Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

Del.Monte · 18-04-2019 2:23pm

L1011 wrote: »

There are minimum requirements for a new station which do not apply to grandfathered old stations. Lighting, fencing etc would be required at a new build request stop also.

Actually - if you've no lighting how the hell do you expect the driver to see you flag them down?

I didn't say no lighting - overkill is what I'm on about - even in my local station where the Up platform is out of use all the lights are blazing away. As for minimum requirements - they need changing and that's a feeble, CIE type, excuse.

L1011 · 18-04-2019 2:40pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

I didn't say no lighting - overkill is what I'm on about - even in my local station where the Up platform is out of use all the lights are blazing away. As for minimum requirements - they need changing and that's a feeble, CIE type, excuse.

Safety requirements are not going to be rolled back for the laugh

Your poorly equipped request stop would be illegal to build as new

Del.Monte · 18-04-2019 2:43pm

L1011 wrote: »

Safety requirements are not going to be rolled back for the laugh

Your poorly equipped request stop would be illegal to build as new

My point is that it shouldn't be! Common sense seems to have gone the way of the Dodo but some day it will have to come back.

L1011 · 18-04-2019 4:24pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

My point is that it shouldn't be! Common sense seems to have gone the way of the Dodo but some day it will have to come back.

Common sense was never common. Accidental death rates were huge in the past, nostalgia doesn't excise the figures

Sam Russell · 18-04-2019 4:33pm

L1011 wrote: »

Common sense was never common. Accidental death rates were huge in the past, nostalgia doesn't excise the figures

Death rates on the roads are lower than for ever.

It is illegal :
1: to travel without a seat belt.
2: To drink and drive.
3: Carry more passengers than the vehicle is equipped to carry.
4: Infants must be in an approved child seat.
5: Young infants must be carried in a rear facing child seat.
6: Speeding and drink driving enforcement etc etc.

Must be a coincidence that all these regulations have come in and the death rates have been reduced.

Isambard · 18-04-2019 5:41pm

those are some of the factors, but safety cells and airbags are probably just as important.

Sam Russell · 18-04-2019 6:31pm

Isambard wrote: »

those are some of the factors, but safety cells and airbags are probably just as important.

I could not list them all. Better road design is another factor.

We as a society take safety much more seriously than in the past.

18-04-2019 7:05pm

L1011 wrote: »

There are minimum requirements for a new station which do not apply to grandfathered old stations. Lighting, fencing etc would be required at a new build request stop also.

Actually - if you've no lighting how the hell do you expect the driver to see you flag them down?

PIR sensors, if anyone is at the station at night, the lights come on - else it stays dark. As for hailing the driver, there are many simple technical solutions that can be used.

A button connected to a signal
An intercom to call the driver
etc

Del.Monte · 18-04-2019 8:22pm

Deleted User wrote: »

PIR sensors, if anyone is at the station at night, the lights come on - else it stays dark. As for hailing the driver, there are many simple technical solutions that can be used.

A button connected to a signal
An intercom to call the driver
etc

It seems that people in Britain are able to hail a train from one of these unmanned death trap stations without injuring themselves.

18-04-2019 9:03pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

It seems that people in Britain are able to hail a train from one of these unmanned death trap stations without injuring themselves.

Sure, people do it from bus stops everyday everywhere.

westtip · 18-04-2019 9:09pm

jasper100 wrote: »

The growth is being experienced across the route, with city to city journeys surging and a particularly strong student demand. The Ennis to Limerick service and the Athenry to Galway commuter services have shown significant growth.

We can all massage figures as much as we want.

Irish Rail released these new figures recently and the official figure for the total line went up from 352K for 2017 to 387K for 2018 an increase of 35k.

In their press release they did not give the breakout this year for Ennis Athenry, they have been asked for this.

Previously they have given the breakout and in 2017 of the 352K travellers 134k actually used the new line, about 38% of all journies on the new line line.

Even if the new line accounts for 40% of all journies in 2018 that is 40% of 387k which is about 155k.

The business case for the Western Rail Corridor was for 250k passengers by year 5. We are now in year 10. It has hit about 62% of its business case after ten years. Clearly this is not a success story, but I am sure this will be pointed out to EY DKN.

