Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

end of the road · 20-05-2021 11:26PM

mayo.mick wrote: »

The transport corridor from Claremorris to Collooney is 47 miles long with 48 level crossings, x amount of slatted sheds and 1 domestic back garden that I know of. The N17 is currently being upgraded from Knock to Collooney.

level crossings can be closed, slatted sheds and back gardens can be removed.
none of that is a major issue should the restoration of that section of the western railway corridor ever be restored.

ShaneC1600 · 20-05-2021 11:41PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

So you do not want low level jobs nor do you want major investment to create jobs, just rains to trundle from one small town to another small town carrying a few passengers, just to have a Victorian train back burning money rather than coal.

Dream on.

Terrible comment again, constantly belittling everything. Small town to small town rhetoric is old now with the train trundling along. The rail alignment can easily be improved as can the level of service if the will is there.
As far as I can tell the victorian trains will not be carrying commuters in any event.

Why not stick to the advantages of the proposed greenway instead of the constant belittling of what can be achieved by the railway.

Sam Russell · 21-05-2021 11:00AM

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

Terrible comment again, constantly belittling everything. Small town to small town rhetoric is old now with the train trundling along. The rail alignment can easily be improved as can the level of service if the will is there.
As far as I can tell the victorian trains will not be carrying commuters in any event.

Why not stick to the advantages of the proposed greenway instead of the constant belittling of what can be achieved by the railway.

Here is the reason I think that the Tuam to Athenry section should be left as a greenway.

1. If a new railway was to be built it would not follow that alignment. That is why the M17 did not follow it. The M17 follows the general direction but is built on a green field alignment. A new railway alignment would follow the old N17 from Galway at least as far Claregalway, and would provide Luas type service. The existing line is single track, so it has a major capacity limit.

2. The provision of new services on the old alignment would, apart from the land required, require the same type of investment as a completely new alignment. No significant part of the existing infrastructure would be used in the reopened line apart from the land. Even if it was built, it would require the double tracking of the Galway to Athenry alignment - now that is needed anyway, but that is not justification for this line.

3. The greenway proposal is a low cost but essential project to retain the alignment in public ownership. If the line is to be reopened, then it would take precedence over the greenway. It would be possible to move the greenway aside at relatively low cost if the greenway was anyway near as successful as its promoters envisage.

4. There are no villages even on the line between Tuam and Athenry, so where will the passengers come from? Freight is the latest call for this project, but there is no freight calling for it. Existing freight volume goes via the existing lines, and anyway is only a few trains per week - not enough to justify this particular line.

All of these points have been made many times, and yet there is a call for rail enthusiasts to get national funds spent on what would be a huge waste. If you want a line reopened, look to the Mullingar to Athlone line.

Alternatively look for a tourist narrow gauge line like the project at Moyaster Junction, only get it properly funded. Do not go down the Velorail route though.

random_guy · 21-05-2021 11:13AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Here is the reason I think that the Tuam to Athenry section should be left as a greenway.

1. If a new railway was to be built it would not follow that alignment. That is why the M17 did not follow it. The M17 follows the general direction but is built on a green field alignment. A new railway alignment would follow the old N17 from Galway at least as far Claregalway, and would provide Luas type service. The existing line is single track, so it has a major capacity limit.

2. The provision of new services on the old alignment would, apart from the land required, require the same type of investment as a completely new alignment. No significant part of the existing infrastructure would be used in the reopened line apart from the land. Even if it was built, it would require the double tracking of the Galway to Athenry alignment - now that is needed anyway, but that is not justification for this line.

3. The greenway proposal is a low cost but essential project to retain the alignment in public ownership. If the line is to be reopened, then it would take precedence over the greenway. It would be possible to move the greenway aside at relatively low cost if the greenway was anyway near as successful as its promoters envisage.

4. There are no villages even on the line between Tuam and Athenry, so where will the passengers come from? Freight is the latest call for this project, but there is no freight calling for it. Existing freight volume goes via the existing lines, and anyway is only a few trains per week - not enough to justify this particular line.

All of these points have been made many times, and yet there is a call for rail enthusiasts to get national funds spent on what would be a huge waste. If you want a line reopened, look to the Mullingar to Athlone line.

