Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

Options
1…196197199201202…324

Comments

  • Options
    #5942
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    because like athlone mullingar its a strategic link. no point in comparing them to a line closed in 1937 which was never a link to anywhere. rosslare waterford has nothing of interest along it, come to think of it.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #5943
    westtip
    Registered Users Posts: 4,282 ✭✭✭westtip


    BoatMad wrote: »
    end of the road wrote: »


    The alternative that is the WRC shows that if you lower fares , and increase timetabling, people will use the service, even if its at a subsidy to the public purse

    Let's not get carried away shall we, the price promotion on Ennis/Athenry has resulted in an uplift from about 35,000 passenger journies per annum on the through route using Ennis/Athenry to about 50,000 journies per annum. To remind you the line has now been open four (or is in fact five years), and was built on a business case of 100,000 passengers i year one to 250,000 passengers by year 3. I would say on this measure, performance against forecast it has failed.
    BoatMad wrote: »
    end of the road wrote: »
    we cannot allow the railway network in ireland to be seen as a potential cycleway, that would be a travesty. Cycleways should be justified on their own merits and routes and not simply as a rail land grab

    Nobody is suggesting the existing railway network should be converted into cycleways, you are right that would be a travesty. But for a railway that is officially closed (Claremorris collooney), that has not been maintained for 40 years, that is falling into the hands of squatters, pray tell me, because I am all ears, why would it be a travesty to protect this publicly owned asset (the piece of land) as a greenway with a licensed arrangement that it will remain in the ownership of Irish Rail if a railway is ever required again. Please explain this travesty? Why do you falsely describe this as a "land grab" when its whole purpose is to protect the route from exactly that. Please do tell us all what your thinking is in your ludicrous comment.


  • Options
    #5944
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    westtip wrote: »
    Let's not get carried away shall we, the price promotion on Ennis/Athenry has resulted in an uplift from about 35,000 passenger journies per annum on the through route using Ennis/Athenry to about 50,000 journies per annum. To remind you the line has now been open four (or is in fact five years), and was built on a business case of 100,000 passengers i year one to 250,000 passengers by year 3. I would say on this measure, performance against forecast it has failed.

    yes, but remember for most of that time the country has been in a recession which meant passenger numbers were down in general on the whole network. so its not surprising that the line hasn't performed well in that sence. now whether passenger numbers will keep going up, i don't know. probably not. but the line is here now, its not going anywhere, its built.
    of course we can argue again and again until death about alinements and stations being left until we could see how traffic does, and how the line probably shouldn't have been reopened in the first place, but its just going over old ground.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #5945
    eastwest
    Registered Users Posts: 1,610 ✭✭✭eastwest


    end of the road wrote: »
    yes, but remember for most of that time the country has been in a recession which meant passenger numbers were down in general on the whole network. so its not surprising that the line hasn't performed well in that sence. now whether passenger numbers will keep going up, i don't know. probably not. but the line is here now, its not going anywhere, its built.
    of course we can argue again and again until death about alinements and stations being left until we could see how traffic does, and how the line probably shouldn't have been reopened in the first place, but its just going over old ground.

    No question it has failed, and no question that the government has no intention of repeating that mistake. No matter what colour of government we get over the next couple of decades, the spectre of Ennis Athenry has killed off investment by the state in rail, except for areas where there is proven high demand.
    But you're right, the Ennis-Athenry line is there and it is used by a handful of people in relative terms. The challenge now is to try to keep it there, but not at the expense of an ever-increasing passenger subsidy that effectively impacts on rail services somewhere else.


  • Options
    #5946
    eastwest
    Registered Users Posts: 1,610 ✭✭✭eastwest


    end of the road wrote: »
    the line still must be kept from the cycling lobby either way.

    That's probably the most irrational argument I've seen in this very long thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5947
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    eastwest wrote: »
    No matter what colour of government we get over the next couple of decades, the spectre of Ennis Athenry has killed off investment by the state in rail, except for areas where there is proven high demand.

    a little correction. ennis athenry will be used by the state as an excuse to do what they were always planning to do. to not invest in rail wherever it is .
    eastwest wrote: »
    The challenge now is to try to keep it there, but not at the expense of an ever-increasing passenger subsidy that effectively impacts on rail services somewhere else.

    well there are 2 problems from what i can see.
    problem 1. as you mentioned the subsidy impacting on other routes as has been proven.
    problem 2. IE using all sorts of nonsense as an excuse to (as i see it) retreat from anywhere served by railways not built by the mgwr and gswr, bar the wrc.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #5948
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,105 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    end of the road wrote: »
    a little correction. ennis athenry will be used by the state as an excuse to do what they were always planning to do. to not invest in rail wherever it is .



    well there are 2 problems from what i can see.
    problem 1. as you mentioned the subsidy impacting on other routes as has been proven.
    problem 2. IE using all sorts of nonsense as an excuse to (as i see it) retreat from anywhere served by railways not built by the mgwr and gswr, bar the wrc.
    a little correction. ennis athenry will be used by the state as an excuse to do what they were always planning to do. to not invest in rail wherever it is .