Re students. Ah bless them. You do not build new railways so students can get home on a Friday, there has to be a seven day a week demand. Get the bus, hitch or get a lift with a mate, but don't expect the state to build a railway for a Friday night special or Sunday night special.

jasper100 · 19-04-2019 8:11am

westtip wrote: »

We can all massage figures as much as we want.

Irish Rail released these new figures recently and the official figure for the total line went up from 352K for 2017 to 387K for 2018 an increase of 35k.

In their press release they did not give the breakout this year for Ennis Athenry, they have been asked for this.

Previously they have given the breakout and in 2017 of the 352K travellers 134k actually used the new line, about 38% of all journies on the new line line.

Even if the new line accounts for 40% of all journies in 2018 that is 40% of 387k which is about 155k.

The business case for the Western Rail Corridor was for 250k passengers by year 5. We are now in year 10. It has hit about 62% of its business case after ten years. Clearly this is not a success story, but I am sure this will be pointed out to EY DKN.

Re students. Ah bless them. You do not build new railways so students can get home on a Friday, there has to be a seven day a week demand. Get the bus, hitch or get a lift with a mate, but don't expect the state to build a railway for a Friday night special or Sunday night special.

It must be killing you all the same to see passenger numbers ever on the increase.

If it got to 1 million journeys a year you would probably still find cause to criticise everything.

Del.Monte · 19-04-2019 8:20am

Del.Monte wrote: »

It seems that people in Britain are able to hail a train from one of these unmanned death trap stations without injuring themselves.

Above: Llanbedr - what a threat to life and limb!

More here about the 60 Welsh Request Stops:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/train-stations-wales-you-ask-12625986

and here: https://www.countryfile.com/go-outdoors/days-out/britains-best-request-stop-train-stations/

Muckyboots · 19-04-2019 8:47am

Del.Monte wrote: »

Above: Llanbedr - what a threat to life and limb!

More here about the 60 Welsh Request Stops:
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/train-stations-wales-you-ask-12625986

and here: https://www.countryfile.com/go-outdoors/days-out/britains-best-request-stop-train-stations/

You could easily lay one of those railways alongside a greenway. All new rail projects have to be electric and there's plenty of room on the WRC alignment for rail after a greenway. If they need to secure half a billion yo yos from the EU for a western rail, and they would, they should have no problem funding it.

Isambard · 19-04-2019 9:55am

imo there is plenty of room, but I do wonder about the integrity of greenway supporters who say it's cheaper to put the Greenway on the ballast of the rail alignment, rather than saying lets put it to one side and leave room for rail. That action makes me think they would have no intention of allowing a rail return at some future time.

19-04-2019 10:35am

Isambard wrote: »

imo there is plenty of room, but I do wonder about the integrity of greenway supporters who say it's cheaper to put the Greenway on the ballast of the rail alignment, rather than saying lets put it to one side and leave room for rail. That action makes me think they would have no intention of allowing a rail return at some future time.

Athlone - Mullingar line used to be double track, but was reduced to a single track before eventually closing. the greenway mainly uses the empty trackbed of the removed line, except where bridges were removed.

westtip · 19-04-2019 10:49am

jasper100 wrote: »

It must be killing you all the same to see passenger numbers ever on the increase.

If it got to 1 million journeys a year you would probably still find cause to criticise everything.

Slight exageration. If the numbers couldn't go up with cheap fares which mean more subvention it would surprise me. As I said, achieving 60% of business case after ten years is hardly a success, and the current figures and what has been achieved would have meant the line would never have been opened. The wool can only be pulled over the eyes once, I accept the line is probably here to stay, and have never advocated its closure, but the figures speak for themselves, they are not a succees and do not point to an obvious extension of the line northwards, if an intercity route can only hit 160,000 what will a route from Claremorris to Galway expect to achieve? half that? quarter that? you can beef the figures up all they want, they do no point at success nor do they any longer point at abject failure, but against the business plan, yes a failure they are. That doesn't kill me to say that, it just means to say I told you so. Don't foget wool over the eyes once, never again.

