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

Geuze

ezstreet5 wrote: »

The permanent way appears to range from 18m to 30m in width.

Can I check - the width of the WRC permanent way, from Athenry to Claremorris, varies from 18m to 30m???

I would have assumed much less.

westtip

serfboard wrote: »

In a way, though it doesn't really matter.

The focus should now change back to the County Council to get on with it.

Well at least Sligo have taken that view, but this report has been used as an endless excuse by Galway and Mayo coco and it is written into the Regional Strategies - but yes if life was simple the councils could get on with it....However its not

serfboard

westtip wrote: »

No it doesn't the report was delivered last October, unless it has been sent back to be doctored to suit certain parties - and TBH that could be to suit the rail lobby or greenway lobby or it has been made certain it is the greatest box of fudge ever ensuring nothing is done with some kind of caveat of who knows maybe sometime in the future within the timeframe of Ireland 2040 it might just be feasible to have a railway type language. Either way I can see now nothing is going to happen for another 20 years, greenway nor railway and probably nothing ever....the whole thing is now a complete and utter farce.

In a way, though it doesn't really matter.

The report was Sean Canney's price for supporting the last Government (not a railway, mind you, just a report).

Sean Canney is now a complete irrelevance in this administration, so the report can be "reviewed by the department" ad infinitum, which is Civil Service speak for being binned.

The focus should now change back to the County Council to get on with it.

Pete_Cavan

westtip wrote: »

No it doesn't the report was delivered last October, unless it has been sent back to be doctored to suit certain parties - and TBH that could be to suit the rail lobby or greenway lobby or it has been made certain it is the greatest box of fudge ever ensuring nothing is done with some kind of caveat of who knows maybe sometime in the future within the timeframe of Ireland 2040 it might just be feasible to have a railway type language. Either way I can see now nothing is going to happen for another 20 years, greenway nor railway and probably nothing ever....the whole thing is now a complete and utter farce.

Only now? It has been for a long time!

Isambard

Isambard wrote: »

based on your figures then, upwards of 12 metres available to run a cyclepath. Thanks for that.

or 6 metres either side of a reservation for future rail use. (or a wider section if the rail alignment could be offset.)

westtip

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Is it just coincidence that the final copy of the report was received very quickly after Canney and Ross lost their influence? Ryan is on the record as having the report now so will have to release it sooner or later, regardless of how the assessment panned out.

No it doesn't the report was delivered last October, unless it has been sent back to be doctored to suit certain parties - and TBH that could be to suit the rail lobby or greenway lobby or it has been made certain it is the greatest box of fudge ever ensuring nothing is done with some kind of caveat of who knows maybe sometime in the future within the timeframe of Ireland 2040 it might just be feasible to have a railway type language. Either way I can see now nothing is going to happen for another 20 years, greenway nor railway and probably nothing ever....the whole thing is now a complete and utter farce.

Isambard

based on your figures then, upwards of 12 metres available to run a cyclepath. Thanks for that.

ezstreet5

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't read much beyond the subject heading, which relates to high speed rail up to 300Km/h, not realistic for the WRC, it would be better to look at construction standards for metro lines as these would be more comparable in terms of line speeds.

Anyway, where in that report did you find 5432mm??

The nearest I found was the following that does not specify a minimum lateral distance.

Edit: on further reading there is a specific diagram for Irish High speed lines that specifies 9.3 metres for a twin track, so I assume you subtracted the 3.5m to come up with 5.4m (ish)

But can be less if the optional walkway is omitted.

Bringing the width down to around 4.2m between fences, easily achieved on a low speed line.

The diagram is Irish Rail's Standard Structure Gauge provided each year in Appendix C of their annual Network Statement. No one suggested that trains would travel 300kph. Current CRR Guidelines for the Design of Railway Infrastructure And Rolling Stock are for lineside walkways on either side of the track, so the minimum width would be 2 x 2,040mm + 1602mm = 5,682mm, so just round it up to 6m. The lineside walkways are not usable as part of greenway. The permanent way appears to range from 18m to 30m in width.

Muckyboots

Greaney wrote: »

The most important side are Irish Rail.

Irish Rail have clearly demonstrated a preference to divest themselves of that line over a prolonged period of time, including to the greenway group in Tuam early on.

Isambard

the optional walkway could be the Greenway if access points were included. 5 1/2 metres is a lot less than the available land, at a guess. A Greenway need not be more than a couple of metres I would imagine. As I've said, there would be plenty of room for dual use over most of the trackbed.

[Deleted User]

ezstreet5 wrote: »

As far as I can tell, the minimum clearance for a single track is 5432mm between fences, which provides a lineside walkway for rail workers on one side.

See p.56: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008D0217&from=GA

I didn't read much beyond the subject heading, which relates to high speed rail up to 300Km/h, not realistic for the WRC, it would be better to look at construction standards for metro lines as these would be more comparable in terms of line speeds.

Anyway, where in that report did you find 5432mm??

The nearest I found was the following that does not specify a minimum lateral distance.

4.2.23.1 Lateral space alongside tracks
On lines of Category I, a space shall be provided alongside every track open to high-speed trains to allow passengers to detrain on the side of the tracks opposite from the adjacent tracks if the latter are still to beoperated during evacuation of the train. Where tracks are carried on engineering structures, the side of thelateral space away from the tracks shall have a safety barrier allowing passengers to exit without falling from thestructure.

On lines of Category II and III, a similar lateral space shall be provided at all locations where this provision isreasonably practicable. Where a space cannot be provided, Railway Undertakings shall be informed of thisspecific situation by its mention in the Infrastructure Register of the line concerned.

