Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail

westtip · 11-07-2020 11:25am

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.

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.

Del.Monte · 11-07-2020 12:04pm

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.

Not at all, in ten years time the Kiltimagh Velo-rail will have reached Letterkenny.

River Suir · 11-07-2020 3:11pm

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.

Who or what is SF/WOT or is that a made up name for trolling purposes?

ezstreet5 · 11-07-2020 9:22pm

River Suir wrote: »

Who or what is SF/WOT or is that a made up name for trolling purposes?

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 · 11-07-2020 9:27pm

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.

Indeed. My politics are not SF, probably Social Democrat. This attempt by the Greenway Campaigners to brand all of us as SF is not only childish and stupid but perhaps shows the WOT campaign is cutting through in a way the Greenway campaign will never do. I am of that uniquely Irish religion “ lapsed Catholic” but 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.

CatInABox · 12-07-2020 1:44am

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.

Weirdly enough, flies are more attracted to vinegar than they are to honey, but that probably has little to do with trains, to be honest.

Muckyboots · 12-07-2020 9:05am

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.

A mainly true but largely onesided assessment, I'd say. I won't waste each other's time with a roundly similar view from the other side of the fence.

westtip · 12-07-2020 3:09pm

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.

monument · 12-07-2020 4:17pm

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.

Three day ban for that and you'll get longer the next time if that trolling doesn't stop. Stop the SF/WOT nonsense generally too.

-- moderator

serfboard · 14-07-2020 1:53pm

River Suir wrote: »

I would expect there to be no movement

Now, there's a true statement.

serfboard · 14-07-2020 1:58pm

River Suir wrote: »

This ... perhaps shows the WOT campaign is cutting through in a way the Greenway campaign will never do.

Hilariously wrong.

The WOT managed to get WRC south developed at a time when money was being thrown about like snuff at a wake, with no VFM assessments carried out, and based on the most fanciful of notions of passenger numbers.

Those days are gone. The only thing WOT have done since is block the Greenway. That's it.

serfboard · 14-07-2020 3:03pm

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

There is really.

Double-tracking Portarlington to Athlone
Double-tracking Athenry to Galway
Line to Navan
Metrolink

And that's before we get into the DART expansion programme, which is absolutely massive and really does have a list as long as your arm:

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

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 · 14-07-2020 3:45pm

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.

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.

Muckyboots · 14-07-2020 5:57pm

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.

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

serfboard · 14-07-2020 6:21pm

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.

"Nobody wants to see the way remain idle, except those who want to see the way remain idle if it is not going to be used for a train".

ezstreet5 · 14-07-2020 6:52pm

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."

Muckyboots · 14-07-2020 9:03pm

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 · 14-07-2020 11:19pm

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.

monument · 15-07-2020 2:19pm

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.

River Suir · 15-07-2020 4:00pm

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.

ezstreet5 · 15-07-2020 4:15pm

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.

Isambard · 15-07-2020 5:13pm

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.

Greaney · 15-07-2020 5:20pm

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

ezstreet5 · 15-07-2020 6:36pm

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

Isambard · 15-07-2020 7:50pm

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.

Greaney · 15-07-2020 8:19pm

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

intellectual dosser · 15-07-2020 8:38pm

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.

Pete_Cavan · 15-07-2020 9:32pm

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.

Isambard · 15-07-2020 9:35pm

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.

ezstreet5 · 15-07-2020 9:49pm

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.

Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail

Comments