Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

22-01-2021 04:28PM

141332208_3774475642575398_7510902792220219489_o.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=2&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=abNjBBQKbMAAX-K41z3&_nc_ht=scontent-dub4-1.xx&oh=e9a0442146e1ea45c602f956027d989c&oe=602F5317

Link to the tender but no documents on it. They are supplied "upon expression of interest"

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/181458/0/0?returnUrl=ctm/Supplier/publictenders&b=ETENDERS_SIMPLE

westtip · 26-01-2021 02:13PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Link to the tender but no documents on it. They are supplied "upon expression of interest"

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/181458/0/0?returnUrl=ctm/Supplier/publictenders&b=ETENDERS_SIMPLE

difficult to stop a Tsunami

Greaney · 03-02-2021 03:45PM

The EY report looks like a disaster on closer inspection

https://fleet.ie/critical-analysis-of-ey-western-rail-review-reveals-major-flaws/?fbclid=IwAR30iQvTF2jMKE8mJEpJwIacXAoDdNqt__ZQN15ZRGXA9IMd5pzxdtVgqG4

Western Rail Corridor report has approx
324 numerical errors,
31 typos,
23 errors of fact.
Table 75 shows project would deliver €395.9m in cumulative benefits by Year 30, implying a positive Net Present Value and Benefit-to-Cost Ratio >1.0

You wouldn't accept that in a green way feasibility study if it had all those errors and concluded that a greenway was a bad idea...

serfboard · 03-02-2021 04:13PM

Greaney wrote: »

The EY report looks like a disaster on closer inspection

https://fleet.ie/critical-analysis-of-ey-western-rail-review-reveals-major-flaws/?fbclid=IwAR30iQvTF2jMKE8mJEpJwIacXAoDdNqt__ZQN15ZRGXA9IMd5pzxdtVgqG4

Western Rail Corridor report has approx
324 numerical errors,
31 typos,
23 errors of fact.
Table 75 shows project would deliver €395.9m in cumulative benefits by Year 30, implying a positive Net Present Value and Benefit-to-Cost Ratio >1.0

You wouldn't accept that in a green way feasibility study if it had all those errors and concluded that a greenway was a bad idea...

Except if you read that:

fleet.ie wrote:

The analysis was carried out by a group of experts ... for the rail advocacy group West-on-Track.

A group of "experts" who are so proud of their analysis that they aren't willing to put their names to it, write an analysis for a lobby group and surprise, surprise the analysis tallies with the result that the lobby group would want.

And this analysis is displayed on a website of an organisation based in Claremorris, which very coincidentally happens to be where said lobby group is also based.

All sounds totally above board :rolleyes:

Greaney · 03-02-2021 04:18PM

serfboard wrote: »

Except if you read that:
A group of "experts" who are so proud of their analysis that they aren't willing to put their names to it, write an analysis for a lobby group and surprise, surprise the analysis tallies with the result that the lobby group would want.

And this analysis is displayed on a website of an organisation based in Claremorris, which very coincidentally happens to be where said lobby group is also based.

All sounds totally above board :rolleyes:

I see you didn't read it then... If it's not true, it's slander, and if it's slander than they will have to stand up and be counted....

There's an annotated version so you can check their figures, some of it's not too hard to follow.

serfboard · 03-02-2021 04:52PM

Greaney wrote: »

I see you didn't read it then... If it's not true, it's slander, and if it's slander than they will have to stand up and be counted....

There's an annotated version so you can check their figures, some of it's not too hard to follow.

I've read a couple of bits of it. And some day, if I have loads of time on my hands and want a laugh I might read the rest.

To give you an example of the laughs that can be had:

West On Track/Fleet.ie wrote:

The analysis was required to quantify the air quality and GHG benefits and cost savings of an “environmentally friendly rail transport option,” including the potential electrification of the railway in the future.

Ah yeah - sure why not Maglev while we're at it?:rolleyes:

Ye wanted a report and ye got a report. Now that the report doesn't say what ye wanted it to say ye want another report.

