Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail

eastwest · 21-12-2019 10:39am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sigh, the mind honestly boggles at the logic of some of the recent posts. If you continue to base your arguments on the comments of Gerry Murray then you are doing yourself and Athenry a serious disservice.

In the event of both the greenway using the alignment until such time as a rail route becoming viable and such viability existing, the following would be the sequence of events

1. The leaseholder would inform the relevant councils that the line will become active.
2. The councils, leaseholder, locals, government etc all work together to provide land to the left or right of the alignment for the greenway as its been a proven success and to do so at this stage would only increase the overall cost of reopening the line by a minor amount as land acquisition will be required in many parts.
3. EVERYTHING is torn up (this has to happen no matter what), right down to the foundations, in stages, with the new line being laid and the greenway being realigned alongside a la road realignments.
4. Rail / greenway opens, job done

Literally nobody would give if toss if the greenway had to move a few meters left or right.

As for lines not reopening once converted to greenways, the lines utilised so far are all ones that were not economical in the first place and closed because they were not viable. You know, the same way that the canals closed for business when the trains came along.

The greenway is not opposed to the line reopening. If its going to be opened next year great, go ahead and lay a greenway beside it.

It is opposed to the disused line laying idle for another 43 years. While there are emotional reasons while you might want the line reopened, there is literally no valid, economically sound, fact based argument to open the line currently. Until there is, it needs to be used for something.

That sums it up perfectly.
But councillors with no grasp of reality will continue to turn down funding, because it is populist. Firstly, they are able to persuade the gullible that a railway is imminent, a d secondly they pander to the land grabbers who want to own little bits of the alignment. So nothing gets done, and that's how its it's going to continue.

Greaney · 21-12-2019 11:42am

end of the road wrote: »

and that is exactly why it shouldn't close. what the owner wants should have no relevance given their record.
it's closure would actually create more of a burden on the tax payer more likely, by increasing car traffic, which galway especially cannot afford to have any more of.
the line is doing well, numbers seem to be growing, and this is coming from someone who once was a detracter in terms of reopening it.

Goodness yes. I have friends living in Dangan (Galway City) dreading the outer city bypass because it means tearing up that suburb and the thoughts of being displaced are really stressing them out. And then, the cost.....

I have been talking to Irish Rail staff who have confirmed that the use of the WRC has been growing year on year and they seem very optimistic about it. This spring/summer, they had a person with a clicker (counter) on the train between Athenry and Limerick (I imagine to Galway of course), so while we can all guess at what will come, it seems Irish Rail are in the middle of assessing their numbers.

end of the road · 21-12-2019 1:37pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Sigh, the mind honestly boggles at the logic of some of the recent posts. If you continue to base your arguments on the comments of Gerry Murray then you are doing yourself and Athenry a serious disservice.

In the event of both the greenway using the alignment until such time as a rail route becoming viable and such viability existing, the following would be the sequence of events

1. The leaseholder would inform the relevant councils that the line will become active.
2. The councils, leaseholder, locals, government etc all work together to provide land to the left or right of the alignment for the greenway as its been a proven success and to do so at this stage would only increase the overall cost of reopening the line by a minor amount as land acquisition will be required in many parts.
3. EVERYTHING is torn up (this has to happen no matter what), right down to the foundations, in stages, with the new line being laid and the greenway being realigned alongside a la road realignments.
4. Rail / greenway opens, job done

Literally nobody would give if toss if the greenway had to move a few meters left or right.

this is unlikely to be the case. the greater likely hood is that it will be opposed, and while irish rail will have the law on their side, politics will in all likely hood prevent the line from reopening.
so the best course of action is to prevent this in the first place.

Deleted User wrote: »

As for lines not reopening once converted to greenways, the lines utilised so far are all ones that were not economical in the first place and closed because they were not viable. You know, the same way that the canals closed for business when the trains came along.

actually some of them were economical in the first place, but a couple of them became uneconomical, but remains in at least 1 case, socially and cost savery necessary and should be reopened.

Deleted User wrote: »

The greenway is not opposed to the line reopening. If its going to be opened next year great, go ahead and lay a greenway beside it.