    Incorrect and far too simplistic. Where there is proven demand, we will continue to see some investment in additional services and new stations. There is potential for the development of regional rail services in a similar fashion. However the WRC will most likely damage any potential regional development and has certainly damaged any further reopenings of other closed routes. It is ignorant to think that the WRC can have a negative blanket effect across the entire network, despite the current Governments policy of sidelining projects such as DU and MN. Fine Gael have, traditionally, been anti rail for a variety of reasons.
    problem 2. IE using all sorts of nonsense as an excuse to (as i see it) retreat from anywhere served by railways not built by the mgwr and gswr, bar the wrc.

    Its an old chestnut, but that history piece you speak of, tended to come down on the side of retreating from anywhere not built by the GSWR. While the precusor to CIE was the GSR, it is blatantly obvious that despite a massive GSWR influence, the GSR inherited lines that were poorly built/run and closed them accordingling. Not many though. It was CIE that inherited the GSR and really went to town on non GSWR built lines. Realistically a lot of routes were a joke from the very beginning. That said, its fair to say that CIE did sweep the broom too fast. Wheather IE still follow a similar policy is open to debate.


  • Options
    #5949
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    Incorrect and far too simplistic. Where there is proven demand, we will continue to see some investment in additional services and new stations.

    i'd doubt it would be by an fg government though
    Grandeeod wrote: »
    There is potential for the development of regional rail services in a similar fashion. However the WRC will most likely damage any potential regional development and has certainly damaged any further reopenings of other closed routes.

    i agree, and i don't think i've said otherwise. i do believe however that there was no real plan to reopen any more closed routes apart from navan. but navan has been stopped (from what i can see) possibly by another form of politics. but maybe not
    Grandeeod wrote: »
    Its an old chestnut, but that history piece you speak of, tended to come down on the side of retreating from anywhere not built by the GSWR. While the precusor to CIE was the GSR, it is blatantly obvious that despite a massive GSWR influence, the GSR inherited lines that were poorly built/run and closed them accordingling. Not many though. It was CIE that inherited the GSR and really went to town on non GSWR built lines. Realistically a lot of routes were a joke from the very beginning. That said, its fair to say that CIE did sweep the broom too fast. Wheather IE still follow a similar policy is open to debate.

    well. is it open to debate, or is it simply the case that we may be right that something similar is being followed but cannot prove it (like a number of things with IE) . i do not know

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #5950
    eastwest
    Registered Users Posts: 1,610 ✭✭✭eastwest


    end of the road wrote: »
    a little correction. ennis athenry will be used by the state as an excuse to do what they were always planning to do. to not invest in rail wherever it is .

    There is an inherent system bias against rail, particularly in times when funds are scarce, but for good reason. I can't recall the exact figures so I'm open to some correction, but I think that something like half the subsidy to public transport goes to rail which caries 20% of passengers, or something of that order. I'm sure somebody has the exact figures so maybe they can post them.
    Whatever the exact figure, that is the real problem. If a minister has money to spend, he or she can get far more bang for buck by subsidising other transport systems.
    It isn't really an issue that governments, or particular parties, are against rail, it's just that they understand that pragmatism will always win over gut feelings and emotive arguments. The one time that this was stood on its head, with Ennis Athenry, has become an embarrassment and nobody will want to repeat it too quickly.