Re the million journies a year, ah yes the Athenry Field of dreams.

westtip · 19-04-2019 2:02pm

Isambard wrote: »

imo there is plenty of room, but I do wonder about the integrity of greenway supporters who say it's cheaper to put the Greenway on the ballast of the rail alignment, rather than saying lets put it to one side and leave room for rail. That action makes me think they would have no intention of allowing a rail return at some future time.

Not really, it means the cost of building the "temporary" greenway until such time as a railway is possible would be relatively cheap if built on the old ballast base. Afterall if a railway is going to be built on this alignment to make it an acceptable standard the whole ballast base will have to be ripped up and relaid, At that time of building the new railway a small service path alongside to act as a greenway will not be that great as an extra price in the total project cost. It would mean closing the greenway for a year or so whilst the new railway was built with the new greenway alongside. But there is no point building a greenway alongside the rust heap that exists now and the old ballast base which will have to be ripped up anyway it would make the cost prohibitive. This is why the "alongside" argument does not merit any consideration, it is only valid if the actual railway is going to be built, at the moment and in the foreseeable future that is not going to happen.

Isambard · 19-04-2019 8:32pm

i didn't suggest building it next to the existing line, which will have very little in the way of foundations anyway as it was very cheaply built in the first place. Nor did I say build it alongside.I said to built it to one side so that there is room for a rail line to be reinstated at some future date. Your insistence on using the actual trackbed where the rails are now is damaging to your project imo and won't help your cause at all.

20-04-2019 1:31am

Isambard wrote: »

i didn't suggest building it next to the existing line, which will have very little in the way of foundations anyway as it was very cheaply built in the first place. Nor did I say build it alongside.I said to built it to one side so that there is room for a rail line to be reinstated at some future date. Your insistence on using the actual trackbed where the rails are now is damaging to your project imo and won't help your cause at all.

What you are asking for would turn a couple million project into a 50 million one.... For no logical reason.

end of the road · 20-04-2019 1:53am

Deleted User wrote: »

What you are asking for would turn a couple million project into a 50 million one.... For no logical reason.

on what basis. the land exists and presumably belongs to the railway. so i'm afraid i'm not seeing anything here that could cause this to go from a couple of million to 50 million unless they

over engineer it to an absolute extreme. perhapse the same standards as a motor way.

Isambard · 20-04-2019 8:11am

the logical reason is that if the Greenway people declared that the cyclepath would be built leaving space for a railway to be built at a later date, then the opposition would be without an argument.
Insisting that the greenway is built right up the middle will convince the opposition that it is very unlikely they would willingly give up space for a railway at a later date.
The difference between the two scenarios is that you may get a Greenway the first way and you never will the second.
Compromise is the solution.

20-04-2019 9:31am

Isambard wrote: »

the logical reason is that if the Greenway people declared that the cyclepath would be built leaving space for a railway to be built at a later date, then the opposition would be without an argument.
Insisting that the greenway is built right up the middle will convince the opposition that it is very unlikely they would willingly give up space for a railway at a later date.
The difference between the two scenarios is that you may get a Greenway the first way and you never will the second.
Compromise is the solution.

The problem with your argument is that Irish rail retain ownership of the line and only lease it to the relevant body. There are clear stipulations in the leases (as seen in other locations) that allow Irish Rail to take it back and put in rails again as and when the business case exists.

Regardless of whether the greenway is on the line now or beside it now, it will have no bearing on the future reopening of this line at some point in the future. The only difference is that the greenway would allow for the alignment to be protected in the interim, a valuable community amenity would be created and there would be economic benefit.

There is not a single greenway advocate that I can think of that wants to stop trains from ever using the line.

The argument has always been, use it now for a greenway, use it later for both.

Letting it sit and rot is just a waste for all sides.

Isambard · 20-04-2019 10:33am

i didn't say anything about letting it sit rot. Build the Greenway off centre leaving the rest of the available land for a railway at some stage.

My point is, without compromise, it will never get built.

Eliminate the opposition by reserving land to the other side of centre, which guarantees there won't be issues of dog in a manger when the time comes to build the line.

