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

ezstreet5

westtip wrote: »

So even if LV was wrong, the scores were well below what is required 80/100, so what has changed on that front? to make it remotely near the required figure disregarding what LV stated?

That's something we can discuss once the EY report is released. After all, they were paid 500k to answer that question. I would only add that the JASPERS review may indicate political will for a project on foot of the EY report. Maybe not.

IE 222

westtip wrote: »

La di da.

Need I say more....

IE 222

westtip wrote: »

Anyway as the Minister for freight transport said on Sept 24th: "If we try to win this project on the basis of it being a commuting route from Tuam or Claremorris to Galway, an argument based on those numbers will be difficult to win”

.....and as the passenger service argument now appears to be lost and is probably dead and buried by the EY report there will be no passenger services on this route, so I don't follow your line of argument about phase 3 bringing greater fleet utilization. Hey ho.

The 2010/1 report?? Before Galway commuting numbers exploded. The line will cater for passengers if reopened. Freight services just broadened the scope for reopening and rightly so. Anyway fleet utilisation is not about passenger numbers but rather number of services.

eastwest

IE 222 wrote: »

Fair enough but I think it just shows the strength of your campaign if that's the carry on you've to resort to.

I don't think an insistence on the truth can be described as 'a carry on.' The alternative, allowing grossly exaggerated figures to form the basis for decision-making is however a matter for concern.
I know that we tolerate political standards here that would result in immediate sacking elsewhere, but that still doesn't validate that particular Dail set-piece. This was a deliberate attempt to skew the debate with a series of pre-arranged questions and a series of prepared position statements, including the one by one TD which contained the false information. This was no slip of the tongue in a debate, it was all scripted, and cannot be excused in any way.
This was a deliberate attempt to misinform, and it worked, given the coverage in some western papers a few days later. The least the former minister should do is apologise to the House.

ezstreet5

eastwest wrote: »

I don't think an insistence on the truth can be described as 'a carry on.' The alternative, allowing grossly exaggerated figures to form the basis for decision-making is however a matter for concern.
I know that we tolerate political standards here that would result in immediate sacking elsewhere, but that still doesn't validate that particular Dail set-piece. This was a deliberate attempt to skew the debate with a series of pre-arranged questions and a series of prepared position statements, including the one by one TD which contained the false information. This was no slip of the tongue in a debate, it was all scripted, and cannot be excused in any way.
This was a deliberate attempt to misinform, and it worked, given the coverage in some western papers a few days later. The least the former minister should do is apologise to the House.

ah c'mon. al kinds of crazy crap gets said in the Dáil everyday.

serfboard

eastwest wrote: »

I don't think an insistence on the truth can be described as 'a carry on.' The alternative, allowing grossly exaggerated figures to form the basis for decision-making is however a matter for concern.
I know that we tolerate political standards here that would result in immediate sacking elsewhere, but that still doesn't validate that particular Dail set-piece. This was a deliberate attempt to skew the debate with a series of pre-arranged questions and a series of prepared position statements, including the one by one TD which contained the false information. This was no slip of the tongue in a debate, it was all scripted, and cannot be excused in any way.
This was a deliberate attempt to misinform, and it worked, given the coverage in some western papers a few days later. The least the former minister should do is apologise to the House.

I don't get too worked up about what that eejit Dara Callery said in the Dáil - firstly, Micheál Martin hadn't enough confidence in him to make him a Minister the first time around, and then when he did make him a Minister, his lack of confidence was justified by Calleary's complete stupidity in going on a booze-up in the middle of a pandemic.

Secondly, as someone has said here, the Department of Transport officials will correct the facts for the Minister.

Thirdly, it shows the desperation of WOT when they have completely abandoned the passenger argument (because it doesn't stack up) and are resorting to using freight arguments with false information (since the actual freight argument doesn't stack up either).

The only problem with Calleary's statement, is when it is then planted unquestioningly in the local papers and may mis-inform the public in Mayo. The public in Tuam (who would supposedly be one of the main beneficiaries of a rail line) are not so mis-informed and have clearly demonstrated their preference for a Greenway.

IE 222

eastwest wrote: »

I don't think an insistence on the truth can be described as 'a carry on.' The alternative, allowing grossly exaggerated figures to form the basis for decision-making is however a matter for concern.
I know that we tolerate political standards here that would result in immediate sacking elsewhere, but that still doesn't validate that particular Dail set-piece. This was a deliberate attempt to skew the debate with a series of pre-arranged questions and a series of prepared position statements, including the one by one TD which contained the false information. This was no slip of the tongue in a debate, it was all scripted, and cannot be excused in any way.
This was a deliberate attempt to misinform, and it worked, given the coverage in some western papers a few days later. The least the former minister should do is apologise to the House.

Give over will you. I'm sure you'll stand by any minister that will tell us 1000s will use such a greenway. No doubt if was talking about cyclists you'd be here praising his "grossly exaggerated figures".

If he was claiming 2 or 3,000 fair enough but the very fact there is close enough to 1000 trains arriving and departing Mayo each year his figures are valid.

Again you are rather foolish to believe his comments are going to be the basis of any decision making. A decision will be formed among the results of any reports and economic value.

serfboard

IE 222 wrote: »

Again you are rather foolish to believe his comments are going to be the basis of any decision making.

You're right - Dara Calleary's comments will certainly not form the basis of any decision making.

IE 222 wrote: »

A decision will be formed among the results of any reports

Ah steady on. Sure aren't we having a review into a report now? Surely there'll be time in the next few decades of an unused railway line, to have many more reports and reviews. And afer each election? Another report.

As someone once said about Mary O' Rourke - "she was always just one more report away from making a decision".

eastwest

IE 222 wrote: »

Again you are rather foolish to believe his comments are going to be the basis of any decision making. A decision will be formed among the results of any reports and economic value.

You're making an assumption that it at odds with the facts. There won't be a decision, that's the whole point.
Successive governments have seen the value in promising all sides that they'll make a decision once the results of the next report are available. Then when a report like thd wdc report on freight finds no case for another freight line, somebody calls for another report and the government is happy to oblige.
This story is all about reports, or in the current case it's about a report into a report which will then be the subject of another report by the minister. When that eventually finds no case for a railway, somebody will call for another report and off we go again.
Throw in the odd velorail stunt, or some obscure story about diverting empty Guinness kegs to Waterford, and you can easily get past the next election.
But a decision? Don't be daft!

eastwest

serfboard wrote: »

You're right - Dara Calleary's comments will certainly not form the basis of any decision

Unfortunately, although nobody with half a brain listens to the minister-for-a-week, that's not necessarily the case. The reporting of his comments in the western press is enough to form opinions within county councils that might take another decade to shift.
Which might well explain why somebody wound him up and pointed him at the minister in the first place.

IE 222

serfboard wrote: »

You're right - Dara Calleary's comments will certainly not form the basis of any decision making.

Ah steady on. Sure aren't we having a review into a report now? Surely there'll be time in the next few decades of an unused railway line, to have many more reports and reviews. And afer each election? Another report.

As someone once said about Mary O' Rourke - "she was always just one more report away from making a decision".

Well if demand and circumstances have changed since the last report well then yeah it would be feasible to review the standpoint. Regardless what infrastructure is put in place a report or review of some sort will need to be conducted to ensure it offers long term value, after all millions will need to be spent one way or the other. It's pointless going to the expense of thrown tarmac down only to have to pull it all back up again a few years later. Greenways are built on the long term perspective of a line. Unfortunately for the greenway lobbyist, since the doom and gloom of 2011 the WRC is performing fairly well and has thrived in the last number of years and Athenry has proven it can play a part in relieving congestion in Galway.

The precedence here is Galway and not connectivity in the west of Ireland or local tourist attractions.

westtip

IE 222 wrote: »

Unfortunately for the greenway lobbyist, since the doom and gloom of 2011 the WRC is performing fairly well and has thrived in the last number of years and Athenry has proven it can play a part in relieving congestion in Galway.

The precedence here is Galway and not connectivity in the west of Ireland or local tourist attractions.

Yep 56% of all passenger journeys on the "Western Rail Corridor" from Limerick to Galway are actually passengers using the Dublin-Galway route on the Athenry/Oranmore/Galway section. Double tracking this section and simply having a shuttle service backwards and forwards along this section would probably increase figures further, but it would not justify a railway line from Claremorris to Athenry. It would be perfectly feasible to have a Luas type service on the second line in and out of Galway from Athenry on a really regular basis, with a passing loop at say Oranmore. Why not? it would actually probably increase numbers as people could use it until a reasonable time in the evening.

Re performing fairly well, I seem to recall forecasts of half a million intercity passengers from Galway to Limerick each year, but fudging the figures claiming that the Athenry/Oranmore/Galway traffic is anything to do with the Western Rail Corridor is simply a fudge. Everyone knows that to be the case. What is for sure if you go back over the business case for the WRC the primary reasons for re-opening it were not the one benefit it has bought of additional frequency of services between Galway/Oranmore/Athenry. That modicum of success was not the reason the line between Ennis and Athenry was rebuilt.

ezstreet5

westtip wrote: »

Yep 56% of all passenger journeys on the "Western Rail Corridor" from Limerick to Galway are actually passengers using the Dublin-Galway route on the Athenry/Oranmore/Galway section. Double tracking this section and simply having a shuttle service backwards and forwards along this section would probably increase figures further, but it would not justify a railway line from Claremorris to Athenry. It would be perfectly feasible to have a Luas type service on the second line in and out of Galway from Athenry on a really regular basis, with a passing loop at say Oranmore. Why not? it would actually probably increase numbers as people could use it until a reasonable time in the evening.

Re performing fairly well, I seem to recall forecasts of half a million intercity passengers from Galway to Limerick each year, but fudging the figures claiming that the Athenry/Oranmore/Galway traffic is anything to do with the Western Rail Corridor is simply a fudge. Everyone knows that to be the case. What is for sure if you go back over the business case for the WRC the primary reasons for re-opening it were not the one benefit it has bought of additional frequency of services between Galway/Oranmore/Athenry. That modicum of success was not the reason the line between Ennis and Athenry was rebuilt.

It was doing quite well before Covid, and I still haven't seen anyone provide 2019 data by segment, so we are still going off of 2018 data. Maybe we need a report on that. If the X51 bus service is truly dead (pbuh) then that awful rail line between Ennis and Athenry may become even more important.

Jamie2k9

ezstreet5 wrote: »

It was doing quite well before Covid, and I still haven't seen anyone provide 2019 data by segment, so we are still going off of 2018 data. Maybe we need a report on that. If the X51 bus service is truly dead (pbuh) then that awful rail line between Ennis and Athenry may become even more important.

2019 160k between Ennis-Athenry verses 2018 138k so around 15% growth however a significent portion is likely do due flooding in 2018 so actual growth is much lower.

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

It was doing quite well before Covid, and I still haven't seen anyone provide 2019 data by segment, so we are still going off of 2018 data. Maybe we need a report on that. If the X51 bus service is truly dead (pbuh) then that awful rail line between Ennis and Athenry may become even more important.

I never said it was awful and despite increased numbers it is still way off what the intention and business case was, this does not mean it should be closed. However using the business case of the lobbyists who asked for it, and the business case used to open it, it is not a high flying success, and it is not a good example to use to extend north of Athenry. It does at least connect two cities, it has some merit, where as the line to claremorris really has very little merit apart from it would be nice to have, and it would be I suppose nice to have, but the truth is and we all know this it cannot be justified over many many other projects, this is the crux of the matter and always will be. You can quote all the figures you want in the world, the simple truth is it just doesn't stack up against the priorities we have elsewhere. That is the real issue.

ezstreet5

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

2019 160k between Ennis-Athenry verses 2018 138k so around 15% growth however a significent portion is likely do due flooding in 2018 so actual growth is much lower.

OK, so what does that work out to per train, averaged over the year?

IE 222

westtip wrote: »

Yep 56% of all passenger journeys on the "Western Rail Corridor" from Limerick to Galway are actually passengers using the Dublin-Galway route on the Athenry/Oranmore/Galway section. Double tracking this section and simply having a shuttle service backwards and forwards along this section would probably increase figures further, but it would not justify a railway line from Claremorris to Athenry. It would be perfectly feasible to have a Luas type service on the second line in and out of Galway from Athenry on a really regular basis, with a passing loop at say Oranmore. Why not? it would actually probably increase numbers as people could use it until a reasonable time in the evening.

Re performing fairly well, I seem to recall forecasts of half a million intercity passengers from Galway to Limerick each year, but fudging the figures claiming that the Athenry/Oranmore/Galway traffic is anything to do with the Western Rail Corridor is simply a fudge. Everyone knows that to be the case. What is for sure if you go back over the business case for the WRC the primary reasons for re-opening it were not the one benefit it has bought of additional frequency of services between Galway/Oranmore/Athenry. That modicum of success was not the reason the line between Ennis and Athenry was rebuilt.

Double track would of course increase numbers and its currently been looked into. As outlined to you before IE don't have spare stock to run regional services in Galway. Do you not think its natural that the highest volume of passengers is going to be located near cities. Should we close other sections of railway because the bulk of movement is at the end points. I would think double tracking would see the line been reopened to Tuam at least.

The figures are not been fudged together. You can clearly see the number of passengers each service is carrying. The intermediate towns where never going to produce large numbers it was always going to be travel from densely populated areas into cities as is the case with any other rail service. There's nothing new about rail lines adapting away from there business case to meet new demand.

eastwest

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

2019 160k between Ennis-Athenry verses 2018 138k so around 15% growth however a significent portion is likely do due flooding in 2018 so actual growth is much lower.

Compared to forecast figure of 250K by year five.

westtip

eastwest wrote: »

Compared to forecast figure of 250K by year five.

Exactly, it is doing better now but is woefully short of the numbers given to persuade the government of the Business Case a the time, and no projects will happen in the future unless the BC is robust and rock solid. Look, it is there now and it is running, but its performance does not mean there is a business case to develop Athenry Tuam Claremorris. That's what WOT and TDs like Eamon O'Cuiv etc fail to understand, spending money in the west is important but lets spend it on worthwhile projects. A seamless dual carriageway from Letterkenny to Cork would do so much more for the Atlantic Economic Corridor for example.

ezstreet5

eastwest wrote: »

Compared to forecast figure of 250K by year five.

Can someone provide the source of the 250k figure? It's quoted often, and I don't necessarily doubt it, but it would be nice to have a reference to original source and to understand it in context.

intellectual dosser

westtip wrote: »

Exactly, it is doing better now but is woefully short of the numbers given to persuade the government of the Business Case a the time, and no projects will happen in the future unless the BC is robust and rock solid. Look, it is there now and it is running, but its performance does not mean there is a business case to develop Athenry Tuam Claremorris. That's what WOT and TDs like Eamon O'Cuiv etc fail to understand, spending money in the west is important but lets spend it on worthwhile projects. A seamless dual carriageway from Letterkenny to Cork would do so much more for the Atlantic Economic Corridor for example.

No one would argue with you there westtip, but unless that could be built for <€200m then its not really a credible comparison.

I'll revert back to my comments that we seem to be stuck in a continuous loop in the west; without a business case there will be no investment while without investment there will be no business case.

IE 222

What figures have the cyclists rustled up for us? What's the business case for the greenway?

ezstreet5

IE 222 wrote: »

What figures have the cyclists rustled up for us? What's the business case for the greenway?

As a newcomer, I really need to see the case for WRC Phase 1, and the 250k passengers before I go chasing tourists with my scones.

IE 222

ezstreet5 wrote: »

As a newcomer, I really need to see the case for WRC Phase 1, and the 250k passengers before I go chasing tourists with my scones.

Open to correction but presumably their referring to the 2003 strategic rail review and the McCann report that followed a few years later.

Keeping in mind the studies took place during the Celtic Tiger boom while the line reopened just as the recession kicked in which also brought mass emigration to the west.

[Deleted User]

IE 222 wrote: »

What figures have the cyclists rustled up for us? What's the business case for the greenway?

Sligo CoCo Feasibility Study for a greenway on the disused line

ezstreet5

Deleted User wrote: »

Sligo CoCo Feasibility Study for a greenway on the disused line

C'mon, not that discredited report again based on the Great Western Greenway.

[Deleted User]

IE 222 wrote: »

Open to correction but presumably their referring to the 2003 strategic rail review and the McCann report that followed a few years later.

Keeping in mind the studies took place during the Celtic Tiger boom while the line reopened just as the recession kicked in which also brought mass emigration to the west.

Not according to the census

County Galway
2002 - 143245
2006 - 159256
2011 - 175124
2016 - 179390

Athenry for the same years - 2,154 3,205 3,950 4,445
Gort - 1,776 2,734 2,644 2,994
Craughwell - 358 414 665 769

Only Gort took a drop during the recession and that was 90 people.

ezstreet5

Deleted User wrote: »

Not according to the census

County Galway
2002 - 143245
2006 - 159256
2011 - 175124
2016 - 179390

Athenry for the same years - 2,154 3,205 3,950 4,445
Gort - 1,776 2,734 2,644 2,994
Craughwell - 358 414 665 769

Only Gort took a drop during the recession and that was 90 people.

May I interject that this does not represent meaningful data. And that it is important to consider the effects of the recession in passenger numbers.

[Deleted User]

ezstreet5 wrote: »

C'mon, not that discredited report again based on the Great Western Greenway.

I'd love to see detail on how it was discredited.

Note, articles from the Con Telegraph or WOT will be politely ignored for obvious reasons

[Deleted User]

ezstreet5 wrote: »

May I interject that this does not represent meaningful data. And that it is important to consider the effects of the recession in passenger numbers.

The census is not meaningful data, thats a new one on me. :eek:

You'll also note my post was in response to the point about mass emigration