Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

eastwest · 05-03-2019 5:26pm

So it would appear that the sole legacy left to the west of Ireland by **/*** is that they put up barriers to funding in the west of Ireland, despite all the weight of evidence that makes it clear that a greenway won't have any impact on any decision regarding investment in new railway projects.
From that document it is clear that the west was going to get a big slice of the funding, until the intervention stopped it.

Jackhammer9 · 06-03-2019 1:08pm

200k for the velorail

serfboard · 06-03-2019 2:34pm

Jackhammer9 wrote: »

200k for the velorail

This is reported here:

Midwest Radio wrote:

Minister Michael Ring has allocated almost €200,000 for the Kiltimagh Velorail Project, to purchase railcars and provide storage.

This project involves the running of pedal-powered railcars along the old railway line, and is aimed at bringing in tens of thousands of visitors to the town each year.
...
The Minister for Community & Rural Development Michael Ring, whose Department oversees the LEADER programme, says these projects will help in promoting tourism and creating jobs.

and here:

The Connaught Telegraph wrote:

FIVE local Mayo initiatives are to receive over €375,762.34 in LEADER funding, Minister Michael Ring has announced today.
...
Kiltimagh velorail project: To purchase railcars and provide storage for same and associated equipment for getting these on and off the tracks for this velorail project in Kiltimagh (€198,794.61).
...
The funding will be provided by Minister Ring’s department and directed through the Mayo LEADER Local Action Group.

Said Minister Ring: “I’m delighted to announce this funding for these five initiatives. LEADER provides invaluable support to communities and businesses and I have no doubt that this funding will be of great benefit to them as they develop.

“I’m particularly excited about the significant funding being announced for the Kiltimagh velorail project and for the Ballinglen Museum of Contemporary Art. These projects have the potential to develop into high quality projects which could be of significant local benefit.

“I’m glad to see LEADER funding being used to support local communities and businesses here in Mayo. This illustrates the importance of the LEADER Programme for local businesses and communities in Mayo.

Seriously? Is no-one going to shout stop?

Jackhammer9 · 06-03-2019 3:00pm

"Tens of thousands of users" is laughable

There will be no one on it

Muckyboots · 06-03-2019 10:43pm

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

I bet if I speculated here about your identity the mods would be on top of me like a ton of bricks.

Point taken.

eastwest · 06-03-2019 10:59pm

serfboard wrote: »

Jackhammer9 wrote: »

200k for the velorail

This is reported here:

Midwest Radio wrote:

Minister Michael Ring has allocated almost €200,000 for the Kiltimagh Velorail Project, to purchase railcars and provide storage.

This project involves the running of pedal-powered railcars along the old railway line, and is aimed at bringing in tens of thousands of visitors to the town each year.
...
The Minister for Community & Rural Development Michael Ring, whose Department oversees the LEADER programme, says these projects will help in promoting tourism and creating jobs.

and here:

The Connaught Telegraph wrote:

FIVE local Mayo initiatives are to receive over €375,762.34 in LEADER funding, Minister Michael Ring has announced today.
...
Kiltimagh velorail project: To purchase railcars and provide storage for same and associated equipment for getting these on and off the tracks for this velorail project in Kiltimagh (€198,794.61).
...
The funding will be provided by Minister Ring’s department and directed through the Mayo LEADER Local Action Group.

Said Minister Ring: “I’m delighted to announce this funding for these five initiatives. LEADER provides invaluable support to communities and businesses and I have no doubt that this funding will be of great benefit to them as they develop.

“I’m particularly excited about the significant funding being announced for the Kiltimagh velorail project and for the Ballinglen Museum of Contemporary Art. These projects have the potential to develop into high quality projects which could be of significant local benefit.

“I’m glad to see LEADER funding being used to support local communities and businesses here in Mayo. This illustrates the importance of the LEADER Programme for local businesses and communities in Mayo.