Alternatively look for a tourist narrow gauge line like the project at Moyaster Junction, only get it properly funded. Do not go down the Velorail route though.

The most sensible comment on this thread in the last few pages.

eastwest · 21-05-2021 11:14AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Here is the reason I think that the Tuam to Athenry section should be left as a greenway.

1. If a new railway was to be built it would not follow that alignment. That is why the M17 did not follow it. The M17 follows the general direction but is built on a green field alignment. A new railway alignment would follow the old N17 from Galway at least as far Claregalway, and would provide Luas type service. The existing line is single track, so it has a major capacity limit.

2. The provision of new services on the old alignment would, apart from the land required, require the same type of investment as a completely new alignment. No significant part of the existing infrastructure would be used in the reopened line apart from the land. Even if it was built, it would require the double tracking of the Galway to Athenry alignment - now that is needed anyway, but that is not justification for this line.

3. The greenway proposal is a low cost but essential project to retain the alignment in public ownership. If the line is to be reopened, then it would take precedence over the greenway. It would be possible to move the greenway aside at relatively low cost if the greenway was anyway near as successful as its promoters envisage.

4. There are no villages even on the line between Tuam and Athenry, so where will the passengers come from? Freight is the latest call for this project, but there is no freight calling for it. Existing freight volume goes via the existing lines, and anyway is only a few trains per week - not enough to justify this particular line.

All of these points have been made many times, and yet there is a call for rail enthusiasts to get national funds spent on what would be a huge waste. If you want a line reopened, look to the Mullingar to Athlone line.

Alternatively look for a tourist narrow gauge line like the project at Moyaster Junction, only get it properly funded. Do not go down the Velorail route though.

Sorry, that's far too much logic and common sense. You're on the wrong forum.

Sam Russell · 21-05-2021 11:53AM

eastwest wrote: »

Sorry, that's far too much logic and common sense. You're on the wrong forum.

I tried humour and now logic and facts. I doubt that logic will have any effect on the railway proponents because nothing will deviate a train at full steam trapped on rails that do not allow it to move aside from impending doom.

A rural Victorian railway line that is unused for half a century with missing passengers, missing bridges, rusting rails, rotting sleepers, and useless ballast, is no competitor for a motorway that runs alongside it. Particularly with the odd encroachment making court battles inevitable.

The dreamers dream on.

eastwest · 21-05-2021 01:07PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

I tried humour and now logic and facts. I doubt that logic will have any effect on the railway proponents because nothing will deviate a train at full steam trapped on rails that do not allow it to move aside from impending doom.

A rural Victorian railway line that is unused for half a century with missing passengers, missing bridges, rusting rails, rotting sleepers, and useless ballast, is no competitor for a motorway that runs alongside it. Particularly with the odd encroachment making court battles inevitable.

The dreamers dream on.

But but but but.
They have the LUAS up in Dublin.

ShaneC1600 · 21-05-2021 01:31PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Here is the reason I think that the Tuam to Athenry section should be left as a greenway.

1. If a new railway was to be built it would not follow that alignment. That is why the M17 did not follow it. The M17 follows the general direction but is built on a green field alignment. A new railway alignment would follow the old N17 from Galway at least as far Claregalway, and would provide Luas type service. The existing line is single track, so it has a major capacity limit.

2. The provision of new services on the old alignment would, apart from the land required, require the same type of investment as a completely new alignment. No significant part of the existing infrastructure would be used in the reopened line apart from the land. Even if it was built, it would require the double tracking of the Galway to Athenry alignment - now that is needed anyway, but that is not justification for this line.

3. The greenway proposal is a low cost but essential project to retain the alignment in public ownership. If the line is to be reopened, then it would take precedence over the greenway. It would be possible to move the greenway aside at relatively low cost if the greenway was anyway near as successful as its promoters envisage.

4. There are no villages even on the line between Tuam and Athenry, so where will the passengers come from? Freight is the latest call for this project, but there is no freight calling for it. Existing freight volume goes via the existing lines, and anyway is only a few trains per week - not enough to justify this particular line.

All of these points have been made many times, and yet there is a call for rail enthusiasts to get national funds spent on what would be a huge waste. If you want a line reopened, look to the Mullingar to Athlone line.

