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

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

?

Google hasn't even got a clue.

R8 Newtown, Pennsylvania USA Line should be reopened.

L1011

ezstreet5 wrote: »

R8 Newtown, Pennsylvania USA Line should be reopened.

And is there a serious proposal to do so, or is there a few people on a Facebook page or on a 'town' (of ten people) council asking for it with no funding.

Without a serious proposal that has actually been blocked, it does not support your claim.

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

And is there a serious proposal to do so, or is there a few people on a Facebook page or on a 'town' (of ten people) council asking for it with no funding.

Without a serious proposal that has actually been blocked, it does not support your claim.

Agree that Facebook campaigns are junk.

This is legit, but rails-to-trails forces interfered, and perhaps the Swedenborgians. The line needs to be reactivated.

L1011

And where is there any evidence of this actual serious and blocked proposal? Because again, Google is finding nothing other than two groupings looking for more 38 year abandoned sections to be converted to trail.

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

And where is there any evidence of this actual serious and blocked proposal? Because again, Google is finding nothing other than two groupings looking for more 38 year abandoned sections to be converted to trail.

Google will not be a credible source here. This line has been advocated by a community group for years. And there has also been a competing rail-trail group. But the population exists for the railway, but not the will.

L1011

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Google will not be a credible source here. This line has been advocated by a community group for years. And there has also been a competing rail-trail group. But the population exists for the railway, but not the will.

So, you've no evidence.

Have you another example where we aren't relying on the hearsay of someone with a very fixed viewpoint?

And, remember, "advocated by a community group" is not a serious proposal in the first place.

So this example fails on all grounds to prove your claim.

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

So, you've no evidence.

Have you another example where we aren't relying on the hearsay of someone with a very fixed viewpoint?

And, remember, "advocated by a community group" is not a serious proposal in the first place.

So this example fails on all grounds to prove your claim.

The evidence is thousands of housing starts in the metro area.

The efforts of that particular community group are well documented.

That railway needs to be reactivated. Full stop.

L1011

ezstreet5 wrote: »

The evidence is thousands of housing starts in the metro area.

The efforts of that particular community group are well documented.

That railway needs to be reactivated. Full stop.

So there's actually no serious proposal, at all, is what you're saying? And the evidence requested for the proposal, which as there clearly isn't one, cannot exist.

Can we go back to the first question then:

Where, precisely, have there been serious proposals to do so?

This baffling wander through Pennsylvania and the Swedish Luterhan church has not answered that question.

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

So there's actually no serious proposal, at all, is what you're saying? And the evidence requested for the proposal, which as there clearly isn't one, cannot exist.

Can we go back to the first question then:

Where, precisely, have there been serious proposals to do so?

This baffling wander through Pennsylvania and the Swedish Luterhan church has not answered that question.

The illustration is that railway companies (the world over) don't want to expand services. And the reason for that is that new services entail effort, expense, and the risk of failure. So it is safer and easier to maintain the status quo. And that is why we got the bizarre, agenda based report from EY as we did.

L1011

ezstreet5 wrote: »

The illustration is that railway companies (the world over) don't want to expand services. And the reason for that is that new services entail effort, expense, and the risk of failure. So it is safer and easier to maintain the status quo. And that is why we got the bizarre, agenda based report from EY as we did.

And what relevance does this have to your initial claim and the question you're trying to answer with this?

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

And what relevance does this have to your initial claim and the question you're trying to answer with this?

Wha?

donvito99

L1011 wrote: »

And what relevance does this have to your initial claim and the question you're trying to answer with this?

It is easier to avoid the question and claim that there is a (now GLOBAL) conspiracy to not re-open every railway that was ever closed.

L1011

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Wha?

You stated that conversions of trails back to rails never happened, and when asked for proof that a serious proposal was stopped you gave some nonsense about a non-existent proposal in the US and some nonsense about a church.

When asked to give another, as your first answer was invalid, you went off on a rant about railway companies and EY. So I asked what relevance this had - answer is zero, of course. You are unable to answer the question I asked.

If there's any posts that are hard to follow here, they're yours not mine.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand how leases work

i'm well aware of how leases work, i'm also well aware of how politics works.

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.

nobody mentioned comber, even though the issue over that is legitimate.
anyway, we are well aware of what the railway owner can do, can being the most important word here, as can does not mean actually will, or would even be allowed to do by it's shareholder.

L1011 wrote: »

So there's actually no serious proposal, at all, is what you're saying? And the evidence requested for the proposal, which as there clearly isn't one, cannot exist.

Can we go back to the first question then:

Where, precisely, have there been serious proposals to do so?

This baffling wander through Pennsylvania and the Swedish Luterhan church has not answered that question.

it has not only answered the question, but is a perfect example of what you are looking for.
you just have to do the actual research.

L1011

end of the road wrote: »

nobody mentioned comber, even though the issue over that is legitimate.
anyway, we are well aware of what the railway owner can do, can being the most important word here, as can does not mean actually will, or would even be allowed to do by it's shareholder.

Comber was going to come up if it wasn't cut off in advance; as its the crutch used to try and support claims that greenways cannot be reconverted to rail - despite not being true as it relies on misrepresenting what happened.

end of the road wrote: »

it has not only answered the question, but is a perfect example of what you are looking for.
you just have to do the actual research.