Seriously? Is no-one going to shout stop?

Ring is on a roll, chucking money at anything that moves in mayo.

westtip · 10-03-2019 6:53pm

eastwest wrote: »

Ring is on a roll, chucking money at anything that moves in mayo.

I think his mantra is as long as it doesn't have planning permission its good to go.

westtip · 11-03-2019 1:12pm

Here is an interesting snippet, The Western Development Commission, a quango based in Ballaghaderreen in Mayo has always been a staunch supporter of **/West on Track, The organization made a submission on the North West Regional Assembly draft Regional Spatial Strategies. The submission made in February can be viewed at this link:

https://www.wdc.ie/wp-content/uploads/wdc-submission-draft-rses-for-nwra-07.02.19.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0o3mxDvZiEN2VNTPnFKCd-VnFPL6DQvGZ2e_H2TpNdZ29eqJofoU6Be90

Rather than being very much in the Claremorris camp of **/WOT that the mantra must be railway railway railway, the WDC has clearly gone down the line of thinking that is now the commonly held view that the development of the railway, if it is ever going to happen has to be contingent on the outcome of the rail review. In the past the WDC would have had no debate in its thinking process about the Western Rail Corridor, it was always we will support the railway and only the railway. For the WDC to even contemplate that the rail review will be the pointer of what happens is indeed a sign of shifting sands. Clearly there are cracks in the hard line of support for **/WOT, I guess with both Sligo and Galway coco now supporting the greenway option the hardline view of Claremorris and county hall in Castlebar has to be countered with slightly more pragmatic view.

What it does say though that West on Track no longer control the thinking of this particular quango, the WDC, scary thought for **/WOT

eastwest · 13-03-2019 1:05pm

westtip wrote: »

Here is an interesting snippet, The Western Development Commission, a quango based in Ballaghaderreen in Mayo has always been a staunch supporter of **/West on Track, The organization made a submission on the North West Regional Assembly draft Regional Spatial Strategies. The submission made in February can be viewed at this link:

https://www.wdc.ie/wp-content/uploads/wdc-submission-draft-rses-for-nwra-07.02.19.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0o3mxDvZiEN2VNTPnFKCd-VnFPL6DQvGZ2e_H2TpNdZ29eqJofoU6Be90

Rather than being very much in the Claremorris camp of **/WOT that the mantra must be railway railway railway, the WDC has clearly gone down the line of thinking that is now the commonly held view that the development of the railway, if it is ever going to happen has to be contingent on the outcome of the rail review. In the past the WDC would have had no debate in its thinking process about the Western Rail Corridor, it was always we will support the railway and only the railway. For the WDC to even contemplate that the rail review will be the pointer of what happens is indeed a sign of shifting sands. Clearly there are cracks in the hard line of support for **/WOT, I guess with both Sligo and Galway coco now supporting the greenway option the hardline view of Claremorris and county hall in Castlebar has to be countered with slightly more pragmatic view.

What it does say though that West on Track no longer control the thinking of this particular quango, the WDC, scary thought for **/WOT

Don't write off **/*** just yet. The rail review will find against the case for rail, they can hardly do otherwise, but the review has your then go to the minister for consideration before being published.
No review ever gets into the public domain in the same format as it left the consultant's desk, it is always tweaked for political nuance, and this one will be no different.
The report will go to Ross, if he's still minister, and will.tgen be worked on so as to appease the **/*** lobby. Expect the addition of a vague paragraph about future changes in demographic ladiladila, just enough to avoid coming down absolutely against rail in the next few decades.
That's all they need to stop the greenway, they don't need facts, just vague nonsense about freight' or 'industry' that will.be enough to maintain continued stagnation, giving hope to the realists as well as the rail buffs, and not upsetting landowners who want to absorb the route into their holdings.

westtip · 13-03-2019 1:50pm

eastwest wrote: »

