Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

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 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.

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?

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

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.)

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!

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.

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

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.

from fence to fence it sounds about right to me without measuring.

https://connachttribune.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/x4-greenway.jpg

tabbey

Geuze wrote: »

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.

30m is 100 ft, approx, more than enough for a 6 track mainline.

No railway promoter in 19th century Ireland would have got the money for such a grandiose scheme.

tabbey wrote: »

30m is 100 ft, approx, more than enough for a 6 track mainline.

No railway promoter in 19th century Ireland would have got the money for such a grandiose scheme.

i don't think there was a suggestion that the formation is 30m wide all the way, it may broaden out to that at certain bridges or station sites etc I would guess.

Isambard wrote: »

i don't think there was a suggestion that the formation is 30m wide all the way, it may broaden out to that at certain bridges or station sites etc I would guess.

This quote from the Meehan Tully Report on the Sligo end of the alignment reports that side by side is possible but more costly. Costs may not be the key criteria with a Green Minister, a new Green Deal and a slice of €750 billion EU emergency infrastructure budget to spend.

"Three, Shared-use Greenway - A shared-use greenway is one where a train line is co-located with a cycling/ walking trail. These tend to occur where there are existing parallel tracks or adequate space for the development of a side-by-side greenway amenity. In the Sligo context, a shared-use amenity could allow for the development of a greenway without affecting the future development of the line for rail traffic. As only one line is present along the Sligo section, the cost of improving adjoining land to accommodate a greenway is projected to be considerably greater than a single-use amenity, and will increase the payback
and return on investment. Based upon similar projects, the projected cost of a 35.5km shared-use greenway in Sligo has been estimated to be in the region of €13 million, with a payback period of 8.5 years."

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

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.

Surely even 18m allows for a railway line and a greenway?

A double-track line requires 15m:

http://www.railway-technical.com/infrastructure/

Allowing 10m for a single line, leaves 8m for the greenway.

westtip

Geuze wrote: »

Surely even 18m allows for a railway line and a greenway?

A double-track line requires 15m:

http://www.railway-technical.com/infrastructure/

Allowing 10m for a single line, leaves 8m for the greenway.

Let's be honest about this lads, in truth discussion about the width of the alignment is very much academic, the railway is not going to be built, not because of anything said here or on a facebook page, or what is written in a county or regional plan, because quite simply it still remains a non runner in terms of national priorities, and really that will be the case even if the rail report says it is the best idea since sliced bread. However the railway campaign still has a voice, as does the greenway campaign and the continuation of doing nothing will remain the only option for an administration. We all know that is the truth of it, the alignment can be as wide as we want, nothing is going to happen between Athenry and Claremorris. Shouldn't we all just get used to that fact.

Lord Glentoran

Meanwhile there are some interesting numbers being crunched in the Irish Times this morning.

To summarise, a London-based company called HICL Infrastructure is acquiring the remaining 50% of the Gort-Tuam motorway that it doesn’t already own, in what the IT calls “a €41 million deal”, from a fund management organisation called the Marguerite I Fund. This is expected to be completed by the end of September.

The 53km motorway and 4km Tuam bypass is costed in the article at €550 million, and as the IT article says, “The road is among the most expensive PPP projects undertaken by the State”.

The article also tells us that it will cost the State €959 million to 2042, when it will be handed back from the private operators. So, upfront design and construction costs, including land purchase, and maintenance costs are covered in this way.

That’s a lot of dough, to put it mildly.

Greaney

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Meanwhile there are some interesting numbers being crunched in the Irish Times this morning.

To summarise, a London-based company called HICL Infrastructure is acquiring the remaining 50% of the Gort-Tuam motorway that it doesn’t already own, in what the IT calls “a €41 million deal”, from a fund management organisation called the Marguerite I Fund. This is expected to be completed by the end of September.

The 53km motorway and 4km Tuam bypass is costed in the article at €550 million, and as the IT article says, “The road is among the most expensive PPP projects undertaken by the State”.

