Foynes Line

Incorrect we have pointed out before its NOT a requirement.

As above. As well its not vosble to put anything onto rail freight unless it going 150+kilometers. That is the minimum. For rail to work average distances of volume moved is important to rail company. You will not have the volume from either of these locations to make Foynes work

Same alleged Ten-T basis for your nonsense yet again. I'll try one last time:

Have you any evidence at all of any case the EU penalised any member state ever for failing to build/reinstate a freight line under TEN-T for which there are no customers identified, no traffic identified and no demand ? Or penalised a member state for anything equally daft ?

such flexability and derogations only exist where it would be impossible or prohibitly expensive to implement a rail connection

Can you point out where in the TEN-T regulations it states that "impossible or prohibitly (sic) expensive to implement a rail connection" is a requirement for a derogation ?

this does not apply to foynes, it would only apply if it were to require tunnelling through mountins and similar.

Can you point out where in the TEN-T regulations it states that "tunnelling through mountins (sic)" is a requirement for a derogation ?

the EU absolutely would penalise ireland eventually for refusing to implement a very easy to implement rail link and they would have every right and every duty to do so.

"eventually" - even if Ten-T was an immutable requirement, which it absolutely isn't in this case, 2040 or 2050 are the relevant possible deadlines, in which case there was loads of time to argue the case. Certainly there was absolutely no need whatever to prioritise this, quite the opposite in fact. There are a multitude of worthwhile projects that IE could be prioritising, this pointless turkey should have been kept the bottom of the list. And as any senior civil servant will tell you, there are 101 ways to run down the deadline on most EU requirements especially when it relates to a minor port on the periphery that has little to zero impact on any other member state.

It's also interesting that all the other "justifications" for this reopening of this line appear to have fallen away and you are left trying to justify it on the basis of "the EU made us do it".

There are a multitude of valuable rail projects with compelling business cases that IE should be focussing on and making happen. Wasting money and other scarce resources on this nonsense project really isn't one of them.

Possibly, but it’s really not the ideal way to go about development. It’s a bit like the 70s and 80s where we had “sewage led development” in many places around the country.

Carrigtwohill in Co Cork is a good example of what can be achieved. In 1991 the population was 1,200. Today it is close to 6,000. It was zoned residential and various developments which supported the further development of housing and a community in the area took place. It also has a number of employment hubs in the vicinity.

You could look at developing Partickswell for example in this way. Or targeting Adare for substantial development as a satellite (akin to Carrigaline in Cork). But whether you would ever justify the development of an attractive frequent high capacity commuter rail service on the back of this is unlikely. The Carrigtwohill zoning etc had the advantage of being adjacent to a rail line that was in line for reopening for passenger services based on Middleton traffic. So it was (unusually in an Irish context) a sensible, logical and reasonably well sequenced development.

Creating a demand is just one part of the picture, and even if it were possible there is a lot wrong with that line itself that would need to be resolved if it were to support frequent passenger services. The reality is that the line is now a solution looking for a problem to resolve. And a testament to why the greens shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the levers of power until they grow up and join the real world.

Just to give an idea of population densities required to sustain commuter rail lines there is an interesting article in todays Farmers Journal.

I just put up part of the article that deals with Midleton Co Cork. A population of 15k a 23 minute journey to Kent station with 31 services per day. It averages 41 customers per stop in Middleton

You put this in the context of the Foynes line

You miss the point completely. If Midleton line which has all the characteristics of whst a commuter line shoukd be, fast service, plent of services can only develop approx 650 each way journeys a day with a population of 15k in the town itself and probably more within 5-7K how can people think thete is a case or a possibility for a commuter service on the Foynes-Limerick line.

We had one pister somewhere suggesting it should be able to carrry 150km/hour trains.

There was never a case for this line for transport of goods and there is no case for it as a commuter line, and its totally not suitable to be developed as a communter line forthe Raheen, Doordoyle area.

He has a history of it. Your are not the first person that said that and you will not bebthe last.

He is always waffling

I have no problem with Midleton. I am just using it as an example as a challenge to the foynes line or some new commuter lines.

MIdleton has many advantages that some other potential commuter lines and Foynes have not. Its on a main rail route therefore it has significant frequency that would not be available to Foynes or some other projected possible lines. Frequency is the most important factor in the potential of a rail commuter route.

The Foynes line is 42km with at present a possible 10k population catchment,and that dependency on 6 stops.

The population of Adare, Askeaton, and Rathkeale have populations of 12-1300 each according to the 2022 census, Patrickwell less than 1k and Foynes about 500 and the stations at Rathkeale, Askeaton and Patrickwell are badly situated.

Midleton has 3 times the Population and on a national rail route.