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

Pete_Cavan

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Super expensive. That money would be better spent to build 5% of a children's hospital in Dublin, or 10 km of Motorway, or we could extend Covid payments for another 3.5 weeks.

Most likely yes, that money would be better spent on those things. They would almost certainly deliver more benefits than a low frequency train serving a small population.

ezstreet5 wrote: »

That's akin to claiming that the Galway-Dublin line is a failure because not many passengers alight at Attymon.

The only way it would be akin to that is if €100m was spend providing a rail service to Attymon which wasn't in existence before. There is a big difference between a station being served on an existing route with existing infrastructure and major capital expenditure to provide a service to a station which had no service. This is also why passengers travelling between Galway - Athenry and Limerick - Ennis shouldn't be considered when considering the success or failure of the Athenry - Ennis project, those people had their services without spending that €106m.

River Suir

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Most likely yes, that money would be better spent on those things. They would almost certainly deliver more benefits than a low frequency train serving a small population.

The only way it would be akin to that is if €100m was spend providing a rail service to Attymon which wasn't in existence before. There is a big difference between a station being served on an existing route with existing infrastructure and major capital expenditure to provide a service to a station which had no service. This is also why passengers travelling between Galway - Athenry and Limerick - Ennis shouldn't be considered when considering the success or failure of the Athenry - Ennis project, those people had their services without spending that €106m.

Phew, €106m? Why that would buy you a whole tenth of the Tuam bypass.

Lord Glentoran

River Suir wrote: »

Phew, €106m? Why that would buy you a whole tenth of the Tuam bypass.

And no windfall profits for landowners by developing the railway.

donvito99

River Suir wrote: »

Phew, €106m? Why that would buy you a whole tenth of the Tuam bypass.

And yet the motorway in the vicinity of Gort, as an example, carried 12,500 vehicles per day on average in 2018, or 12,500 passengers at a minimum.

http://www.irishmotorwayinfo.com/inex/roads/m18/m1718counts.html

That's about 4.5m passengers per year (again at the bare minimum), which is about 10 times the number of people transported on the WRC in 2019 - including all the bits between Ennis and Athenry (and including Oranmore) that existed prior to the €106m investment.

So despite costing approximately 10 times as much per km, it transported approximately 10 times as many people, not to mention the fact that it also transported goods and other cargo.

Pete_Cavan

River Suir wrote: »

Phew, €106m? Why that would buy you a whole tenth of the Tuam bypass.

The Tuam bypass (non-motorway road around Tuam) did not cost €1.06bn. The 57km long M17/M18 Gort-Tuam PPP under which the Tuam bypass was built cost half that.

But this thing of picking a project and saying "it cost money so we should spend money on reopening the railway" doesn't standup. Other projects get assessed to determine if the benefits from providing the infrastructure outweigh the cost of delivering it. We don't yet know if that was assessed in the report which has been prepared for further WRC reopening, hopefully it did, if it ever gets published. Road and rail aren't directly comparable either so the whole "but the motorway was built" argument is pointless.

ezstreet5

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Most likely yes, that money would be better spent on those things. They would almost certainly deliver more benefits than a low frequency train serving a small population.

The only way it would be akin to that is if €100m was spend providing a rail service to Attymon which wasn't in existence before. There is a big difference between a station being served on an existing route with existing infrastructure and major capital expenditure to provide a service to a station which had no service. This is also why passengers travelling between Galway - Athenry and Limerick - Ennis shouldn't be considered when considering the success or failure of the Athenry - Ennis project, those people had their services without spending that €106m.

There is a contingent within the greenway campaign that will never accept that reopening Phase 1 has achieved a measure of success. So when IE released their 2019 census data, those folk attributed the growth to Athenry-Galway passengers and claimed that they were being deceived yet again by the sinister WOT illuminati. But, the data wasn't that granular, and didn't include a breakdown of ridership over the three segments of Phase 1. That breakdown has been provided for prior years in response to FOI Act requests, but nobody in the greenway campaign seems to have requested it for calendar year 2019. Perhaps they are not prepared for what it may show-likely increased ridership.