  • Options
    #5951
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    eastwest wrote: »
    There is an inherent system bias against rail, particularly in times when funds are scarce, but for good reason. I can't recall the exact figures so I'm open to some correction, but I think that something like half the subsidy to public transport goes to rail which caries 20% of passengers, or something of that order. I'm sure somebody has the exact figures so maybe they can post them.

    thats all well and good. but when loops in the dublin area end up being removed for "cost savings" then there is a problem. whatever about investment in extras, causing a situation where capacity has to be removed is not exceptable or justifiable under any circumstances. while 20% of passengers carried for the subsidy given to rail may seem small, i believe its better the subsidy be payed and those carried with the potential for improving the network to encourage usage equaling more caried rather then it not and people take the car, which ultimately will cost more in roads and road maintenence eventually.
    eastwest wrote: »
    Whatever the exact figure, that is the real problem. If a minister has money to spend, he or she can get far more bang for buck by subsidising other transport systems.

    yes, they may get more bang for the buck by subsidising other transport systems, but those systems usually scream "buy a car" in the end for many. it is why i support a mixed road and rail transport system in ireland, and believe anything less is something that should never be excepted. it doesn't mean reopening every single line, it means the protection of what we have and reopening in full to navan, along with the projects in the dublin area.
    eastwest wrote: »
    It isn't really an issue that governments, or particular parties, are against rail, it's just that they understand that pragmatism will always win over gut feelings and emotive arguments.

    fg have been known to be a bit anti-rail. whereas ff are rather more supportive. (not an endorcement for or against either) . gut feelings had they been had may have meant the likes of bray harcourt street remained in situ rather then simply being ripped up.
    eastwest wrote: »
    The one time that this was stood on its head, with Ennis Athenry, has become an embarrassment and nobody will want to repeat it too quickly.

    investing in the current network and projects like dart underground, reopening in full to navan and other projects such as some heavy rail in the dublin area would not only not be a mistake, but wouldn't be a repeat of the ennis athenry issue.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5952
    eastwest
    Registered Users Posts: 1,610 ✭✭✭eastwest


    end of the road wrote: »

    investing in the current network and projects like dart underground, reopening in full to navan and other projects such as some heavy rail in the dublin area would not only not be a mistake, but wouldn't be a repeat of the ennis athenry issue.

    In the context of the wrc, the reality is that no government will put state funds into building it, and neither will they commit to the kind of subsidies needed to maintain a rail service north of athenry. Forget about Dublin, the only place where population densities and traffic issues can justify investment in rail, there is zero chance of putting passenger trains back on that route.
    Even west on track seem to concede this now; all their efforts for the last couple of years have been towards a freight line south of claremorris and they have all but given up on claremorris-collooney. The emergence of a rapidly growing lobby for the Sligo greenway in recent months seems to have killed off the wot debate in that part of the world too, but their success seems to be as much down to wot having effectively given up on the section north of claremorris as anything else. The political support in that area seems to be all pro greenway at this stage.


  • Options
    #5953
    eastwest
    Registered Users Posts: 1,610 ✭✭✭eastwest


    end of the road wrote: »
    yes, but remember for most of that time the country has been in a recession which meant passenger numbers were down in general on the whole network. so its not surprising that the line hasn't performed well in that sence. now whether passenger numbers will keep going up, i don't know. probably not. but the line is here now, its not going anywhere, its built.
    of course we can argue again and again until death about alinements and stations being left until we could see how traffic does, and how the line probably shouldn't have been reopened in the first place, but its just going over old ground.
    Don't forget that public transport usage tends to rise in a recession compared to car use. Also you need to factor in the motorway being built north of Gort, which will mean that bus journeys from Limerick to Galway will take about half the time that the train takes to do the trip.
    Finally, you need to concede that no government with an eye to the finances or the taxpayer voters will repeat this folly. Given the servicing of the capital amount and the ongoing subsidy, this is a very, very expensive way to move people around.


  • Options
    #5954
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    eastwest wrote: »
    Don't forget that public transport usage tends to rise in a recession compared to car use. Also you need to factor in the motorway being built north of Gort, which will mean that bus journeys from Limerick to Galway will take about half the time that the train takes to do the trip.
    Finally, you need to concede that no government with an eye to the finances or the taxpayer voters will repeat this folly. Given the servicing of the capital amount and the ongoing subsidy, this is a very, very expensive way to move people around.


    yes i know, and i don't think many are suggesting an extension for the wrc. however that asside, the vast majority of the whole network has plenty of opportunity for growth and investing in that wouldn't be a mistake. it doesn't mean reopening every little line, it means protecting what we have got.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #5955
    eastwest
    Registered Users Posts: 1,610 ✭✭✭eastwest


    end of the road wrote: »
    yes i know, and i don't think many are suggesting an extension for the wrc. however that asside, the vast majority of the whole network has plenty of opportunity for growth and investing in that wouldn't be a mistake. it doesn't mean reopening every little line, it means protecting what we have got.

