Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

westtip · 11-07-2020 11:25am

River Suir wrote: »

I would expect there to be no movement until the Ten-T consultations are complete. And the report will no doubt be ready when its ready. You wouldn't pull a half baked loaf of bread out of the oven so to speak.

Ah so we can see the familiar pattern unfolding, Lord Ross and his sidekick have delayed the process for four years, in the meantime SF/WOT have continued on the TEN-T is going to be revised again lobbying like mad in Europe, TEN-T will come back with some ambiguous view about WRC and we will all have to wait another Five years until SF/WOT get in power, Kick the can until we can get hold of power then spend another 5 years unable to deliver, Ah so another ten years of nothing.

Del.Monte · 11-07-2020 12:04pm

westtip wrote: »

Ah so we can see the familiar pattern unfolding, Lord Ross and his sidekick have delayed the process for four years, in the meantime SF/WOT have continued on the TEN-T is going to be revised again lobbying like mad in Europe, TEN-T will come back with some ambiguous view about WRC and we will all have to wait another Five years until SF/WOT get in power, Kick the can until we can get hold of power then spend another 5 years unable to deliver, Ah so another ten years of nothing.

Not at all, in ten years time the Kiltimagh Velo-rail will have reached Letterkenny.

River Suir · 11-07-2020 3:11pm

westtip wrote: »

Ah so we can see the familiar pattern unfolding, Lord Ross and his sidekick have delayed the process for four years, in the meantime SF/WOT have continued on the TEN-T is going to be revised again lobbying like mad in Europe, TEN-T will come back with some ambiguous view about WRC and we will all have to wait another Five years until SF/WOT get in power, Kick the can until we can get hold of power then spend another 5 years unable to deliver, Ah so another ten years of nothing.

Who or what is SF/WOT or is that a made up name for trolling purposes?

ezstreet5 · 11-07-2020 9:22pm

River Suir wrote: »

Who or what is SF/WOT or is that a made up name for trolling purposes?

Sinn Féin and West on Track - the axis of evil standing in the way of the Quiet Man Greenway, according to a peculiar strain within that group. The former being a political party not (and never) in government that locally supports reactivation. The latter being a loose advocacy group of politicians of all flavours, community-level advocates, and lay persons that also support reactivation. The theory is that if these nefarious characters would cease and desist from their self-serving, backwards, nostalgic activities, the greenway would prevail. Conversely, WOT do not believe that if the Quiet Man Greenway advocacy group would disband, rail reactivation would occur. Neither option is simple, inexpensive, or easy. It is not the local "us versus them," or "vote rail/vote greenway" issue that some make it out to be.

River Suir · 11-07-2020 9:27pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Sinn Féin and West on Track - the axis of evil standing in the way of the Quiet Man Greenway, according to a peculiar strain within that group. The former being a political party not (and never) in government that locally supports reactivation. The latter being a loose advocacy group of politicians of all flavours, community-level advocates, and lay persons that also support reactivation. The theory is that if these nefarious characters would cease and desist from their self-serving, backwards, nostalgic activities, the greenway would prevail. Conversely, WOT do not believe that if the Quiet Man Greenway advocacy group would disband, rail reactivation would occur. Neither option is simple, inexpensive, or easy. It is not the local "us versus them," or "vote rail/vote greenway" issue that some make it out to be.

Indeed. My politics are not SF, probably Social Democrat. This attempt by the Greenway Campaigners to brand all of us as SF is not only childish and stupid but perhaps shows the WOT campaign is cutting through in a way the Greenway campaign will never do. I am of that uniquely Irish religion “ lapsed Catholic” but I do think St Francis of Assisi’s expression “you catch more flies with a spoonful of honey than a barrel full of vinegar” is quite apt.

CatInABox · 12-07-2020 1:44am

River Suir wrote: »

I do think St Francis of Assisi’s expression “you catch more flies with a spoonful of honey than a barrel full of vinegar” is quite apt.

Weirdly enough, flies are more attracted to vinegar than they are to honey, but that probably has little to do with trains, to be honest.