The opposition will not believe that the Greenway people will meekly close down to allow a line to be built and the simplest way for them to ensure the line might be rebuilt one day is to stop the Greenway being built. If it is guaranteed that the land is there and available at all stages, there is a chance a Greenway might be built, without that guarantee, they'll keep opposing it forever.

20-04-2019 11:41am

Isambard wrote: »

i didn't say anything about letting it sit rot. Build the Greenway off centre leaving the rest of the available land for a railway at some stage.

My point is, without compromise, it will never get built.

Eliminate the opposition by reserving land to the other side of centre, which guarantees there won't be issues of dog in a manger when the time comes to build the line.

The opposition will not believe that the Greenway people will meekly close down to allow a line to be built and the simplest way for them to ensure the line might be rebuilt one day is to stop the Greenway being built. If it is guaranteed that the land is there and available at all stages, there is a chance a Greenway might be built, without that guarantee, they'll keep opposing it forever.

Your point is illogical and fallacious. Irish Rail, as the landlord, will have the final say when a rail service on that line eventually becomes a viable prospect.

Any lease signed to use the line in the meantime has that stipulation. Please provide me with something that shows otherwise. Fyi, you lose any argument if you try bring up Comber, it's been disproven multiple times.

Isambard · 20-04-2019 1:50pm

well the Rail line will probably never happen but nor will the Greenway without some compromise. The opposition will fight it tooth and nail, as we've already seen. It's not helpful for greenway supporters to be insisting their path is built actually where the rails are now, such an attitude guarantees the rail supporters won't believe they will give it up one day and I don't believe they would either,without a long and protracted fight.

Show willing and share the available land from Day One and you might get somewhere..

21-04-2019 8:56pm

New businesses open along Waterford’s Greenway

https://www.wlrfm.com/2019/04/21/new-businesses-open-along-waterfords-greenway/?fbclid=IwAR0nQzt_zwBi_ecuIrDNPYy8cuSigggBQb6bMsGWUuw2udb30PX5EKATYhA#

Markcheese · 22-04-2019 4:21pm

Isambard wrote: »

well the Rail line will probably never happen but nor will the Greenway without some compromise. The opposition will fight it tooth and nail, as we've already seen. It's not helpful for greenway supporters to be insisting their path is built actually where the rails are now, such an attitude guarantees the rail supporters won't believe they will give it up one day and I don't believe they would either,without a long and protracted fight.

Show willing and share the available land from Day One and you might get somewhere..

Hang on, I'm a bit late to this debate.. There's current ballast, which the greenway could use, but a new railway couldn't...
And that should be left there, unused in perpetuity in case the railway ever gets reinstated, (even though it'd then have to be removed to accomadate the new rails)
, and if you did put down a new trackway for the greenway, it also would probably need to be removed, should the rail be reinstated to accomadate the new ballast/track bed...

Perfectly clear...?

Isambard · 22-04-2019 5:19pm

The line was built to a very cheap standard from new, and after all this time, there will be very little ballast of any use.

The fact is you have two diametrically opposed bodies of opinions and if neither of them are willing to compromise, nothing will happen.

The rail people will not move an inch, (why would they?), whilst they think that the cycle people won't willingly give back the route if needed for rail. It serves their purposes perfectly to continue to block the Greenway, which they've shown they are pretty good at.

So rip up the track, bulldoze the ballast over a few feet (if there's any value to it)and lay your greenway off centre, leaving room for a rail track which will need deep excavation and a new foundation (like the Ennis to Athenry section needed). A cyclepath needs a lot less foundation than a rail line.

That makes sense to me but I doubt it will to either the rail or cycle lobbies who both want it all to themselves .

22-04-2019 5:23pm

Isambard wrote: »

The line was built to a very cheap standard from new, and after all this time, there will be very little ballast of any use.

The fact is you have two diametrically opposed bodies of opinions and if neither of them are willing to compromise, nothing will happen.

The rail people will not move an inch, (why would they?), whilst they think that the cycle people won't willingly give back the route if needed for rail. It serves their purposes perfectly to continue to block the Greenway, which they've shown they are pretty good at.

