Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

L1011 · 24-02-2021 11:34PM

Greaney wrote: »

You should tell the lads who wrote the EY report that they did it all wrong

It's good it's getting thoroughly checked, none of it can be trusted

They won't have used that calculation. That is the wild misapprehension being introduced here.

ezstreet5 · 24-02-2021 11:38PM

L1011 wrote: »

Erm, no and no

The EY figure is clearly and blatantly not an equivalent figure taking in to account all discounts and DSP.

And the sum that ezstreet is trying to do is clearly and blatantly not the one that would generate the revenue figure either.

This is a mad garden path that's been gone up here. You cannot make the revenue figure by multiplying these two figures no matter how hard to try to insist it should work

This is really weird. You are stating that the one-way Athenry-Galway fare that EY used "is clearly and blatantly not the one that wound generate the revenue figure..." that EY used. Then WTF did they use, and where is it documented? Your conclusion is that it is not possible to make A * B = C, and it does not fly with rational men.

L1011 · 24-02-2021 11:39PM

ezstreet5 wrote: »

This is really weird. You are stating that the one-way Athenry-Galway fare that EY used "is clearly and blatantly not the one that wound generate the revenue figure..." that EY used. Then WTF did they use, and where is it documented? Your conclusion is that it is not possible to make A * B = C does not fly with rational men.

They didn't use an A*B = C calculation because it is nowhere near that simple

This has been my point the entire time. But neither of you can comprehend it.

ezstreet5 · 24-02-2021 11:45PM

L1011 wrote: »

They didn't use an A*B = C calculation because it is nowhere near that simple

This has been my point the entire time. But neither of you can comprehend it.

If EY did not use, A * B = C, then what did they use? Where is it explained and documented? Or are we to simply to fall in to line because "EY is an established firm" and us peasants must accept their conclusions? No way!

L1011 · 24-02-2021 11:48PM

ezstreet5 wrote: »

If EY did not use, A * B = C, then what did they use? Where is it explained and documented? Or are we to simply to fall in to line because "EY is an established firm" and us peasants must accept their conclusions? No way!

Go FOI it if you wish

But trying to claim errors because you do not know the calculation and have made up your own one does not convince anyone but the already faithful. And damages your argument greatly in the process.

Greaney · 24-02-2021 11:51PM

L1011 wrote: »

But neither of you can comprehend it.

I can. EY's modeling can't be checked, so they write anything they like.

ezstreet5 · 24-02-2021 11:58PM

L1011 wrote: »

Go FOI it if you wish

But trying to claim errors because you do not know the calculation and have made up your own one does not convince anyone but the already faithful. And damages your argument greatly in the process.

A final report should include proper data (in a technical appendix) and references to substantiate and replicate the results. One should not have to FOI (whatever documents) to substantiate the facts.

Your current position seems to be that the EY report is substantially accurate and based on secret calculations that no layman could possibly understand, so lets just accept that and move on. Lovely.

L1011 · 25-02-2021 12:00AM

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Your current position seems to be that the EY report is substantially accurate and based on secret calculations that no layman could possibly understand, so lets just accept that and move on. Lovely.

As compared to your position of making wild assumptions and claiming errors when your personal assumptions were wrong.

ezstreet5 · 25-02-2021 12:02AM

L1011 wrote: »

As compared to your position of making wild assumptions and claiming errors when your personal assumptions were wrong.

No examples. Baseless. Time for bed.

L1011 · 25-02-2021 12:04AM

ezstreet5 wrote: »

No examples. Baseless. Time for bed.

The example is your simplistic made up sum which is the crux of the back and forth for the last two pages!

Greaney · 25-02-2021 12:05AM

L1011 wrote: »

As compared to your position of making wild assumptions and claiming errors when your personal assumptions were wrong.

All the public have to go on is the EY report.
All the Gov have to go on is the EY report, they paid €500k for it!

That report needs to stand up to scrutiny.

It doesn't

Simple as

ezstreet5 · 25-02-2021 12:07AM

L1011 wrote: »

The example is your simplistic made up sum which is the crux of the back and forth for the last two pages!

You win. 1 + 1 = 3.

25-02-2021 02:06AM

I'm beginning to understand how the WOT estimate for phase 1 of the WRC was out by 32 million

Captain Lugger · 25-02-2021 09:24AM

ezstreet5 wrote: »

If EY did not use, A * B = C, then what did they use? Where is it explained and documented? Or are we to simply to fall in to line because "EY is an established firm" and us peasants must accept their conclusions? No way!

The peasants can either live in the GDA or maintain their locality as a reservation. Only a “sustainable” approach if the status quo of depopulated rural sprawl and car dependency is to be maintained.

Isambard · 25-02-2021 09:29AM

Captain Lugger wrote: »

The peasants can either live in the GDA or maintain their locality as a reservation. Only a “sustainable” approach if the status quo of depopulated rural sprawl and car dependency is to be maintained.

I think there's a typo there, did you mean GDR?

Greaney · 25-02-2021 11:08AM

Isambard wrote: »

I think there's a typo there, did you mean GDR?

Greater Dublin Area

eastwest · 25-02-2021 11:42AM

Greaney wrote: »

I can. EY's modeling can't be checked, so they write anything they like.

And JASPERS? Are they wrong too? And was the WDC report on rail freight wrong too?
Or was it just the McCAnn Report, the one that gave false hope to the rail enthusiasts?

westtip · 25-02-2021 11:59AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm beginning to understand how the WOT estimate for phase 1 of the WRC was out by 32 million

#

Was that written by armchair WOT economist the ex Roscommon county manager unelected persona but a civil servant who openly sided with a lobby group?

25-02-2021 12:48PM

Captain Lugger wrote: »

The peasants can either live in the GDA or maintain their locality as a reservation. Only a “sustainable” approach if the status quo of depopulated rural sprawl and car dependency is to be maintained.

What do you mean by this?
Are you anti sprawl?

A long term policy to encourage rail use would be to ban one off housing and development not adjacent to rail lines. It would go down like a lead balloon locally.

Sam Russell · 25-02-2021 01:01PM

I am confused by this continuous wrangling over the EY report. If it contains errors of detail, they should be corrected. If those errors leak into the substance of the report to give a completely erroneous outcome, the Gov should look for its money back.

However, the only asset that the Tuam Athenry rail has is the alignment and land asset. Now that is only an asset for a rail line if it can be used to generate passengers. With the complete lack of any trip generators along the route, it would appear that there is nearly no chance of that route being a successful public transport route that can provide any form of useful service.

Now to change the question, if a Western Rail Corridor was being planned as would a new motorway with a completely new alignment, what route would be chosen? Would it follow the N17, or some other route? Where are the trip generators that will provide the passengers? Would light rail or even BRT solutions be better, or just stick with buses?

I doubt that such a new rail connection between Sligo to Limerick via Galway would go anywhere near Athenry on a completely new alignment.

[Unfortunately, the M17 route experience does not fill one with confidence as regards route selection.]

Isambard · 25-02-2021 01:35PM

Greaney wrote: »

Greater Dublin Area

sounds more like German Democratic Republic to me when people talk of forcing people to live in Cities.

eastwest · 25-02-2021 02:08PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Now that is only an asset for a rail line if it can be used to generate passengers. With the complete lack of any trip generators along the route, it would appear that there is nearly no chance of that route being a successful public transport route that can provide any form of useful service.

]

It is pretty much universally accepted that passenger rail on this route is not in anybody's plans. It makes no sense, the numbers don't add up, and if built it would bring people where they aren't interested in going.
The only card left in the deck for the rail lobby is freight, and has been for some time. I recall one WOT politician even putting his own expert figure of 90 million (from memory) on building a line solely for freight, and that was before the last three rail reports emerged, none of them showing any case for a railway.
So, a freight line for what? That's the question. Projected demand is one to two trains a day, which would have to displace the traffic from existing lines. The value to the community of the cargo carried would have to be extraordinary to justify such an investment, which of course isn't coming anyway. Kicking the can down the road with an all-Ireland review just puts the ball into the court of the next government, so it will be interesting to see whether Sinn Fein spends all the money available to the entire country to build a line to connect the 1960s refugees in Shannon Town to their relations in Derry.

Greaney · 25-02-2021 02:21PM

eastwest wrote: »

And JASPERS? Are they wrong too? And was the WDC report on rail freight wrong too?
Or was it just the McCAnn Report, the one that gave false hope to the rail enthusiasts?

Jaspers didn't peer review the figures just the conclusion

eastwest wrote: »

It is pretty much universally accepted that passenger rail on this route is not in anybody's plans.

That would be true, if you're a driver, and car dependent. But if one is dependent on public transport, relies on Galway for dialysis/cancer care etc., rail is most certainly in one's plan

Greaney · 25-02-2021 02:30PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

I am confused by this continuous wrangling over the EY report. If it contains errors of detail, they should be corrected. If those errors leak into the substance of the report to give a completely erroneous outcome, the Gov should look for its money back.

Can't argue with you there. But if they don't read it (lets be honest it's a tough read) and/or the modelling etc. is not available to the public to run, then it looks like it's been designed to obfuscate the issues and kick the can further down the road

Sam Russell · 25-02-2021 02:58PM

eastwest wrote: »

It is pretty much universally accepted that passenger rail on this route is not in anybody's plans. It makes no sense, the numbers don't add up, and if built it would bring people where they aren't interested in going.
The only card left in the deck for the rail lobby is freight, and has been for some time. I recall one WOT politician even putting his own expert figure of 90 million (from memory) on building a line solely for freight, and that was before the last three rail reports emerged, none of them showing any case for a railway.
So, a freight line for what? That's the question. Projected demand is one to two trains a day, which would have to displace the traffic from existing lines. The value to the community of the cargo carried would have to be extraordinary to justify such an investment, which of course isn't coming anyway. Kicking the can down the road with an all-Ireland review just puts the ball into the court of the next government, so it will be interesting to see whether Sinn Fein spends all the money available to the entire country to build a line to connect the 1960s refugees in Shannon Town to their relations in Derry.

The point I was making is similar to the tourist looking for directions from a local and gets the reply - 'If I were going there, I would not start from here!'

If you want to provide rail PT in Co Galway, no-one would build it down the Tuam Athenry alignment. It starts from a very small town and goes to a very small town with nothing in-between that might generate a few passengers.

A bus running down the newly built M17 provides a much better connection, so why look any further?

Improving rail in Co. Galway would be better served by dual tracking the line from Athenry to Galway - perhaps even doing that from Athlone. It would then allow commuter rail over that distance.

Greaney · 25-02-2021 03:03PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

The point I was making is similar to the tourist looking for directions from a local and gets the reply - 'If I were going there, I would not start from here!'

If you want to provide rail PT in Co Galway, no-one would build it down the Tuam Athenry alignment. It starts from a very small town and goes to a very small town with nothing in-between that might generate a few passengers.

That's a really good argument against a green way

eastwest · 25-02-2021 03:03PM

Greaney wrote: »

Jaspers didn't peer review the figures just the conclusion

That would be true, if you're a driver, and car dependent. But if one is dependent on public transport, relies on Galway for dialysis/cancer care etc., rail is most certainly in one's plan

Or a bus, which is the accepted alternative where the figures don't add up for rail.

eastwest · 25-02-2021 03:07PM

Greaney wrote: »

Can't argue with you there. But if they don't read it (lets be honest it's a tough read) and/or the modelling etc. is not available to the public to run, then it looks like it's been designed to obfuscate the issues and kick the can further down the road

The report was carried out at the insistence of West on Track, who had their own person in situ when it was being tendered for. So why are they unhappy now?
They can't keep demanding reports, and then throwing the toys out of the pram when the reports keep coming up with the same answer. The buck has to stop at some point.

Greaney · 25-02-2021 03:08PM

eastwest wrote: »

Or a bus, which is the accepted alternative where the figures don't add up for rail.

Let them eat cake?

Rail is better than bus for

1) Wheelchair users
2) mobility scooters
3) bikes
4) Cancer & dialysis patents prefer rail. It's a better mode of transport with regards to facilities. Many come from Donegal & Sligo which is no joke on a bus.

Ireland is awash with invisible bus stops. They have no toilets, no shelter & no signage

Greaney · 25-02-2021 03:17PM

eastwest wrote: »

The report was carried out at the insistence of West on Track, who had their own person in situ when it was being tendered for. So why are they unhappy now?
They can't keep demanding reports, and then throwing the toys out of the pram when the reports keep coming up with the same answer. The buck has to stop at some point.

It is right and proper to be unhappy with an overpriced, shoddily written report that wasn't peer reviewed.

You would have rightly gone through any report if it told you that a longed green way was not viable. If you had found fault, you'd have been very angry.

We build for the future. I'd be happy with

1) the report (math) allowed to be peer reviewed
2) the modeling (calculations) made accessible and in the index of the report (an industry norm)
3) Modeling that included projected population growth
4) The issues of disability, independent travel (children), the elderly & medical catchment included in the reports calculations

Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

Comments