Muckyboots · 12-07-2020 9:05am

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Sinn Féin and West on Track - the axis of evil standing in the way of the Quiet Man Greenway, according to a peculiar strain within that group. The former being a political party not (and never) in government that locally supports reactivation. The latter being a loose advocacy group of politicians of all flavours, community-level advocates, and lay persons that also support reactivation. The theory is that if these nefarious characters would cease and desist from their self-serving, backwards, nostalgic activities, the greenway would prevail. Conversely, WOT do not believe that if the Quiet Man Greenway advocacy group would disband, rail reactivation would occur. Neither option is simple, inexpensive, or easy. It is not the local "us versus them," or "vote rail/vote greenway" issue that some make it out to be.

A mainly true but largely onesided assessment, I'd say. I won't waste each other's time with a roundly similar view from the other side of the fence.

westtip · 12-07-2020 3:09pm

SF/WOT always gets a reaction. lovely jubbly, thanks for taking the bait. Hilarious. That is what this whole thread has become more and more ridiculous and more and more hilarious. Everyone can remain safe in their houses in Claremorris then so, no need to rush out and catch a train to stroke city.

monument · 12-07-2020 4:17pm

westtip wrote: »

SF/WOT always gets a reaction. lovely jubbly, thanks for taking the bait. Hilarious. That is what this whole thread has become more and more ridiculous and more and more hilarious. Everyone can remain safe in their houses in Claremorris then so, no need to rush out and catch a train to stroke city.

Three day ban for that and you'll get longer the next time if that trolling doesn't stop. Stop the SF/WOT nonsense generally too.

-- moderator

serfboard · 14-07-2020 1:53pm

River Suir wrote: »

I would expect there to be no movement

Now, there's a true statement.

serfboard · 14-07-2020 1:58pm

River Suir wrote: »

This ... perhaps shows the WOT campaign is cutting through in a way the Greenway campaign will never do.

Hilariously wrong.

The WOT managed to get WRC south developed at a time when money was being thrown about like snuff at a wake, with no VFM assessments carried out, and based on the most fanciful of notions of passenger numbers.

Those days are gone. The only thing WOT have done since is block the Greenway. That's it.

serfboard · 14-07-2020 3:03pm

serfboard wrote: »

There's a list as long as your arm of rail money that needs to be spent, before anyone would begin to look at a WRC North.

Carawaystick wrote: »

There isn't really

There is really.

Double-tracking Portarlington to Athlone
Double-tracking Athenry to Galway
Line to Navan
Metrolink

And that's before we get into the DART expansion programme, which is absolutely massive and really does have a list as long as your arm:

Iarnrod Eireann wrote:

Maynooth - M3 Parkway Line and City Centre

The overall scope for the Maynooth Line and City Centre, to facilitate the necessary increase in capacity, will require:

•Track, platform and station modifications and improvements at Dublin Connolly Station and Docklands Station to increase through-running and terminating capacity
•Track and infrastructure modifications at key junction approaching Dublin Connolly and Docklands Station from north and west
•Bridge reconstructions arising from corridor widening and electrical clearances, as necessary
•Elimination of level crossings on the Maynooth Line and provision of appropriate road relief infrastructure
•Signalling and telecommunications infrastructure to support the projected capacity increases
•Electrification of Maynooth and M3 Parkway lines, and power supply to support the projected capacity increases
•Provision of a new DART Expansion rolling stock maintenance and stabling depot
•Integration of DART Expansion with the new MetroLink station at Glasnevin

Kildare Line

The overall scope for the Kildare Line, to facilitate the necessary increase in capacity, will require:

•Widening of the railway corridor and completing four tracking between Park West Station and Dublin Heuston
•Improvements to the Phoenix Park Tunnel Line to support the projected capacity increases
•Bridge reconstructions arising from corridor widening and electrical clearances, as necessary
•Signalling and telecommunications infrastructure to support the projected capacity increases
•Electrification and power supply from Hazelhatch to Dublin Heuston to support the projected capacity increases
•Provision of rolling stock stabling, as necessary

Northern Line

The overall scope for the Northern Line, to facilitate the necessary increase in capacity, will require:

•Signalling and telecommunications infrastructure to support the projected capacity increases
•Electrification and power supply from Malahide to Drogheda to support the projected capacity increases
•Bridge reconstructions arising from corridor widening and electrical clearances, as necessary
•Upgrade and modification of Drogheda and Fairview maintenance depots
•Provision of higher capacity turnback at Drogheda and Clongriffin
•Provision of rolling stock stabling, as necessary

