Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

Sam Russell · 22-06-2020 08:09PM

Or link the Sligo line to the Galway line, either by reinstating the Mulingar Athlone line, or some other way, preferably west of the Shannon.

[I know Mullingar is not west of the Shannon].

22-06-2020 08:17PM

Isambard wrote: »

Or you could improve Sligo to Dublin and Cork to Dublin to increase the line speeds to modern standards (particularly the Sligo line) and have a service which actually goes through places with a good sized population.

In a similar way that motorways are done

Lord Glentoran · 22-06-2020 08:47PM

Deleted User wrote: »

In a similar way that motorways are done

Such methodology applied to motorways, for example, means that extending the M20 to Cork is redundant, as the M8 is linked to the M7.

22-06-2020 08:53PM

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Such methodology applied to motorways, for example, means that extending the M20 to Cork is redundant, as the M8 is linked to the M7.

There are some with that opinion

donvito99 · 22-06-2020 09:50PM

Greaney wrote: »

I had to look up what PWD meant!!!! I'm a carer for my family member with both mobility issues and acquired brain injury (which left them with severe epilepsy and unable to drive anymore). The train is a lifeline to her. She finds the bus difficult to use due to the fact their coaches with high steps etc. In fact rail meets the needs of the disabled more than most other transport forms. Crikey, to be reduced to a bloody Acronym!!!

The terms you've used there speaks volumes about the contempt many in this country have towards the most vulnerable people who don't or cannot drive. :mad:

I was told by a disability advocate and broadcaster that persons with disabilities or PWD was the correct term now in response to my using "the disabled". That's not contempt in my view. But go ahead, lose your head.

I think everyone can appreciate that a train may be convenient for some people including those with certain disabilities e.g mobility disabled. I'd contend that other PWD would be far better served with a more expansive, local, frequent and faster service.... possible with the use of a bus.

Ultimately, public transport does not live and die on this issue and the WRC will not be built on this basis. By allocating resources to the WRC, less PWD in rural Ireland would benefit than if you allocated to a bus system which could serve PWD/able bodied people in communities across the region.

ezstreet5 · 22-06-2020 10:25PM

westtip wrote: »

Anyway aside from all these accusations one way or another and btw that page is not me, yes I have seen it, whatever, it seems to be satirical but a below the belt stuff. However a Facebook page be it West on Track, SMG or indeed QMG is unlikely to be the reason for any government decision, a tiny amount of the general population actually see this stuff.

First, thanks if you helped to get the latest West-on-Crack post deleted. I know you are not the responsible person for that page because it is obvious who is. You might suggest wholesale deletion of the page to 'the author' on the basis that it does not further the QMG cause, and that it may not be the brilliant piece of satire that it is believed to be.

westtip wrote: »

Like many of us even I am getting very bored with all this.

I'm not.

westtip wrote: »

So let me ask all the WRC supporters a few perfectly civilized debating points:
What exactly are the benefits of a railway between Claremorris and Athenry?

I'll accept the 'westtip challenge,' but permit me to limit my responses to Phase 2 only - Tuam to Athenry. That's because the last report I've read on rail reactivation concluded, 'A number of new rail lines have been proposed by various interests. Of these, a sketch appraisal indicates that only the Athenry-Tuam line merits further consideration, taking account of the performance of Phase 1 of the Western Rail corridor between Ennis and Athenry. None of the others perform sufficiently well to be further considered.' That, and all quotes and figures below are from the following report: Iarnród Éireann, 2030 Rail Network Strategy Review, Final Report, AECOM, October 2011.

westtip wrote: »

Why should this project be prioritized over other national projects - examples please with rational arguments?

No one stated that reactivating Tuam to Athenry is the most urgent rail project on the network. But that does not mean it is not a worthwhile project. To provide some further statistics: Tuam to Atherny scored 61 out of 100 in the previous report with regard to reactivation potential, and not 6 out of 100 as An Taoiseach believes, or 8 out of 100 as a local TD repeatedly misquotes (ask for references if you need them).