Losty Dublin

In your own words, the motorway that links Galway to Dublin, the east coast and the Midlands cost about the same per head as the unnecessary and cash wasteful railway.

Interesting :cool:

donvito99 wrote: »

And yet the motorway in the vicinity of Gort, as an example, carried 12,500 vehicles per day on average in 2018, or 12,500 passengers at a minimum.

http://www.irishmotorwayinfo.com/inex/roads/m18/m1718counts.html

That's about 4.5m passengers per year (again at the bare minimum), which is about 10 times the number of people transported on the WRC in 2019 - including all the bits between Ennis and Athenry (and including Oranmore) that existed prior to the €106m investment.

So despite costing approximately 10 times as much per km, it transported approximately 10 times as many people, not to mention the fact that it also transported goods and other cargo.

donvito99

Losty Dublin wrote: »

In your own words, the motorway that links Galway to Dublin, the east coast and the Midlands cost about the same per head as the unnecessary and cash wasteful railway.

Interesting :cool:

Where did I say that? I'm referring to the M18, the road that runs parallel to the railway and bypasses many of the towns on the WRC with stations, which carried 10 time as many people at a minimum (+ goods) despite costing 10 times as much per km.

ezstreet5

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The Tuam bypass (non-motorway road around Tuam) did not cost €1.06bn. The 57km long M17/M18 Gort-Tuam PPP under which the Tuam bypass was built cost half that.

€1b or more seems closer to the actual cost, despite the figure of €550 frequently quoted. The linked spreadsheet shows PPP payment commitments equaling €885m over 25 years, and that would only include the motorway build, excluding the Tuam Bypass not under the PPP scheme.

http://ppp.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Annualised-UP-Payments-end-2018-position.xlsx

Pete_Cavan

ezstreet5 wrote: »

There is a contingent within the greenway campaign that will never accept that reopening Phase 1 has achieved a measure of success. So when IE released their 2019 census data, those folk attributed the growth to Athenry-Galway passengers and claimed that they were being deceived yet again by the sinister WOT illuminati. But, the data wasn't that granular, and didn't include a breakdown of ridership over the three segments of Phase 1. That breakdown has been provided for prior years in response to FOI Act requests, but nobody in the greenway campaign seems to have requested it for calendar year 2019. Perhaps they are not prepared for what it may show-likely increased ridership.

Have you requested those figures yourself? If there were favourable figures for Phase 1, I'm sure WOT would have ensure that they were published, much like the recent report.

And increased ridership means very little. What has driven the increase in ridership, have ticket prices been further subsidised to increase passenger numbers? I don't have the figures in front of me but iirc, the WRC only recently reached the Business Case Year 1 no of passengers. An increase in passengers isn't a great achievement if passenger numbers are still well below the numbers which were predicted to make the project viable and which were used to justify the significant expenditure on the project.

ezstreet5

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Have you requested those figures yourself? If there were favourable figures for Phase 1, I'm sure WOT would have ensure that they were published, much like the recent report.

And increased ridership means very little. What has driven the increase in ridership, have ticket prices been further subsidised to increase passenger numbers? I don't have the figures in front of me but iirc, the WRC only recently reached the Business Case Year 1 no of passengers. An increase in passengers isn't a great achievement if passenger numbers are still well below the numbers which were predicted to make the project viable and which were used to justify the significant expenditure on the project.

I don't need to be convinced of the growth. I've seen nearly full (and in some cases overcapacity) WRC trains leaving Athenry for Ennis. But when folk want to pretend the service terminates in Athenry, or claim that it is slower than bus Route 51, or that the motorway was less expensive and has no operational costs, or the section of the WRC that was rebuilt is the section that floods, or that fares are too low, or that passenger numbers do not meet the "business case" that they've never seen.... These folk just don't want the railway under any circumstances.