God love you if you think that an analysis of the report by unnamed "experts" will result in a train on the line between Claremorris and Athenry in the next half-century.

03-02-2021 06:53PM

Jesus that was painful reading lol

L1011 · 03-02-2021 08:13PM

Greaney wrote: »

I see you didn't read it then... If it's not true, it's slander, and if it's slander than they will have to stand up and be counted....

There's an annotated version so you can check their figures, some of it's not too hard to follow.

There is no such offence as slander in Ireland.

ezstreet5 · 03-02-2021 08:35PM

Greaney wrote: »

The EY report looks like a disaster on closer inspection

https://fleet.ie/critical-analysis-of-ey-western-rail-review-reveals-major-flaws/?fbclid=IwAR30iQvTF2jMKE8mJEpJwIacXAoDdNqt__ZQN15ZRGXA9IMd5pzxdtVgqG4

Western Rail Corridor report has approx
324 numerical errors,
31 typos,
23 errors of fact.
Table 75 shows project would deliver €395.9m in cumulative benefits by Year 30, implying a positive Net Present Value and Benefit-to-Cost Ratio >1.0

You wouldn't accept that in a green way feasibility study if it had all those errors and concluded that a greenway was a bad idea...

I concluded the same. The EY report bears the fingerprints of manipulation. Everything appears appropriate on the surface, until you read past the Executive Summary and begin trying to verify the results. Then the coffins start breaking through the kitchen floor like the final scenes in Poltergeist. Clearly the headstones (conclusions) were moved, but they didn't move the bodies (data). https://youtu.be/Lh_W6FLaMvA

Greaney · 03-02-2021 10:25PM

L1011 wrote: »

There is no such offence as slander in Ireland.

Semantics

Defamation

ShaneC1600 · 03-02-2021 11:29PM

Greaney wrote: »

The EY report looks like a disaster on closer inspection

https://fleet.ie/critical-analysis-of-ey-western-rail-review-reveals-major-flaws/?fbclid=IwAR30iQvTF2jMKE8mJEpJwIacXAoDdNqt__ZQN15ZRGXA9IMd5pzxdtVgqG4

Western Rail Corridor report has approx
324 numerical errors,
31 typos,
23 errors of fact.
Table 75 shows project would deliver €395.9m in cumulative benefits by Year 30, implying a positive Net Present Value and Benefit-to-Cost Ratio >1.0

You wouldn't accept that in a green way feasibility study if it had all those errors and concluded that a greenway was a bad idea...

After the wait by both sides for this report, it is a pity this is the quality of report presented. I dont care what side of the fence you are on, or if you are able to bring yourself to read this analysis of the report or not, after reading the report yourself and not just CC's soundbites or the executive summary we should all be questioning the report. This cost a reported 500k of our money and the consultants couldn't even be bothered checking facts. Its poor form!

Sam Russell · 04-02-2021 10:59AM

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

After the wait by both sides for this report, it is a pity this is the quality of report presented. I dont care what side of the fence you are on, or if you are able to bring yourself to read this analysis of the report or not, after reading the report yourself and not just CC's soundbites or the executive summary we should all be questioning the report. This cost a reported 500k of our money and the consultants couldn't even be bothered checking facts. Its poor form!

If it has been sitting in the Transport Dept for over a year, did nobody in the Dept read it and check it for facts?

That would suggest quite a level of blame in the Dept and poor preparation by EY, or was it 'adjusted' in the Dept?

mayo.mick · 04-02-2021 12:29PM

This whole debacle surely has to be a contender, for the Guinness Book Of Records of the "Greatest/Longest Can Kicking Down The Road".

There's also great movie material here, could be a blockbuster by Stephen Spielberg's Great Grandson!

Greaney · 04-02-2021 01:26PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

If it has been sitting in the Transport Dept for over a year, did nobody in the Dept read it and check it for facts?

That would suggest quite a level of blame in the Dept and poor preparation by EY, or was it 'adjusted' in the Dept?