Tuam is the 56th largest settled area in Ireland, and it's population grew by 6.4% from the 2011 to the 2016 census. Of the 55 more-populated settlements, 44 are served by the rail network (or 80%).

westtip wrote:

Why does it have to go on the route of the closed railway the road lobby always goes for new routes, what is different about this?

For the same reason that the greenway supporters want to take it - cost! As quoted in the prior report, the cost of construction of a new single track (120 kph) railway over agricultural land is €3.5m/km. Whereas, the cost of upgrading an existing single track line to the same speed or better is €1.5m/km. The difference in cost is due to land acquisition and cut and fill (embankment build). So using the existing line saves €2m/km. If you want to electrify it, add €400k/km.

westtip wrote:

How much will it cost to rebuild and how much subvention will it require and can you justify these costs in a national context?

The costs would be:

Upgrade the line to 160 km/hr for 25 km @ €1.5m/km = €37.5m
Add electrification (for future-proofing) at €0.4m/km = €10.5m
Station Enhancement at €5m each (lets include Ballyglunin and Tuam) = €10m
Rolling Stock (6 cars, 3 DMUs) = €20m
Total Capital Expenditure €78m
Operating Costs: €5/km for EMUs

westtip wrote:

How would you feel if the Rail Report does not recommend it, would you be prepared to accept its findings?

I would examine it closely to ensure it properly weighted the issues set forth below.

westtip wrote:

Any other thoughts. I just want to sit back and hear your rationale again to clear the air, because I haven't seen the spell binding argument yet.

Additional thoughts are as follows:

There are European, National, and Local objectives to mode-shift trips from road to rail, for the purposes of traffic congestion mitigation and GHG reductions.
There are National objectives for regional development in the west, so that not all development happens in Dublin.
Galway City has a very real traffic problem, part of which is congestion along the Tuam Road and the N6 terminus at Doughiska. The only remedy for a 'bus solution' is CPOs for bus lane from Claregalway to Eyre Square, which has been suggested, but no costs provided.
Coordinated rail travel from Tuam to Galway would be faster than bus service during a.m. and p.m. peaks.
Rail service provides additional connectivity to Tuam other than to only Galway.

westtip wrote:

Give you a couple of weeks can we hear the arguments again please. I suggest Greenway supporters step back and let's hear what they have to say.

We would love a greenway in East Galway, as much as we'd love a railway to Tuam. The best chance is the EuroVelo2 Capitals Route, which would also provide the GP-requested cycling infrastructure from Athenry (or Loghrea) to Galway. A greenway from Tuam to Athenry does not deliver very much with regard day-to-day cycling infrastructure geared for commuters.

23-06-2020 09:50PM

When unprotected routes become farmyards

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/551337/attention-needed-for-limerick-s-working-farm-at-coolybrown.html

THE DIRECTORS of the Great Southern Trail Ltd (GST) have discussed the recent announcement by Limerick City and County Council of a €5 million upgrade for the Greenway and wish to draw public attention to the history of the “Coolybrown working farm” element of the “otherwise broadly welcome proposals”.

In a statement, they said the story begins in 2003 with a successful planning application for a 180 square metre slatted unit to be constructed in a Coolybrown farm to the south of the railway.

“The application was revised in 2006 to double the size of the unit and this was also approved. In the interim the adjacent old Limerick to Tralee railway corridor had its right of way protected by the Mid-West Regional Authority for recreational and environmental pursuits in 2004.

“Therefore, in 2007, when another incarnation of the yet unbuilt slatted unit manifested itself in a planning application, Limerick County Council, referencing the Regional Authority guidelines, wrote to the applicant on July 20 that it was “not favourly disposed” to the application and advised that it should be relocated to the northern side of the railway where the bulk of the farmlands and buildings were located. The council requested further information.

“Surprisingly, having received no new information or proposals (only a regurgitation of the previous 2003 and 2006 files received on July 30) the council approved the application on the following day,” said the statement.