Greaney

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

And increased ridership means very little.

If one doesn't have a car..... it 'means' very much!!

end of the road

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Athenry - Ennis was estimated at €74.7m, it opened at a cost of €106m five years later, almost 50% uplift. Applying the same to the Athenry - Tuam section, it would have cost €50m 10 years ago. Add in a new bridge over the N63, then 10 years of inflation to get to todays cost, then add another 10 years inflation for when it might actually get built (probably a lot more). If the report which has already been prepared ever gets published, it might give an updated cost estimate.

That isn't low cost and certainly isn't good value for an hourly shuttle service (the existing line doesn't have space for direct trains) from a town of 10k people. Low cost and good value for money would be a bus service that provides the same service at greater frequency at a fraction of the cost, if public transport was actually the concern here.

Tuam to Claremorris would cost >€100m on top of that. A proper NPV cost analysis would show that kind of money isn't justifiable. With the poor usage on Athenry - Ennis, there is no way the government will be investing such money into more WRC and IE don't want another loss making line anyway.

IE get payed for what they operate, so whether a line is loss making or not is actually of no concern to them even if they try and pretend it is when it suits them, so therefore i would suggest the statement that "they don't want another line" might be more accurate, given they very rarely actually stand up for rail in general apart from the odd snipit.
we already know from various figures posted recently that limerick to galway is actually doing well enough now, ennis athenry is just the link line that allows for a through service at this stage, there are no ennis athenry specific services.
again as i already said your bus service at a fraction of the cost isn't going to offer anything because from what i remember it's just chucking everyone out at athenry, and i believe there are already bus services from tuam which actually do offer services to those who do want bus services and go to the city and other areas.
your offering would really be a waste of time and money, actual bad value for money.
a rail link on the other hand coupled with the already needed redoubling of the galway line would actually offer an alternative transport link to the city, and coupled with some passing loops on the tuam line itself could actually offer potentially a very reasonable frequency.
nobody is looking for the tuam line to be reopened without actual proper investment in the area to allow the service to be operated properly, that's just your (i suspect deliberate at this stage) misinterpretation of what is being said.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Look at the boardings and alightings numbers for Gort, Ardrahan and Craughwell, it certainly is poor usage;

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/National_Heavy_Rail_2019_FA_ONLINE.pdf

Using passenger numbers between Galway and Athenry and Ennis and Limerick to support the case for Athenry - Ennis is fiction, those people had their services before Athenry - Ennis was rebuilt.

only limerick to ennis and on the other side dublin to galway were the services that existed pre-wrc reopening from what i remember.
now, there are limerick to galway trains, giving increased services at least on the galway side, which if did not exist, probably would only be left with the dublin to galway services.
including passengers from galway and limerick on a galway to limerick service when they are traveling on that service is a non-issue, they probably wouldn't be traveling by rail if that service didn't exist, not to mention that there will be through passengers between the 2 cities who would not have had a through rail service but for the reopening of ennis athenry.
small stations of which there will be a couple on almost every single line in the country, will have small loadings compared to bigger stations, the bigger stations making up the majority of the traffic.

donvito99 wrote: »

And yet the motorway in the vicinity of Gort, as an example, carried 12,500 vehicles per day on average in 2018, or 12,500 passengers at a minimum.

http://www.irishmotorwayinfo.com/inex/roads/m18/m1718counts.html

That's about 4.5m passengers per year (again at the bare minimum), which is about 10 times the number of people transported on the WRC in 2019 - including all the bits between Ennis and Athenry (and including Oranmore) that existed prior to the €106m investment.

So despite costing approximately 10 times as much per km, it transported approximately 10 times as many people, not to mention the fact that it also transported goods and other cargo.

i would expect a substantial amount of that will be single occupant cars, probably most.
so even if it carries 10 times the number of the railway, the fact it costed 10 times more per km for that would still in my view constitute not great value, because the amount spent and the space needed to cater to that traffic is quite substantial vs what is actually given back in return and the space wasted and taken up.
a needed road project, perhapse, one that is value for money, i would argue probably not very much tbh.

donvito99

end of the road wrote: »

I
i would expect a substantial amount of that will be single occupant cars, probably most.
so even if it carries 10 times the number of the railway, the fact it costed 10 times more per km for that would still in my view constitute not great value, because the amount spent and the space needed to cater to that traffic is quite substantial vs what is actually given back in return and the space wasted and taken up.
a needed road project, perhapse, one that is value for money, i would argue probably not very much tbh.

The fact that some cars are single occupancy is irrelevant. There were still in 12,500 vehicles, which means 12,500 passengers on average at a minimum, meaning that the motorway moves the same number of people as the railway does in proportion to the outlay, which was the point I was responding to.

You may not value it, but considering the fact that the WRC moves exactly zero freight and that more people actually avail of the motorway, the argument that the motorway does not deliver value for money in comparison to the WRC is just laughable.

Greaney

donvito99 wrote: »

the argument that the motorway does not deliver value for money in comparison to the WRC is just laughable.

A lot of people can't use the motorway. They can't/don't drive!!. They may be young, broke, disabled, elderly, off the road. As I read this thread, it's obvious to me, a lot of folk here drive... and I suspect, drive to go cycling :rolleyes:

Furthermore, we really need to get cars off the road because when they're hit the towns they're heading to, many of them cannot move in the traffic, or cannot be stored parked anywhere. We're chocking with cars, in case you haven't noticed. They park on double yellow lines, cycle lanes, blocking driveways to private residents etc. We really really need to invest in our public transport.

ezstreet5

donvito99 wrote: »

The fact that some cars are single occupancy is irrelevant. There were still in 12,500 vehicles, which means 12,500 passengers on average at a minimum, meaning that the motorway moves the same number of people as the railway does in proportion to the outlay, which was the point I was responding to.

You may not value it, but considering the fact that the WRC moves exactly zero freight and that more people actually avail of the motorway, the argument that the motorway does not deliver value for money in comparison to the WRC is just laughable.

Wait. So if AADT is 12,500, that means that 4.56 million vehicles use the M17/M18 annually. And if the PPP cost is around €34 million per anum for the next 25 years, that means that each trip is subsidized by the state to at a rate of €7.50 per trip! That's on top of the vehicle's operational cost. I'm beyond laughing.

donvito99

Greaney wrote: »

A lot of people can't use the motorway. They can't/don't drive!!. They may be young, broke, disabled, elderly, off the road. As I read this thread, it's obvious to me, a lot of folk here drive... and I suspect, drive to go cycling :rolleyes:

Yes, because there is no such thing as any other form of public transport except heavy rail.

It is entirely implausible that a bus is more likely to serve more persons with disabilities more conveniently to the places they want to go relative to a train operating infrequently on a fixed route serving a limited number of small towns which will inevitably require road transfer too and from stations.

:rolleyes:

Furthermore, we really need to get cars off the road because when they're hit the towns they're heading to, many of them cannot move in the traffic, or cannot be stored parked anywhere. We're chocking with cars, in case you haven't noticed. They park on double yellow lines, cycle lanes, blocking driveways to private residents etc. We really really need to invest in our public transport. intercity heavy rail only

FYP as the concept of public transport investment appropriate to the circumstances and demand does not exist.

donvito99

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Wait. So if AADT is 12,500, that means that 4.56 million vehicles use the M17/M18 annually. And if the PPP cost is around €34 million per anum for the next 25 years, that means that each trip is subsidized by the state to at a rate of €7.50 per trip! That's on top of the vehicle's operational cost. I'm beyond laughing.

How much is the subsidy on the Ballybrophy branch again?

You'd fall out of your chair if you heard that one

EDIT: €761 in 2017. A hundred times that of the M18. Good Christ.

Losty Dublin

donvito99 wrote: »

Where did I say that? I'm referring to the M18, the road that runs parallel to the railway and bypasses many of the towns on the WRC with stations, which carried 10 time as many people at a minimum (+ goods) despite costing 10 times as much per km.