Edit: on further reading there is a specific diagram for Irish High speed lines that specifies 9.3 metres for a twin track, so I assume you subtracted the 3.5m to come up with 5.4m (ish)

But can be less if the optional walkway is omitted.

here is an allowance for a 700 mm wide walkway. Where no walkway is provided, the dimension referred to may be reduced to 1 790 mm

Bringing the width down to around 4.2m between fences, easily achieved on a low speed line.

ezstreet5

Muckyboots wrote: »

What is the current specification for a new build railway, specifically in relation to laying of trackbed?

As far as I can tell, the minimum clearance for a single track is 5432mm between fences, which provides a lineside walkway for rail workers on one side.

See p.56: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008D0217&from=GA

Muckyboots

Isambard wrote: »

There is plenty of land fence to fence for dual use in most places and a range of possibilities to overcome any local problems that may arise.

You would have to wonder if a full site clearance was executed, from fence to fence, to create a brownfield site how a discussion might continue. What is the current specification for a new build railway, specifically in relation to laying of trackbed?

Isambard

ezstreet5 wrote: »

It's totally possible, and much easier to widen the embankment adjacent to a useable rail line. Wagons can remove cut material and import fill material at a good rate. For a greenway, lite pedestrian/cycleway bridges can be built parallel to railway bridges. Greaney is correct that the greenway would be positioned to the west of the rails.

my point was that saying "the embankment is not wide enough" is not a red card for the project.

Opponents of the scheme on both sides will say there isn't room for dual use, but there clearly is. The cyclists don't want it because they want the whole formation with their cyclepath down the middle. (this is, in fairness,the cheapest option) The railwayacs don't want it because they fear they will be excluded at some future time if they let the cyclists in now.(and there is some truth to that)

There is plenty of land fence to fence for dual use in most places and a range of possibilities to overcome any local problems that may arise.

The line , especially the northern section, was so cheaply built that new embankments in some places may be necessary and desirable anyway.

ezstreet5

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Is it just coincidence that the final copy of the report was received very quickly after Canney and Ross lost their influence? Ryan is on the record as having the report now so will have to release it sooner or later, regardless of how the assessment panned out.

You'll drive yourself mad, and almost always be wrong with those kinds of conclusions. Sometimes, "I don't know" is the best answer.

ezstreet5

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.

It's totally possible, and much easier to widen the embankment adjacent to a useable rail line. Wagons can remove cut material and import fill material at a good rate. For a greenway, lite pedestrian/cycleway bridges can be built parallel to railway bridges. Greaney is correct that the greenway would be positioned to the west of the rails.

Isambard

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

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.

Pete_Cavan

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

Is it just coincidence that the final copy of the report was received very quickly after Canney and Ross lost their influence? Ryan is on the record as having the report now so will have to release it sooner or later, regardless of how the assessment panned out.

intellectual dosser

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.

Have to disagree with this I think ezstreet5 is one of the best informed contributors to the thread. I also think he's right about the 'temporary greenway', whatever is built next will be there for a long time, irrespective of the business case of what gets left behind.

Ripping up a greenway will be a poison chalice no politician will go near. Even I myself as a WRC rail advocate wouldn't feel too strong about a WRC greenway being torn up to bring in rail.

Greaney

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.

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

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

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

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:

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.

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

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.

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

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.

ezstreet5

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.

Not exactly. This forum is a necessary counterbalance to a certain FB group which routinely paints rail supporters in the following manner:

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..

We're tired of that negativity and portrayal, and these points cannot be debated in that FB group; hence, you are seeing most of the pushback here.

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"

How are they incompatible? Regarding (1), that is an idea borne out in mid-70s U.S. federal legislation that formed the basis of groups such as the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. The idea was that a trail would preserve the permanent way for future railway reactivation. The reality has been that not one rail trail has even been converted back to rail use in 45 years, either in US or anywhere else in the western world (that I can find - correct me if I'm wrong). Once the trail is built, the railway is gone forever, despite any rights held on paper.

Regarding (2), it would be very reasonable to consider the incremental cost of building a side-by-side greenway concurrent with rebuilding the railway. This is the position of many of the politicians too. It is extremely fortunate that all of the stone bridges over the way from Athenry to Tuam were designed for double tracking, and could accommodate a side-by-side alignment. It would be incumbent on the greenway campaign to inject themselves into the design/build process to make that happen.

monument wrote: »

and then have another pointless pot shot at people you don't agree with.

The "pointless pot shot" originates from the quote below and shows the scorn of at least one person. I merely called it out; don't attribute it to me.

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.

Anything is possible I guess? But if the general idea is to build a greenway now, and then in 5-10 years remove and replace it with a railway, and at that same time, rebuild the greenway a few metres away.... That's the least probable of outcomes, and certainly not on par with building a side-by-side project now or in the near future.

River Suir

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.

And thus any attempt at detente between the two sides is put to bed.

I think this is a complete misrepresentation of what we are at here. I’m not actually interested in “fighting the greenway lads” as you put it, what I’m interested in is arguing for the railway and pointing out that the line has national strategic importance that goes way beyond the immediate Tuam and Athenry areas.

There are times when pro rail supporters do like and support posts from the greenway side such as the recent posts from Muckyboots. His posts are generally thoughtful and add to the debate rather than sneering at those who disagree.

monument

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.

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."

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.

ezstreet5

Muckyboots wrote: »

It would be a good way to sort out the bigots from the zealots..

The issue requires continued zeal. Don't lose yours, as some have.

Muckyboots

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."

It would be a good way to sort out the bigots from the zealots..

ezstreet5

Muckyboots wrote: »

With that same logic, why not go to €5.4 and run a parallel greenway.

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."