Sam Russell wrote: » West On Track. A group attempting to revive the long closed sections of the Victorian rural railways through very under populated sections of the remote countryside of East Galway and East Mayo, linking small towns to other even smaller towns.
dinneenp wrote: » What does WOT stand for?.....
end of the road wrote: » t sf managing to stop the greenway isn't anti-community, it's pro-community.
end of the road wrote: » there is no SF/WOT, both are separate groups. actually the WRC seems to have quite a bit of support, in fact i wouldn't be surprised if support was underestimated. in fact, i wouldn't be surprised if you engaging in nonsense such as SF/WOT isn't changing some minds given that people tend to not wish to side with individuals who have to resort to being disrespectful to others. sf managing to stop the greenway isn't anti-community, it's pro-community given that the likely hood of the community receiving any real boost isn't that much from what i can see.
end of the road wrote: » 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.
end of the road wrote: » there is no SF/WOT, both are separate groups. sf managing to stop the greenway isn't anti-community, it's pro-community
westtip wrote: » SF/WOT it does have certain ring to it and lets face it they are the only political party that openly supports the railway coming back. It must be the one part of their political mantra that has so limited community support that it could actually leak them a few votes in Galway and Mayo, probably not enough to damage them, not so much in Sligo as the greenway is a done deal there, SF/WOT have tried to oppose it at council level and been put in their place, mind you SF/WOT may yet play an anti-community spoiler card there.
end of the road wrote: » it's very wrong given it's factually incorrect that they are 1 group. everything else in your post amounts to sf simply agree with rebuilding the WRC, nothing more.
eastwest wrote: » It's probably not too far wrong to conflate both at this stage. WOT was originally a community driven group, but that support has disappeared as report after report has showed that the premise is nonsense. The remaining rump of WOT is strongly influenced by SF, with a lot of crossover. Their (SF) recent instructions to their most recently appointed MEP for instance were to use his European advertising budget to promote WOT. Scratch the surface of WOT, and it's all SF.
end of the road wrote: » it doesn't matter what your reasons for using it are, there is no such thing as SF/WOT. that is just the reality, they are both separate organisations.
westtip wrote: » I don't think there is money for it and as Jaspers pointed out it would be highly unlikely to get European funding, re SF members agreeing or not with WOT well it is party policy to back the WRC, if they disagree with party policy then it is, shall we say frowned upon or more to the point not allowed. I am sure some of the near 26,000 people who have now signed the change.org petition must be SF voters, and favour the GWay, but low and behold if they are party members and speak against party policy, then they will face expulsion. It is on this basis I use the acronym SF/WOT, they are the only mainstream political party totally committed to wasting public money on the WRC, so I guess the policy of kick the can until they get into power appears to be working for the rail campaigners.
end of the road wrote: » oh there is money for it alright...... some sf members agree with west on track, .
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.
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.
ShaneC1600 wrote: » Calm down a little dude, jolly is a better approach ��. Did I say I was victimised, haha not in the slightest my oul stock.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Stones & glass houses
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??
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??
end of the road wrote: » to be fair typos are the least of the issues with that report. .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/23af546224513cf852af4d456d68d01c.svg)
