GM228 wrote: » It's not actually a tender for freight wagons, rather a tender for consultancy services in relation to a potential future freight wagon tender.
MyLove4Satan wrote: » Pedantry aside this is a positive development.
IE 222 wrote: » Is there any potential or ever any talk of the coca cola plant in Lisburn using rail freight, it could easily be rail connected. Does Ballina supply them with any of the product they produce? Does that plant just use Belfast or Larne for import/export.
IE 222 wrote: » I would've thought they'd be bringing in a lot of raw products for the production up there but I suppose the concentrate reduces all that. Did the transfer of the Athy plant to Ballina see an increase in freight? As in, whatever road deliveries going to Athy did the equivalent volume move to rail into Ballina?
tabbey wrote: » cokeiscrap wrote: » I appreciate that coca cola is the second largest consignor of rail freight in Ireland, and must confess to stretching topics myself, but I find this sort of post most inappropriate on this forum. Agreed and apologies for that. Sometimes you have to answer back when outright lies are been spouted back to you. Coca-Cola shut down 2 heavily unionised plants in Drogheda and Athy and moved all to Ballina. I don't think it was to save the rail freight in Ireland that they did this.
cokeiscrap wrote: » I appreciate that coca cola is the second largest consignor of rail freight in Ireland, and must confess to stretching topics myself, but I find this sort of post most inappropriate on this forum.
L1011 wrote: » I'd think it's more plausible that the Athy transfer increased outbound freight. How much inbound freight for Coca Cola is there? Monster Energy bought the Athy plant but I don't know if they ever reopened it - COVID interfered there.
cokeiscrap wrote: » Monster is part owned by coke so probably didn't "buy" Athy, rather just moved in. Athy used to make Schweppes, which is also part owned by coke.
L1011 wrote: » Coca Cola's Monster interest is a non-controlling stake in a public listed company, so no, they didn't and indeed couldn't just move in - it was actually sold to them, after the plant had closed. Owning a small stake does not mean you have control of a company or can treat it a subsidiary
cokeiscrap wrote: » 19.36% is hardly a small stake.
andrewfaulk wrote: » I would be more qualified than most to comment on this, but is still hardly needs a consultant to write the tender.. It's a short list to make for the requirements: Ore Wagons - 75 Tonne capacity - Air Brakes - 30 units for delivery ASAP, with 30 more units as options if Pallas Green ever happens Container wagons - Air Brakes - 75MPH operation - 45ft deck length - Max deck height to be no higher than existing LX wagons - 70 units for delivery ASAP, options for a further 25
end of the road wrote: » apparently the planning permission for the mine stipulates rail haulage must be used.
tabbey wrote: » I am entirely satisfied that you are more than qualified to comment on this topic. Regarding the ore wagons, I had the idea that 75 or 78 tons was the gross weight of the laden Tara mines wagons, rather than the loading capacity, but if the requirement is for a wagon capable of carrying 75 tons of ore, the gross weight would be substantially more. The other unknown is whether there is a long term future for the mine, sufficient to justify buying new wagons. If ore traffic was to cease or even just drop the new wagons would be redundant, whereas road trucks would simply operate other contracts. When Tara started forty odd years ago, roads were poor, today a truck could convey a load of ore to Dublin port, tip it and get back to Navan as soon as the train would reach the port. It is not something I would wish for but the mine management might, rather than invest in new rolling stock.
91wx763 wrote: » I posed a question to the mayor/photo opportunity leader of Waterford City and County council Damian Geoghegan- "What if oil is struck off Dungarvan and the planning says rail must be used for the heavy traffic (as per Quigley Magnesite did back in the day), how will your support for the greenway stand then ?" He went off on a load of verbal diarrhea and never answered the question.....
donvito99 wrote: » Sounds like he was trying not to offend you by answering your question.
donvito99 wrote: » If oil is struck off Dungarvan what would be the need for rail freight? Platform > pipeline/tanker > refinery Sounds like he was trying not to offend you by answering your question.
Jamie2k9 wrote: » DG wouldn't be the brightest tool in the box to know that! 91wx763 asked a loaded question knowing full well what type of answer would be provided.
end of the road wrote: » nothing wrong with that to be fair, it can be a good way to flush out answers to other questions, unknowingly to the individual being asked the original question. it's a tactic i use to great effect in relation to a number of issues, when politicians come knocking on the door at election time.
Jamie2k9 wrote: » Not at all however lets say a rail link was required who would pay the hundreds of millions to reopen the line including a River Suir bridge. In reality rail would not be attached to planning. Typical rail enthusiast question.