These events all pre-dated the 2010 development of the Rathkeale-Ardagh section; all of the works were undertaken by GST.

“It was only then that it came to light that the plans approved three years earlier had not been complied with. The slatted unit was now several metres closer to the railway than the planning permission permitted. In fact the cattle were being fed on the CIÉ railway property.

“The overall result of the CIÉ and council indulgence is that non local users of the Greenway when encountering a narrowing of the railway route and its less than attractive appearance, to their left and to their right, actually believe that they are in a farmyard.

“To compound all of the above the council’s current plan to use public funds and to detour away from the railway for a length of 800 metres is the final capitulation. It is also a recipe for similar demands on sections yet to be developed.

“During the GST twenty-five years of campaigning, developing and managing the Greenway we never entertained requests to deviate from the railway corridor. We viewed it as land held in trust by CIÉ for the people of Ireland. Our hope now is that wiser counsel will prevail with this ill-advised current proposal being further investigated and resolved in the public interest.

“The GST Greenway has the capacity to be a world class facility and of major benefit to locals and visitors alike. The integrity of the entire way without any proposed private diversion is a key element of the facility now and for future generations,” concludes the statement.

In reply, the council said they took ownership of the Greenway route from Rathkeale to the Kerry border in 2015.

“Since then a large amount of work has been completed to bring the route up to the standard of similar Greenways nationally and internationally, with more than €3 million. These works included the Barnagh Tunnel, improved crossing points, fencing, track surfacing, bridges and signage, along with loops around the three market towns of Rathkeale, Newcastle West and Abbeyfeale.

“Just three weeks ago Limerick City and County Council announced a further investment of €5 million for a total upgrade of the surface of the Greenway,” said a spokesperson.

In addition to the €5 million, the council pointed to purchasing the old Ardagh and Barnagh Station Houses.

“With the agreement of CIE and landowners, the council will in the interests of health and safety construct an 800m diversion of the Greenway around a working farmyard at Coolybrown, Ardagh. No further route diversions are planned along the Greenway. The council has commenced design work on the small number of cattle underpasses necessary to facilitate other farm crossings on the route.

“A new re-imagined and enticing Greenway can act as a catalyst for the development of tourism and spin off activities in West Limerick and it is incumbent on everyone now to support the Greenway and support the potential job creation and other economic benefits for the region, especially now in this post-Covid environment which should make the Greenway even more popular,” said the spokesperson.

ezstreet5 · 23-06-2020 10:48PM

The above is a difficult read, but it does raise the important question of adverse possession (squatting) of the permanent way. This concern is closely related to the longstanding 'Railway Order' entitlement process that predates the Irish State.

If a railway is reactivated, CIE may be able to rely on a 'Railway Order,' or 'Railway Works Order', or equivalent, dating from the 19th Century (as they supposedly did for rebuilding WRC Phase 1). But current practice indicates that CIE would probably seek a new Railway Order under the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001. This is a sort of 'planning permission' for new railways. It includes authority for the compulsory acquisition of land. So if a rouge landowner successfully applies to the Property Registration Authority for adverse possession, CIE could simply CPO the land back (for a cost).

Muckyboots · 24-06-2020 10:03AM

Deleted User wrote: »

When unprotected routes become farmyards

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/551337/attention-needed-for-limerick-s-working-farm-at-coolybrown.html

They are not doubting their ability to attract tourists to landscapes and townlands that are practically identical to that of East Gaway and South Sligo. I think we have even more to offer in the line of heritage and culture.

"A new re-imagined and enticing Greenway can act as a catalyst for the development of tourism and spin off activities in West Limerick and it is incumbent on everyone now to support the Greenway and support the potential job creation and other economic benefits for the region, especially now in this post-Covid environment which should make the Greenway even more popular,” said the spokesperson"

ShaneC1600 · 24-06-2020 10:24AM

OMG the QMG has got the green light. They are just making it up as they go now!

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2033632063434863&id=435870759877676&sfnsn=mo

MayoForSam · 24-06-2020 10:34AM

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

OMG the QMG has got the green light. They are just making it up as they go now!