Don't write off **/*** just yet. The rail review will find against the case for rail, they can hardly do otherwise, but the review has your then go to the minister for consideration before being published.
No review ever gets into the public domain in the same format as it left the consultant's desk, it is always tweaked for political nuance, and this one will be no different.
The report will go to Ross, if he's still minister, and will.tgen be worked on so as to appease the **/*** lobby. Expect the addition of a vague paragraph about future changes in demographic ladiladila, just enough to avoid coming down absolutely against rail in the next few decades.
That's all they need to stop the greenway, they don't need facts, just vague nonsense about freight' or 'industry' that will.be enough to maintain continued stagnation, giving hope to the realists as well as the rail buffs, and not upsetting landowners who want to absorb the route into their holdings.

Absolutely agree I can see the waffle machine working overtime on this one.

Lord Glentoran · 14-03-2019 5:10pm

eastwest wrote: »

So it would appear that the sole legacy left to the west of Ireland by **/*** is that they put up barriers to funding in the west of Ireland, despite all the weight of evidence that makes it clear that a greenway won't have any impact on any decision regarding investment in new railway projects.
From that document it is clear that the west was going to get a big slice of the funding, until the intervention stopped it.

Does the content masked by asterisks fall under the ginger beer/lemon curd sandwiches/chicken dinner ruling now?

Isambard · 15-03-2019 1:41pm

The Tarka Valley Railway , Devon UK being created alongside the Tarka Trail cyclepath. It can be done.

Before and after pictures

westtip · 15-03-2019 2:31pm

Isambard wrote: »

The Tarka Valley Railway , Devon UK being created alongside the Tarka Trail cyclepath. It can be done.

Before and after pictures

Are those pictures been taken in the same direction/perspective, where is the bridge in the top picture, but yes your point is well made, it is a pity Mayo County Council can't take this view for the proposed Velo-Rail section of the closed railway on the Western Rail Trail route 6km north and south of Kiltimagh. That's the project with no planning permission that has received a 500k bung from Minister Ring in three tranches of 200k, 100k and more recently another 200k.

Oh and don't you mean it the other way round, the trail is being created alongside the closed old railway not the railway being created alongside the trail, what came first as they say, the chicken or the egg.

15-03-2019 4:46pm

It isn't uncommon for twin track disused railway lines to be rebuilt with one track and a parallel path.
Unless the original single line track was built with future dialling in mind, there would be great difficulty in running a parallel path alongside a rebuilt railway.

Isambard · 15-03-2019 5:00pm

westtip wrote: »

Are those pictures been taken in the same direction/perspective, where is the bridge in the top picture, but yes your point is well made, it is a pity Mayo County Council can't take this view for the proposed Velo-Rail section of the closed railway on the Western Rail Trail route 6km north and south of Kiltimagh. That's the project with no planning permission that has received a 500k bung from Minister Ring in three tranches of 200k, 100k and more recently another 200k.

Oh and don't you mean it the other way round, the trail is being created alongside the closed old railway not the railway being created alongside the trail, what came first as they say, the chicken or the egg.

the bridge is there is the trees, look properly. The railway is being created alongside the Tarka Trail, a cycle route along a former railway. I thought I said that.... taken from almost exactly the same spot.

Isambard · 15-03-2019 5:01pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It isn't uncommon for twin track disused railway lines to be rebuilt with one track and a parallel path.
Unless the original single line track was built with future dialling in mind, there would be great difficulty in running a parallel path alongside a rebuilt railway.

it's a cycle path with a railway line being (re) built alongside it.

15-03-2019 5:44pm

Isambard wrote: »

it's a cycle path with a railway line being (re) built alongside it.

Yes, but the point is that these types of rail rebuilds only work well if the original trackbed was for two tracks (or designed to be expanded to two tracks). On a light railway like the WRC, much of the route was not designed to be expanded to twin track so there is no space for both.

Isambard · 15-03-2019 5:56pm

the point is it is a cyclepath that is having a railway line re-instated.

