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

Decades

end of the road wrote: »

it's still a railway, so he is correct.

Somes up the depth of the trains argument perfectly.

eastwest

end of the road wrote: »

it's still a railway, so he is correct.

It isn't. But once you believe, and squint a bit....

Sam Russell

I thought that for something to be a 'railway' it would need trains.

Otherwise it is just a 'railway track', assuming it still has rails, and they could support a train.

Otherwise it is just a 'railway alignment'.

Under those definitions, it is not a 'railway'.

end of the road

eastwest wrote: »

It isn't. But once you believe, and squint a bit....

it is, it has all the required infrastructure for a railway in place, ergo railway.
not about belief, but just simple facts.

Sam Russell wrote: »

I thought that for something to be a 'railway' it would need trains.

Otherwise it is just a 'railway track', assuming it still has rails, and they could support a train.

Otherwise it is just a 'railway alignment'.

Under those definitions, it is not a 'railway'.

if it has trains on it then it would be classed as a working railway.
if it doesn't, then it would be classed as either.
1. an inactive railway, if open but not opened to scheduled traffic but can take traffic.
2. a closed railway if not open to any traffic/is unable to support traffic.
if it has no track then yes it's just an alignment.
the WRC would be an inactive/closed railway as it does have track in place but is unable to support traffic without a rebuild.
that is how the terminology has always gone from my years of being involved in discussions of rail anyway.

ezstreet5

Decades wrote: »

Typical trainspotter drivel. They could also formerly abandon it tomorrow with a small advert in the back of the Irish Times. Symantec nonsense that serves no one.

I'm sorry if the statutory definition of "railway" triggers.

[Deleted User]

Support for the Quiet Man Greenway from the Galway City Council, great to see more of this happening

City Council backs development of local greenways

https://galwaybayfm.ie/galway-bay-fm-news-desk/city-council-backs-development-of-local-greenways/

Labour Councillor Niall McNelis submitted a motion for the Local authority to back the proposed Athenry to Claremorris greenway as well as the Galway to Athlone greenway which is currently in stage two of its public consultation process.

The motion further states that the council should back both projects as they will drive tourism and economic growth acoss the west and has been unanimously agreed

Councillor McNelis says it makes sense to back the projects as Galway city will be the ultimate destination for both greenways.

westtip

eastwest wrote: »

They would need a railway order to build it north of claremorris.

You mean a miracle. But didn't they already have one of those in that area of the country.

Losty Dublin

eastwest wrote: »

They would need a railway order to build it north of claremorris.

Ezstreet wrote:

The whole line is "a railway" because Irish Rail can rebuild it tomorrow without a fresh Railway Order.

To be fair you are both right and wrong here. There is no need for a Railway Order to lay new track and ballast, reopen stations, replace crossing gates etc etc.

However a Railway Order allows for any works that ordinarily would require planning permission on a case by case basis to be legally undertaken subject to those works being included in said Order along with land acquisition needs if required. In essence it acts as a catch all planning permission and a CPO for such a project and thus it makes life a lot easier for the legal eagles.

ezstreet5

Losty Dublin wrote: »

However a Railway Order allows for any works that ordinarily would require planning permission on a case by case basis to be legally undertaken subject to those works being included in said Order along with land acquisition needs if required. In essence it acts as a catch all planning permission and a CPO for such a project and thus it makes life a lot easier for the legal eagles.

While that's true, Iarnród Éireann did not utilise the Railway Order approach to entitlements for Phase 1, and I doubt they'd use it for Phases 2 and 3. For Phase 1, "case-by-case" planning permission applications were used for new stations, field access structures, etc.

The only reason I could see for possibly seeking a new railway order would be if it were found that numerous bits of the permanent way had fallen into true adverse possession and needed to be reacquired. I don't suspect that is the case either, even up to Collooney. Adjacent landowners tend to chance various physical encroachments, but when it comes down to actually applying to the Land Registry for title, that would be a rare occurrence.

Losty Dublin

ezstreet5 wrote: »

While that's true, Iarnród Éireann did not utilise the Railway Order approach to entitlements for Phase 1, and I doubt they'd use it for Phases 2 and 3. For Phase 1, "case-by-case" planning permission applications were used for new stations, field access structures, etc.