So rip up the track, bulldoze the ballast over a few feet (if there's any value to it)and lay your greenway off centre, leaving room for a rail track which will need deep excavation and a new foundation (like the Ennis to Athenry section needed). A cyclepath needs a lot less foundation than a rail line.

That makes sense to me but I doubt it will to either the rail or cycle lobbies who both want it all to themselves .

You keep touting this line that the greenway folks want to forever prevent a rail service.

I'm going to have to ask you to back that assertion up with evidence or admit that it is just a random ass feeling that you have in your head that has no basis in reality.

Isambard · 22-04-2019 5:34pm

you're not really reading it right.

I'm suggesting that the rail lobby will not believe that the Greenway lobby do not want to forever prevent a rail service, and will move heaven and earth to prevent a Greenway on that basis.

I'm not touting a line that the Greenway people actually want to prevent a rail rail forever.

I'm suggesting a middle line (sic) trying to understand the desires of both parties who are in deeply entrenched positions.

westtip · 22-04-2019 5:52pm

Isambard wrote: »

you're not really reading it right.

I'm suggesting that the rail lobby will not believe that the Greenway lobby do not want to forever prevent a rail service, and will move heaven and earth to prevent a Greenway on that basis.

I'm not touting a line that the Greenway people actually want to prevent a rail rail forever.

I'm suggesting a middle line (sic) trying to understand the desires of both parties who are in deeply entrenched positions.

The simple point is it is not the "greenway people" who will prevent the railway from returning, it is the government of whatever shade and Irish Rail, when will you understand there is simply no desire to re-open this railway on the part of national government. if a greenway is built in any case there will be a strict licence in place for return to rail, this has already been agreed between Sligo county council and Irish Rail for the Sligo greenway, it has been agreed on other closed railway routes so what part of this legal agreement don't west on track understand?

Read page 47 of the Meehan Tully Associates report prepared for Sligo coco back in 2016

What about the potential reopening of the line?
Communication with Irish Rail and other greenway projects has repeatedly highlighted the absolute requirement of a clause in the greenway licence that requires the revocation of the licence if the line is reopened at any stage. This is strictly enforced and reemphasised by Irish Rail, who also require, where necessary, additional costs to be incurred in the development of the greenway to ensure future-proofing in the event of a reopening of the line.
What is the final recommendation?
The final recommendation is that Option Two, the single-use greenway should be pursued in the short-term, however Option One, the reopening of the line to rail traffic should be the longer-term objective.

westtip · 22-04-2019 6:16pm

Here is the Meehan Tully report it fully explains why the Alongside greenway would be a complete waste of money compared to using the existing trackbed and having the strict licensed arrangement with Irish Rail what part of this watertight legal agreement don't West on Track understand, even the IRD in Kiltimagh have a similar agreement in place for that daft project.

Sligo Western Rail Corridor Assessment June 23 - Final.pdf

22-04-2019 6:19pm

Isambard wrote: »

you're not really reading it right.

I'm suggesting that the rail lobby will not believe that the Greenway lobby do not want to forever prevent a rail service, and will move heaven and earth to prevent a Greenway on that basis.

I'm not touting a line that the Greenway people actually want to prevent a rail rail forever.

I'm suggesting a middle line (sic) trying to understand the desires of both parties who are in deeply entrenched positions.

Ok, so it's just in your head then, thanks for the clarification

Isambard · 22-04-2019 6:25pm

it's going nowhere with an attitude like that

22-04-2019 6:41pm

Isambard wrote: »

it's going nowhere with an attitude like that

What attitude? It's been pointed out that the final decision would not be impacted by any greenway due to the lease agreement but you are choosing to ignore that one simple fact and instead keep trotting out an illogical fallacy with no basis in reality.

22-04-2019 6:42pm

Isambard wrote: »

it's going nowhere with an attitude like that

What attitude? It's been pointed out that the final decision would not be impacted by any greenway due to the lease agreement but you are choosing to ignore that one simple fact and instead keep trotting out an illogical fallacy with no basis in reality.

westtip · 22-04-2019 7:36pm

Deleted User wrote: »

What attitude? It's been pointed out that the final decision would not be impacted by any greenway due to the lease agreement but you are choosing to ignore that one simple fact and instead keep trotting out an illogical fallacy with no basis in reality.