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2033632063434863&id=435870759877676&sfnsn=mo

Correct, this is fake news (who would rely on Facebook as a reliable news source anyhow?).

I doubt if 'This Is Galway' is affiliated to the QMG campaign however.

ShaneC1600 · 24-06-2020 10:57AM

MayoForSam wrote: »

Correct, this is fake news (who would rely on Facebook as a reliable news source anyhow?).

I doubt if 'This Is Galway' is affiliated to the QMG campaign however.

Its amazing how many people will still be fooled by a headline like this. First story told is story believed!
Anybody know if that bike hire place is open?

Geuze · 24-06-2020 11:06AM

ezstreet5 wrote: »

For the same reason that the greenway supporters want to take it - cost! As quoted in the prior report, the cost of construction of a new single track (120 kph) railway over agricultural land is €3.5m/km. Whereas, the cost of upgrading an existing single track line to the same speed or better is €1.5m/km. The difference in cost is due to land acquisition and cut and fill (embankment build). So using the existing line saves €2m/km. If you want to electrify it, add €400k/km.
The costs would be:
Upgrade the line to 160 km/hr for 25 km @ €1.5m/km = €37.5m

Add electrification (for future-proofing) at €0.4m/km = €10.5m

Station Enhancement at €5m each (lets include Ballyglunin and Tuam) = €10m

Rolling Stock (6 cars, 3 DMUs) = €20m

Total Capital Expenditure €78m

Operating Costs: €5/km for EMUs

I dip in and out of this discussion, so apologies for the questions:

I see a reference to 120 kph and also to 160 kph above.

Can I clarify is 1.5m per km for upgrade to 160kph correct?

It seems low to me?

Costs to build halts always seem high to me, 5m?

I'd be hoping you'd get two platforms and an overbridge/subway for 5m?

So 58m for the physical infrastructure, ok. More questions:

(2) This would allow trains to pass/cross at three points in Athenry, Ballyglunin/N63 and in Tuam?

(3) Could peak departures/arrivals to/from Tuam every 30 mins be managed?

(4) What might journey time be from Tuam-GY, with three stops? I'd be hoping for 30 mins?

Muckyboots · 24-06-2020 11:45AM

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

Anybody know if that bike hire place is open?

Might be waiting for EU approved Ten-T funding announced by Matt McCarthy, then an MEP....oh wait, sorry that was for a rail line from Derry to Kerry. Ah sure, they are all at it. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Losty Dublin · 24-06-2020 11:47AM

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

OMG the QMG has got the green light. They are just making it up as they go now!

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2033632063434863&id=435870759877676&sfnsn=mo

Fair play to some cyclists blog and a Google ad led amateur events guide page for breaking a story that everybody else has clearly ignored or not believed. Oddly enough, a more respectable news desk has a far more, dare I say it, pessimistic outlook on things. You'd have to wonder about trained journalists and the neck of them to report on what was actually said

https://galwaybayfm.ie/galway-bay-fm-news-desk/programme-for-government-brings-hope-for-east-galway-greenway-says-cannon/

serfboard · 24-06-2020 12:16PM

Losty Dublin wrote: »

https://galwaybayfm.ie/galway-bay-fm-news-desk/programme-for-government-brings-hope-for-east-galway-greenway-says-cannon/

"Ciaran Cannon says the programme for government includes a commitment to finance and build the Quiet Man Greenway" is what I would be expecting to read for it to be considered newsworthy.

But, what it actually says is "Ciaran Cannon ... says the programme for government includes a commitment to invest one million euro per day into cycling infrastructure across the country over the government’s lifetime", with absolutely no commitment to any specifc Greenway anywhere at any time.

Geuze · 24-06-2020 01:16PM

In the context of the debate of where cap exp on PT should be concentrated, I make the following points:

Of course priority should be given to projects with higher CBA / NPV

I note the railway expansion in northeast Bavaria, https://www.bahnausbau-nordostbayern.de/projektueberblick.html

The main province Upper Franconia has a pop of approx 1m, and two other provinces are involved: Middle Franconia and Upper Palatinate (1m approx)

The potential improvements cover 500km+.