Alternatively look for a tourist narrow gauge line like the project at Moyaster Junction, only get it properly funded. Do not go down the Velorail route though.

1: If a new railway was to be built between Athenry and Tuam it would be pretty close to the existing line but of course if one wanted it to go straight to Galway on a new alignment it would in all honesty go as you say through Claregalway but for the total population of Claregalway at 1200 I don't really see the Luas comparison. The line between Tuam and Athenry is as good an alignment as you could hope for and easily capable of 90 mph. The 6 curves are long radius and the profile constraints are minimal.

2: What land requirements, there are no land grabs between Tuam and Athenry. No it would not require the same level of investment as a new railway. The embankments are fit for purpose and would require ballast, drainage and re-railing, no big issue. All masonry bridges both over the rail and under the rail are fit for purpose. The steel truss bridges require extensive works but not all of them, the steel troughing bridges can be maintained easily.
Double tracking of the Galway line and/or the passing loop in Oranmore should be planned regardless of the WRC.

3: Agree, except the moving of the Greenway, because of the profile of the alignment bridges over the railway and bridges under the rail would require extensive works to create the clearance required, this would be the same for the Dublin to Galway greenway, not as simple as laying a surface but I guess possible if the will was there. The Greenway license will provide for this when/if ever required.

4: I agree there are no villages along the route but there is potential for park and ride on the Roscommon road. We will find out in the next 6 months if freight is of any use, this might be a wait and see but imo agree with you, there is little demand for it, hopefully track access charges can be reduced to incentivise usage.

I know well there is other projects that will/could take precedence over the WRC but this is a project that is shovel ready, linking the north west of Ireland to the west and south, linking the highest population town in Galway to the city, connecting the hopefully double tracked Galway line with another location. If Athenry ever becomes the employment hub (IDA site) that it can be then connecting it with a northern rail connection would be a sensible approach.

Sam Russell · 21-05-2021 04:15PM

The bridge over the N63 is missing since they widened the road.

There is no 'shovel ready' project. It needs planning and design and funding. It has none of these.

westtip · 21-05-2021 04:37PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

The bridge over the N63 is missing since they widened the road.

There is no 'shovel ready' project. It needs planning and design and funding. It has none of these.

It certainly needs sheds loads of money and a good rationale to do it. It has neither. but it has enough pale stale white men to keep it hanging by a thread.

end of the road · 21-05-2021 04:51PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Here is the reason I think that the Tuam to Athenry section should be left as a greenway.

1. If a new railway was to be built it would not follow that alignment. That is why the M17 did not follow it. The M17 follows the general direction but is built on a green field alignment. A new railway alignment would follow the old N17 from Galway at least as far Claregalway, and would provide Luas type service. The existing line is single track, so it has a major capacity limit.

2. The provision of new services on the old alignment would, apart from the land required, require the same type of investment as a completely new alignment. No significant part of the existing infrastructure would be used in the reopened line apart from the land. Even if it was built, it would require the double tracking of the Galway to Athenry alignment - now that is needed anyway, but that is not justification for this line.

3. The greenway proposal is a low cost but essential project to retain the alignment in public ownership. If the line is to be reopened, then it would take precedence over the greenway. It would be possible to move the greenway aside at relatively low cost if the greenway was anyway near as successful as its promoters envisage.

4. There are no villages even on the line between Tuam and Athenry, so where will the passengers come from? Freight is the latest call for this project, but there is no freight calling for it. Existing freight volume goes via the existing lines, and anyway is only a few trains per week - not enough to justify this particular line.

All of these points have been made many times, and yet there is a call for rail enthusiasts to get national funds spent on what would be a huge waste. If you want a line reopened, look to the Mullingar to Athlone line.

Alternatively look for a tourist narrow gauge line like the project at Moyaster Junction, only get it properly funded. Do not go down the Velorail route though.

a new route for any rail reopening is not going to happen. yes in certain cases it would be good, but in other cases the old route is perfectly fine, tuam to athenry being 1 of those given it's a good alinement.
a new route is going to cost more then doing up the existing route, the existing route would need a rebuild but the infrastructure is there and sorting that out would be less then a whole new line built from scratch.

freight is only a part of the calling for the line, not the main part. and actually that's quite right as the kildare corridor is going to get more and more congested as time goes on, meaning existing freight services may end up taking longer given they aren't going to run at night, which could put the viability of those services at risk, so using it as part of the case to reopen the line is fine, and it's long term that such freight might end up having to be diverted.
any lines that have a campaign to reopen them are perfectly legitimate to campaign for, as nobody campaigns for lines that aren't viable.

