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

[Deleted User]

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Neither project is listed in the Programme for Government
.

Under Rail on Page 10 of the PFG
"Consider the report on the future of the Western Rail Corridor and take appropriate action."

ezstreet5

Deleted User wrote: »

Under Rail on Page 10 of the PFG
"Consider the report on the future of the Western Rail Corridor and take appropriate action."

Do you honestly believe that I haven't read that? And do you honestly believe that it is a commitment to a project to be undertaken? It's perfectly neutral. And if you want to split hairs, the scope of the 'report' was to assess only the possibility of rail reactivation, and not alternative uses. So even if it says 'There is no future for the line as a railway' (which I don't believe the report will say at all), it will in no case state, 'The line should be converted to a greenway.'

ShaneC1600

eastwest wrote: »

You're clearly an intelligent and literate person, so a little logic should be no problem to you.

1. Politician agrees to support government in return for a rail review being commissioned within six months.
2. Rail review isn't delivered within agreed time, but politician doesn't make threats to withdraw support from government, or indeed doesn't walk out.
3. Rail review is delivered in October 2019, to the politician's closest political ally in Dail Eireann. Politician doesn't demand its release or threaten to withdraw support from government, and doesn't walk out, because

(a) He knows the findings, that the report kills off the rail argument, and releasing it would damage his election prospects

or

(b) He's a pushover who takes 'no' for an answer every time and whose presence in Leinster House is therefore a complete waste of space.

So, as a logical person, what do you think? Are you an (a) or a (b) person?

There is also the axiom that the 'dogs in the street' around Leinster House just laugh when you ask them about the rail review. The general acceptance is as it has been for many years now, that this debate is long over.

You may well be right, I have not seen the report but you have not answered the question. You are speculating an outcome that satisfies your agenda.
I'll give another option (c).
It could be even simpler, he read the term of reference and is satisfied the report is to be reviewed prior to publication and is content to wait for its release and get on with doing political work in Galway East. Never know there might actually be other work to do in Galway East other than the railway/greenway!

As for the "dogs in the street" they can keep laughing, the usual greenway supporters tone is alive and well.

eastwest

ezstreet5 wrote: »

The Greens support rail reactivation in their transport policy: https://www.greenparty.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Transport-Policy.pdf

So either Cannon knows something we don't know (which is possible), or it is just unsubstantiated glee (which we have seen before).

Yes, it's right there in their policy document.

'Bus services will continue to provide the main transport connections within our cities and throughout the country.'

'We would give priority to the completion of the Kildare Route Project Phase 2, and the Navan Railway Line (extension from M3 Parkway station to Navan).'

'Following the completion of the Kildare Route Project Phase 2, we would give priority to the Interconnector (DART Undeground) between Spencer dock and Inchcore.'

'We would keep open the proposed route of the Metro North from St. Stephen’s Green to Swords if a viable case can be made for its construction.'

'The Luas in Dublin should be extended to Finglas and light rail introduced in other cities.'

Obviously, although they don't mention the WRC, they will get to it once they have delivered all the other more pressing rail projects.

ezstreet5

eastwest wrote: »

Obviously, although they don't mention the WRC, they will get to it once they have delivered all the other more pressing rail projects.

Try Crtl+F and then type the word "Western" and you should be able to locate it.

eastwest

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Try Crtl+F and then type the word "Western" and you should be able to locate it.

So, not a priority as per their multi billion euro wishlist above?
The whole point of the greenway campaign, as now consolidated in the RSES, is that for the next twenty or thirty years, while nothing is happening on a disused line through a sparsely populated area, it should be used as a greenway. Not just for the benefits it can bring at low cost, but aslo to preserve the route in case some government in the future decides to build a railway on some or all of it.
The current government is set to last about four years, assuming it comes together at all. If the Greens get some of their list past the Department of Finance in that time, which bits do you think will be prioritised? (Hint: They told us already, areas of high population density).
Leaving aside the rail review, the most optimistic rail enthusiast can't expect the WRC to be on the table for a decade at least, and that's in a scenario where there is a lot of funding for capital projects and the entire Brexit/Covid hit doesn't affect our capacity to spend. Any realist would say that at best, discussion of the WRC in the real world is twenty years away.
So, what to do in the interim? Let the asset disappear, or use available funding to build a cheap piece of infrastructure that has nothing but positive effect?
The mindset that diverts the funding to the Waterfords of this world is that a greenway will prevent a railway being built. It's wrong, and makes no sense, but that's not always the reason for doing something.