It is opposed to the disused line laying idle for another 43 years. While there are emotional reasons while you might want the line reopened, there is literally no valid, economically sound, fact based argument to open the line currently. Until there is, it needs to be used for something.

i have no doubt that there is a social, economically sound, logical, cost savery, viabley, fact based argument to reopen to tuam, and that will be demonstrated in time, hopefully soon.

ezstreet5 · 21-12-2019 1:53pm

Deleted User wrote: »

While there are emotional reasons while you might want the line reopened, there is literally no valid, economically sound, fact based argument to open the line currently. Until there is, it needs to be used for something.

Wait. So there are 22 buses from Tuam to Galway, and 23 returning (on a weekday during school), and you want to shut down an argument based on inadequate travel demand? I've never taken those services, so I don't know how many people use them, or how long they take at peak times, but I would assume those buses are not empty. Personally, I hope the "rail review" addresses Tuam-Galway and Tuam-Dublin travel demand in excruciating detail, incorporating regional growth forecasts.

21-12-2019 1:55pm

end of the road wrote: »

this is unlikely to be the case. the greater likely hood is that it will be opposed, and while irish rail will have the law on their side, politics will in all likely hood prevent the line from reopening.
so the best course of action is to prevent this in the first place.

Another illogical argument based on nothing but FUD and not only ignores the facts but the law as well. Your answer to your paranoia is "if I don't get it, nobody is getting it". Hope you enjoy encroachment because that's all you will achieve

i have no doubt that there is a social, economically sound, logical, cost savery, viabley, fact based argument to reopen to tuam, and that will be demonstrated in time, hopefully soon.

I look forward to poking a hundred, logical, fact based holes, through that argument if it ever materialises

end of the road · 21-12-2019 2:23pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Another illogical argument based on nothing but FUD and not only ignores the facts but the law as well. Your answer to your paranoia is "if I don't get it, nobody is getting it". Hope you enjoy encroachment because that's all you will achieve

there is already precedent thanks to the uk for attempting to reopen lines which have been turned into cycle paths, and those reopenings blocked.
as i said, in the case of the western rail corridor, the law will be on irish rail's side, but irish rail is state owned, and enough political pressure could encourage them and the government not to go ahead with any reopening on the basis that the greenway is now there.

Deleted User wrote: »

I look forward to poking a hundred, logical, fact based holes, through that argument if it ever materialises

you won't able to poke such holes.
you have been trying all through the thread to no avail.

ShaneC1600 · 21-12-2019 3:28pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Sigh, the mind honestly boggles at the logic of some of the recent posts. If you continue to base your arguments on the comments of Gerry Murray then you are doing yourself and Athenry a serious disservice.

In the event of both the greenway using the alignment until such time as a rail route becoming viable and such viability existing, the following would be the sequence of events

1. The leaseholder would inform the relevant councils that the line will become active.
2. The councils, leaseholder, locals, government etc all work together to provide land to the left or right of the alignment for the greenway as its been a proven success and to do so at this stage would only increase the overall cost of reopening the line by a minor amount as land acquisition will be required in many parts.
3. EVERYTHING is torn up (this has to happen no matter what), right down to the foundations, in stages, with the new line being laid and the greenway being realigned alongside a la road realignments.
4. Rail / greenway opens, job done

Literally nobody would give if toss if the greenway had to move a few meters left or right.

As for lines not reopening once converted to greenways, the lines utilised so far are all ones that were not economical in the first place and closed because they were not viable. You know, the same way that the canals closed for business when the trains came along.

The greenway is not opposed to the line reopening. If its going to be opened next year great, go ahead and lay a greenway beside it.

It is opposed to the disused line laying idle for another 43 years. While there are emotional reasons while you might want the line reopened, there is literally no valid, economically sound, fact based argument to open the line currently. Until there is, it needs to be used for something.

Bigger sigh:

1. In the event this would be correct procedure.
2. All work together

What do you do at over-bridges and under-bridges where the width was constructed for single track? What do you do where embankments are too narrow at the top and restrictive at the bottom? It will not be possible to slope the greenway for these occurrences and maintain accessibility for all abilities on the greenway. The cost would be massive and very restrictive and is the reason the greenway supporters wants to use the existing railway profile.
3. What foundation are you referring to? Again I ask what would the plan be at overbridges? The target speed will then dictate positioning of the track with pinch points at existing bridges and structures, incorporating another pinch point (greenway) will create issues with track curvature design.
4. Yes and we all live happily ever after

It is possibly the worst alignment bar Limerick to Ennis for both a greenway and railway to run side by side. The width is simply not there, and the cost to rectify that would be massive.

eastwest · 21-12-2019 3:42pm

end of the road wrote: »

i have no doubt that there is a social, economically sound, logical, cost savery, viabley, fact based argument to reopen to tuam, and that will be demonstrated in time, hopefully soon.