Da Cor is it worth it? they just don't gettit, Irish Rail are adamant this clause goes in these closed railway to greenway projects, it is there in black and white and signed by the county councils not the mythical "greenway people" its not worth wasting anymore time on the argument. If a greenway happens and the route is required again for rail, that's it. The railway gets rebuilt. Simple as. It is in black and white, it is legally binding and please don't come back to us with Comber Valley or any other case. That is why this clause in. Da Cor they just don't gettit. Not worth the effort engaging.

22-04-2019 7:46pm

westtip wrote: »

Da Cor is it worth it? they just don't gettit, Irish Rail are adamant this clause goes in these closed railway to greenway projects, it is there in black and white and signed by the county councils not the mythical "greenway people" its not worth wasting anymore time on the argument. If a greenway happens and the route is required again for rail, that's it. The railway gets rebuilt. Simple as. It is in black and white, it is legally binding and please don't come back to us with Comber Valley or any other case. That is why this clause in. Da Cor they just don't gettit. Not worth the effort engaging.

While I agree, in large part, with most of your post, I would be more inclined to say that only through engagement can the fallacies be exposed, the worries acknowledged and addressed and the opportunities realised.

As a wise old man (Bob Hoskins) used to say, its good to talk

Del.Monte · 22-04-2019 9:37pm

How is the Velo Rail project going? Should be approaching Letterkenny by now. :pac:

Markcheese · 22-04-2019 9:46pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

How is the Velo Rail project going? Should be approaching Letterkenny by now. :pac:

How much use able track is actually still there for a velorail project, (or any other rail type project)

westtip · 23-04-2019 7:37am

Del.Monte wrote: »

How is the Velo Rail project going? Should be approaching Letterkenny by now. :pac:

I heard they are in a bit of bother as they have no planning permission for any part of the project and that Mayo county council tried to pull a stroke and say they didn't need planning permission as the whole project was all part of the plan to restore the railway, I think this view got challenged and Mayo Coco and the Kiltimagh IRD got referred to An Bord Pleanala. Last I heard the decision is pending with ABP.

Mind you they are not wanting for money as Ringer has chucked nearly 500k (yes that is right half a million) at the project in three separate tranches of
September 2016 €180,000
December 2017 €118,000
March 2019 €198,794
Total €496,794..

He did this apparently against the advice of his department officials (but it does buy more votes in Mayo) and in the full knowledge the whole matter was under investigation by ABP. The project though appears to have come to a grinding halt.

I think there is more to come on it, must check with my sources

You can find out more on the Kiltimagh Greenway Group page on FB.

westtip · 23-04-2019 7:48am

Deleted User wrote: »

While I agree, in large part, with most of your post, I would be more inclined to say that only through engagement can the fallacies be exposed, the worries acknowledged and addressed and the opportunities realised.

As a wise old man (Bob Hoskins) used to say, its good to talk

Exactly, case in point about fallacies being exposed, look at how they actually got the whole show on the road back in 2005 with the McCann Report, which was virtually adopted as policy. This one is always worth revisiting I amreproducing a post I saw on the Quiet Man Greenway FB page over the weekend, what a stitch up that McCann Report was, a lobby group basically writing policy!

Here is something to mull over during the Easter break, bear with me and read it if you have any desire to know what we have been up against over the years.

EY DKN who are they? EY DKN is the consulting company which has won the half million euro contract to undertake the economic review of the closed railway from Athenry to Claremorris. The review is the price of support for the government from independent TD Sean Canney. For those of you steeped in the history of the Western Rail Corridor let me explain why this review is so important and why it is undertaken by well-qualified people. The original basis for re-opening the railway was based on a report called the McCann Report back in 2005; this report presented to the then Minister of Transport as the blueprint and reasoning to re-open the railway, with phase one being Athenry Ennis. Now here is the fly in the ointment.

