Sam Russell wrote: » 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.
Decades wrote: » Even to get to Foynes from Ballina does not need to go via Tuam and Athenry and the operational savings would be marginal, if at all.
L1011 wrote: » Because of the line speeds on Limerick-Waterford, the nearly entirely single track status, lack of passing places etc I doubt that Ballina-Limerick(reverse)-Waterford would actually be any quicker than Ballina-Cherryville(reverse)-Waterford anyway. Also, operational costs would rocket due to needing to support the significantly higher amount of manual crossings outside of normal passenger operation hours. Diverting those flows wouldn't add to any basis for automating those crossings either, because diverting flows is not new demand, just moved demand.
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.
andrewfaulk wrote: » Foynes doesn't handle containers and
andrewfaulk wrote: » Dublin is currently 5 per week, although negotiations are under way to increase back up to 7/8 per week..
andrewfaulk wrote: » Timber is running 3/week, so IF XPO get going it will be 5/week WFD to BAL, so less than 1train per day which in no way supports the return of the WRC
ezstreet5 wrote: » Foynes claim they can, and intend to expand capacity: https://www.sfpc.ie/containers/ OK, maybe IWT's website isn't current at 7/wk. So 5/wk with the possibility to divert 7/8/wk. (with a little vision).
L1011 wrote: » The boats are in Dublin, "diverting" them to another port for the fraction of containers that come by rail is fantasy land stuff.
ezstreet5 wrote: » Foynes claim they can, and intend to expand capacity: https://www.sfpc.ie/containers/
Decades wrote: » https://www.irishrail.ie/en-ie/news/iarnrod-eireann-and-xpo-logistics-to-begin-new-twi
westtip wrote: » The claims of 5,000 truck loads (ie 5,000) 40 foot containers per year on the Dublin/Waterford line is I think wishful thinking. Take two week out for christmas. and it comes to 100 containers per week. Is that 50 outbound 50 inbound, on two trains a week? It is just fanciful thinking that traffic does not exist between Ballina and Waterford. My conjecture is that coca-Cola might be shifting some of their shipments to continental europe based Coca Cola bottlers to Waterford to be the anchor Tenant on this service, they must have an anchor tenant and that is the only one I can think is possible. As for Intermodal, with large retailers using this service, it is not flexible enough. My guess is this contract will trial for 6 to 9 months, and will be closed again by this time next year. I cannot see it adding any volume to ex Ballina.
L1011 wrote: » fantasy land stuff.
eastwest wrote: » This is a story about nothing, but it's purpose, the reason why it is in a very west on track newspaper at this time, has nothing to do with freight to Waterford. This particular tall tale has a different purpose. It is designed to persuade the more dim of the mayo county councilors that the government is imminently going to invest in the western transport corridor by building a railway on it. Many of the councillors are apparently being swayed in the direction of public opinion by the avalanche of submissions to the draft county development plan, and a few have apparently indicated to the greenway lobby that they will.support the 'greenway now, railway in the future' side of the debate. It was time to wheel out the teller of tall tales, and the party newspaper was happy to oblige. But it doesn't mean that somebody is going to fund an extra freight railway.
end of the road wrote: » it would be a rebuilding of a railway on the western railway corridor, since a railway currently exists. for it to be building a railway, that would require no railway to have existed before, meaning a brand new railway would be built from scratch. there is no greenway now railway in the future currently, there is only greenway and that is it, where a railway is turned into a greenway.
“To that end we would welcome the protection of the Western Rail Corridor as a “Transport Corridor” rather that solely as a railway line”…..”This minor change would not prohibit the reinstatement of the railway line but it would also ensure that consideration could be given at a future time for the construction of a greenway”……”This would be particularly welcome for phase IV of the western rail corridor from Claremorris to Charlestown”
“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”
westtip wrote: » Western Transport Corridor please, lets use the official language of the Department of Transport, not to mention to remind you of their thinking and that of Irish Rail BTW. At some point you really have to listen to the policy makers.
ezstreet5 wrote: » Oh good Lord, we've lost it entirely.
This would be particularly welcome for phase IV of the western rail corridor from Claremorris to Charlestown” (DOT) and "this conditional support is subject to the section north of Claremorris." (irish Rail).
We've lost it entirely
westtip wrote: » I am just the messenger apparently this is what the department now call the piece of land available for transport solutions between Collooney and Athenry that some people refer to as the Western Rail corridor that used to have a railway on it until the mid 1970s, but is now officially called the Western Transport Corridor, if you don't like it drop a line to the Minister. Hey ho.
ezstreet5 wrote: » So official! What would even be 'transported' via a bicycle trail? The 'department' may need an awakening, and they might get one soon.
westtip wrote: » Ah sure I have heard one mayo cllr say it would be illegal to put a greenway on the transport corridor but he fully supports its use as a velorail which has already received almost €500k in funding, the last €198k was a bung from Leader. Transported via a bicycle trail, err same as in Waterford and West Mayo - money spending tourists transforming the local economy, I think the department might support that idea.
eastwest wrote: » There's a lane way near my house, currently overgrown with briars, but I call it a motorway, myself. I know that any day now there'll be lines of trucks on it. Because I believe it.
westtip wrote: » Western Transport Corridor please, lets use the official language of the Department of Transport, not to mention to remind you of their thinking and that of Irish Rail BTW. At some point you really have to listen to the policy makers. Source: Submission 1027 DOT: https://consult.mayo.ie/en/submission/myo-c11-1027 Submission from Irish Rail: Source: Submission number 1027 Irish Rail https://consult.mayo.ie/en/submission/myo-c11-696 Hey Ho on we go.
westtip wrote: » I am just the messenger apparently this is what the department now call the piece of land available for transport solutions between Collooney and Athenry that some people refer to as the Western Rail corridor that used to have a railway on it until the mid 1970s, but is now officially called the Western Transport Corridor, if you don't like it drop a line to the Minister. Hey ho. BTW I presume these sentence don't need to much explaining ” I guess in a way you are right in saying , the We I presume is West on Track? In that you have lost that section of the Western Transport to a consensus opinion of the landowner and the DOT to the acceptance a greenway is the best idea on that section now? so yes you are right you have "lost it"! Hey ho on we go.
end of the road wrote: » to be honest from what i see, as time goes on fewer and fewer people go along with the greenways keeping the asset in state hands yada yada, most of us know if a greenway is built then that is it, until such time as we actually see any former rail route in this country that has a greenway built on it returned to railway use which will then prove us incorrect.
Deleted User wrote: » I'm not sure you understand how leases work
L1011 wrote: » I see we're at the "but but but but Comber" fallacy again. The entire plan in Belfast was changed to a different system, not even vaguely due to the moaning about Comber. A leased greenway can entirely be taken back by the railway owner; that is the purpose of the lease. Don't even bother mentioning Comber, everyone knows its a fallacy.
L1011 wrote: » Where, precisely, have there been serious proposals to do so?
ezstreet5 wrote: » R8
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