    I agree, but therein lies the nub of the problem. Once you close a line, wannabee squatters move in almost immediately. They know that in the past squatters have managed to take over public lands by just sitting on them. They also know that as voters they can expect local political support for this position.
    Irish Rail never has a budget for protecting closed lines, and wishing it were otherwise doesn't change that fact. The only way to ensure continuity of the alignment is to put it to alternative use, and a greenway is the accepted best practice in this regard internationally.
    Look at Mullingar Athlone. The future ownership of this asset by the taxpayers is now secured, until such time as it may be needed for an alternative transport or other use by the state. In the meantime it creates jobs, provides a commuter link between towns and villages, and provides a safe local amenity for families.
    What's not to like?


  • Options
    #5956
    westtip
    Registered Users Posts: 4,282 ✭✭✭westtip


    end of the road wrote: »
    a little correction. ennis athenry will be used by the state as an excuse to do what they were always planning to do. to not invest in rail wherever it is .



    well there are 2 problems from what i can see.
    problem 1. as you mentioned the subsidy impacting on other routes as has been proven.
    problem 2. IE using all sorts of nonsense as an excuse to (as i see it) retreat from anywhere served by railways not built by the mgwr and gswr, bar the wrc.

    There is a third problem, which West on Track never mention these days. TEN-T. We always need to come back to this. Nothing will happen north of Athenry because it will attract no external EU infrastructure funding.

    Does anyone remember the interview on RTE Ear to the Ground with Gerry "not up for discussion" Murray back in 2013. He is the SF/WOT cllr from Charlestown who believes in the piped dream and famously said the Western Rail Corridor is not on the table and is not up for discussion. He said in that interview that they (WOT) had good news coming soon. That interview was in summer 2013. He was referring to TEN-T. They didn't get good news they were expecting in November 2013 when WRC was not listed in TEN-T programme and you never hear anyone from West on Track mentioning European money anymore. Without external (out of this state) funding or even part funding this project will never happen. We all need to keep reminding the railway lobbyists and politicians who still think it is going to happen at local and national level of this fact.


  • Options
    #5957
    Muckyboots
    Closed Accounts Posts: 652 ✭✭✭Muckyboots


    Jeepers lads from West on Track, you are deleting even the most innocent and ambiguous tongue in cheek comments from your Facebook page. I know its' your page and all that, but lads if ye are that paranoid its' probably a sign your PR battle with walkers and cyclists needs to be re-examined. Stay on message. It's trains or nothing. Trains or nothing. Trains or nothing. Choo, Choo.


  • Options
    #5958
    eastwest
    Registered Users Posts: 1,610 ✭✭✭eastwest


    Muckyboots wrote: »
    Jeepers lads from West on Track, you are deleting even the most innocent and ambiguous tongue in cheek comments from your Facebook page. I know its' your page and all that, but lads if ye are that paranoid its' probably a sign your PR battle with walkers and cyclists needs to be re-examined. Stay on message. It's trains or nothing. Trains or nothing. Trains or nothing. Choo, Choo.

    It seems to be a rule in this organisation -- debate not allowed. I remember one SF/wot councillor famously stating that the matter was not up for discussion, in other words, that they did not allow discussion of uses for a publicly owned asset unless it conformed with their views.
    Is it true that they refused to present to Sligo county council on the day that the greenway groups were making a presentation a few weeks back, and that the council facilitated them with an alternative day where they wouldn't be challenged? Anyone know the full story on that one?


  • Options
    #5959
    westtip
    Registered Users Posts: 4,282 ✭✭✭westtip


    Muckyboots wrote: »
    Jeepers lads from West on Track, you are deleting even the most innocent and ambiguous tongue in cheek comments from your Facebook page. I know its' your page and all that, but lads if ye are that paranoid its' probably a sign your PR battle with walkers and cyclists needs to be re-examined. Stay on message. It's trains or nothing. Trains or nothing. Trains or nothing. Choo, Choo.

    I see they are getting excited about the weedkillers in action on the Athenry-Claremorris section, they haven't mentioned Ballyglunin on their page though. Nor TEN-T.


  • Options
    #5960
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    I think Athenry Claremorris is a possible re-opening candidate , The burma road however isn't


  • Options
    #5961
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    I think Athenry Claremorris is a possible re-opening candidate , The burma road however isn't


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5962
    sonnyblack
    Registered Users Posts: 232 ✭✭sonnyblack


    westtip wrote: »
    I see they are getting excited about the weedkillers in action on the Athenry-Claremorris section, they haven't mentioned Ballyglunin on their page though. Nor TEN-T.

    Do WOT know something that everyone else doesn't? Why is the line being cleared now I wonder?