The McCann report, was written by what was rather quaintly called "An Expert Working Group".....Members of this so called expert working group included from West on Track Mr Martin Cunniffe Claremorris,Cllr Tom McHugh Tuam,
Ms Helen Rochford-Brennan Tubbercurry, Co Sligo, There was a sub group of the working group called the WRC Dimensions and Costs and Benefits Sub-Group, and low and behold look a the members of this sub cmt: Mr Frank Dawson, Galway County Development Board (Chairman) Mr John McAleer, Director, South West Regional Authority Mr Gerry Behan (for Edmond Gleeson, Limerick County Manager)
Cllr Tom McHugh, West on Track Mr Robert Leech, Railway Procurement Agency

Frank Dawson may be known to some of you as a prominent member and support of West on Track, and we all know about Cllr McHugh. Not a single well qualified Transport Economist was on the entire expert working group.

Then look at the shape of another sub committee
The Rail Travel Demand Sub-Group
Mr Hubert Kearns, Sligo County Manager (Chairman)
Mr Tom Kirby, Director, Mid West Regional Authority
Mr Michael Reidy, Manager, Programmes and Projects Unit, CIE
Fr Michéal MacGréil SJ, Inter-County Rail Committee
Mr Martin Cunniffe, West on Track

Father Micheal MacGreil a member of the Inter County Rail committee is one of the founding members of West on Track.
This sub committee to look at Rail Travel demand has not got a single qualified transport planning professional on its membership but has two members of lobby group West on Track!

Effectively the McCann report which was to shape policy on the Western Rail Corridor was written by West on Track, asa Michael Caine said "Not a lot of people know that "

It was akin to a government asking the tobacco industry to write the policy on tobacco advertising

This is why spending 500k using the skill sets of highly qualified economists, transport planners, intelligent people with no agenda who understand demographics to produce this new report should be money well spent. Mr Canney should be careful what he wishes for.

We actually have the chance to cast off the anvil around our necks the McCann report written and presented to government 14 years ago by the very lobby group who wants to re-open the railway.

EY DKN have been told to carry out a public consultation process in which we can all let EY DKN know what we think. This is the next important step, to once again make our voice heard. Interesting times ahead, but the outcome of this report cannot be allowed to be another discredited McCann Report, lets hope those days are over.

For those that have read this piece on a Bank Holiday Monday many thanks.

marno21 · 23-04-2019 4:05pm

Colm McCarthy has an article on the WRC in last week's Farmers Journal.. you have to sign up to read it

Nothing new in there but a reality check for the supporters of the WRC north of Athenry, especially when the spend on further rail services could go a long way towards dualling the N17 which improves bus service times.

23-04-2019 5:22pm

marno21 wrote: »

Colm McCarthy has an article on the WRC in last week's Farmers Journal.. you have to sign up to read it

Nothing new in there but a reality check for the supporters of the WRC north of Athenry, especially when the spend on further rail services could go a long way towards dualling the N17 which improves bus service times.

See attached

Del.Monte · 23-04-2019 5:25pm

More worthless rubbish from a well known anti-railway pundit. Paper never refused ink but how he gets paid for repeating the same old tripe over and over again.

23-04-2019 8:31pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

More worthless rubbish from a well known anti-railway pundit. Paper never refused ink but how he gets paid for repeating the same old tripe over and over again.

Which provable fact that he stated do you have a problem with?

jasper100 · 23-04-2019 8:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Which provable fact that he stated do you have a problem with?

The fundamental issue is that constantly building roads and motorways is not the solution. It just leads to further congestion at the edges of cities and more gridlock. Ireland also needs to get its emissions under control and more roads and cars ain't the answer.

23-04-2019 10:39pm

jasper100 wrote: »

The fundamental issue is that constantly building roads and motorways is not the solution. It just leads to further congestion at the edges of cities and more gridlock. Ireland also needs to get its emissions under control and more roads and cars ain't the answer.

Can you clarify how half-empty 2 carriage trains address that

jasper100 · 23-04-2019 11:02pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you clarify how half-empty 2 carriage trains address that

High density housing clustered around a railway station with a frequent and reliable service.

Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

Comments