The formation across the both looks to be about 12 feet, easily accomodated on the WRC, the formation of which is quite wide. Their website says that the cyclepath may need to be moved by up to 6 feet in places. I imagine it's only the bridges that are the pinch points, and there aren't that many of them on the WRC

serfboard · 15-03-2019 7:00pm

Isambard wrote: »

the point is it is a cyclepath that is having a railway line re-instated.

Ah go away! Sure I thought that has never been done anywhere by anybody!

Re-instating railway lines on Greenways indeed!

Isambard wrote: »

I imagine it's only the bridges that are the pinch points, and there aren't that many of them on the WRC

And there's one less now at Turloughmore

(From Google Maps)

Muckyboots · 17-03-2019 11:24am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, but the point is that these types of rail rebuilds only work well if the original trackbed was for two tracks (or designed to be expanded to two tracks). On a light railway like the WRC, much of the route was not designed to be expanded to twin track so there is no space for both.

The expected investment on the WRC to revive it as a railway is half a billion euro. That's if they mistakenly tried to use the old alignment which is totally unsuitable - but that's a different story. It would be fiscally short sighted and a carbon retrograde not to plan for cycleway alongside all reopened rail lines, whether new or existing alignments. The either / or argument should be put in the bin once and for all.

17-03-2019 12:32pm

Muckyboots wrote: »

The expected investment on the WRC to revive it as a railway is half a billion euro. That's if they mistakenly tried to use the old alignment which is totally unsuitable - but that's a different story. It would be fiscally short sighted and a carbon retrograde not to plan for cycleway alongside all reopened rail lines, whether new or existing alignments. The either / or argument should be put in the bin once and for all.

It would make more sense to simply invest in cycleways beside existing roads around the country, as in proper wide ones that cyclists ould actually use as opposed to staying on the road as it is easier to ride on.

Isambard · 17-03-2019 1:22pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It would make more sense to simply invest in cycleways beside existing roads around the country, as in proper wide ones that cyclists ould actually use as opposed to staying on the road as it is easier to ride on.

no no no the whole idea is to get away from roads. They are not intended to be transport corridors, they are for leisure. I'm amazed you don't get that

17-03-2019 2:04pm

Isambard wrote: »

no no no the whole idea is to get away from roads. They are not intended to be transport corridors, they are for leisure. I'm amazed you don't get that

You can use parallel cycle routes to minor roads for leisure you know.

Isambard · 17-03-2019 2:21pm

where's the pleasure in riding alongside traffic with the noise and the fumes? What about the danger from crossroads and people's drives? Parked vehicles blocking the cycle lane?

It's not about getting from A to B

end of the road · 17-03-2019 2:53pm

Isambard wrote: »

where's the pleasure in riding alongside traffic with the noise and the fumes? What about the danger from crossroads and people's drives? Parked vehicles blocking the cycle lane?

It's not about getting from A to B

fencing will sort the people parking on the cycle lane issue. apart from a few exceptions, i don't see leasure alone being enough to sustain a lot of cycle ways, which is why you need a commuter base as well, which is why the building alongside roads suggestion makes a lot of sense as it's where a lot of commuters will be traveling.
as i see it, cycling is a minority activity and will likely remain so, hence why if we are investing in the infrastructure we need to invest in infrastructure that will get the most users possible for the buck. so cycle ways along side roads, cycle ways in towns and cities, and cycle ways in areas that have things to genuinely attract people to those areas. i really think there are better projects to invest in then a greenway along the railway from galway to sligo. the dublin cycle network for a start.

Isambard · 17-03-2019 7:24pm

oh come on, how many commuters are there going to be along the WRC who would use a bike?

You can't fence miles of road off for cyclists, there are other users!

end of the road · 17-03-2019 7:58pm

Isambard wrote: »

oh come on, how many commuters are there going to be along the WRC who would use a bike?

exactly. which is why there are way way more deserving projects such as the dublin cycling network and others.

Isambard wrote: »

You can't fence miles of road off for cyclists, there are other users!

you obviously missed the proposal to build cycle ways alongside the roads, and then put up fences to stop people parking on the cycle ways. so no fencing off roads or depriving road users.

Isambard · 17-03-2019 8:55pm

it's not about a cycling network for Dublin , it's about facilities for tourists, to attract new visitors into an area. I don't know if you don't get that or it just suits your agenda to ignore it.

Go visit somewhere like Dungarvan with plenty of cyclists and walkers in evidence and new businesses opening to cater for them. Then pop down to Rosslare and see the number of vehicles arriving with bikes aboard. It's a big potential growth area.It's got nothing to do with cycle lanes for urban cyclists.

end of the road · 17-03-2019 9:19pm

Isambard wrote: »

it's not about a cycling network for Dublin , it's about facilities for tourists, to attract new visitors into an area. I don't know if you don't get that or it just suits your agenda to ignore it.

Go visit somewhere like Dungarvan with plenty of cyclists and walkers in evidence and new businesses opening to cater for them. Then pop down to Rosslare and see the number of vehicles arriving with bikes aboard. It's a big potential growth area.It's got nothing to do with cycle lanes for urban cyclists.

it's about cycling infrastructure full stop. you need a few markets to make that infrastructure worth while.
cycling infrastructure just for tourists has as i see it, limited potential really, as there are only going to be a small number of areas where these tourists will want to go. that is why spending the funds on cycling infrastructure that will have a few markets is the best use of the funding.
the reason the Dungarvan greenway has had any success is because there is quite decent sceenery around the area. ultimately it does not prove that other similar projects will be successful. and really it's over all success should be judged on what happens long term rather then the short term. i really don't believe it is comparible to a cycle way through bland country side.

Isambard · 17-03-2019 9:59pm

that's the offical WoT line alright.

The fact is the countryside of Ireland in all it's forms is very attractive. There are people who have drained their own bogs , for instance, who revel in visiting Ireland's. The joys of the bland countryside would be the peace and quiet and the flora and flora. There's loads to see when you pass though at a slow pace and look around you

I don't think you understand what people want, they don't all want diddyeye music and Guinness.

end of the road · 17-03-2019 10:51pm

Isambard wrote: »

that's the offical WoT line alright.

i wouldn't know given i haven't anything to do with them. nor do i care what their official lines may be tbh.

Isambard wrote: »

The fact is the countryside of Ireland in all it's forms is very attractive. There are people who have drained their own bogs , for instance, who revel in visiting Ireland's. The joys of the bland countryside would be the peace and quiet and the flora and flora. There's loads to see when you pass though at a slow pace and look around you.

I don't think you understand what people want, they don't all want diddyeye music and Guinness.

the thing is what they want and so much more is already available with the infrastructure to cater to them to boot. i'm not sure what somewhere like tuam etc has got to offer that waterford and dungarven haven't got?

Muckyboots · 18-03-2019 11:49am

end of the road wrote: »

i wouldn't know given i haven't anything to do with them. nor do i care what their official lines may be tbh.

the thing is what they want and so much more is already available with the infrastructure to cater to them to boot. i'm not sure what somewhere like tuam etc has got to offer that waterford and dungarven haven't got?

Tuam is on the Mizen-Malin route. That in itself is enough, but there's more, lots more.

westtip · 18-03-2019 1:03pm

end of the road wrote: »

i wouldn't know given i haven't anything to do with them. nor do i care what their official lines may be tbh.

the thing is what they want and so much more is already available with the infrastructure to cater to them to boot. i'm not sure what somewhere like tuam etc has got to offer that waterford and dungarven haven't got?