Southside DART Line Improvement Works

The overall scope for the Southside Line, to facilitate the necessary increase in capacity, will require:

•Agreeing with the National Transport Authority and Local Authority the level crossing closure plan to support the projected capacity increases
•Provide an appropriate level of road relief infrastructure in-lieu of increased level crossing closure frequency
•Provision of a high capacity turnback at Dun Laoghaire or Bray
•Provision of rolling stock stabling, as necessary
•Integration of DART Expansion with MetroLink at Tara Street

Any of these projects will move multiple times the numbers of passengers and provide far better Value For Money, than a rail line north of Athenry.

A rail line may be built north of Athenry, but not for a few decades. For a tiny amount of money, a Greenway can be built on it in while we wait. Only the worst kind of dog in the manger would want to see it left idle in the meantime.

ezstreet5 · 14-07-2020 3:45pm

serfboard wrote: »

Any of these projects will move multiple times the numbers of passengers and provide far better Value For Money, than a rail line north of Athenry.

A rail line may be built north of Athenry, but not for a few decades. For a tiny amount of money, a Greenway can be built on it in while we wait. Only the worst kind of dog in the manger would want to see it left idle in the meantime.

The price tag for those projects exceeds 5 billion I believe. If it came in at 5.2 billion, no one would bat an eyelash, despite the fact that the "tiny" overbudget amount could have rebuilt the WRC. Projects don't always advance in the order of value for money. There are regional and political considerations and different funding mechanisms.

Applying the same logic to greenways, one could argue that there are a myriad of other greenway projects that would warrant investment before a Western Rail Trail project and would provide better value for money, such as completion of the EV1 and EV2 routes.

Nobody wants to see the way remain idle. But rail pragmatists understand that there is no such thing as a temporary greenway operating under a revocable license. Conversion of the way to a full-fledged greenway is irreversible.

Muckyboots · 14-07-2020 5:57pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

The price tag for those projects exceeds 5 billion I believe. If it came in at 5.2 billion, no one would bat an eyelash, despite the fact that the "tiny" overbudget amount could have rebuilt the WRC.

With that same logic, why not go to €5.4 and run a parallel greenway.

serfboard · 14-07-2020 6:21pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Nobody wants to see the way remain idle. But rail pragmatists understand that there is no such thing as a temporary greenway operating under a revocable license.

"Nobody wants to see the way remain idle, except those who want to see the way remain idle if it is not going to be used for a train".

ezstreet5 · 14-07-2020 6:52pm

Muckyboots wrote: »

With that same logic, why not go to €5.4 and run a parallel greenway.

Sounds reasonable, except that greenway advocates might have to work with some of their rail-supporting neighbours and politicians which they they consider to be "the worst kind of dog in the manger."

Muckyboots · 14-07-2020 9:03pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Sounds reasonable, except that greenway advocates might have to work with some of their rail-supporting neighbours and politicians which they they consider to be "the worst kind of dog in the manger."

It would be a good way to sort out the bigots from the zealots..

ezstreet5 · 14-07-2020 11:19pm

Muckyboots wrote: »

It would be a good way to sort out the bigots from the zealots..

The issue requires continued zeal. Don't lose yours, as some have.

monument · 15-07-2020 2:19pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

The price tag for those projects exceeds 5 billion I believe. If it came in at 5.2 billion, no one would bat an eyelash, despite the fact that the "tiny" overbudget amount could have rebuilt the WRC. Projects don't always advance in the order of value for money. There are regional and political considerations and different funding mechanisms.

Applying the same logic to greenways, one could argue that there are a myriad of other greenway projects that would warrant investment before a Western Rail Trail project and would provide better value for money, such as completion of the EV1 and EV2 routes.

Nobody wants to see the way remain idle. But rail pragmatists understand that there is no such thing as a temporary greenway operating under a revocable license. Conversion of the way to a full-fledged greenway is irreversible.

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Sounds reasonable, except that greenway advocates might have to work with some of their rail-supporting neighbours and politicians which they they consider to be "the worst kind of dog in the manger."

