River Suir wrote: » I would expect there to be no movement until the Ten-T consultations are complete. And the report will no doubt be ready when its ready. You wouldn't pull a half baked loaf of bread out of the oven so to speak.
westtip wrote: » Ah so we can see the familiar pattern unfolding, Lord Ross and his sidekick have delayed the process for four years, in the meantime SF/WOT have continued on the TEN-T is going to be revised again lobbying like mad in Europe, TEN-T will come back with some ambiguous view about WRC and we will all have to wait another Five years until SF/WOT get in power, Kick the can until we can get hold of power then spend another 5 years unable to deliver, Ah so another ten years of nothing.
River Suir wrote: » Who or what is SF/WOT or is that a made up name for trolling purposes?
ezstreet5 wrote: » Sinn Féin and West on Track - the axis of evil standing in the way of the Quiet Man Greenway, according to a peculiar strain within that group. The former being a political party not (and never) in government that locally supports reactivation. The latter being a loose advocacy group of politicians of all flavours, community-level advocates, and lay persons that also support reactivation. The theory is that if these nefarious characters would cease and desist from their self-serving, backwards, nostalgic activities, the greenway would prevail. Conversely, WOT do not believe that if the Quiet Man Greenway advocacy group would disband, rail reactivation would occur. Neither option is simple, inexpensive, or easy. It is not the local "us versus them," or "vote rail/vote greenway" issue that some make it out to be.
River Suir wrote: » I do think St Francis of Assisi’s expression “you catch more flies with a spoonful of honey than a barrel full of vinegar” is quite apt.
westtip wrote: » SF/WOT always gets a reaction. lovely jubbly, thanks for taking the bait. Hilarious. That is what this whole thread has become more and more ridiculous and more and more hilarious. Everyone can remain safe in their houses in Claremorris then so, no need to rush out and catch a train to stroke city.
River Suir wrote: » I would expect there to be no movement
River Suir wrote: » This ... perhaps shows the WOT campaign is cutting through in a way the Greenway campaign will never do.
serfboard wrote: » There's a list as long as your arm of rail money that needs to be spent, before anyone would begin to look at a WRC North.
Carawaystick wrote: » There isn't really
Iarnrod Eireann wrote: Maynooth - M3 Parkway Line and City Centre The overall scope for the Maynooth Line and City Centre, to facilitate the necessary increase in capacity, will require: •Track, platform and station modifications and improvements at Dublin Connolly Station and Docklands Station to increase through-running and terminating capacity •Track and infrastructure modifications at key junction approaching Dublin Connolly and Docklands Station from north and west •Bridge reconstructions arising from corridor widening and electrical clearances, as necessary •Elimination of level crossings on the Maynooth Line and provision of appropriate road relief infrastructure •Signalling and telecommunications infrastructure to support the projected capacity increases •Electrification of Maynooth and M3 Parkway lines, and power supply to support the projected capacity increases •Provision of a new DART Expansion rolling stock maintenance and stabling depot •Integration of DART Expansion with the new MetroLink station at Glasnevin Kildare Line The overall scope for the Kildare Line, to facilitate the necessary increase in capacity, will require: •Widening of the railway corridor and completing four tracking between Park West Station and Dublin Heuston •Improvements to the Phoenix Park Tunnel Line to support the projected capacity increases •Bridge reconstructions arising from corridor widening and electrical clearances, as necessary •Signalling and telecommunications infrastructure to support the projected capacity increases •Electrification and power supply from Hazelhatch to Dublin Heuston to support the projected capacity increases •Provision of rolling stock stabling, as necessary Northern Line The overall scope for the Northern Line, to facilitate the necessary increase in capacity, will require: •Signalling and telecommunications infrastructure to support the projected capacity increases •Electrification and power supply from Malahide to Drogheda to support the projected capacity increases •Bridge reconstructions arising from corridor widening and electrical clearances, as necessary •Upgrade and modification of Drogheda and Fairview maintenance depots •Provision of higher capacity turnback at Drogheda and Clongriffin •Provision of rolling stock stabling, as necessary Southside DART Line Improvement Works The overall scope for the Southside Line, to facilitate the necessary increase in capacity, will require: •Agreeing with the National Transport Authority and Local Authority the level crossing closure plan to support the projected capacity increases •Provide an appropriate level of road relief infrastructure in-lieu of increased level crossing closure frequency •Provision of a high capacity turnback at Dun Laoghaire or Bray •Provision of rolling stock stabling, as necessary •Integration of DART Expansion with MetroLink at Tara Street
serfboard wrote: » Any of these projects will move multiple times the numbers of passengers and provide far better Value For Money, than a rail line north of Athenry. A rail line may be built north of Athenry, but not for a few decades. For a tiny amount of money, a Greenway can be built on it in while we wait. Only the worst kind of dog in the manger would want to see it left idle in the meantime.
ezstreet5 wrote: » The price tag for those projects exceeds 5 billion I believe. If it came in at 5.2 billion, no one would bat an eyelash, despite the fact that the "tiny" overbudget amount could have rebuilt the WRC.
ezstreet5 wrote: » Nobody wants to see the way remain idle. But rail pragmatists understand that there is no such thing as a temporary greenway operating under a revocable license.
Muckyboots wrote: » With that same logic, why not go to €5.4 and run a parallel greenway.
ezstreet5 wrote: » Sounds reasonable, except that greenway advocates might have to work with some of their rail-supporting neighbours and politicians which they they consider to be "the worst kind of dog in the manger."
Muckyboots wrote: » It would be a good way to sort out the bigots from the zealots..
ezstreet5 wrote: » The price tag for those projects exceeds 5 billion I believe. If it came in at 5.2 billion, no one would bat an eyelash, despite the fact that the "tiny" overbudget amount could have rebuilt the WRC. Projects don't always advance in the order of value for money. There are regional and political considerations and different funding mechanisms. Applying the same logic to greenways, one could argue that there are a myriad of other greenway projects that would warrant investment before a Western Rail Trail project and would provide better value for money, such as completion of the EV1 and EV2 routes. Nobody wants to see the way remain idle. But rail pragmatists understand that there is no such thing as a temporary greenway operating under a revocable license. Conversion of the way to a full-fledged greenway is irreversible.
monument wrote: » You want your cake and eat it here. You and others are more interested in fighting against the greenway lads than you are being pragmatic. The two positions you are taking are not compatible with each other. You cannot claim that (1) there "is no such thing as a temporary greenway operating under a revocable licence" and that a "full-fledged greenway is irreversible" and also (2) that parallel greenway is "reasonable" and then have another pointless pot shot at people you don't agree with. If a parallel greenway is reasonable then your position that a greenway built first is irreversible just doesn't stand up to any logic -- if a greenway was built first and then, 5 or 10 years later, somebody found a load of money to build the WRC there's zero real issue putting in the parallel greenway. The extra money is minimal.
monument wrote: » You want your cake and eat it here. You and others are more interested in fighting against the greenway lads than you are being pragmatic.
What the Claremorris based rail advocates and their tiny number of supporters in Galway are advocating is just self-indulgent, nostalgic nonsense and it completely ignores reality and the needs of a progressive- thinking, modern local community. 1970's style rail infrastructure for progress?- give me a break..
monument wrote: » The two positions you are taking are not compatible with each other. You cannot claim that (1) there "is no such thing as a temporary greenway operating under a revocable license" and that a "full-fledged greenway is irreversible" and also (2) that parallel greenway is "reasonable"
monument wrote: » and then have another pointless pot shot at people you don't agree with.
serfboard wrote: » A rail line may be built north of Athenry, but not for a few decades. For a tiny amount of money, a Greenway can be built on it in while we wait. Only the worst kind of dog in the manger would want to see it left idle in the meantime.
monument wrote: » If a parallel greenway is reasonable then your position that a greenway built first is irreversible just doesn't stand up to any logic -- if a greenway was built first and then, 5 or 10 years later, somebody found a load of money to build the WRC there's zero real issue putting in the parallel greenway. The extra money is minimal.
Isambard wrote: » I've said it before, and neither side likes the idea, build the greenway to one side of the formation and leave room for a rail line maybe one day. There is plenty of room although neither side will admit that.
As the Deputies are aware Iarnród Éireann commissioned a financial and economic appraisal of a proposed reopening of Phases 2 and 3 of the Western Rail Corridor, and, in late 2019, submitted a draft copy of that appraisal to my Department.I am informed that in recent days a final copy of the report has now been received. As was signalled publicly at the time of the commissioning of the appraisal, and, as is required under the Public Spending Code (PSC), my Department has been reviewing the documentation that has been received and engaging with Iarnród Éireann and the consultants as required during this review. Once that review is complete the matter will then be brought to Government for its decision and the report published as soon as practical thereafter.
Greaney wrote: » The most important side are Irish Rail. If they think rail is on the cards in a few years, the 'do nothing' position till then may be the solution they opt for. Everything else is more than the 'jobs worth'. As for 'side by side', one has to consider the embankments between Athenry & Tuam, etc. You can see it on the video in the link below at 33;35, 44:31 etc. They'll be a lot of work to build those up.... FYI coming into Tuam is 23:26 Ballyglunin is 32:11 Youtube video of the Claremorris to Athenry line
Isambard wrote: » you can run the cycle path along the fenceline at the bottom of the embankment. It doesn't have to be on the top.
ezstreet5 wrote: » There were three similar written Parliamentary Questions asked in the Dáil yesterday regarding the Rail Review by Ciaran Cannon, Mairéad Farrell, and Éamon Ó Cuív, respectively. The common response by Eamon Ryan was similar to previous ones, but sometimes you get an extra nugget, with my emphasis: From the consultant's perspective, that means that the report is final and not subject to any more input or requested revisions from their client. This is the report which will form the basis of a decision, if any.https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2020-07-14/160/#pq_160
Greaney wrote: » From the look of the space at the bridges, it would be the westside. One would get the sunset... and the wind?? In the lower parts, passing would be fine at the bridges. A lot of the lower trenches aren't too narrow
Isambard wrote: » a range of solutions might be possible for any pinch points, including diverting off the trackbed in some places.. The thing is there are some who will issue a "no it isn't possible" because it suits their agenda.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