Its all about having long distance routes that are interconnected, it doesn't have to be stunning scenery every inch of the way, its about people getting on bike in Dublin and say I am going to cycle at a leisurely pace to lets say Achill, via the Dublin Galway greenway turn north at Athenry and turn west to connect with the great western Greenway lets say at Swinford. It could become something that becomes our own camino like a right of passage, meet people along the way, stop in hotels, hostels, campsites and guest houses. Eat frugally eat luxuriously, picnic or restaurant, cafe or pub, or bring your own camping cooker. It will appeal to so many ages, it is such an opportunity that is not being grasped. do it at 16 or 86.....do it alone, do it with a partner, do it with a family. It truly has universal appeal.

Sam Russell · 18-03-2019 2:29pm

westtip wrote: »

Its all about having long distance routes that are interconnected, it doesn't have to be stunning scenery every inch of the way, its about people getting on bike in Dublin and say I am going to cycle at a leisurely pace to lets say Achill, via the Dublin Galway greenway turn north at Athenry and turn west to connect with the great western Greenway lets say at Swinford. It could become something that becomes our own camino like a right of passage, meet people along the way, stop in hotels, hostels, campsites and guest houses. Eat frugally eat luxuriously, picnic or restaurant, cafe or pub, or bring your own camping cooker. It will appeal to so many ages, it is such an opportunity that is not being grasped. do it at 16 or 86.....do it alone, do it with a partner, do it with a family. It truly has universal appeal.

Exactly.

Even if you do it alone, you are not alone - there is companionship available from the other like minded participants you meet on the way. The more popular it gets, the better it gets - up to a point. Popularity will give rise to food and drink stops, B&Bs, and other good things, etc. Scenery is only one of the drivers for participation.

Participation could be the driver in itself - why do I see people pounding the urban pavement to keep fit? It certainly is not the scenery.

Isambard · 18-03-2019 2:52pm

I'm not a cyclist, in fact i'm a rail fan, but I can see the attraction for doing what westtip describes.

Tourism is one of the few areas we have where there can be real growth, real jobs for a quite small investment.

This rail line is dead and has little prospect of revival, so let's make use of a State asset. Make provision to replace the rail line alongside a greenway by all means, but lets get on with it.

eastwest · 18-03-2019 3:47pm

Isambard wrote: »

I'm not a cyclist, in fact i'm a rail fan, but I can see the attraction for doing what westtip describes.

Tourism is one of the few areas we have where there can be real growth, real jobs for a quite small investment.

This rail line is dead and has little prospect of revival, so let's make use of a State asset. Make provision to replace the rail line alongside a greenway by all means, but lets get on with it.

Except that it costs one third of the 'alongside' option to put the trail on the existing stone base, as they found out in Sligo when they looked at the costings. This stone will be coming up anyway if they build a railway, so why not use it now -- it's in place, and it's free.
If a railway is ever built in the future the greenway (even if alongside the tracks as in Mullingar-Athlone) will have to be relocated to make way for the railway, but there's no point in incurring that kind of expense at this stage when a railway is unlikely.
But I agree, we should just get on with it, but in a way that gives best value for money for the taxpayer, by using what is there instead of creating a completely new trail alongside the existing scrap tracks.
The idea proposed by **/*** that we should retain the tracks ad infinitum to appease their handful of supporters is childish and they need to move on from that. It's like leaving a comfort blanket with a child who is going off to college because he's always had it and might cry if he lost it. Sometimes it's kinder to take it away and make him face reality.

eastwest · 18-03-2019 3:55pm

end of the road wrote: »

the thing is what they want and so much more is already available with the infrastructure to cater to them to boot. i'm not sure what somewhere like tuam etc has got to offer that waterford and dungarven haven't got?

That's almost exactly the argument put forward by some of the Waterford Councillors who opposed the greenway there, suggesting that nobody would want to come to Kilmacthomas when there was already a greenway in Mayo and when there was no scenery in Waterford! A quarter of a million people thought differently in the first year of operation, and those nine 'anti' councillors are very silent about their opposition now.
Their other arguments, about rural crime and tipping of rubbish haven't turned out to be true either, but maybe they'll admit how wrong they got it all, one of these days.