The only reason I could see for possibly seeking a new railway order would be if it were found that numerous bits of the permanent way had fallen into true adverse possession and needed to be reacquired. I don't suspect that is the case either, even up to Collooney. Adjacent landowners tend to chance various physical encroachments, but when it comes down to actually applying to the Land Registry for title, that would be a rare occurrence.

True; they didn't need a RO for Ennis to Athenry but then again they may not have needed the extra powers that it offered. On the other hand one was used for the the disused but in situ Midleton project in 2007. A quick check shows that there were some freeholds changing hands; in this case it was obviously warranted.

As regards adverse possession, it's up to the applicant to prove that the former owner of the holding can't be located or traced and that they have also not exercised any use or interest or claim in the land. If the route was to suddenly reopen there'd sure be a lot less manicured gardens in the Sligo and Mayo region :pac:

ezstreet5

Losty Dublin wrote: »

True; they didn't need a RO for Ennis to Athenry but then again they may not have needed the extra powers that it offered. On the other hand one was used for the the disused but in situ Midleton project in 2007. A quick check shows that there were some freeholds changing hands; in this case it was obviously warranted.

I'd agree that there is an increased use of ROs, even for minor railway projects for whatever reasons.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

As regards adverse possession, it's up to the applicant to prove that the former owner of the holding can't be located or traced and that they have also not exercised any use or interest or claim in the land. If the route was to suddenly reopen there'd sure be a lot less manicured gardens in the Sligo and Mayo region :pac:

Adverse possession requires 12 years of demonstrated animus possidendi. It's a fairly high legal bar to meet. Most claimants will do exactly as you say - plant a garden, threaten adverse possession, do the math, and then agree to a small settlement. The point being that no major intervention is needed to protect the state owned asset.

westtip

Deleted User wrote: »

Support for the Quiet Man Greenway from the Galway City Council, great to see more of this happening

But how can that be, I heard from an organisation claiming to have 3,000 members that every council in the west supported the railway and only the railway, does this mean Sligo coco, Galway coco and now Galway coco don't actually agree with aforementioned organisation?

ezstreet5

Worth a read:

https://www.impartialreporter.com/news/19267237.restoring-enniskillens-rail-links-key-priority/

https://twitter.com/CorkCommuter/status/1386985776630714368?fbclid=IwAR1Wghg62_60nFCIrSBGSLruRWCMVD7BZs0wg5C1FhGA3Ywo2eanOBCNZqo

[Deleted User]

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Worth a read

Not really.

I groaned when I saw the tired old comparison of the 1920's network with todays network. Told me all I needed to know about how the article was going to go and it didn't disappoint.

eastwest

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Worth a read:

https://www.impartialreporter.com/news/19267237.restoring-enniskillens-rail-links-key-priority/

https://twitter.com/CorkCommuter/status/1386985776630714368?fbclid=IwAR1Wghg62_60nFCIrSBGSLruRWCMVD7BZs0wg5C1FhGA3Ywo2eanOBCNZqo

I can't remember who first used the phrase about an infinite capacity for self-delusion, but these two links illustrate it perfectly. Add two and two and get twenty-two.
'Cork Commuter' blithely conflates post-covid working from home with the need for commuter rail. He/she suggests that working from home equals an increased demand for commuter rail. Kinda misses the point.
Hard to argue with that kind of logic.

end of the road

eastwest wrote: »

I can't remember who first used the phrase about an infinite capacity for self-delusion, but these two links illustrate it perfectly. Add two and two and get twenty-two.
'Cork Commuter' blithely conflates post-covid working from home with the need for commuter rail. He/she suggests that working from home equals an increased demand for commuter rail. Kinda misses the point.
Hard to argue with that kind of logic.

they really, really don't illustrate it.
they do illustrate modern thinking which as a country we aren't quite ready for yet, but we are moving in that direction ever so slowly.

Decades

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really.

I groaned when I saw the tired old comparison of the 1920's network with todays network. Told me all I needed to know about how the article was going to go and it didn't disappoint.