I can't find the proposed costs.

whisky_galore · 24-06-2020 04:01PM

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

OMG the QMG has got the green light. They are just making it up as they go now!

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2033632063434863&id=435870759877676&sfnsn=mo

Puff piece of nonsense. I'm surprised they didn't use the "light at end of tunnel" or "full steam ahead" journo clichés.

Muckyboots · 24-06-2020 04:49PM

whisky_galore wrote: »

Puff piece of nonsense. I'm surprised they didn't use the "light at end of tunnel" or "full steam ahead" journo clichés.

Next week it might be "New Minister pulls the brake lever on ......way plans" - Insert you favourite object of hate. Jeepers there's only four letters between us.

ezstreet5 · 24-06-2020 07:48PM

Geuze wrote: »

I dip in and out of this discussion, so apologies for the questions:

I see a reference to 120 kph and also to 160 kph above.

Can I clarify is 1.5m per km for upgrade to 160kph correct?

It seems low to me?

Costs to build halts always seem high to me, 5m?

I'd be hoping you'd get two platforms and an overbridge/subway for 5m?

So 58m for the physical infrastructure, ok. More questions:

(2) This would allow trains to pass/cross at three points in Athenry, Ballyglunin/N63 and in Tuam?

(3) Could peak departures/arrivals to/from Tuam every 30 mins be managed?

(4) What might journey time be from Tuam-GY, with three stops? I'd be hoping for 30 mins?

My estimate wasn't to that level of detail, but I'll try to answer some of your questions:

(1) The per-km cost is to upgrade the line to 160 kph single track.
(2) Yes, trains could pass at Tuam, Ballyglunin, and Athenry.
(3) It could, but I would not expect a frequency higher than hourly.
(4) Athenry-Galway can be made in 18 mins, but there is still a manual level crossing near Oranmore and low speed limit on the Lough Atalia Br. Athenry Tuam is a few km longer, but is fairly straight, so perhaps double to 36 minutes. If Athenry Galway was double-tracked, manual level crossing near Oranmore removed, and additional platforms were at Galway, I believe the journey time can be reduced to 30 minutes Tuam to Galway.

You can derive your own costs from the report I looked at. See Table 9-2 on p. 140 of the second link.

https://www.irishrail.ie/IrishRail/media/Imported/irishrail_28febfinal_part11.pdf
https://www.irishrail.ie/IrishRail/media/Imported/irishrail_28febfinal_part21.pdf

Isambard · 24-06-2020 08:06PM

160km/h is delusional. They can barely manage that on Cork to Dublin.No other track is afaik cleared for that speed. With an intermediate stop at Ballyglunin (perhaps) and slowing to take the Junction at Athenry (or stopping if the section is not clear) a high average is highly unlikely.

ezstreet5 · 24-06-2020 08:22PM

Isambard wrote: »

160km/h is delusional. They can barely manage that on Cork to Dublin.No other track is afaik cleared for that speed. With an intermediate stop at Ballyglunin (perhaps) and slowing to take the Junction at Athenry (or stopping if the section is not clear) a high average is highly unlikely.

160 kph is the design standard, and not the actual speed or speed limit (otherwise, the travel time Tuam/Athenry would be <10 minutes, and nobody suggested that).

Pete_Cavan · 24-06-2020 08:36PM

€78m capital cost at 2011 prices for an hourly service between Tuam and Athenry is not financially viable. Even that is likely light as the "Upgrade single track (120kph or less) to single 160kph" probably assumes an existing operational line given the reference to 120kph, the "or less" is unlikely to be as low as JCB speed.

As has been said before, a better (faster and more frequent) bus service could be provided at a small fraction of that cost.