Isambard · 18-03-2019 5:22pm

i'd suggest there is little to no ballast which you could describe as a stone base on this line. Cheaply and lightly built line.

Corca Baiscinn · 18-03-2019 10:51pm

+1 to the last several posts pointing out the need for networked greenways The fact that scenery isn't the only attraction and that greenways are a wind for tourism. Agree with all that but there's a further point, locals need somewhere safe to walk/cycle. Road cyclists especially if they're in a club and this cycle in groups tend to be happy to use roads to cycle on (though I daresay they'd like conditions to be better) since they can travel at speed. However, tens of thousands of other people need safe segregated walking and cycling infrastructure.

We cycled from Mullingar to Enfield today on the Royal Canal Greenway and in spite of, some rough surfaces, annoying gates and lack of benches for a break, it was a joy. One section is parallel to the N4 and there you were aware of traffic noise but the sections away from traffic were so peaceful. You can chat to your companion or think your own thoughts, watch the herons or the fishermen ad greet other walkers/cyclists. We met lots of dog-walkers, fewer cyclists but these included 3 lots of parent-child combinations. I have the impression most people we met were locals. They like people in Tuam, Athenry, Collooney , wherever need Greenways all the time , not jsut when thy go on their holidays to Waterford or Westport.

Had to do last 5 km on the R148 as canal path not accessible from Fureys pub onwards. The contrast was total, great there was a hard shoulder but the noise and speed of constant traffic meant it was an exercise in endurance rather than the pleasure the rest had been.

Another point re the "needed more in Dublin" argument; couldn't agree more re Dub and every urban area but with <2% of transport budget currently allocated to cycling I think we can have both.

westtip · 19-03-2019 11:58am

Isambard wrote: »

i'd suggest there is little to no ballast which you could describe as a stone base on this line. Cheaply and lightly built line.

Exactly, the actual existing railway line is worthless as a railway, even if the fairy EU godmother gave 200 million to build it - which won't happen by the way despite what you might hear from certain political quartermasters - the whole track would have to be lifted and relaid - and then there is the debate is this route/alignment fit for purpose for a modern railway. This is what is so frustrating, the current so called "infrastructure" is nothing but a pile of scrap as far as a modern railway is concerned. Why the argument use the route now for greenway and railway when and if at all possible is constantly shouted down as the deathknell of the railway is so frustrating, would West on Track never listen and realise this parrot is long since dead. Very dead.

Isambard · 22-03-2019 12:12pm

Here's a current photo I lifted from the net (Copyright Micheal McHugh)

It clearly shows the state of the line and also the space available to run a Greenway and a rail track side by side.

serfboard · 22-03-2019 1:13pm

Isambard wrote: »

Here's a current photo I lifted from the net (Copyright Micheal McHugh)

It clearly shows the state of the line and also the space available to run a Greenway and a rail track side by side.

I'm not sure if that's true on all parts of the line, though.

Here's the line viewed from the Tuam bypass by Google Street View:

It looks like there is not a lot of room there.

westtip · 22-03-2019 1:24pm

Isambard wrote: »

Here's a current photo I lifted from the net (Copyright Micheal McHugh)

It clearly shows the state of the line and also the space available to run a Greenway and a rail track side by side.

This is what West on Track call infrastructure, sure, agree with you a greenway could go in alongside, there clearly is the space with accommodation at pinch points, but why go to that expense? A feasibility study on the Sligo section showed it would be a lot more expensive to go in alongside the old closed useless railway than merely lifting the rails and using the ballast under this old useless railway as perfectly adequate base for a greenway now; in future years if you had laid a greenway either on this old rail alignment or even alongside it at far greater expense, the whole thing would have to come up and be relaid anyway as the railway was built to light rail standards and entirely new ballast/foundation would have to go in, the alongside greenway would be ripped up at the same time due to the scale of the operation and the cost of putting in an alongside greenway with the new railway would be absorbed into the cost. West on Track welcomed the Velo-Rail project in Kiltimagh on the basis it saved the railway for future use, it is a totally non sensical argument, and has been used as a stop the greenway at all costs argument. Pure nonsense.

westtip · 22-03-2019 1:26pm

serfboard wrote: »

I'm not sure if that's true on all parts of the line, though.

