Greaney wrote: » I see ye're cherry picking my comments and taking them out of context.
Deleted User wrote: » The rest of your post referred to meetings that may or may not have happened and conversations with politicians who won't be named who said some things which were never recorded but all of which aligns perfectly with your personal view. Nothing to do with context
ezstreet5 wrote: » If I may interpret the essence of the original post, I believe it was, "If the WRC is not converted to a greenway for whatever reason, what is the alternative plan of attack for developing walking and cycling infrastructure and greenways in our communities?" The answer cannot be, "Think bigger and just build a greenway on the WRC." What is the "think wider" answer? For example, one possible outcome is that the WRC advances to Claremorris only, and not beyond. So can the "Quiet Man Greenway" be re-routed to Cong, Ballinrobe, Claremorris, and then on to Collooney and Enniskillen? What if Athenry gets the Galway-Dublin routing, is there another way of connecting to Tuam (e.g., along the Clare River through Corofin)? Can we do anything interesting with the remnant of the Attymon spur, which gets us halfway to Loughrea?
ezstreet5 wrote: » What if Athenry gets the Galway-Dublin routing, is there another way of connecting to Tuam (e.g., along the Clare River through Corofin)?
Muckyboots wrote: » Only riparian rights there. Would require CPO's from start to finish. Access to the river bank for anglers is by permission of the landowner. Unfortunately, it's a non runner.
Deleted User wrote: » A path along the river would be attractive for much of the year but wouldn't be suitable due to flooding. It would also require lots of small bridges where smaller rivers or drains join the river. The railway path follows a relatively high and dry line.
ezstreet5 wrote: » Perhaps, but the question is what if the "high and dry" railway path returns to an active railway, and we still want a greenway?
Greaney wrote: » Indeed. I imagine is, if the railway is brought back into use, do the campaigners for a greenway have a plan 'b' ?https://www.advertiser.ie/mayo/article/117361/western-rail-corridor-under-independent-review-dillon?fbclid=IwAR28W_p1S77k6YX6TrsjsGfvcKMA3FA7oAvL9auHDElQ2z0OWCQWUjVSCrw#.X3ekqzjZfMw.facebook
Pete_Cavan wrote: » The rail freight argument is just another distraction and has no credibility. We import very little which is actually suitable for rail freight. Even if we did we have multiple ports with operational rail connections (Dublin, Belview, Rosslare) and Marino Point in Cork could be used with little investment. These ports are all more suitable for shipping to Europe than Foynes. Freight already flows from Mayo to Belview, if there was demand for more than the existing capacity then upgrades to the existing route would be far more economical and delivered much faster than reopening disused lines. You are looking at in the region of €300m to connect Claremoris to Foynes, there is nothing like the volume of freight to justify it and there is little passenger potential either. The EU aren't as gullible as Ryan and wont be putting big money into such a project, that money could do a lot more to reduce emissions if spent elsewhere if that is the goal.
Greaney wrote: » So what's the plan 'b' for an Athenry 2 Tuam greenway?
Greaney wrote: » The plans for the Western Rail Corridor, with regard to securing EU funding are perhaps a lot bigger than folk realize. This is an extract from an article in the Western People Minister Ryan said: “We need to consider this matter, not just as it relates to the section of the rail line between Athenry and Claremorris, but in the wider regional context. I would go ever further south and add to this the potential reopening of the Foynes freight rail line, which I understand is a prerequisite if Foynes is to get any support in developing as a European TEN-T international port, in that the port, in any such development, must have rail freight capability. That makes sense because Europe is moving towards rail freight as a significant part of our climate change agenda.” In its submission, the IEA states: “It is becoming increasingly apparent and ever more urgent that Irish freight will be snarled up in any delays that occur in British ports from January 1 next, whatever the outcome of [Brexit] negotiations. Britain is not ready for the transport challenges of Brexit. Alternatives to the landbridge using direct shipping from Irish ports to France and the Netherlands will be required to keep our supply chains flowing.”
blackwhite wrote: » There’s no business case to use West coast ports to ship to continental Europe. The cost and tome of sailing a vessel around Cork & Kerry outweighs any possible road or rail haulage savings. The landbridge is attractive due to the time it takes to get from Dublin to North-West France (approx 20hrs). Any landbridge alternative will have to be from an East or South coast port to even get close to 24-25 hours to reach the same parts of France. A rail link into the Port of Waterford, or adding the ability to handle unitised containers to Rosslare Port would be an actual effective solution to landbridge disruption from Brexit
eastwest wrote: » Since we stopped exporting most of our forestry output, the amount of potential rail-based freight that could come out of Mayo is small. The Coca Cola output won't transfer to Foynes because of cost and speed; a third of their output goes to the UK and there is no way they will want to add another day or two to the trip, apart from the extra cost. Ahead of Brexit, the big ferry companies in ro-ro sector have already put capacity in on the Dublin-Cherbourg route, so even if the landbridge is choked by delays, the alternatives are there and can be ramped up very quickly by reassigning ships. Foynes is a red herring where the WRC is concerned. The tonnage simply isnt there, and there are no plans for any kind of industrial development that will produce the critical mass needed to build another railway out of Mayo, given that the existing one is hardly used by industry standards. The budget rightly concentrated on rail fundig where it is needed, and the Minister's speech emphasised the need for all capital spending to be scrutinised for value for money. There is no WRC, and there is no sign of any WRC coming.
Isambard wrote: » if it's a question of reducing emissions, we'd need new locos .
L1011 wrote: » Calling these "plans" is a massive overstatement They're desperate back of fag packet scratchings being done by Ryan because clearly the report says passenger use is unviable. Forcing a few trains a week that are already using rail over the WRC will not justify reinstating it. Even a few new flows a week wouldn't. And if it did, it'd only be reinstated to freight standard anyway - cut back weeds, replace any missing turnouts and any buried track, manual level crossings, no stations. Might keep people who just want to see trains happy but there won't be passenger services.
westtip wrote: » This all comes from those absurd claims in the Dail recently that a thousand freight trains a year leave mayo for dublin and waterford, Calleary must have picked those figures out of the air is my guess and is trying to pull off the biggest con trick in years. I reckon he will get found out sooner or later and be left with egg on his face.
Jamie2k9 wrote: » In pre-covid times its around 1,000 per year when you include return services... What someone should ask Calleary is how does he propose to make rail freight viable and at the very least break even and has he a detailed cost/benefit analysis and what will be the subsidy cost to the taxpayer.
andrewfaulk wrote: » And yet their are regular shipments from the Shannon Estuary to the UK, Europe and Scandanvia?
blackwhite wrote: » For non-perishables - the type of stuff that doesn't currently use the landbridge. We had a poster claiming that extending the WRC to Foynes should be done to offer alternatives if there's landbridge delays due to Brexit. Read the full post instead of responding to bits pulled out of context
andrewfaulk wrote: » It was never 1000 year, the average in round trips/train pairs(industry standard measurement) is/was, IWT( Dublin/Ballina) 300/Annum DFDS (Waterford/Ballina) 100/Annum Coillte (Waterford/Ballina) 125/Annum Even allowing for IWT operating at 9 trains per week, which has been done but isn't currently, he is off by a factor of 2.. And it in no way makes sense to route IWT via the WRC, so remove that from the equation and you have 250/trains a year to Waterford.. And the WRC is not the best routing from Claremorris to Waterford unless the south tipp line was also give a major upgrade
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c998303aa0fcfcedb419267ab426bd5.svg)