PeadarCo · 21-05-2021 04:57PM

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

1: If a new railway was to be built between Athenry and Tuam it would be pretty close to the existing line but of course if one wanted it to go straight to Galway on a new alignment it would in all honesty go as you say through Claregalway but for the total population of Claregalway at 1200 I don't really see the Luas comparison. The line between Tuam and Athenry is as good an alignment as you could hope for and easily capable of 90 mph. The 6 curves are long radius and the profile constraints are minimal.

2: What land requirements, there are no land grabs between Tuam and Athenry. No it would not require the same level of investment as a new railway. The embankments are fit for purpose and would require ballast, drainage and re-railing, no big issue. All masonry bridges both over the rail and under the rail are fit for purpose. The steel truss bridges require extensive works but not all of them, the steel troughing bridges can be maintained easily.
Double tracking of the Galway line and/or the passing loop in Oranmore should be planned regardless of the WRC.

3: Agree, except the moving of the Greenway, because of the profile of the alignment bridges over the railway and bridges under the rail would require extensive works to create the clearance required, this would be the same for the Dublin to Galway greenway, not as simple as laying a surface but I guess possible if the will was there. The Greenway license will provide for this when/if ever required.

4: I agree there are no villages along the route but there is potential for park and ride on the Roscommon road. We will find out in the next 6 months if freight is of any use, this might be a wait and see but imo agree with you, there is little demand for it, hopefully track access charges can be reduced to incentivise usage.

I know well there is other projects that will/could take precedence over the WRC but this is a project that is shovel ready, linking the north west of Ireland to the west and south, linking the highest population town in Galway to the city, connecting the hopefully double tracked Galway line with another location. If Athenry ever becomes the employment hub (IDA site) that it can be then connecting it with a northern rail connection would be a sensible approach.

The biggest issue though is demand. The population isn't there are a railway or at least one that makes economic sense. The west of Ireland is rural and Ireland itself isn't a highly densely populated country by international standards. Talking about freight in a rural area in this day and age is pointless. Maybe 100 years ago but for relatively small loads transported by small businesses road makes for more sense. Additionally the Irish economy is service based hence the focus on commuter traffic. Any manufacturing tends to high value and the west of Ireland isn't known for its heavy industry.

The other issue is the railway has been out of use for 50 odd years which means you have to replace everything which means a new railway. If you've ever walked along a disused railway you'll have seen how quickly nature reclaims the land. Everything, track bed, tracks, sleepers need to replaced, trees in the middle of the track need to be cut down, new signals, new boundary fences etc etc.

Greenway are ideally suited to rural areas and are relatively low cost when compared to railways to build and maintain. It provides a create local amenity to areas that don't have stuff like that. They are akin to local parks in some respects and also generate money through tourism. In the long run if population densities increase to the point that a railway might be viable the land is still in public ownership.

Decades · 21-05-2021 05:30PM

end of the road wrote: »

freight is only a part of the calling for the line, not the main part.

At this moment of time, it actually is the only call for rail, and it's a pretty weak one at that. The dogs in the street know that Eamon Ryan just doesn't want to go down in history as the man (the green man) that put the final nail in the Western Rail Corridor. History will have thought him that rail fanatics like to sticker inevitable change on a "bogey man", especially when it breaks up their train sets - and it ain't going to be Eamon Ryan for sure. You can probably relax for a while more.

Sam Russell · 21-05-2021 06:02PM

Decades wrote: »

At this moment of time, it actually is the only call for rail, and it's a pretty weak one at that. The dogs in the street know that Eamon Ryan just doesn't want to go down in history as the man (the green man) that put the final nail in the Western Rail Corridor. History will have thought him that rail fanatics like to sticker inevitable change on a "bogey man", especially when it breaks up their train sets - and it ain't going to be Eamon Ryan for sure. You can probably relax for a while more.