Sligo eye

eastwest wrote: »

Yes, it's right there in their policy document.

'Bus services will continue to provide the main transport connections within our cities and throughout the country.'

'We would give priority to the completion of the Kildare Route Project Phase 2, and the Navan Railway Line (extension from M3 Parkway station to Navan).'

'Following the completion of the Kildare Route Project Phase 2, we would give priority to the Interconnector (DART Undeground) between Spencer dock and Inchcore.'

'We would keep open the proposed route of the Metro North from St. Stephen’s Green to Swords if a viable case can be made for its construction.'

'The Luas in Dublin should be extended to Finglas and light rail introduced in other cities.'

Obviously, although they don't mention the WRC, they will get to it once they have delivered all the other more pressing rail projects.

Oh look, this is what the Green policy document says about the WRC...

We support the completion of the Western Rail Corridor by consolidating the reopened section from Limerick to Galway as part of a direct Cork to Galway route, and the completion of the Phases onward to Tuam and Sligo. An upgrade of the Waterford-Limerick line could then link Waterford into this corridor directly. We will also reduce the level of services halting at Craughwell and Ardrahan stations to speed up the Inter-City journey time. (See also under “Rail Freight” below.)

Source: https://www.greenparty.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Transport-Policy.pdf

I’ve heard about Fantasy Football League, but Fantasy Party Policy Documents is a new one on me. Can’t say I would have that much time on my hands to play that particular game, but hey ho, each to their own.

Del.Monte

I don't watch television anymore and never saw that Prime Time video with Colm McCarthy before - I would have been reaching for a gun if I had one. What a dickhead and he is wheeled out as a rail expert just like that TCD twit Sean Barrett used to be the lazy media's go to economist of choice.

[Deleted User]

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that I haven't read that? And do you honestly believe that it is a commitment to a project to be undertaken? It's perfectly neutral. And if you want to split hairs, the scope of the 'report' was to assess only the possibility of rail reactivation, and not alternative uses. So even if it says 'There is no future for the line as a railway' (which I don't believe the report will say at all), it will in no case state, 'The line should be converted to a greenway.'

Why would it state that, its outside the terms of reference of the review. Silly goose lol

However, unless it categorically states "run trains on this right now, like asap folks omg!!1!1!" then its going to be a greenway

Between design, planning, tendering and construction of the greenway, hmm, should only be a few short years until it starts bringing real economic benefit to the towns and villages along the route. I'm looking forward to cycling on it soon

ezstreet5

eastwest wrote: »

So, not a priority as per their multi billion euro wishlist above?

Except that you excluded the first bullet point of that list:

We favour greater investment in rail infrastructure as it is a more environmentally friendly and efficient alternative to road and air transport.

eastwest wrote: »

The whole point of the greenway campaign, as now consolidated in the RSES, is that for the next twenty or thirty years, while nothing is happening on a disused line through a sparsely populated area, it should be used as a greenway.

I don't accept the premise that nothing will happen for the next 20-30 years. That does not need to be the case with a little vision.

eastwest wrote: »

Not just for the benefits it can bring at low cost, but aslo to preserve the route in case some government in the future decides to build a railway on some or all of it.

Preserve the route from what? Adverse possession? Or a fence being constructed across the line? If you really get a recalcitrant landowner, just CPO the land back. The line has been idle for more than 12 years, so either option will face this same (easily surmountable) obstacle.

eastwest wrote: »

The current government is set to last about four years, assuming it comes together at all. If the Greens get some of their list past the Department of Finance in that time, which bits do you think will be prioritised? (Hint: They told us already, areas of high population density).
Leaving aside the rail review, the most optimistic rail enthusiast can't expect the WRC to be on the table for a decade at least, and that's in a scenario where there is a lot of funding for capital projects and the entire Brexit/Covid hit doesn't affect our capacity to spend. Any realist would say that at best, discussion of the WRC in the real world is twenty years away.
So, what to do in the interim? Let the asset disappear, or use available funding to build a cheap piece of infrastructure that has nothing but positive effect?

