CrabRevolution wrote: » What's stranger is that EU/T-ENT funding is sometimes mentioned, under the bizarre impression that EU funding is distributed based on the same "I don't care about business cases and returns on investment, we deserve an X in the west" philosophy common in county councils.
Even as part of the Comprehensive Network, the European added value of the current project would still need to be demonstrated, which would require an elaboration of its strategic role in providing connectivity to nodes of the Core Network. It is noted that the award of grants through CEF is subject to a competitive evaluation, and traditionally there is a significant oversubscription of available funding. As such, the probability of being selected in a competitive call cannot be considered as high in the absence of such a case. 10.5 In the context of lending from EU Financing Institutions (most notably EIB), the project selection process is subject to technical reviews of the project documentation, examining the financial and economic case, as well as general project need, scope, risks and impacts. It is likely that during such review that the issues noted throughout this note would be highlighted, and would influence the final decision. We consider that that gaining support for project financing of the proposal in its current form would be a challenge.
eastwest wrote: » I think a lot of decisions made in that part of the world are based on 'wouldnt it be great to have a'........ thinking. Insert 'rail corridor,' 'velorail,' 'link to knock airport,' 'freight train with woo-hoo whistle,' etc.
mayo.mick wrote: »
Sam Russell wrote: » 'But who is going to feed the Gondolas Velorails?' Rather than the Velorail vehicles that cannot pass each other, and so are useless on a single track railway. why not use four wheel buggies that can work very well on a greenway? This has not been thought through.
Sam Russell wrote: » I understand the motive behind Velorail, just not the logic. By the way, I am not the Sam Mayo are seeking.
Sam Russell wrote: » It is a single track line. How do the Velorail vehicles pass each other? If they do not pass each other, what is the point? If they are battery powered, they will be heavy. This has not been thought out very well.
Isambard wrote: » when you resort to sarcasm aimed at people with a slightly different point if view, you don't gain much cred in my eyes.
Sam Russell wrote: » This has not been thought out very well.
eastwest wrote: » The velorail supporters broke cover this week and showed that they are just the railway lobby in a clown's suit. They are now talking about battery powered carts, and extending the project towards the sligo border. Oh look! It's a train!
westtip wrote: » As they say in the police force "no sh1t sherlock" Indeed and the problem the velorail has is called the N5 the velorail can go no further north of Kiltimagh than it has permission for, total lack of public support in Swinford and Charlestown, not that it has much support in Kiltimagh, They can't get their hands on anymore money for more capex with Ring not in dept of community affairs anymore and MCC will finally see it as a millstone around their neck financially, the project is already a financial embarrassment and concern for MCC. That's it in a nutshell really!
Isambard wrote: » my layman interpretation of that is that IE note the Councils Velorail aim and dismisses it in favour of a Greenway
westtip wrote: » Whilst we talk away in this vacuum, it is worth noting that it looks like well over 600 submissions supporting greenway on the closed railway from Charlestown to Claremorris have been received by Mayo County Council. People and public bodies have had their say, none more so than Irish Rail who have at long last put it in writing to Mayo County Council what is achievable north of Claremorris. They have mixed their words up a bit on the Velorail project but at last we don’t have to listen to some folk telling us it is “illegal” to have a greenway on this route. Thank you Irish Rail, north of Claremorris is now officially, game over.https://consult.mayo.ie/en/submission/myo-c11-696
8. Greenway Development: Iarnród Éireann notes that the Council aim to support and facilitate the EuroVelo rail project on the Western Rail Corridor as an interim use for the rail line pending its reopening for passenger and rail freight. Iarnród Éireann will continue to provide conditional support for the development of a greenways in locations where the railway does not have a short to medium term viable business case for reintroduction of services. In terms of the Western Rail Corridor, this conditional support is subject to the section north of Claremorris. Greenways help to keep the asset in state ownership and keep the asset utilised, and then if there is a decision at some time in the future that it should go back to railway use, the licensing arrangement is such that it can do so
Isambard wrote: » taking the p....mickey...
eastwest wrote: » I see the rail lobby has made their submission to the Mayo County Development Plan
jmlfc wrote: » https://vivarail.co.uk/ Here is an option for a battery powered train which would be eco friendly to run the WRC Plus much less expensive than laying heavy rail and the other option of electrification.
Geuze wrote: » Well the passing loop at Oranmore is more than a proposal.https://www.advertiser.ie/galway/article/119009/passing-bay-at-oranmore-station-first-phase-of-possible-double-tracking The council and IE are applying for funding for it. As for the larger project to double to Athenry, I don't know what stage that is at.
Sam Russell wrote: » The only congestion on the M17 is not on the M17, or the M6, but on the N6 at the Coolagh roundabout. Sort that out, and you will be fine. You could propose sorting out Claregalway while you are at it. Now I would like to see both sorted by an ambitious Luas solution that would provide P&R nearby both problems, feeding across Galway CC to Knocknacarra. I am not proposing a route as that would best be done by a qualified person.
end of the road wrote: » do both projects and have even more passengers and less congestion. M17on it's own is not enough, it can only be a part solution and it will be at capacity eventually.
Sam Russell wrote: » Just to adjust the argument slightly, would you rather a Luas for Galway? It would be more useful by providing a line from Knocknacarra out to Ballybrit, with a spur out to Claregalway where there would be a P&R. It would take a lot more passengers, and alleviate the traffic problems in Galway CC. The M17 already provides fast access to Galway from Tuam.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