I think Eamon Ryan should take up the Quiet Man banner as that project is ideal for a Green Man - preserving the railway alignment by fostering a greenway - developing cycling and tourism.

He needs to get going on these projects - he is currently a very Quiet Man when it comes to beating the drum for all these Transport initiatives that should be hitting the headlines as shovels are sharpened before plunging into the earth.

He has Metrolink - not a word. He has M20 - not a good word. The various railway projects - nothing about Limerick to Limerick Junction which needs double tracking, nor anything about double tracking Galway to Athenry. However, he talks about Athenry to Tuam.

Captain Lugger · 21-05-2021 06:49PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think Eamon Ryan should take up the Quiet Man banner as that project is ideal for a Green Man - preserving the railway alignment by fostering a greenway - developing cycling and tourism.

He needs to get going on these projects - he is currently a very Quiet Man when it comes to beating the drum for all these Transport initiatives that should be hitting the headlines as shovels are sharpened before plunging into the earth.

He has Metrolink - not a word. He has M20 - not a good word. The various railway projects - nothing about Limerick to Limerick Junction which needs double tracking, nor anything about double tracking Galway to Athenry. However, he talks about Athenry to Tuam.

So, Greenway gets built on the basis that it will be released to rail when required.

Where does the replacement Greenway go then?

21-05-2021 06:58PM

Captain Lugger wrote: »

So, Greenway gets built on the basis that it will be released to rail when required.

Where does the replacement Greenway go then?

Move it to the left or right of the railway. Taking the WTC as an example, literally everything, including the ballast needs to be redone for rail regardless, so in terms of engineering works, that would be the time to build it alongside as you would be basically starting from scratch for the majority of that transport corridor.

ShaneC1600 · 21-05-2021 07:36PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

The bridge over the N63 is missing since they widened the road.

There is no 'shovel ready' project. It needs planning and design and funding. It has none of these.

So one bridge that supposedly has a budget allocated would stop the project, Please, spare me.

ShaneC1600 · 21-05-2021 07:39PM

westtip wrote: »

It certainly needs sheds loads of money and a good rationale to do it. It has neither. but it has enough pale stale white men to keep it hanging by a thread.

Pale stale white men? Really? I don't get that?

ShaneC1600 · 21-05-2021 07:59PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

The biggest issue though is demand. The population isn't there are a railway or at least one that makes economic sense. The west of Ireland is rural and Ireland itself isn't a highly densely populated country by international standards. Talking about freight in a rural area in this day and age is pointless. Maybe 100 years ago but for relatively small loads transported by small businesses road makes for more sense. Additionally the Irish economy is service based hence the focus on commuter traffic. Any manufacturing tends to high value and the west of Ireland isn't known for its heavy industry.

The other issue is the railway has been out of use for 50 odd years which means you have to replace everything which means a new railway. If you've ever walked along a disused railway you'll have seen how quickly nature reclaims the land. Everything, track bed, tracks, sleepers need to replaced, trees in the middle of the track need to be cut down, new signals, new boundary fences etc etc.

Greenway are ideally suited to rural areas and are relatively low cost when compared to railways to build and maintain. It provides a create local amenity to areas that don't have stuff like that. They are akin to local parks in some respects and also generate money through tourism. In the long run if population densities increase to the point that a railway might be viable the land is still in public ownership.

Nobody says it will be cheap but the Pway and signalling is not a major issue. One massive plus for the railway or even the greenway is the fact that there is an alignment with the embankments and cuttings in place along with the bridges (except 1) in place obviously with some requiring repairs or renewal.

Population wise you might be right, pity the EY report was so bad that the conclusions were not valid.

I don't get the relativity between the cost of the railway to the greenway. Its should not be one or the other, the cost of the greenway should not come into the factoring of the viability of a railway. The greenway will bring tourists I've no doubt and be good for the areas in question but all towns along the route need to up their tourist attractions offering. The first 3 or 4 km each side of the towns might be busy but movement between towns and further afield I can't see being that busy for 6 months of the year.

Captain Lugger · 21-05-2021 08:01PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Move it to the left or right of the railway. Taking the WTC as an example, literally everything, including the ballast needs to be redone for rail regardless, so in terms of engineering works, that would be the time to build it alongside as you would be basically starting from scratch for the majority of that transport corridor.

So, assuming there is clearance for a cycle path in parallel with the railway, there will be speed restrictions on the speed that trains can operate. Elf and Safety and the compo culture will see to that. A non runner then.

PeadarCo · 21-05-2021 09:32PM

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

Nobody says it will be cheap but the Pway and signalling is not a major issue. One massive plus for the railway or even the greenway is the fact that there is an alignment with the embankments and cuttings in place along with the bridges (except 1) in place obviously with some requiring repairs or renewal.

Population wise you might be right, pity the EY report was so bad that the conclusions were not valid.

I don't get the relativity between the cost of the railway to the greenway. Its should not be one or the other, the cost of the greenway should not come into the factoring of the viability of a railway. The greenway will bring tourists I've no doubt and be good for the areas in question but all towns along the route need to up their tourist attractions offering. The first 3 or 4 km each side of the towns might be busy but movement between towns and further afield I can't see being that busy for 6 months of the year.

The EY report is valid. The only complaints about it amount to a few typos in the report. Its the equivalent of saying that a spelling or grammar error renders post invalid on boards invalid.

You have to compare the costs because you have a limited amount of money. You also have a state asset and you are looking to generate the best economic/social outcome from that asset. A greenway will be significantly cheaper particularly when it comes to reactivating a line that's been unmaintained for any length of time. Pretty much everything required for a greenway will also have to done for a railway ie cutting down trees/bushes, removing the old railway line, relaying the surface etc. A railway involves extra costs associated with tracks, signals, design for a higher speed and weight of machine using it etc. Then you have maintenance costs which again for the route itself will be higher for a railway just because of inherent different safety requirements driven by the fact of the difference in mass and speed of the users of a greenway and railway. Railway lines themselves have to kept better maintained than the surface of a greenway ie you get away with potholes on a greenway from time to time whereas similar issues on a railway line will lead to accidents or worse. And all that's ignoring the cost of the rolling stock. The government doesn't have unlimited money and it needs to be spent wisely. From my point of view there are vastly more urgent rail projects that need investment.

Greenways are themselves an attraction. All local towns and villages need is a pub or coffee shop to take advantage. From actually living beside a small village on a greenway the benefit to the local community has been immense particularly with the restrictions over the last year. They are in many respects similar to a town/city park. They provide a safe place for locals to walk or cycle outside which doesn't involve going on narrow roads. This is absolutely invaluable for rural areas who just due to sheer size don't have access to big parks or just a network of footpaths. When you factor in the increase in cycling and attractive greenaways are to cyclists greenaways get used 12 months of the year. That social and economic capital generated by a greenway may not always be obvious unless you live near one but the benefits should not be underestimated.

A freight railway line in the west is pointless. It doesn't have any sizeable grouping of heavy industry so you are left with a lot of relatively small businesses with relatively low volumes of goods. It wouldn't make economic sense for them to use rail over road. To get to the railway in the first place will mean using road putting on a train and then unpacking again to go back on road. That's a waste of money. Each movement from rail to road would cost money. No company is going to spend money on loading and unloading if it can avoid it. Which means the railway will have to charge prices that are significantly lower than the competing road transport. Given that a lot of your rail costs are fixed ie railway line, limited ability to sell of rolling stock when compared to road haulage competitors etc you need significant volumes to out compete road. Which you aren't going to get given what's going on in the west industry wise.

The railway is a nice idea but its completely impractical/costly. There are a far better uses of the alignment in the short to medium term. That's both in terms of social and economic capital. You don't need an EY report to figure that out.

end of the road · 21-05-2021 10:49PM

PeadarCo wrote: »

The EY report is valid. The only complaints about it amount to a few typos in the report. Its the equivalent of saying that a spelling or grammar error renders post invalid on boards invalid.

You have to compare the costs because you have a limited amount of money. You also have a state asset and you are looking to generate the best economic/social outcome from that asset. A greenway will be significantly cheaper particularly when it comes to reactivating a line that's been unmaintained for any length of time. Pretty much everything required for a greenway will also have to done for a railway ie cutting down trees/bushes, removing the old railway line, relaying the surface etc. A railway involves extra costs associated with tracks, signals, design for a higher speed and weight of machine using it etc. Then you have maintenance costs which again for the route itself will be higher for a railway just because of inherent different safety requirements driven by the fact of the difference in mass and speed of the users of a greenway and railway. Railway lines themselves have to kept better maintained than the surface of a greenway ie you get away with potholes on a greenway from time to time whereas similar issues on a railway line will lead to accidents or worse. And all that's ignoring the cost of the rolling stock. The government doesn't have unlimited money and it needs to be spent wisely. From my point of view there are vastly more urgent rail projects that need investment.

Greenways are themselves an attraction. All local towns and villages need is a pub or coffee shop to take advantage. From actually living beside a small village on a greenway the benefit to the local community has been immense particularly with the restrictions over the last year. They are in many respects similar to a town/city park. They provide a safe place for locals to walk or cycle outside which doesn't involve going on narrow roads. This is absolutely invaluable for rural areas who just due to sheer size don't have access to big parks or just a network of footpaths. When you factor in the increase in cycling and attractive greenaways are to cyclists greenaways get used 12 months of the year. That social and economic capital generated by a greenway may not always be obvious unless you live near one but the benefits should not be underestimated.

A freight railway line in the west is pointless. It doesn't have any sizeable grouping of heavy industry so you are left with a lot of relatively small businesses with relatively low volumes of goods. It wouldn't make economic sense for them to use rail over road. To get to the railway in the first place will mean using road putting on a train and then unpacking again to go back on road. That's a waste of money. Each movement from rail to road would cost money. No company is going to spend money on loading and unloading if it can avoid it. Which means the railway will have to charge prices that are significantly lower than the competing road transport. Given that a lot of your rail costs are fixed ie railway line, limited ability to sell of rolling stock when compared to road haulage competitors etc you need significant volumes to out compete road. Which you aren't going to get given what's going on in the west industry wise.

The railway is a nice idea but its completely impractical/costly. There are a far better uses of the alignment in the short to medium term. That's both in terms of social and economic capital. You don't need an EY report to figure that out.

to be fair typos are the least of the issues with that report.
in the event the line reopened from athenry to claremorris any rolling stock would be older stock, new stock wouldn't be bought specifically for the line unless it was somehow being electrified which is not likely.
as well as that it will be a mostly passenger line and not a freight line, all though with it existing i could see existing freight diverted so as to free up capacity in the already congested kildare dublin corridor.
reinstatement will be costly but as infrastructure goes rail is ultimately cheaper in terms of construction and maintenence costs then road, so does come into it's own in that it will put off road upgrades for a lot longer and allow road capacity to go further, so does ultimately save money i would argue.

westtip · 22-05-2021 11:54AM

end of the road wrote: »

to be fair typos are the least of the issues with that report.
.

Please elaborate, you mean it didn't give us McCann Mark 2 therefore it was incorrect, you mean it didn't churn out the views of the SPWMs therefore it is not acceptable. WOT welcomed those reports when they were announced as part of Ireland 2040 NDP. The reports did not deliver, What they said was held back for over a year because they did not deliver the message WOT wanted and now we have to have another review because those reports did not deliver what a small faction of rail enthusiasts and a bunch of SPWMs simply won't accept the holy grail is not going to happen.

Away with ye, it is becoming tiresome, and do yo know what even if SF/WOT get into power it still won't happen as there simply isn't the money there for it.

ShaneC1600 · 22-05-2021 12:56PM

westtip wrote: »

Please elaborate, you mean it didn't give us McCann Mark 2 therefore it was incorrect, you mean it didn't churn out the views of the SPWMs therefore it is not acceptable. WOT welcomed those reports when they were announced as part of Ireland 2040 NDP. The reports did not deliver, What they said was held back for over a year because they did not deliver the message WOT wanted and now we have to have another review because those reports did not deliver what a small faction of rail enthusiasts and a bunch of SPWMs simply won't accept the holy grail is not going to happen.

Away with ye, it is becoming tiresome, and do yo know what even if SF/WOT get into power it still won't happen as there simply isn't the money there for it.

The thread is for the western rail corridor and rail trail, where will we go?

Maybe best stay on the Facebook groups where there is little or no resistance and all rail proponents are banned and full of yes people??