Here's the line viewed from the Tuam bypass by Google Street View:

It looks like there is not a lot of room there.

that entire embankment would have to be pulled up and replaced to replace the railway due to the light railway standard this line was built to, see my other post above. Why bother? when a railway is highly unlikely in the next 20 years, build the greenway, protect the alignment and pull up those rusting railway which are neither use nor ornament to man or beast. Protect that strip of land and who knows what might come along for future generations.

Isambard · 22-03-2019 6:00pm

there is in all probability no ballast there to speak of. It was a cheaply built secondary line, they may have used beach shingle or ashes or gravel. Whatever , I reckon even for a cycle way, they are going to have to dig it all out and install a proper foundation

It worries me when I read of people wanting to build a cycleway right up the middle without making provision for a later rail line by moving it over a couple of feet. I wonder what their motive might be and I'm quite sure the Greenway would be much more likely to be built if those promoting were to say " we will leave a reserved strip for a later rail line and build our cycleway to one side"

Muckyboots · 22-03-2019 8:08pm

Isambard wrote: »

there is in all probability no ballast there to speak of. It was a cheaply built secondary line, they may have used beach shingle or ashes or gravel. Whatever , I reckon even for a cycle way, they are going to have to dig it all out and install a proper foundation

It worries me when I read of people wanting to build a cycleway right up the middle without making provision for a later rail line by moving it over a couple of feet. I wonder what their motive might be and I'm quite sure the Greenway would be much more likely to be built if those promoting were to say " we will leave a reserved strip for a later rail line and build our cycleway to one side"

A railway, on or beside the existing greenway, would come with 100s of millions behind it by necessity. Moving either to one side, fencing and sorting out pinch points would be back of the sofa stuff.

Isambard · 22-03-2019 8:39pm

yes but that's not my point. If provision were made now by definitely leaving room, that might go someway to appeasing the rail zealots up there. If the room for a rail line is there, how can they then object?

Grandeeod · 22-03-2019 9:10pm

Isambard wrote: »

yes but that's not my point. If provision were made now by definitely leaving room, that might go someway to appeasing the rail zealots up there. If the room for a rail line is there, how can they then object?

Realistically, there isn't room. Athenry-Tuam was built to accomodate double track, but only in terms of bridges over the line. Embankments/cuttings were built for single track. North of Tuam and all the way to Collooney is single track infrastructure. To accomodate a greenway and leave the existing track there, will require additional expense such as land acquisition. That wasn't an issue on the Mullingar-Athlone line because it did operate as a double track rail line in the early 20th century.

In my opinion it all boils down to ripping up the track and building a greenway or leaving the existing rusty rails to sink into obscurity. None of it is worth anything as a railway these days. Trying to placate the rail zealots with promises of putting the greenway alongside the rails does nothing for either side in terms of advancement. Probably suits the zealots.

Here's a video from an inspection car run in the noughties. C'Morris to Athenry. Look at it very carefully if you fancy a greenway while not removing the existing track.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEfx5T3G4NQ

Isambard · 22-03-2019 9:50pm

i didn't say anything about not removing the existing track

Sam Russell · 22-03-2019 10:16pm

Looking at that video, going from Claremorris to Athenry, there is mainly just single track, with no room for dual track.

Also there are no places from which it might fnd a few passengers. There are not even very many one-off houses. How could such a train service even pay for the fuel, let alone the wages?

Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

Comments