Even if your 20-year horizon is correct (which is denied), I would do what every other railroad does to protect their inactive ROWs. I would send inspection cars along the route once per year, cut vegetation, and perform minimal maintenance of way. I would take legal action against encroachment.

eastwest wrote: »

The mindset that diverts the funding to the Waterfords of this world is that a greenway will prevent a railway being built. It's wrong, and makes no sense, but that's not always the reason for doing something.

And continuing, I certainly would not grant a license allowing local authorities and/governments to design and build a 25 million euro project only to rip it up a decade later.

ezstreet5

Deleted User wrote: »

However, unless it categorically states "run trains on this right now, like asap folks omg!!1!1!" then its going to be a greenway

I don't share that logic.

ShaneC1600

ezstreet5 wrote: »

And continuing, I certainly would not grant a license allowing local authorities and/governments to design and build a 25 million euro project only to rip it up a decade later.

I wouldn't be against the idea if the greenway was positioned just inside the IE boundary but I bet the greenway supporters wouldnt jump on that one.
I wonder would the previous licence stating that the council would be required to indemnify the railway against costs of removing the greenway put any of the councillors off the greenway in the 5ft idea if there is a chance the greenway will be ripped up in 10 years.

Sam Russell

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

I wouldn't be against the idea if the greenway was positioned just inside the IE boundary but I bet the greenway supporters wouldnt jump on that one.
I wonder would the previous licence stating that the council would be required to indemnify the railway against costs of removing the greenway put any of the councillors off the greenway in the 5ft idea if there is a chance the greenway will be ripped up in 10 years.

It would take a decade to design and build a railway line. So if a decision to build a line was proposed, it would probably take at least another decade to move from proposal to decision. How long has it taken to build Luas North, or Metro North Metrolink?

Sligo eye

Sam Russell wrote: »

It would take a decade to design and build a railway line. So if a decision to build a line was proposed, it would probably take at least another decade to move from proposal to decision. How long has it taken to build Luas North, or Metro North Metrolink?

It certainly doesn’t take a decade to design and build a railway line.

ezstreet5

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

I wouldn't be against the idea if the greenway was positioned just inside the IE boundary but I bet the greenway supporters wouldnt jump on that one.
I wonder would the previous licence stating that the council would be required to indemnify the railway against costs of removing the greenway put any of the councillors off the greenway in the 5ft idea if there is a chance the greenway will be ripped up in 10 years.

I wouldn't be either. But to create a side-by-side greenway (to the west) of the existing line would require cut and fill and additional over bridges, which would inflate the cost significantly. The only reason this route is sought as a greenway is that rail infrastructure can be scavenged to deliver a greenway relatively inexpensively. Unfortunately, a combined cost, combined benefit analysis probably won't be carried out due to the entrenched positions of all involved.

eastwest

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

I wouldn't be against the idea if the greenway was positioned just inside the IE boundary but I bet the greenway supporters wouldnt jump on that one.
I wonder would the previous licence stating that the council would be required to indemnify the railway against costs of removing the greenway put any of the councillors off the greenway in the 5ft idea if there is a chance the greenway will be ripped up in 10 years.

Most greenway campaigners would be happy with that, if it made sense. But closer scrutiny makes it less attractive from a taxpayer standpoint.
Sligo county council did a financial study on this option, and found that it would cost between three and five times as much as just putting it on the already stoned track bed. If a greenway was to be built on the edge of the alignment, there is no guarantee it wouldn't have to be rebuilt or altered as part of a railway project.
The error being made by rail lobbyists is that the less informed of them believe there is a railway on the route at the minute. There isn't, what is there is scrap, and that includes the stone ballast that is there now. Building a railway north of athenry would involve removing everything that is there. All of it.
I know that logic doesn't always solve a problem where two polar opposite views hold sway. But logic dictates that the cheap option, building a greenway on the existing stone base, is the best option for now. If a railway is to be built in the future, the greenway should at that point be relocated to the edge of the alignment, or marginally outside it with relevant CPOs. That is the time to build the extra footbridges or underpasses, as a tiny part of a major engineering project.
Even the aesthetics of putting the greenway on the edge of the alignment at this point are wrong. Letting the trackbed grow wild and overgrown, while maintaining the greenway would do nothing for the appeal of the greenway. On the sections north of Claremorris, where large stretches of the proposed railway are likely to be diverted, it would make no sense to build a greenway on the edge, in the absence of a plan as to which parts will be bypassed.
There is also that issue of the diversion of sections of any future railway away from the current alignment, to avoid the multiple road crossings on the existing route. Entire sections may well (if they are ever built) be located alongside an improved N17, arguably the piece of infrastructure must urgently needed between sligo and galway.
I'd have no problem with a proposal to build the greenway at the edge of the alignment, but as a taxpayer I would be uncomfortable with a waste of money on that scale, just to appease a particular opposition group. I would really hope that councillors might take the same view.
Although when you see money spent on reports which are then suppressed, you'd have to wonder at the respect or otherwise that some public representatives hold for our hard-earned money.

ShaneC1600

ezstreet5 wrote: »

I wouldn't be either. But to create a side-by-side greenway (to the west) of the existing line would require cut and fill and additional over bridges, which would inflate the cost significantly. The only reason this route is sought as a greenway is that rail infrastructure can be scavenged to deliver a greenway relatively inexpensively. Unfortunately, a combined cost, combined benefit analysis probably won't be carried out due to the entrenched positions of all involved.

Exactly, and that is why under no circumstances should the greenway be permitted on the rail line! Who will pay for the relocation of the greenway in say 10 or 20 years. The greenway crew won't be long telling everyone how great the greenway is, train will ruin it, the line is a Victorian winding railway, go for a green field site if ye want a railway.

ezstreet5

eastwest wrote: »

The error being made by rail lobbyists is that the less informed of them believe there is a railway on the route at the minute. There isn't, what is there is scrap, and that includes the stone ballast that is there now. Building a railway north of athenry would involve removing everything that is there. All of it.

I think most understand this fact. Re-laying the rail is a small expense. Modern rail building techniques can recycle/refresh the ballast and lay rail at a rate that can be measured in tenths of miles per hour. The real costs are a replacing a missing bridge, inspecting and upgrading existing bridges, installing modern level crossings, signaling, and station refurbishment.

Sam Russell

Sligo eye wrote: »

It certainly doesn’t take a decade to design and build a railway line.

It might be quicker in other countries but not here. When has a railway line been built here in less than a decade?

How long did it take to build Metro North? Wait, it never was. When will Metrolink be built? That depends - because it as not even finished the public consultations - let alone looked for a railway order.

How about the Dart Interconnector? It was renamed Dart Underground, and got its Railway Order, but was then buried underground while it was redesigned to make it cheaper while costs raced ahead making it much dearer.

So what example is there where railways are built in Ireland in under a decade?

Sligo eye

Sam Russell wrote: »

It might be quicker in other countries but not here. When has a railway line been built here in less than a decade?

How long did it take to build Metro North? Wait, it never was. When will Metrolink be built? That depends - because it as not even finished the public consultations - let alone looked for a railway order.

How about the Dart Interconnector? It was renamed Dart Underground, and got its Railway Order, but was then buried underground while it was redesigned to make it cheaper while costs raced ahead making it much dearer.

So what example is there where railways are built in Ireland in under a decade?

You’re confusing the time taken to get political approval and authorisation to start actual works as opposed to designing and building a railway.

serfboard

eastwest wrote: »

'We would give priority to the completion of the Kildare Route Project Phase 2, and the Navan Railway Line (extension from M3 Parkway station to Navan).'

'Following the completion of the Kildare Route Project Phase 2, we would give priority to the Interconnector (DART Undeground) between Spencer dock and Inchcore.'

'We would keep open the proposed route of the Metro North from St. Stephen’s Green to Swords if a viable case can be made for its construction.'

'The Luas in Dublin should be extended to Finglas and light rail introduced in other cities.'

That's an awful lot of rail infrastructure being "prioritised"- there must be an absolutely immense budget being put together if all this is to be done.

And to top it all off they're going to build the WRC as well!

Well, they don't mention it, but we know that they're going to. Any day now ...

ShaneC1600

eastwest wrote: »

Most greenway campaigners would be happy with that, if it made sense. But closer scrutiny makes it less attractive from a taxpayer standpoint.
I'd have no problem with a proposal to build the greenway at the edge of the alignment, but as a taxpayer I would be uncomfortable with a waste of money on that scale, just to appease a particular opposition group. I would really hope that councillors might take the same view.
Although when you see money spent on reports which are then suppressed, you'd have to wonder at the respect or otherwise that some public representatives hold for our hard-earned money.

Equally as a tax payer I would have reservations about constructing a greenway on the railway just to appease an opposition group when it might need to be moved in a few years, knowing that is a possibility should cease any further talk of the greenway but hey here we are one side against the other.
As for the rail lobbyists not knowing what is required to build a railway or the state of what’s there; I am sure there are a few who understand the engineering requirements to reinstate the per way and what condition the existing rail is in but thanks for the heads up!

Sam Russell

Sligo eye wrote: »

You’re confusing the time taken to get political approval and authorisation to start actual works as opposed to designing and building a railway.

Designing and building is the easy bit. Getting the funding, and the approval to go ahead is the hard bit. Then we have the most restrictive planning in the world.

How easy is it to build a children's hospital? Should it be a brown field site, or perhaps out of town? Should it be co-located with another hospital, and if so which type? And what happens if it has its planning permission refused because it is too tall? Well, it ends up being the most expensive hospital in the world.

We are not good at this sort of thing.

eastwest

ezstreet5 wrote: »

I think most understand this fact. Re-laying the rail is a small expense. Modern rail building techniques can recycle/refresh the ballast and lay rail at a rate that can be measured in tenths of miles per hour. The real costs are a replacing a missing bridge, inspecting and upgrading existing bridges, installing modern level crossings, signaling, and station refurbishment.

You'd be surprised how many people believe that a railway still exists on the route.

ezstreet5

eastwest wrote: »

You'd be surprised how many people believe that a railway still exists on the route.

You could probably still get a hyrail-equipped speedswing from Claremorris to Athenry. Except for the N63 bridge at Abbeyknockmoy, but that's not really the point.

end of the road

Sam Russell wrote: »

It might be quicker in other countries but not here. When has a railway line been built here in less than a decade?

How long did it take to build Metro North? Wait, it never was. When will Metrolink be built? That depends - because it as not even finished the public consultations - let alone looked for a railway order.

How about the Dart Interconnector? It was renamed Dart Underground, and got its Railway Order, but was then buried underground while it was redesigned to make it cheaper while costs raced ahead making it much dearer.

So what example is there where railways are built in Ireland in under a decade?

metro and dart underground are new builds so the process would be very different.

the wrc north of athenry is not a new build but a relaying and related work so would be done quite quickly.

Sam Russell

end of the road wrote: »

metro and dart underground are new builds so the process would be very different.

the wrc north of athenry is not a new build but a relaying and related work so would be done quite quickly.

I think you have missed the bit about funding. It might explain why it is still derelict.

end of the road

eastwest wrote: »

You'd be surprised how many people believe that a railway still exists on the route.

that's because there actually is .
it's not fit for traffic, however there is still a railway there.
a railway doesn't specifically stop being a railway because it's no longer fit for traffic.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

metro and dart underground are new builds so the process would be very different.

the wrc north of athenry is not a new build but a relaying and related work so would be done quite quickly.

The many, many, MANY, level crossings, some within a few hundred yards from each other, would complicate things especially when you consider the environmental implications which can and have killed projects much bigger

ezstreet5

Deleted User wrote: »

The many, many, MANY, level crossings, some within a few hundred yards from each other, would complicate things especially when you consider the environmental implications which can and have killed projects much bigger

How many are there between Athenry and Tuam, would you guess?

I (quickly) counted one public road, and about five private roads, which typically do not warrant level crossings with automatic gates.

And I think it goes without saying, reinstating the railway does not entail any planning issues or Environmental Impact Assessment. A greenway change of use would.