22-05-2021 01:11PM

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

Maybe best stay on the Facebook groups where there is little or no resistance and all rail proponents are banned and full of yes people??

Stones & glass houses

westtip · 22-05-2021 01:12PM

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

The thread is for the western rail corridor and rail trail, where will we go?

Maybe best stay on the Facebook groups where there is little or no resistance and all rail proponents are banned and full of yes people??

Yeh right, if anyone tries to debate it on the west on track page they are banned for life from posting, equally if you have a group page for supporters of the Gway why the hell should they have anything but greenway supporting comments on their pages. It is their club is is their page they only want club members who support the cause. SF/WOT trolling is taken off FB pages, why not? but as I said go post a negative comment on the WOT FB page and see what happens.

So don't give us that total and utter BS, as if you are being victimised I don't feel victimised cos WOT have banned me from their FB page, its easy enough to share a WOT post to a Gway grp and allow people to debate it there tell you what why don't you ask WOT to share Greenway posts to their pages for comment, they won't do that!

Debate what you want here and get disagreed with or whatever, no one has a problem with that.

ShaneC1600 · 22-05-2021 01:32PM

westtip wrote: »

Yeh right, if anyone tries to debate it on the west on track page they are banned for life from posting, equally if you have a group page for supporters of the Gway why the hell should they have anything but greenway supporting comments on their pages. It is their club is is their page they only want club members who support the cause. SF/WOT trolling is taken off FB pages, why not? but as I said go post a negative comment on the WOT FB page and see what happens.

So don't give us that total and utter BS, as if you are being victimised I don't feel victimised cos WOT have banned me from their FB page, its easy enough to share a WOT post to a Gway grp and allow people to debate it there tell you what why don't you ask WOT to share Greenway posts to their pages for comment, they won't do that!

Debate what you want here and get disagreed with or whatever, no one has a problem with that.

Calm down a little dude, jolly is a better approach ðŸ˜‰. Did I say I was victimised, haha not in the slightest my oul stock.

ShaneC1600 · 22-05-2021 01:36PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Stones & glass houses

Little difference is I don't support west on track and their approach and am not involved with their page in any way and am not getting over excited on a public forum.

westtip · 22-05-2021 02:10PM

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

Calm down a little dude, jolly is a better approach &#55357;&#56841;. Did I say I was victimised, haha not in the slightest my oul stock.

Thats all right then, it really makes no difference in life what people write on FB or here as long as it is not personally abusive or threatening.

end of the road · 22-05-2021 02:10PM

westtip wrote: »

Please elaborate, you mean it didn't give us McCann Mark 2 therefore it was incorrect, you mean it didn't churn out the views of the SPWMs therefore it is not acceptable. WOT welcomed those reports when they were announced as part of Ireland 2040 NDP. The reports did not deliver, What they said was held back for over a year because they did not deliver the message WOT wanted and now we have to have another review because those reports did not deliver what a small faction of rail enthusiasts and a bunch of SPWMs simply won't accept the holy grail is not going to happen.

Away with ye, it is becoming tiresome, and do yo know what even if SF/WOT get into power it still won't happen as there simply isn't the money there for it.

oh there is money for it alright, in the great scheme of things it isn't a massive amount of money and would be affordable.
now certainly there are other projects that have to come before it, but it is a very doable project.

westtip wrote: »

Yeh right, if anyone tries to debate it on the west on track page they are banned for life from posting, equally if you have a group page for supporters of the Gway why the hell should they have anything but greenway supporting comments on their pages. It is their club is is their page they only want club members who support the cause. SF/WOT trolling is taken off FB pages, why not? but as I said go post a negative comment on the WOT FB page and see what happens.

So don't give us that total and utter BS, as if you are being victimised I don't feel victimised cos WOT have banned me from their FB page, its easy enough to share a WOT post to a Gway grp and allow people to debate it there tell you what why don't you ask WOT to share Greenway posts to their pages for comment, they won't do that!

Debate what you want here and get disagreed with or whatever, no one has a problem with that.

once again there is no SF/WOT.
there is sf and west on track, both separate groups.
some sf members agree with west on track, and some supporters including myself agree with west on track, and maybe some people who happen to be members of sf are part of the group, but that is where things end.

Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

Comments