ezstreet5 wrote: » laughing men can step aside.
Deleted User wrote: » I did After speaking with them, they confirmed one of their biggest constraints is the necessity to avoid as much private land as is possible. This pretty much kills the Ballinasloe to Loughrea route as there is virtually no state owned lands that way. There is a significant amount of state owned lands between Athenry and Ballinasloe though, mostly Coilte & bogs so while they have no route selections announced yet, this will likely be a fore-runner. They had a very interesting map up showing the ownership of all the various land parcels in the area under review, sorry I didn't take a photo of it. Also mentioned that running alongside the Dublin-Galway rail line would not be done as it would require too much of a land grab involved due to the second line requirements, additional space for safety, higher spec for fencing etc etc. Would just make it unfeasible They mentioned that the route would be 3 meters wide so they would be looking at 4-5 meters wide requirements but their preference would be double that to allow for space for fencing, hedging, amenities (benches, water points etc) but where the route needed to go through private land this would likely not be a realistic ask. They are also very mindful of landowners concerns and 3 different people I spoke with stated that where they had to purchase land, they would do their best to use a route that would mean as little disruption to the landowner as possible i.e. running along field boundaries. This will probably mean a twisty-turny route when using these lands. While I completely understand this approach, lets just hope it doesn't reach silly levels of accommodating landowners which would result in a farcical route
westtip wrote: » Some interesting comments there Dacor, but it is somewhat disappointing that they are have virtually dismissed the parallel with the existing railway option on the second line issue and height of fence needed FFS what a load of waffle, there is no sign of the double line happening I wish it was but it is simply not happenind! plus taking land under CPO if needs be to make it parallel to the existing route plus an extra railway line is no more disruptive to landowners as it would be akin to a road widening exercise and would not cut a new route through anyones land. If they are having a public consultation process and accepting submissions they should not be telling those that come to the roadshows that "oh that route or option is not happening" if they are what is the bloody point of public consultation - answers on a postcard please. Really I don't mind what route they choose as long as the thing is built, but I cannot see their logic on being so opposed apparently to the parallel to railway idea? can anyone explain it for me? Extra double tracking doesn't do it. excuse about fencing doesn't do it.
River Suir wrote: » Easy. Putting a greenway on the railway line kills off the future plan to double the line.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Correct, a greenway that impinges on the unused trackbed will kill any future doubling, but there is nothing stopping them from CPO'ing a strip of land next to the line for the greenway.
River Suir wrote: » Agreed, however the difficulty arises when the line passes under or over bridges. Where does the greenway go then?
Deleted User wrote: » lol
Deleted User wrote: » Lol
serfboard wrote: » A point about the recent granting of €375,000 in funding by the Department of Transport to projects on the Western Rail Trail (300K for Collooney to Bellahy and 75K for the QMG) - given that the Department has had the rail review for more than six months now, how likely is it that the Department would be sanctioning a spend of this amount of money on Greenways if the Department knew that the review was going to recommend a re-establishing of a railway service? To me, this funding indicates that rail is dead on this corridor for the next couple of decades at least. May as well get on and build a Greenway in the meantime.
Muckyboots wrote: » So let's get this straight, a greenway alongside a railway from Ballinasloe to Athenry is a good idea with broad political consensus (including from some so-called anti-greenway campaigners), but the project drivers have their eye on another route that includes under-visited attractions and under-used hotels elsewhere. Hmmm!! A greenway alongside a disued railway between Athenry and Claremorris is not up for discussion. Stalemate over putting it beyond one particular use will probably keep it beyond use for everyone forever. That's just great..... for Dublin and Waterford.
River Suir wrote: » I for one am completely opposed to having a greenway along the railway between Ballinasloe and Athenry as I fear it would interfere with the proposed doubling of the line. For the same reasons I support a greenway between Athenry and Sligo as long as it does not use the railway line. I support greenways but not where they are used to stop or hinder railway expansion...we should actively CPO land for Greenways and plan where they should run rather than taking the lazy option of seizing railways.
River Suir wrote: » I for one am completely opposed to having a greenway along the railway between Ballinasloe and Athenry as I fear it would interfere with the proposed doubling of the line. For the same reasons I support a greenway between Athenry and Sligo as long as it does not use the railway line.