That 1920's map (against the network now) is a great symbol of the degentrification and decolonisation of Ireland. Cracks me up whenever Sinn Fein throws it about. What did the Brits ever do for us? Let's bring back the big country houses and populate them with squires while we are at it. Modern Ireland Mehole.

westtip

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really.

I groaned when I saw the tired old comparison of the 1920's network with todays network. Told me all I needed to know about how the article was going to go and it didn't disappoint.

Imagine that 1920s network as a greenway network with parallel greenways on the today network as well. What would that do for rural tourism as opposed to coastal tourism.

monument

Can everyone please cut out the name calling, unfounded accusations etc etc?

Ta!

— moderator

ezstreet5

Decades wrote: »

That 1920's map (against the network now) is a great symbol of the degentrification and decolonisation of Ireland. Cracks me up whenever Sinn Fein throws it about. What did the Brits ever do for us? Let's bring back the big country houses and populate them with squires while we are at it. Modern Ireland Mehole.

So true. When the Americans ousted the British in 1783, their first course of action was to rip up all of the British colonial railways. Or perhaps I'm wrong, and they went mad building transcontinental railways. Maybe somebody can correct me.

Decades

ezstreet5 wrote: »

So true. When the Americans ousted the British in 1783, their first course of action was to rip up all of the British colonial railways. Or perhaps I'm wrong, and they went mad building transcontinental railways. Maybe somebody can correct me.

You're comparing transcontinental pioneer lines with Lord Fitzwilliam's very own Shillelagh Branch Line and the like? Apples and Potatoes.

end of the road

Decades wrote: »

You're comparing transcontinental pioneer lines with Lord Fitzwilliam's very own Shillelagh Branch Line and the like? Apples and Potatoes.

it would if that was what he was doing, which he wasn't.
read his post again, it's very obvious the point he was making.

Decades

https://www.irishrail.ie/en-ie/news/iarnrod-eireann-and-xpo-logistics-to-begin-new-twi

L1011

Decades wrote: »

https://www.irishrail.ie/en-ie/news/iarnrod-eireann-and-xpo-logistics-to-begin-new-twi

Diversion of existing rail flows is not a justification for investment. This service does not use or need the WRC

Sam Russell

L1011 wrote: »

Diversion of existing rail flows is not a justification for investment. This service does not use or need the WRC

Two trains per week?

Even two trains per day would not justify it, besides it is likely these trains will go by night.

[Edit - If the WTC was open, all it would mean is that the train would go from Ballina to Tuam, then Athenry, then Ballinasloe, Athlone, and so on rather than Ballina, Manulla Junction, Claremorris, Rosscommon, Athlone. Not much difference, and certainly not a better route.]

ezstreet5

So there are 7/wk existing container trains to Dublin (that could/should be diverted to Waterford or Foynes), 2/wk new container trains to Waterford, and maybe 2/wk log trains. That's 11/wk existing demand; a good start for the freight component.

L1011

ezstreet5 wrote: »

So there are 7/wk existing container trains to Dublin (that could/should be diverted to Waterford or Foynes), 2/wk new container trains to Waterford, and maybe 2/wk log trains. That's 11/wk existing demand; a good start for the freight component.

And all on the existing line. Diverting them is not creating demand for the WRC.

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

And all on the existing line. Diverting them is not creating demand for the WRC.

The benefit is shorter journeys and avoiding congestion of Dublin.

Sam Russell

ezstreet5 wrote: »

The benefit is shorter journeys and avoiding congestion of Dublin.

To get from Ballina to Limerick does not need to go via Dublin.

To get from Ballina to Waterford does not need to go via Dublin.

At the present time, there is no rail connection to Foynes.

L1011

ezstreet5 wrote: »

The benefit is shorter journeys and avoiding congestion of Dublin.

Trains to Dublin Port are going to continue going to Dublin Port.

Its 17km *longer* to Dublin, with an added reverse/run-around, to go via the closed line.

Waterford services don't go through Dublin.

It is disingenuous and misleading to try claim that exisitng freight flows are of any benefit to the WRC.