Gosh, there's a question. I don't know. I know that JASPERS did a review of the findings but even they stated they did not review how the figures had been arrived at..

1.4 in their 'report' states

''Our note addresses the main aspects of the project preparation and how well these are covered within the work that has been undertaken. We should highlight that our notes not a critique of the EY report but is instead a broad assessment of the maturity and feasibility of the project based on material that has been published to date.

So we can only conclude that the EY report was not technically peer reviewed. Reports are long and boring, often not designed for a layman to read, so it seems that unless the author is motivated... they can hide their sloppy math in a mountain of graphs & jargon.

ezstreet5 · 04-02-2021 07:42PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

If it has been sitting in the Transport Dept for over a year, did nobody in the Dept read it and check it for facts?

That would suggest quite a level of blame in the Dept and poor preparation by EY, or was it 'adjusted' in the Dept?

Probably the project wasn't managed on the client side, and then when the report came back in favour of rail (or borderline), EY were told to change it. Some of the findings make no sense at all: €3.0 million per annum cost to the exchequer for lost road and fuel tax (because commuters are shifting to rail), yet emissions increase?

04-02-2021 10:27PM

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Probably the project wasn't managed on the client side, and then when the report came back in favour of rail (or borderline), EY were told to change it. Some of the findings make no sense at all: €3.0 million per annum cost to the exchequer for lost road and fuel tax (because commuters are shifting to rail), yet emissions increase?

No doubt you have submitted an FOI to get the earlier drafts?

ezstreet5 · 04-02-2021 10:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

No doubt you have submitted an FOI to get the earlier drafts?

Interesting idea.

Jamie2k9 · 16-02-2021 07:59PM

The data errors on the EY report would not have changed the outcome according to IE CEO (2h15m).

Dara Calleary and the EY report really clutching at straws here (from 1h53m)
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/oireachtas-tv/video-archive/committees/

16-02-2021 08:24PM

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

The data errors on the EY report would not have changed the outcome according to IE CEO (2h15m).

Dara Calleary and the EY report really clutching at straws here (from 1h53m)
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/oireachtas-tv/video-archive/committees/

Direct video link
https://media.heanet.ie/page/8bb735b6d90c438a963cf4af9514565f

Pete_Cavan · 16-02-2021 09:23PM

If you want inaccuracies in the EY report, look at Table 33: Scenario B (Phase 2) daily Rail demand, base year 2012 on page 109/110

It assumes 529 daily passengers Tuam - Galway, for reference the 2019 Heavy Rail Census shows 68 boardings at Ballinaloe north bound. It then has 202 passengers Athenry - Galway, 96 abstracted from car which for some reason wont use existing rail services but would then the train comes from Tuam, and 106 abstracted from PT which presumably is from existing Athenry - Galway services. It also lists passengers for journeys for which services already exist or journeys which wouldn't even be possible with the railway line opening between Athenry and Tuam only as stated in the scenario.

Of course there is nothing said about all the inaccuracies which strengthen the rail case, only those which weakens its case get waved around like the whole thing has been rigged.

Greaney · 16-02-2021 09:30PM

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If you want inaccuracies in the EY report, look at Table 33: Scenario B (Phase 2) daily Rail demand, base year 2012 on page 109/110

It assumes 529 daily passengers Tuam - Galway, for reference the 2019 Heavy Rail Census shows 68 boardings at Ballinaloe north bound. It then has 202 passengers Athenry - Galway, 96 abstracted from car which for some reason wont use existing rail services but would then the train comes from Tuam, and 106 abstracted from PT which presumably is from existing Athenry - Galway services. It also lists passengers for journeys for which services already exist or journeys which wouldn't even be possible with the railway line opening between Athenry and Tuam only as stated in the scenario.

Of course there is nothing said about all the inaccuracies which strengthen the rail case, only those which weakens its case get waved around like the whole thing has been rigged.

`

Yes they're outrageous too.

Thank you for reading the report.