My mistake. It's the M18 that you said has a similar cost per KM per passenger as the railway line.

Regardless, your post serves either to make out the M18 as something of a waste of funds or the railway line as something of a success based on that basic cost benefit analysis. Enhance rail services in the region, to Tuam and onwards to Claremorris and the value for money that you have acknowledged for the WRC will improve, and that's besides the strategic benefits that it bestows.

Win Win, if you will.

ezstreet5

donvito99 wrote: »

How much is the subsidy on the Ballybrophy branch again?

You'd fall out of your chair if you heard that one

EDIT: €761 in 2017. A hundred times that of the M18. Good Christ.

I'd say that Athenry to Ennis would perform significantly better, with operational costs of only €2.8m per anum.

end of the road

donvito99 wrote: »

Yes, because there is no such thing as any other form of public transport except heavy rail.

It is entirely implausible that a bus is more likely to serve more persons with disabilities more conveniently to the places they want to go relative to a train operating infrequently on a fixed route serving a limited number of small towns which will inevitably require road transfer too and from stations.

FYP as the concept of public transport investment appropriate to the circumstances and demand does not exist.

hence why we are campaigning for it to do so, and are campaigning for light and heavy rail where appropriate.
solving road transport with road transport is only ever going to have limited scope, rail being the main form of transport for the cities is really the only sustainable way due to the capacity it can provide for small cost compared to road.

donvito99 wrote: »

How much is the subsidy on the Ballybrophy branch again?

You'd fall out of your chair if you heard that one

EDIT: €761 in 2017. A hundred times that of the M18. Good Christ.

it's what happens when you don't put proper investement into what could be potentially quite a viable line had it not been left to rot for decades.
staffed crossings and signal boxes cost money.
they are relaying track now i believe currently but whether that will bring any actual improvement or not remains to be seen, it better had do so.

Isambard

Greaney wrote: »

A lot of people can't use the motorway. They can't/don't drive!!. They may be young, broke, disabled, elderly, off the road. As I read this thread, it's obvious to me, a lot of folk here drive... and I suspect, drive to go cycling :rolleyes:

Furthermore, we really need to get cars off the road because when they're hit the towns they're heading to, many of them cannot move in the traffic, or cannot be stored parked anywhere. We're chocking with cars, in case you haven't noticed. They park on double yellow lines, cycle lanes, blocking driveways to private residents etc. We really really need to invest in our public transport.

Everybody uses the motorway. It's how the goods they buy get to the shops. Motorway use in this fashion far outstrips rail use.

River Suir

Isambard wrote: »

Everybody uses the motorway. It's how the goods they buy get to the shops. Motorway use in this fashion far outstrips rail use.

I am not sure how this debate gets reduced to the ridiculous level of rail versus road. We need both.

Also what's with people who want to close down all the railways? It strikes me that some people would prefer the entire rail network to be reduced to a small circle somewhere in Co Cork where a single preserved 141 class can run around in a circle all day...

donvito99

River Suir wrote: »

I am not sure how this debate gets reduced to the ridiculous level of rail versus road. We need both.

Also what's with people who want to close down all the railways? It strikes me that some people would prefer the entire rail network to be reduced to a small circle somewhere in Co Cork where a single preserved 141 class can run around in a circle all day...

Has any single person proposed to close down the railways? This is a constant line, that people who criticise the usefulness of the WRC are therefore anti-rail.

Nothing could be further from the truth in my case.

ezstreet5

donvito99 wrote: »

Has any single person proposed to close down the railways? This is a constant line, that people who criticise the usefulness of the WRC are therefore anti-rail.

Nothing could be further from the truth in my case.

Deputy Ciaran Cannon wanted to shut down Phase 1 of the WRC in 2017.

https://connachttribune.ie/galway-junior-minister-says-athenry-ennis-rail-route-may-not-be-viable/

Greaney

Isambard wrote: »

Everybody uses the motorway. It's how the goods they buy get to the shops. Motorway use in this fashion far outstrips rail use.