River Suir wrote: » I support greenways but not where they are used to stop or hinder railway expansion...we should actively CPO land for Greenways and plan where they should run rather than taking the lazy option of seizing railways.
intellectual dosser wrote: » I wouldn't think so. A study should have been conducted years ago, and should still be done regardless of what the WRC report says to give people both viewpoints and not just anecdotal ideas. €75k from a DTT&S budget of €2.7bn (2019) isnt a lot lets be honest. Here's a counter argument based on the same logic. Eamon O'Cuiv (in favour of rail) made a public request for the report to be released last week. If the details of the report are as well known as some posters on this forum would have you believe then why would O'Cuiv make the request - maybe he knows that the report favours pursuit of the next phase? In the end no, we're just speculating without any real basis.
serfboard wrote: » I don't think that your counter argument refutes what I said. What I said was that the Rail Review, submitted more than six months ago to the Department, is presumably known to the Department (unless they haven't gotten around to reading it). So if the Department knows what is in it, and if what is in it recommends re-establishing a rail service, it would be a pretty scandalous waste of €375,000 for the Department to sanction Greenway-related work on the route.
ezstreet5 wrote: » Doesn't the scope of the Financial/Economic Appraisal prepared by EY-DKM only include from Athenry to Claremorris? And doesn't the €300k granted to Sligo Council only include planning from Charlestown to Collooney? So there is no real overlap except for the €75k given to Galway Co. Council, but even that will (in theory) discuss a side-by-side option, which it should. So I don't see anything rising to the level of a scandal here.
Muckyboots wrote: » I think you are fully correct in this assesment. Side by side will be part of the feasibility study. It may prove substantially more expensive than "on". It may not. We will find out one way or another. If it aligns everyone up politically in Galway Co Co (it's not going to happen without this) and a Minister is willing to stump up the makes to keep everyone happy - what's the problem?
westtip wrote: » I don't know about that. The RSES say the railway is still an objective all the way to Sligo, but also identifies the route as a greenway, Sligo coco have given up on any hope of the railway and completely support the greenway, Mayococo have the velorail in tow even though nothing appears to have happened and lets face it even having a feasibility study on Athenry- Milltown is enough to send west on track into a spin. All the signs are there that the Rail report has already kicked the railway into touch we just need official confirmation, it is not so much a scandal it is the department basically saying lets get on with the feasibility study because we know full well what is actually going to happen, and it is not a railway. Remember the department officials who recommended the 75K for the greenway study are the same ones who wrote the QMG into the first draft Greenway strategy.... which Canney and Ross took out. All we are seeing here is the long slow strangulaton of the western rail corridor as a concept.
ezstreet5 wrote: » doesn't the €300k granted to Sligo Council only include planning from Charlestown to Collooney?
westtip wrote: » if the Galway report for QMG shows both on and alongside are feasible but ... alongside is a lot more expensive ...
ezstreet5 wrote: » I tend to think (hope) it will be released concurrently with an announcement for funding for reactivation of rail service to Tuam or Claremorris, perhaps as a "regional development" counterbalance to rail projects funded in the Dublin area.
westtip wrote: » Indeed MB. The sligo feasibility said alongside was feasible but a lot more expensive, they have taken the pragmatic view and the tracks will come up. At this stage if the Galway report for QMG shows both on and alongside are feasible but one alongside is a lot more expensive, I really don't care! If we are given the money and can walk/cycle alongside the old rustheap the likes of some of the cllrs who still favour the railway can continue with their campaign and the benefits of the alongside greenway can be enjoyed by everyone for the next century until the railway just rusts away. Frankly my dear I couldn't give a dam if it is on or alongside as long as its built.
westtip wrote: » Yep that is why people have said the width of the strip of land owned by Irish Rail can be widened to allow for any track doubling and to prevent the need to cut through farmland to create another contentious route. So presume you agree with that idea and Nobody is seizing a railway - I presume this a reference to the closed railway, which is falling into the bog at one stage, has had a critical bridge taken down at another place and the railway line has been closed for decades and is now open for squatting along its route. The Railway from Athenry to Milltown does not exist, the land the old railtracks - no longer fit for purpose - does exist and needs to be protected. The license Irish Rail would insist on effectively protects the route as a potential railway forever. A greenway on the route is not seizing a railway it is protecting the potential for a railway in the future. I guess after 33 posts from River Suir we can agree to differ in view. Indeed as MB says stalemate but that suits certain lobby groups.
River Suir wrote: » River Suir might have 34 posts but I (the person who is writing this post) have been posting on boards since the Cloud days. So don’t give me your arrogant lectures on who is entitled to say what.
Muckyboots wrote: » I too hope that when the report is finally "released" there will by a concurrent announcement of funding for something. I fear though that the now mythical and ridiculous provenance being given to this report, a report that was explicitly tasked to deliver a business case for rail lest we forget, has greatly over-exaggerated its importance. Behold the report.... meanwhile...... then, another report......meanwhile......pushing up ragworth.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d96cd5eb793ec44f833dd8d0bb2a52ac.svg)