  • Options
    #5963
    MayoForSam
    Registered Users Posts: 2,266 ✭✭✭MayoForSam


    sonnyblack wrote: »
    Do WOT know something that everyone else doesn't? Why is the line being cleared now I wonder?

    Could be something to do with a (small) glut of money the councils may have received from the Exchequer recently, there's a lot of pot holes being filled in and minor road improvements ongoing and of course there is an election around the corner i.e. not much to do with actually re-opening any rail line.


  • Options
    #5964
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    sonnyblack wrote: »
    Do WOT know something that everyone else doesn't? Why is the line being cleared now I wonder?

    It is being done so others can't claim a right of way of the railway owned land AFAIK, by working on the line (even for one day) it breaks the continued 12 year right of way rule. Expect a clearance every 12 years.

    GM228


  • Options
    #5965
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    GM228 wrote: »
    It is being done so others can't claim a right of way of the railway owned land AFAIK, by working on the line (even for one day) it breaks the continued 12 year right of way rule. Expect a clearance every 12 years.

    GM228

    A right of way , is a right established over property NOT opened by you. CIE/IR does not have to establish or maintain a right of way over its own property .nor does it have to attempt to protect its property from claims of rights of way, no more then any property holder.

    You may be referring to adverse possession


  • Options
    #5966
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    BoatMad wrote: »
    You may be referring to adverse possession

    That's what I meant, I was told by a friend involved with this that it's required at least every 12 years and rights of way come into it aswell.

    Perhaps possession was what he meant but he specifically said there is an issue at various locations between Athenry and Collooney involving rights of way.

    Most likely too many complicated legal issues involved to get a specific answer!

    Boundary protection is most likely the big issue.

    GM228


  • Options
    #5967
    eastwest
    Registered Users Posts: 1,610 ✭✭✭eastwest


    MayoForSam wrote: »
    Could be something to do with a (small) glut of money the councils may have received from the Exchequer recently, there's a lot of pot holes being filled in and minor road improvements ongoing and of course there is an election around the corner i.e. not much to do with actually re-opening any rail line.

    It's not the councils doing it; it's Irish rail.
    It may well be related to them using up surplus maintenance budgets. 'Use it or lose it' applies within organisations like IR.
    it certainly has nothing to do with reopening any section of the line. That simply isn't on the cards and is unlikely to be even considered for a couple of decades.


  • Options
    #5968
    eastwest
    Registered Users Posts: 1,610 ✭✭✭eastwest


    BoatMad wrote: »
    I think Athenry Claremorris is a possible re-opening candidate , The burma road however isn't

    'Possible' is the strongest word you could use for Athenry-Claremorris, but it's still very unlikely. The day is gone when Amy government department will spend massive amounts of borrowed money on a project that will immediately start to lose money and require huge levels of subsidy. One minister has already described Ennis-Athenry as a mistake, and given the unavailability of European funding for the route, there simply is no possibility of it being done.
    If there was any slim chance of it opening in our lifetimes, the politicians would have jumped on it in this election climate, but there isn't.


  • Options
    #5969
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    eastwest wrote: »
    'Possible' is the strongest word you could use for Athenry-Claremorris, but it's still very unlikely. The day is gone when Amy government department will spend massive amounts of borrowed money on a project that will immediately start to lose money and require huge levels of subsidy. One minister has already described Ennis-Athenry as a mistake, and given the unavailability of European funding for the route, there simply is no possibility of it being done.
    If there was any slim chance of it opening in our lifetimes, the politicians would have jumped on it in this election climate, but there isn't.


    all public transport is subsidised and hence looses money , that argument is over , Todd andews tried it and it failed.

    Hence, merely because a rail project might need ongoing subsidy is in itself not a reason NOT to do something


  • Options
    #5970
    savagethegoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭savagethegoat


    it is, as has been said many times, a matter of priorities. There are many routes that would be more cost effective than this one to invest in


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5971
    eastwest
    Registered Users Posts: 1,610 ✭✭✭eastwest


    BoatMad wrote: »
    all public transport is subsidised and hence looses money , that argument is over , Todd andews tried it and it failed.

    Hence, merely because a rail project might need ongoing subsidy is in itself not a reason NOT to do something
    It's not about the need for subsidy, it's the level of subsidy. Ennis Athenry is costing the taxpayer nearly €80 per trip, plus the interest on the capital, and excluding the cost of the 'free' travel additional transfers from social protection. For that kind of money they could all be put in limos.
    Given that the first phase of the wrc was supposed to be the bit with the best business case, what chance the rest of it?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement