarlington line, the Athlone Mullingar line was singled.

L1011

Deleted User wrote: »

It would need the line between Mullingar - Dublin improving and ideally another station to replace Broadstone as a terminus.

There is very little scope to improve the line between Mullingar and Dublin. The section from Maynooth inwards is going to have an ever increasing number of commuter trains on an appalling, effectively unchangeable alignment.

An entirely new alignment might be possible Kilcock-Mullingar at immense expense as it would be an entirely new railway, nowhere near the existing appalling (except for before Killucan where they diverge from the canal) alignment. Could get the win of serving Kinnegad; but any time savings there would not counteract the Maynooth section.

Losty Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

The trackbed and bridges were designed for two tracks, but only one was ever laid.
It would need minor earthworks to level the second line and some digging at the Tullamore cutting along the entire route there is space for the second track.

Tullamore is actually on the line from Portarlington to Athlone. It was built and laid as a single line track although some of the bridges on the line can accommodate two lines. The section approaching Tullamore would need significantly blasting to widen it but it could easily be retained as a single section for the 1/4 mile or so that it is.

My understanding was that the GSR singled the line in the 1930s?

The line between Mullingar and Athlone and Ballinasloe was a double track, as was the line from Athenry to Galway. The GSR singled the line from Clonsilla in the mid 1930's and used the surplus track work for relaying elsewhere along the network.

Sligo eye

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The trackbed and bridges were designed for two tracks, but only one was ever laid.
It would need minor earthworks to level the second line and some digging at the Tullamore cutting along the entire route there is space for the second track.

My understanding was that the GSR singled the line in the 1930s?

[Deleted User]

L1011 wrote: »

The slower route with no spare capacity?

Can you, in detail, explain why?

It would need the line between Mullingar - Dublin improving and ideally another station to replace Broadstone as a terminus.

[Deleted User]

Geuze wrote: »

Yes.

Was this originally two track?

And, if so, does that mean no land acquisition required to re-double?

The trackbed and bridges were designed for two tracks, but only one was ever laid.
It would need minor earthworks to level the second line and some digging at the Tullamore cutting along the entire route there is space for the second track.

Geuze

Deleted User wrote: »

In reality, it is the track between Athlone and Portarlington that needs doubling as it serves both Galway and Westport/Ballina.

Yes.

Was this originally two track?

And, if so, does that mean no land acquisition required to re-double?

donvito99

L1011 wrote: »

The slower route with no spare capacity?

Can you, in detail, explain why?

Because it used to be a railway. That's all we need to know.

westtip

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I think looking at the bullet-points that ezstreet5 posted they have left themselves plenty of ambiguity to move either way. We should start getting more information and lip service from government but I fear the end game is still a long way down the line.

How would we all feel if the report says there is no gleaming immediate term business case to re-instate railway but also no definitive evidence it would be a roaring failure either? I'd be very surprised if the conclusion of the report was 'no chance'.

I tend to agree with you, the report is likely to be fudge, it suits Govt of whatever shade to do nothing when two divergent points of view are in place. We will all have to wait and see. Hardly worth discussing anymore, nobody is listening to either side.

L1011

Del.Monte wrote: »

In reality. it's the line between Athlone and Mullingar that needs reopening.

The slower route with no spare capacity?

Can you, in detail, explain why?

Greaney

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I think looking at the bullet-points that ezstreet5 posted they have left themselves plenty of ambiguity to move either way. We should start getting more information and lip service from government but I fear the end game is still a long way down the line.

How would we all feel if the report says there is no gleaming immediate term business case to re-instate railway but also no definitive evidence it would be a roaring failure either? I'd be very surprised if the conclusion of the report was 'no chance'.

I believe that you're pretty close to the truth there. I was speaking to someone about it who, I have no doubt read it. He works for one of the parties, and he said, it doesn't commit to any 'stand' on the issue.

I think the issues that are going to decide what's next for the WRC are emissions, rural car dependence, infrastructural investment in the West, rather than tourism & cycling. It won't come soon enough for any of us faraor

Del.Monte

Deleted User wrote: »

In reality, it is the track between Athlone and Portarlington that needs doubling as it serves both Galway and Westport/Ballina.

In reality. it's the line between Athlone and Mullingar that needs reopening.