ShaneC1600 · 24-06-2020 09:08PM

Thoughts or opinions on the Sligo rail line from Dublin in terms of usage, level of service and is there a need to have that line operational?

ezstreet5 · 24-06-2020 09:12PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

€78m capital cost at 2011 prices for an hourly service between Tuam and Athenry is not financially viable.

Yeah it is. We just spent €1.149 billion building the Gort/Tuam Motorway. And we are hoping to spend an additional €612 million for the N6 Galway City Ring Road. And you are worrying about €78m to reinstate rail service to Tuam?

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Even that is likely light as the "Upgrade single track (120kph or less) to single 160kph" probably assumes an existing operational line given the reference to 120kph, the "or less" is unlikely to be as low as JCB speed.

Even if it €100m, it is still worth it.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

As has been said before, a better (faster and more frequent) bus service could be provided at a small fraction of that cost.

I don't believe that a one-hour journey time from Tuam to Galway in the morning makes Tuam an attractive place to live for a person working in Galway. Yet, 2000 passengers per day use the congested service. It's not good enough.

24-06-2020 09:22PM

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Yeah it is. We just spent €1.149 billion building the Gort/Tuam Motorway. And we are hoping to spend an additional €612 million for the N6 Galway City Ring Road. And you are worrying about €78m to reinstate rail service to Tuam?
Even if it €100m, it is still worth it.I don't believe that a one-hour journey time from Tuam to Galway in the morning makes Tuam an attractive place to live for a person working in Galway. Yet, 2000 passengers per day use the congested service. It's not good enough.

You might want to double check some of your figures

ezstreet5 · 24-06-2020 09:25PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You might want to double check some of your figures

Which ones?

Pete_Cavan · 24-06-2020 09:45PM

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Yeah it is. We just spent €1.149 billion building the Gort/Tuam Motorway. And we are hoping to spend an additional €612 million for the N6 Galway City Ring Road. And you are worrying about €78m to reinstate rail service to Tuam?

I don't know where you got that figure for the Gort/Tuam Motorway but any reported cost I saw was half that. I would rather the Galway Bypass wasn't built as I don't think it represents good value for money. Neither does spending that much for a low frequency shuttle train service. Just because something else cost more, doesn't make this lesser amount good value.

Even if it €100m, it is still worth it.

Based on what? A report was complied but has been hidden away for some strange reason. Hopefully the next Transport Minister will publish it, warts and all.

I don't believe that a one-hour journey time from Tuam to Galway in the morning makes Tuam an attractive place to live for a person working in Galway. Yet, 2000 passengers per day use the congested service. It's not good enough.

Rather than spending tens of millions on a railway to provide a shuttle service to Athenry for connection to onward services to Galway, a bus could be provided at little cost (both capital and operational) and would likely be a superior service in terms of frequency and possibly in terms of speed also. You have to consider the times of potential connections in Athenry, if the first train leaves Tuam to connect with a particular train in Athenry, then takes on hour to go back to Tuam and return to Athenry, when is the next train from Athenry? It is possible that there would only be one train leaving Tuam which would suit commuters, getting them into Galway at a reasonable time. It is unlikely to be an attractive service for commuters. At least buses could hit every connection and you wouldn't be left waiting for an hour if you missed one (plus possible wait when you finally get to Athenry). Reinstating the rail line doesn't automatically create a good service, there are many limitations, particularly on a single track line, particularly when you have a single track connecting to an already congested single track.

end of the road · 24-06-2020 10:04PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

€78m capital cost at 2011 prices for an hourly service between Tuam and Athenry is not financially viable. Even that is likely light as the "Upgrade single track (120kph or less) to single 160kph" probably assumes an existing operational line given the reference to 120kph, the "or less" is unlikely to be as low as JCB speed.

it's very financially viable however you would need to aim for a half hourly service minimum.
to me it sounds like an absolute bargain compared to other schemes however the bigger schemes would have to take priority.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

As has been said before, a better (faster and more frequent) bus service could be provided at a small fraction of that cost.

a very very basic bus service yes, however it is going to end up getting stuck in the same traffic and realistically there are already enough bus services for those who want them and if more are needed operators will grow them themselves.
the only way you would be able to provide this bus service is complete segregation from any other road traffic so it can move freely throughout it's journey, that is going to be expensive itself i would imagine.
either way, bus services don't get us out of needing rail, they have their place but as a secondary sollution where cities are involved.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I don't know where you got that figure for the Gort/Tuam Motorway but any reported cost I saw was half that. I would rather the Galway Bypass wasn't built as I don't think it represents good value for money. Neither does spending that much for a low frequency shuttle train service. Just because something else cost more, doesn't make this lesser amount good value.

Based on what? A report was complied but has been hidden away for some strange reason. Hopefully the next Transport Minister will publish it, warts and all.

Rather than spending tens of millions on a railway to provide a shuttle service to Athenry for connection to onward services to Galway, a bus could be provided at little cost (both capital and operational) and would likely be a superior service in terms of frequency and possibly in terms of speed also. You have to consider the times of potential connections in Athenry, if the first train leaves Tuam to connect with a particular train in Athenry, then takes on hour to go back to Tuam and return to Athenry, when is the next train from Athenry? It is possible that there would only be one train leaving Tuam which would suit commuters, getting them into Galway at a reasonable time. It is unlikely to be an attractive service for commuters. At least buses could hit every connection and you wouldn't be left waiting for an hour if you missed one (plus possible wait when you finally get to Athenry). Reinstating the rail line doesn't automatically create a good service, there are many limitations, particularly on a single track line, particularly when you have a single track connecting to an already congested single track.

again with the shuttle train statement, there is nothing to show that the train will be a shuttle train, there is nothing to show it will run to athenry only with a change to another train.
your bus is subject to all that goes with road transport and subsiquent congestion, so it hitting whatever is not a guarantee.

ezstreet5 · 24-06-2020 10:49PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I don't know where you got that figure for the Gort/Tuam Motorway but any reported cost I saw was half that. I would rather the Galway Bypass wasn't built as I don't think it represents good value for money. Neither does spending that much for a low frequency shuttle train service. Just because something else cost more, doesn't make this lesser amount good value.

Minister Shane Ross stated (bragged) in the Dáil on 11th July 2018 the following:

'Notwithstanding the budgetary position of the State at that time, the Government proceeded with the largest transport project in this State since 2011. This was the Gort-Tuam motorway which opened last year and which was prioritised and delivered at the height of the economic crisis at a total cost to the Exchequer and PPP contractors of €1.149 billion.'

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2018-07-11/31/#spk_281

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Based on what? A report was complied but has been hidden away for some strange reason. Hopefully the next Transport Minister will publish it, warts and all.

Let's not be naïve. That report isn't going to be nakedly released without some sort of "pleased to see" announcement, whether it is a rail project or a greenway project. But €100 million is not that much money for a major piece of infrastructure, even if the number has a lot of scary zeros.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Rather than spending tens of millions on a railway to provide a shuttle service to Athenry for connection to onward services to Galway, a bus could be provided at little cost (both capital and operational) and would likely be a superior service in terms of frequency and possibly in terms of speed also. You have to consider the times of potential connections in Athenry, if the first train leaves Tuam to connect with a particular train in Athenry, then takes on hour to go back to Tuam and return to Athenry, when is the next train from Athenry? It is possible that there would only be one train leaving Tuam which would suit commuters, getting them into Galway at a reasonable time. It is unlikely to be an attractive service for commuters. At least buses could hit every connection and you wouldn't be left waiting for an hour if you missed one (plus possible wait when you finally get to Athenry). Reinstating the rail line doesn't automatically create a good service, there are many limitations, particularly on a single track line, particularly when you have a single track connecting to an already congested single track.

If you are suggesting that the solution is a bus between Tuam and Atherny Rail Station, I would suggest that adding 9 km to the journey (via the motorways), or using the Athenry-Tuam Road, is not really a solution. We shouldn't be misers when it comes to transport infrastructure.

Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

Comments