The article also tells us that it will cost the State €959 million to 2042, when it will be handed back from the private operators. So, upfront design and construction costs, including land purchase, and maintenance costs are covered in this way.

That’s a lot of dough, to put it mildly.

Crikey, with those kind of numbers you'd think our politicians would be considering public transport more. Building roads for cars is an expensive business.

I've often considered that countries 'poorer' than us in the EU have decent infrastructure, proper schools (no prefabs), rail, cycling, hospitals, but government after government in this country keep giving individuals tax cuts, so that when we're in a boom, the money being spent is by individuals 'living their best life now', rather than by government departments on infrastructure, so we ALL have a better quality of life!

donvito99

Greaney wrote: »

Crikey, with those kind of numbers you'd think our politicians would be considering public transport more. Building roads for cars is an expensive business.

I've often considered that countries 'poorer' than us in the EU have decent infrastructure, proper schools (no prefabs), rail, cycling, hospitals, but government after government in this country keep giving individuals tax cuts, so that when we're in a boom, the money being spent is by individuals 'living their best life now', rather than by government departments on infrastructure, so we ALL have a better quality of life!

Which includes, no doubt, comprehensive inter urban motorway networks.

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

The article also tells us that it will cost the State €959 million to 2042, when it will be handed back from the private operators. So, upfront design and construction costs, including land purchase, and maintenance costs are covered in this way.

That’s a lot of dough, to put it mildly.

I spotted that figure as well in contrast to the €550 million figure frequently quoted. So when you add in the Tuam bypass to the €959 million PPP scheme, you come in around €1.149 billion mark stated in the Dáil some time ago.

To put things in perspective, for the same cost, the Ennis-Athenry (or Athenry Tuam) line was/could be built at €107 million AND you could provide the €2.8m/year subvention for the next 372 years.

Sam Russell

ezstreet5 wrote: »

I spotted that figure as well in contrast to the €550 million figure frequently quoted. So when you add in the Tuam bypass to the €959 million PPP scheme, you come in around €1.149 billion mark stated in the Dáil some time ago.

To put things in perspective, for the same cost, the Ennis-Athenry (or Athenry Tuam) line was/could be built at €107 million AND you could provide the €2.8m/year subvention for the next 372 years.

But Ennis to Athenry line does not go as far as Tuam. A proper service would need more than €2.8 m/year as well.

However, free PT would be a lot cheaper than some of these road projects.

[I am thinking of the Galway bypass. €10 million would buy 30 double decker buses and anther €10 million would run them for two or three years. So for €100 million you could provide 30 years of free PT for Galway instead of spending €1 billion on a bypass. Figures are guesstimates.]

westtip wrote: »

We all know that is the truth of it, the alignment can be as wide as we want, nothing is going to happen between Athenry and Claremorris. Shouldn't we all just get used to that fact.

No. That would be defeatist Ted. People who live between Athenry and Claremorris will not accept "nothing" as a solution. "the width of the alignment is very much academic" being stated as a negative- when both camps have put so much faith in the hands of academics and technocrats is actually quite funny. Positivity, ambition and determination is delivering something on the alignment. Be it train or greenway, or both.

westtip wrote: »

Let's be honest about this lads, in truth discussion about the width of the alignment is very much academic, the railway is not going to be built, not because of anything said here or on a facebook page, or what is written in a county or regional plan, because quite simply it still remains a non runner in terms of national priorities, and really that will be the case even if the rail report says it is the best idea since sliced bread. However the railway campaign still has a voice, as does the greenway campaign and the continuation of doing nothing will remain the only option for an administration. We all know that is the truth of it, the alignment can be as wide as we want, nothing is going to happen between Athenry and Claremorris. Shouldn't we all just get used to that fact.

so speaks one who wants the greenway straight down the middle on the current rail alignment.

It's been shown there is room for both, leave the greenway be built in such a way that there is a reserved route for rail at some future date.