One can't use a goods vehicle to get to school/college.

The motorway stops a few miles from Galway, and then.... traffic jams. Galway is not the only town along that line that suffers from traffic, and yes, suffer we do!! I've used both the motorway and the train and I prefer rail. I think it's better. For the community, economy and environment. In fact I know many, who drive who would rather use rail because...

An annual tax deductible ticket is cheaper than running a car
Traffic is stressful.
The walk/cycle between the station and the place one is great for ones health
Wheelchairs are not able to use intercity buses And for anyone who thinks the numbers are small, Tuam is home to the Irish Wheelchair assoc office and Athenry has two major care facilities for the disabled (ID, etc.), who prefer rail to bus. They have no choice, they can't drive. Independent living is vital for both them and their family
FYI. the Buses also don't take mobility scooters & bikes
Buses get caught in traffic. A little piece of hell is to be stuck on the Tuam road for ages, in a bus, in the rain!!!!!

As a nation should be investing in our public transport infrastructure all the time. We've been car-centric for too long and we're paying a high price for it.

The only downside....

I suspect that house prices in Tuam will jump by at least 15% if rail is officially announced, and another 20% if it's built

Lord Glentoran

donvito99 wrote: »

Has any single person proposed to close down the railways? This is a constant line, that people who criticise the usefulness of the WRC are therefore anti-rail.

Nothing could be further from the truth in my case.

70% of people commuting into Dublin city are not in cars already so a metro isn't required in order to deal with the traffic caused by the private car at rush hour.

So, if you are not even in favour of rail in Dublin, where do you support it? Between London and Paris? Or anywhere?

Muckyboots

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Deputy Ciaran Cannon wanted to shut down Phase 1 of the WRC in 2017.

https://connachttribune.ie/galway-junior-minister-says-athenry-ennis-rail-route-may-not-be-viable/

Simply saying it as it is and calling for a review. It was Irish Rail that first muted the shutting down of the service, albeit as part of pay negotiations with unions. If it did close down the greenway advocates all along the route would be all over it like a rash. Que sera.

Lord Glentoran

Muckyboots wrote: »

Simply saying it as it is and calling for a review. It was Irish Rail that first muted the shutting down of the service, albeit as part of pay negotiations with unions. If it did close down the greenway advocates all along the route would be all over it like a rash. Que sera.

And this is the problem. The greenway campaigners in this instance keep insisting that 1. Rail isn’t viable and 2. a greenway “preserves” the permanent way for some indeterminate time when a railway is deemed viable by someone; 3. At least some prominent campaigners put a spanner in the works of the Athlone to Galway proposal; 4. If the railway at some unknown time is deemed by unknown people to be “viable”, the greenway is either handed back or land is purchased for an alternative greenway; and not least 5. The weird tricks on social media involving “humour” and a very thinly disguised named public rep.

One could be forgiven for being a wee bit cynical about this rinse-and-repeat carry-on

Muckyboots

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

And this is the problem. The greenway campaigners in this instance keep insisting that 1. Rail isn’t viable and 2. a greenway “preserves” the permanent way for some indeterminate time when a railway is deemed viable by someone; 3. At least some prominent campaigners put a spanner in the works of the Athlone to Galway proposal; 4. If the railway at some unknown time is deemed by unknown people to be “viable”, the greenway is either handed back or land is purchased for an alternative greenway; and not least 5. The weird tricks on social media involving “humour” and a very thinly disguised named public rep.

One could be forgiven for being a wee bit cynical about this rinse-and-repeat carry-on

I don't buy into that viable v not viable rhetoric anymore, and I suspect Eamon Ryan won't be convinced by it either. The pandemic and the fiscal reaction to it has shot that quacking duck dead. It's really simple, either sustain a railway on it or give it over as a greenway. My preference is for a greenway.