You want your cake and eat it here.

You and others are more interested in fighting against the greenway lads than you are being pragmatic.

The two positions you are taking are not compatible with each other. You cannot claim that (1) there "is no such thing as a temporary greenway operating under a revocable licence" and that a "full-fledged greenway is irreversible" and also (2) that parallel greenway is "reasonable" and then have another pointless pot shot at people you don't agree with.

If a parallel greenway is reasonable then your position that a greenway built first is irreversible just doesn't stand up to any logic -- if a greenway was built first and then, 5 or 10 years later, somebody found a load of money to build the WRC there's zero real issue putting in the parallel greenway. The extra money is minimal.

River Suir · 15-07-2020 4:00pm

monument wrote: »

You want your cake and eat it here.

You and others are more interested in fighting against the greenway lads than you are being pragmatic.

The two positions you are taking are not compatible with each other. You cannot claim that (1) there "is no such thing as a temporary greenway operating under a revocable licence" and that a "full-fledged greenway is irreversible" and also (2) that parallel greenway is "reasonable" and then have another pointless pot shot at people you don't agree with.

If a parallel greenway is reasonable then your position that a greenway built first is irreversible just doesn't stand up to any logic -- if a greenway was built first and then, 5 or 10 years later, somebody found a load of money to build the WRC there's zero real issue putting in the parallel greenway. The extra money is minimal.

And thus any attempt at detente between the two sides is put to bed.

I think this is a complete misrepresentation of what we are at here. I’m not actually interested in “fighting the greenway lads” as you put it, what I’m interested in is arguing for the railway and pointing out that the line has national strategic importance that goes way beyond the immediate Tuam and Athenry areas.

There are times when pro rail supporters do like and support posts from the greenway side such as the recent posts from Muckyboots. His posts are generally thoughtful and add to the debate rather than sneering at those who disagree.

ezstreet5 · 15-07-2020 4:15pm

monument wrote: »

You want your cake and eat it here.

You and others are more interested in fighting against the greenway lads than you are being pragmatic.

Not exactly. This forum is a necessary counterbalance to a certain FB group which routinely paints rail supporters in the following manner:

What the Claremorris based rail advocates and their tiny number of supporters in Galway are advocating is just self-indulgent, nostalgic nonsense and it completely ignores reality and the needs of a progressive- thinking, modern local community. 1970's style rail infrastructure for progress?- give me a break..

We're tired of that negativity and portrayal, and these points cannot be debated in that FB group; hence, you are seeing most of the pushback here.

monument wrote: »

The two positions you are taking are not compatible with each other. You cannot claim that (1) there "is no such thing as a temporary greenway operating under a revocable license" and that a "full-fledged greenway is irreversible" and also (2) that parallel greenway is "reasonable"

How are they incompatible? Regarding (1), that is an idea borne out in mid-70s U.S. federal legislation that formed the basis of groups such as the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. The idea was that a trail would preserve the permanent way for future railway reactivation. The reality has been that not one rail trail has even been converted back to rail use in 45 years, either in US or anywhere else in the western world (that I can find - correct me if I'm wrong). Once the trail is built, the railway is gone forever, despite any rights held on paper.

Regarding (2), it would be very reasonable to consider the incremental cost of building a side-by-side greenway concurrent with rebuilding the railway. This is the position of many of the politicians too. It is extremely fortunate that all of the stone bridges over the way from Athenry to Tuam were designed for double tracking, and could accommodate a side-by-side alignment. It would be incumbent on the greenway campaign to inject themselves into the design/build process to make that happen.

monument wrote: »

and then have another pointless pot shot at people you don't agree with.

The "pointless pot shot" originates from the quote below and shows the scorn of at least one person. I merely called it out; don't attribute it to me.

serfboard wrote: »

A rail line may be built north of Athenry, but not for a few decades. For a tiny amount of money, a Greenway can be built on it in while we wait. Only the worst kind of dog in the manger would want to see it left idle in the meantime.

monument wrote: »

If a parallel greenway is reasonable then your position that a greenway built first is irreversible just doesn't stand up to any logic -- if a greenway was built first and then, 5 or 10 years later, somebody found a load of money to build the WRC there's zero real issue putting in the parallel greenway. The extra money is minimal.