I'm not doing anyones research for them.

And on the face of it, its an entirely invalid example as no serious proposal has ever existed. Whatever alternate reality it has come from is not the one we inhabit

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

You stated that conversions of trails back to rails never happened, and when asked for proof that a serious proposal was stopped you gave some nonsense about a non-existent proposal in the US and some nonsense about a church.

When asked to give another, as your first answer was invalid, you went off on a rant about railway companies and EY. So I asked what relevance this had - answer is zero, of course. You are unable to answer the question I asked.

If there's any posts that are hard to follow here, they're yours not mine.

Let me be clear and direct. There has never been a trail-to-rail project, ever, in the Western world. Railbanking is a fallacy that does not work.

L1011

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Let me be clear and direct. There has never been a trail-to-rail project, ever, in the Western world. Railbanking is a fallacy that does not work.

And yet you cannot even vaguely prove it does not work, giving a spurious "example" and going in to conspiracy theories when asked to actually provide one.

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

And yet you cannot even vaguely prove it does not work, giving a spurious "example" and going in to conspiracy theories when asked to actually provide one.

There is no example where a rail-trail was reactivated. None, nowhere.

donvito99

ezstreet5 wrote: »

There is no example where a rail-trail was reactivated. None, nowhere.

That says more about the viability of the railway than anything else TBH.

L1011

ezstreet5 wrote: »

There is no example where a rail-trail was reactivated. None, nowhere.

Evidential base failure there.

You need to prove that it can't happen, not that it hasn't happened. If all those rail lines were completely unviable reopened, there would never be a serious proposal to reactivate them.

You cannot prove your argument.

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

Evidential base failure there.

You need to prove that it can't happen, not that it hasn't happened. If all those rail lines were completely unviable reopened, there would never be a serious proposal to reactivate them.

You cannot prove your argument.

I don't need to prove anything to you.

L1011

ezstreet5 wrote: »

I don't need to prove anything to you.

Well, don't expect your baseless argument to be given any credence by anyone except those who work on emotion rather than facts.

end of the road

donvito99 wrote: »

That says more about the viability of the railway than anything else TBH.

not as a whole.
it will for some lines but it's not a generality.

L1011

end of the road wrote: »

his argument is non-baseless/very much base and is given credence by those of us who work on facts.

So where's the evidence? Or indeed any facts?

ezstreet5

The railway will come soon. And then we can debate its success.

[Deleted User]

ezstreet5 wrote: »

The railway will come soon.

There is no viable business case for it, no sources willing to fund it, multiple reports saying it would be a pointless endeavour and dozens of other projects with CB ratios many multiples higher...... yeah, any day now

I've no doubt it will eventually open but we'll be long buried by then.

Use it as a greenway until then

monument

ezstreet5 banned for two weeks for unnecessary and extreme personalised attack on another poster.

— monument

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

The issue is not one to be decided by Mayo, Galway, or Sligo Councils, or any combination. It's not even an issue to be decided by 'the Department.' And if you are focused on Velorail, you are also misguided, as it is likewise unimportant. And I would say it it fanciful to believe that an inland, Tier 2 (or 3) greenway segment, unconnected to the national network, will have any massive economic impact, as is envisioned. There is no yellow-bricked 'sconeway,' sorry about that.

The whole point of the Greenway section from Charlestown to Claremorris is that it would be connected to the national network, Charlestown to Sligo to Enniskillen and the plan is to connect that to Cavan and to the East coast, never mind the potential to of the Quiet Man Gway south of Claremorris which should also happen. The East Mayo section could be connected to the West Mayo Greenway network. The whole point of the Western Rail Trail is to provide a spine of a greenway that will connect so many parts of the greenway network together - but I am sure you are well aware of these perfectly rational arguments that have been explained over and over again to you. It will make a far greater economic impact than a single track railway used for two freight trains a week and a couple of up trains and down trains a day for free travel pass user. but if it keeps you happy to keep dreaming then on you go, Why do you have to be the small minority stopping what the majority want to see happen.

end of the road

westtip wrote: »

Why do you have to be the small minority stopping what the majority want to see happen.

quite simply we believe people are being promised something that is not going to deliver what is being promised, that is not going to be the tourist benanza or economic stimulous being made out.
that is why we believe stopping the greenway is the correct and just thing to do, because it will be spending money on delivering nothing and ultimately set people up to be disappointed.
it's for the greater good.

westtip

end of the road wrote: »

quite simply we believe people are being promised something that is not going to deliver what is being promised, that is not going to be the tourist benanza or economic stimulous being made out.
that is why we believe stopping the greenway is the correct and just thing to do, because it will be spending money on delivering nothing and ultimately set people up to be disappointed.
it's for the greater good.

Jaysus how patronizing can you get, many of us have always said this was all about stopping the greenway even though the railway is not going to happen, and to tell us it's for the greater good. I now realise what kind of mindset we are dealing with, it truly makes me want to vomit, but I guess the post was just a way of waving that red flag at many of us that what the railway campaign is about is stopping the greenway at all costs.