Del.Monte · 16-02-2021 10:07PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Direct video link
https://media.heanet.ie/page/8bb735b6d90c438a963cf4af9514565f

Any thing involving Barry Kenny's railway expertise not to mention the other three time markers is not worth 2.19hrs of my time - any chance of a synopsis of what was said?

16-02-2021 10:44PM

Del.Monte wrote: »

Any thing involving Barry Kenny's railway expertise not to mention the other three time markers is not worth 2.19hrs of my time - any chance of a synopsis of what was said?

Alan Dillon got the CEO of IE to clarify that regardless of any errors in the EY report, the conclusion remained the same, that the WRC was not viable for extension.

ezstreet5 · 16-02-2021 10:48PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Alan Dillon got the CEO of IE to clarify that regardless of any errors in the EY report, the conclusion remained the same, that the WRC was not viable for extension.

It would be unwise to defend the EY report. It can't stand. It's actually a gift to rail transport advocates.

17-02-2021 12:26AM

ezstreet5 wrote: »

It would be unwise to defend the EY report. It can't stand. It's actually a gift to rail transport advocates.

The Minister of Transport and the CEO of IE have accepted the conclusions. Personally I'm not too pushed about the lads in Claremorris.

I'm not sure I have too much to worry from the likes of WOT. They haven't really done much to advance the rail situation in Ireland and have actually done significant damage to the idea of reopening lines with the abysmal performance of the WRC. Those are the folks looking to spend hundreds of millions reopening a 19th meandering line which would be a colossal waste as it would have terrible patronage,frequency and speeds.

On the other hand, rail advocates who support and advocate for the double tracking of lines like Galway to Dublin, integrated ticketing systems, removal of at-grade crossings, higher speeds, greater frequency, implementation of request stops etc etc etc. Those I fully support as those are the ones who will grow rail in Ireland and drive significant increases in passenger numbers thereby increasing the likelihood of further expansion of services.

In terms of rail in Ireland I am looking towards the future to see how we can improve the service to increase the viability of it which will lead to additional improvements and expansion. The lads in Claremorris look to the past and couldn't give a toss about the wider network.

westtip · 17-02-2021 11:55AM

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Probably the project wasn't managed on the client side, and then when the report came back in favour of rail (or borderline), EY were told to change it. Some of the findings make no sense at all: €3.0 million per annum cost to the exchequer for lost road and fuel tax (because commuters are shifting to rail), yet emissions increase?

We may disagree on things but I am going to do you a favour, I did an FOI on the department I got hold of the original report submitted to the department in November 2019 there are no material differences and the conclusions were just the same. The only thing that changes from the November 2019 report to the June 2020 reprot is the date on the front cover. but go ahead and do an FOI if you want it will reveal nothing. They didn't release the november 2019 report until june report was published.

westtip · 17-02-2021 11:58AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Alan Dillon got the CEO of IE to clarify that regardless of any errors in the EY report, the conclusion remained the same, that the WRC was not viable for extension.

DC do you know the exact time in the meeting when he said that looking to rip it and like others don't want to watch the whole thing!

ezstreet5 · 17-02-2021 12:07PM

westtip wrote: »

We may disagree on things but I am going to do you a favour, I did an FOI on the department I got hold of the original report submitted to the department in November 2019 there are no material differences and the conclusions were just the same. The only thing that changes from the November 2019 report to the June 2020 reprot is the date on the front cover. but go ahead and do an FOI if you want it will reveal nothing. They didn't release the november 2019 report until june report was published.

Are the data tables corrupted in the 2019 version in the same manner as the final?

westtip · 17-02-2021 06:44PM

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Are the data tables corrupted in the 2019 version in the same manner as the final?

The report is exactly the same apart from the front cover one says June 2020 the earlier one say November 2019.

marno21 · 17-02-2021 06:56PM

Here's the transcript from yesterday. Much quicker than watching and easier to seek relevant paragraphs also.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_transport_and_communications_networks/2021-02-16/

Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

Comments