Anything is possible I guess? But if the general idea is to build a greenway now, and then in 5-10 years remove and replace it with a railway, and at that same time, rebuild the greenway a few metres away.... That's the least probable of outcomes, and certainly not on par with building a side-by-side project now or in the near future.

Isambard · 15-07-2020 5:13pm

I've said it before, and neither side likes the idea, build the greenway to one side of the formation and leave room for a rail line maybe one day. There is plenty of room although neither side will admit that.

Greaney · 15-07-2020 5:20pm

Isambard wrote: »

I've said it before, and neither side likes the idea, build the greenway to one side of the formation and leave room for a rail line maybe one day. There is plenty of room although neither side will admit that.

The most important side are Irish Rail. If they think rail is on the cards in a few years, the 'do nothing' position till then may be the solution they opt for. Everything else is more than the 'jobs worth'.

As for 'side by side', one has to consider the embankments between Athenry & Tuam, etc. You can see it on the video in the link below at 33;35, 44:31 etc. They'll be a lot of work to build those up....

FYI coming into Tuam is 23:26
Ballyglunin is 32:11

Youtube video of the Claremorris to Athenry line

ezstreet5 · 15-07-2020 6:36pm

There were three similar written Parliamentary Questions asked in the Dáil yesterday regarding the Rail Review by Ciaran Cannon, Mairéad Farrell, and Éamon Ó Cuív, respectively. The common response by Eamon Ryan was similar to previous ones, but sometimes you get an extra nugget, with my emphasis:

As the Deputies are aware Iarnród Éireann commissioned a financial and economic appraisal of a proposed reopening of Phases 2 and 3 of the Western Rail Corridor, and, in late 2019, submitted a draft copy of that appraisal to my Department.

I am informed that in recent days a final copy of the report has now been received.

As was signalled publicly at the time of the commissioning of the appraisal, and, as is required under the Public Spending Code (PSC), my Department has been reviewing the documentation that has been received and engaging with Iarnród Éireann and the consultants as required during this review.

Once that review is complete the matter will then be brought to Government for its decision and the report published as soon as practical thereafter.

From the consultant's perspective, that means that the report is final and not subject to any more input or requested revisions from their client. This is the report which will form the basis of a decision, if any.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2020-07-14/160/#pq_160

Isambard · 15-07-2020 7:50pm

Greaney wrote: »

The most important side are Irish Rail. If they think rail is on the cards in a few years, the 'do nothing' position till then may be the solution they opt for. Everything else is more than the 'jobs worth'.

As for 'side by side', one has to consider the embankments between Athenry & Tuam, etc. You can see it on the video in the link below at 33;35, 44:31 etc. They'll be a lot of work to build those up....

FYI coming into Tuam is 23:26
Ballyglunin is 32:11

Youtube video of the Claremorris to Athenry line

you can run the cycle path along the fenceline at the bottom of the embankment. It doesn't have to be on the top.

Greaney · 15-07-2020 8:19pm

Isambard wrote: »

you can run the cycle path along the fenceline at the bottom of the embankment. It doesn't have to be on the top.

From the look of the space at the bridges, it would be the westside. One would get the sunset... and the wind?? In the lower parts, passing would be fine at the bridges. A lot of the lower trenches aren't too narrow

intellectual dosser · 15-07-2020 8:38pm

monument wrote: »

You want your cake and eat it here.

You and others are more interested in fighting against the greenway lads than you are being pragmatic.

The two positions you are taking are not compatible with each other. You cannot claim that (1) there "is no such thing as a temporary greenway operating under a revocable licence" and that a "full-fledged greenway is irreversible" and also (2) that parallel greenway is "reasonable" and then have another pointless pot shot at people you don't agree with.

If a parallel greenway is reasonable then your position that a greenway built first is irreversible just doesn't stand up to any logic -- if a greenway was built first and then, 5 or 10 years later, somebody found a load of money to build the WRC there's zero real issue putting in the parallel greenway. The extra money is minimal.

Have to disagree with this I think ezstreet5 is one of the best informed contributors to the thread. I also think he's right about the 'temporary greenway', whatever is built next will be there for a long time, irrespective of the business case of what gets left behind.

Ripping up a greenway will be a poison chalice no politician will go near. Even I myself as a WRC rail advocate wouldn't feel too strong about a WRC greenway being torn up to bring in rail.

Pete_Cavan · 15-07-2020 9:32pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

There were three similar written Parliamentary Questions asked in the Dáil yesterday regarding the Rail Review by Ciaran Cannon, Mairéad Farrell, and Éamon Ó Cuív, respectively. The common response by Eamon Ryan was similar to previous ones, but sometimes you get an extra nugget, with my emphasis:

From the consultant's perspective, that means that the report is final and not subject to any more input or requested revisions from their client. This is the report which will form the basis of a decision, if any.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2020-07-14/160/#pq_160

Is it just coincidence that the final copy of the report was received very quickly after Canney and Ross lost their influence? Ryan is on the record as having the report now so will have to release it sooner or later, regardless of how the assessment panned out.

Isambard · 15-07-2020 9:35pm

Greaney wrote: »

From the look of the space at the bridges, it would be the westside. One would get the sunset... and the wind?? In the lower parts, passing would be fine at the bridges. A lot of the lower trenches aren't too narrow

a range of solutions might be possible for any pinch points, including diverting off the trackbed in some places.. The thing is there are some who will issue a "no it isn't possible" because it suits their agenda.

ezstreet5 · 15-07-2020 9:49pm

Isambard wrote: »

a range of solutions might be possible for any pinch points, including diverting off the trackbed in some places.. The thing is there are some who will issue a "no it isn't possible" because it suits their agenda.

It's totally possible, and much easier to widen the embankment adjacent to a useable rail line. Wagons can remove cut material and import fill material at a good rate. For a greenway, lite pedestrian/cycleway bridges can be built parallel to railway bridges. Greaney is correct that the greenway would be positioned to the west of the rails.

ezstreet5 · 15-07-2020 10:43pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Is it just coincidence that the final copy of the report was received very quickly after Canney and Ross lost their influence? Ryan is on the record as having the report now so will have to release it sooner or later, regardless of how the assessment panned out.

You'll drive yourself mad, and almost always be wrong with those kinds of conclusions. Sometimes, "I don't know" is the best answer.

Isambard · 16-07-2020 8:05am

ezstreet5 wrote: »

It's totally possible, and much easier to widen the embankment adjacent to a useable rail line. Wagons can remove cut material and import fill material at a good rate. For a greenway, lite pedestrian/cycleway bridges can be built parallel to railway bridges. Greaney is correct that the greenway would be positioned to the west of the rails.

my point was that saying "the embankment is not wide enough" is not a red card for the project.

Opponents of the scheme on both sides will say there isn't room for dual use, but there clearly is. The cyclists don't want it because they want the whole formation with their cyclepath down the middle. (this is, in fairness,the cheapest option) The railwayacs don't want it because they fear they will be excluded at some future time if they let the cyclists in now.(and there is some truth to that)

There is plenty of land fence to fence for dual use in most places and a range of possibilities to overcome any local problems that may arise.

The line , especially the northern section, was so cheaply built that new embankments in some places may be necessary and desirable anyway.

Muckyboots · 16-07-2020 12:38pm

Isambard wrote: »

There is plenty of land fence to fence for dual use in most places and a range of possibilities to overcome any local problems that may arise.

You would have to wonder if a full site clearance was executed, from fence to fence, to create a brownfield site how a discussion might continue. What is the current specification for a new build railway, specifically in relation to laying of trackbed?

ezstreet5 · 16-07-2020 3:51pm

Muckyboots wrote: »

What is the current specification for a new build railway, specifically in relation to laying of trackbed?

As far as I can tell, the minimum clearance for a single track is 5432mm between fences, which provides a lineside walkway for rail workers on one side.

See p.56: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008D0217&from=GA

16-07-2020 10:21pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

As far as I can tell, the minimum clearance for a single track is 5432mm between fences, which provides a lineside walkway for rail workers on one side.

See p.56: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32008D0217&from=GA

I didn't read much beyond the subject heading, which relates to high speed rail up to 300Km/h, not realistic for the WRC, it would be better to look at construction standards for metro lines as these would be more comparable in terms of line speeds.

Anyway, where in that report did you find 5432mm??

The nearest I found was the following that does not specify a minimum lateral distance.

4.2.23.1 Lateral space alongside tracks
On lines of Category I, a space shall be provided alongside every track open to high-speed trains to allow passengers to detrain on the side of the tracks opposite from the adjacent tracks if the latter are still to beoperated during evacuation of the train. Where tracks are carried on engineering structures, the side of thelateral space away from the tracks shall have a safety barrier allowing passengers to exit without falling from thestructure.

On lines of Category II and III, a similar lateral space shall be provided at all locations where this provision isreasonably practicable. Where a space cannot be provided, Railway Undertakings shall be informed of thisspecific situation by its mention in the Infrastructure Register of the line concerned.

Edit: on further reading there is a specific diagram for Irish High speed lines that specifies 9.3 metres for a twin track, so I assume you subtracted the 3.5m to come up with 5.4m (ish)

But can be less if the optional walkway is omitted.

here is an allowance for a 700 mm wide walkway. Where no walkway is provided, the dimension referred to may be reduced to 1 790 mm

Bringing the width down to around 4.2m between fences, easily achieved on a low speed line.

Isambard · 17-07-2020 8:10am

the optional walkway could be the Greenway if access points were included. 5 1/2 metres is a lot less than the available land, at a guess. A Greenway need not be more than a couple of metres I would imagine. As I've said, there would be plenty of room for dual use over most of the trackbed.

Muckyboots · 17-07-2020 9:54am

Greaney wrote: »

The most important side are Irish Rail.

Irish Rail have clearly demonstrated a preference to divest themselves of that line over a prolonged period of time, including to the greenway group in Tuam early on.

ezstreet5 · 17-07-2020 12:12pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't read much beyond the subject heading, which relates to high speed rail up to 300Km/h, not realistic for the WRC, it would be better to look at construction standards for metro lines as these would be more comparable in terms of line speeds.

Anyway, where in that report did you find 5432mm??

The nearest I found was the following that does not specify a minimum lateral distance.

Edit: on further reading there is a specific diagram for Irish High speed lines that specifies 9.3 metres for a twin track, so I assume you subtracted the 3.5m to come up with 5.4m (ish)

But can be less if the optional walkway is omitted.

Bringing the width down to around 4.2m between fences, easily achieved on a low speed line.

The diagram is Irish Rail's Standard Structure Gauge provided each year in Appendix C of their annual Network Statement. No one suggested that trains would travel 300kph. Current CRR Guidelines for the Design of Railway Infrastructure And Rolling Stock are for lineside walkways on either side of the track, so the minimum width would be 2 x 2,040mm + 1602mm = 5,682mm, so just round it up to 6m. The lineside walkways are not usable as part of greenway. The permanent way appears to range from 18m to 30m in width.

Isambard · 17-07-2020 1:15pm

based on your figures then, upwards of 12 metres available to run a cyclepath. Thanks for that.

westtip · 17-07-2020 2:45pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Is it just coincidence that the final copy of the report was received very quickly after Canney and Ross lost their influence? Ryan is on the record as having the report now so will have to release it sooner or later, regardless of how the assessment panned out.

No it doesn't the report was delivered last October, unless it has been sent back to be doctored to suit certain parties - and TBH that could be to suit the rail lobby or greenway lobby or it has been made certain it is the greatest box of fudge ever ensuring nothing is done with some kind of caveat of who knows maybe sometime in the future within the timeframe of Ireland 2040 it might just be feasible to have a railway type language. Either way I can see now nothing is going to happen for another 20 years, greenway nor railway and probably nothing ever....the whole thing is now a complete and utter farce.

Isambard · 17-07-2020 3:09pm

Isambard wrote: »

based on your figures then, upwards of 12 metres available to run a cyclepath. Thanks for that.

or 6 metres either side of a reservation for future rail use. (or a wider section if the rail alignment could be offset.)

Pete_Cavan · 17-07-2020 3:10pm

westtip wrote: »

No it doesn't the report was delivered last October, unless it has been sent back to be doctored to suit certain parties - and TBH that could be to suit the rail lobby or greenway lobby or it has been made certain it is the greatest box of fudge ever ensuring nothing is done with some kind of caveat of who knows maybe sometime in the future within the timeframe of Ireland 2040 it might just be feasible to have a railway type language. Either way I can see now nothing is going to happen for another 20 years, greenway nor railway and probably nothing ever....the whole thing is now a complete and utter farce.

Only now? It has been for a long time!

serfboard · 17-07-2020 9:01pm

westtip wrote: »

No it doesn't the report was delivered last October, unless it has been sent back to be doctored to suit certain parties - and TBH that could be to suit the rail lobby or greenway lobby or it has been made certain it is the greatest box of fudge ever ensuring nothing is done with some kind of caveat of who knows maybe sometime in the future within the timeframe of Ireland 2040 it might just be feasible to have a railway type language. Either way I can see now nothing is going to happen for another 20 years, greenway nor railway and probably nothing ever....the whole thing is now a complete and utter farce.

In a way, though it doesn't really matter.

The report was Sean Canney's price for supporting the last Government (not a railway, mind you, just a report).

Sean Canney is now a complete irrelevance in this administration, so the report can be "reviewed by the department" ad infinitum, which is Civil Service speak for being binned.

The focus should now change back to the County Council to get on with it.

westtip · 18-07-2020 11:02pm

serfboard wrote: »

In a way, though it doesn't really matter.

The focus should now change back to the County Council to get on with it.

Well at least Sligo have taken that view, but this report has been used as an endless excuse by Galway and Mayo coco and it is written into the Regional Strategies - but yes if life was simple the councils could get on with it....However its not

Geuze · 19-07-2020 12:39am

ezstreet5 wrote: »

The permanent way appears to range from 18m to 30m in width.

Can I check - the width of the WRC permanent way, from Athenry to Claremorris, varies from 18m to 30m???

I would have assumed much less.

Isambard · 19-07-2020 8:10am

from fence to fence it sounds about right to me without measuring.

https://connachttribune.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/x4-greenway.jpg

tabbey · 19-07-2020 2:56pm

Geuze wrote: »

Can I check - the width of the WRC permanent way, from Athenry to Claremorris, varies from 18m to 30m???

I would have assumed much less.

30m is 100 ft, approx, more than enough for a 6 track mainline.

No railway promoter in 19th century Ireland would have got the money for such a grandiose scheme.

Isambard · 19-07-2020 3:15pm

tabbey wrote: »

30m is 100 ft, approx, more than enough for a 6 track mainline.

No railway promoter in 19th century Ireland would have got the money for such a grandiose scheme.

i don't think there was a suggestion that the formation is 30m wide all the way, it may broaden out to that at certain bridges or station sites etc I would guess.

Muckyboots · 19-07-2020 8:42pm

Isambard wrote: »

i don't think there was a suggestion that the formation is 30m wide all the way, it may broaden out to that at certain bridges or station sites etc I would guess.

This quote from the Meehan Tully Report on the Sligo end of the alignment reports that side by side is possible but more costly. Costs may not be the key criteria with a Green Minister, a new Green Deal and a slice of €750 billion EU emergency infrastructure budget to spend.

"Three, Shared-use Greenway - A shared-use greenway is one where a train line is co-located with a cycling/ walking trail. These tend to occur where there are existing parallel tracks or adequate space for the development of a side-by-side greenway amenity. In the Sligo context, a shared-use amenity could allow for the development of a greenway without affecting the future development of the line for rail traffic. As only one line is present along the Sligo section, the cost of improving adjoining land to accommodate a greenway is projected to be considerably greater than a single-use amenity, and will increase the payback
and return on investment. Based upon similar projects, the projected cost of a 35.5km shared-use greenway in Sligo has been estimated to be in the region of €13 million, with a payback period of 8.5 years."

Geuze · 19-07-2020 10:51pm

Geuze wrote: »

Can I check - the width of the WRC permanent way, from Athenry to Claremorris, varies from 18m to 30m???

I would have assumed much less.

Surely even 18m allows for a railway line and a greenway?

A double-track line requires 15m:

http://www.railway-technical.com/infrastructure/

Allowing 10m for a single line, leaves 8m for the greenway.

Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

Comments