Muckyboots

91wx763 wrote: »

Knocks a few greenways on the head ??? (Le cúnamh Dé)

No need to be clutching at straws. I don't think it could be any more specific on the WRC as it was elsewhere in the document.

intellectual dosser

westtip wrote: »

No they would not be that stupid, mark my words this report has been seen by the negotiating team and wording the PFG reference to the WRC like they have means the anti greenway crowd pro WOTs cannot use the WRC as an excuse not to support the agreement. End game me thinks, either way. Thank goodness

I think looking at the bullet-points that ezstreet5 posted they have left themselves plenty of ambiguity to move either way. We should start getting more information and lip service from government but I fear the end game is still a long way down the line.

How would we all feel if the report says there is no gleaming immediate term business case to re-instate railway but also no definitive evidence it would be a roaring failure either? I'd be very surprised if the conclusion of the report was 'no chance'.

91wx763

● In line with the commitment in the National Planning Framework to balanced regional development, prioritise rail projects in Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford on existing and unused lines.

Knocks a few greenways on the head ??? (Le cúnamh Dé)

westtip

Muckyboots wrote: »

This is good news and it looks like the WRC can is going to be picked up and its rancid contents finally served. Some people will be disappointed. I honestly don't care if I am one of them.

I think its great news all we have been asking for; The report to be seen, and if EY consulting have said build the railway then build it and slap a greenway in alongside, if they have said its a non runner then keep the route and build a greenway. Let's face it there was always going to be a fudge as long as that report remains under lock and key and this wording is probably the best way of keeping all parties happy.

It looks like the independent report from EY remains pivotal, so let's just see it and get closure on this whole thing one way or the other.

One thing is for sure there are no excuses now the report has be to be published, Although we have been told that the report has not been seen by the negotiating teams I no longer believe that, the sentence re the report would not be in the PFG unless they knew what they were letting themselves in for, would they be so open ended about a potential commitment to €250 million capex and ongoing subvention of millions a year. No they would not be that stupid, mark my words this report has been seen by the negotiating team and wording the PFG reference to the WRC like they have means the anti greenway crowd pro WOTs cannot use the WRC as an excuse not to support the agreement. End game me thinks, either way. Thank goodness

Muckyboots

ezstreet5 wrote: »

See the full document for context: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/strongly-green-influenced-programme-for-government-drawn-up-1.4279051

This is good news and it looks like the WRC can is going to be picked up and its rancid contents finally served. Some people will be disappointed. I honestly don't care if I am one of them.

ezstreet5

And for Greenways:

Greenways

We will lead the development of an integrated national greenways strategy. This has the potential to transform modal shift, improve air quality and public health.

This commitment to cycling will enable us to achieve the huge ambition of developing an integrated national network of greenways to be used by commuters, leisure cyclists and tourists. We will continue the coordinated approach between central government, local authorities and agencies to deliver on this ambition.

***
Tourism

We will:

● Work with local authorities and appropriate agencies to continue development of an integrated national network of greenways to be used by commuters, students, leisure cyclists and tourists.

● Support cross-border greenway projects, such as the Sligo-Enniskillen Greenway, and continue to fund longer-term projects across the country like the Galway to Dublin Greenway, Fingal Coastal Way and the extension of the Waterford greenway into the city centre.

****

See the full document for context: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/strongly-green-influenced-programme-for-government-drawn-up-1.4279051

ezstreet5

The Draft Programme of Government contains the following goals regarding rail transport.

Rail

We will protect existing services by continuing to ensure the level of payment required to operate the Public Service Obligation fleet is adequate to maintain and improve service capacity and frequency.

We will:

● In line with the commitment in the National Planning Framework to balanced regional development, prioritise rail projects in Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford on existing and unused lines.
● Continue to fund safety works and capital improvements to the rail network, expand the Irish Rail fleet and progress the electrification of rail services to decrease journey times and emissions.
● Commission an economic evaluation of higher speed rail links between our main cities.
● Improve cycling and storage facilities at stations and on trains, where possible.
● Enhance suburban and commuter rail across the country.
● Consider the report on the future of the Western Rail Corridor and take appropriate action.
● Ringfence funding to ensure swift train platform lift repair and upgrades, to ensure accessibility.

[Deleted User]

Greaney wrote: »

Look, I don't actually have to prove anything to you. I'd really rather if you did ignore me., but you can't seem to allow anyone who's pro-rail alone on line. You jump into every conversation demanding attention.

Make up your mind, you want people to explore options or you don't and you want to keep them secret?

You offered an alternative, I engaged with you on that alternative, you refused to provide further info and were called on it, simple as.

btw, you do realise this is a discussion forum, right?