If there was an economic argument for reopening athenry-tuam, I would imagine that shane ross wouldn't be keeping the rail review locked up to suit the electoral prospects of his Galway sidekick. It would be all over the papers and radio and indeed the west on track page.
Unless your definition of 'soon' differs greatly from the way the rest of us understand it.

Isambard · 21-12-2019 8:51pm

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

Bigger sigh:

1. In the event this would be correct procedure.
2. All work together What do you do at over-bridges and under-bridges where the width was constructed for single track? What do you do where embankments are too narrow at the top and restrictive at the bottom? It will not be possible to slope the greenway for these occurrences and maintain accessibility for all abilities on the greenway. The cost would be massive and very restrictive and is the reason the greenway supporters wants to use the existing railway profile.
3. What foundation are you referring to? Again I ask what would the plan be at overbridges? The target speed will then dictate positioning of the track with pinch points at existing bridges and structures, incorporating another pinch point (greenway) will create issues with track curvature design.
4. Yes and we all live happily ever after

It is possibly the worst alignment bar Limerick to Ennis for both a greenway and railway to run side by side. The width is simply not there, and the cost to rectify that would be massive.

these difficulties are easily overcome. At pinch points you could have traffic controls and share the trackbed for instance. After all there is not likely to be more than 4 or 5 trains each way per day. It's not a major problem.

Greaney · 21-12-2019 9:07pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Sigh, the mind honestly boggles at the logic of some of the recent posts. If you continue to base your arguments on the comments of Gerry Murray then you are doing yourself and Athenry a serious disservice.

In the event of both the greenway using the alignment until such time as a rail route becoming viable and such viability existing, the following would be the sequence of events

1. The leaseholder would inform the relevant councils that the line will become active.
2. The councils, leaseholder, locals, government etc all work together to provide land to the left or right of the alignment for the greenway as its been a proven success and to do so at this stage would only increase the overall cost of reopening the line by a minor amount as land acquisition will be required in many parts.
3. EVERYTHING is torn up (this has to happen no matter what), right down to the foundations, in stages, with the new line being laid and the greenway being realigned alongside a la road realignments.
4. Rail / greenway opens, job done

Literally nobody would give if toss if the greenway had to move a few meters left or right.

As for lines not reopening once converted to greenways, the lines utilised so far are all ones that were not economical in the first place and closed because they were not viable. You know, the same way that the canals closed for business when the trains came along.

The greenway is not opposed to the line reopening. If its going to be opened next year great, go ahead and lay a greenway beside it.

It is opposed to the disused line laying idle for another 43 years. While there are emotional reasons while you might want the line reopened, there is literally no valid, economically sound, fact based argument to open the line currently. Until there is, it needs to be used for something.

1) My comments regarding Cllr, Murray are to do with the fact that he has been mis-represented in both media & online forums with what he said at the Sinn Féin meeting in Athenry. I have a serious issue with that. I've see the online Mob go to town on a lot of peoples reputations and I believe it can really warp, nay, misinform the public when they're are trying to form an opinion. (Thou shalt not bare false witness...)

2) Some of the loudest voices in the Quiet Man Greenway campaign are most certainly opposed to phase 2 of Western Rail Corridor opening (Ciarán Cannon TD, Brendan Quinn) and seem to be almost campaigning to close Phase 1 (It's bizarre)

3) Your point that both the rail & greenway could be done together was and is a point of consensus . That was repeatedly acknowledged and repeated at the aforementioned meeting. I've no problem with that, never did. It'll be tricky. I think the campaign have done a lot of damage in their relationship with Irish Rail who can be notoriously tricky to interface with at the best of times.

end of the road · 21-12-2019 9:22pm

Isambard wrote: »

these difficulties are easily overcome. At pinch points you could have traffic controls and share the trackbed for instance. After all there is not likely to be more than 4 or 5 trains each way per day. It's not a major problem.

5 trains per day is likely only going to be the service level past tuem.
to tuam itself it's likely going to be a lot more. hourly or half hourly service would be the only level that would make any sense.

ShaneC1600 · 21-12-2019 9:39pm

Isambard wrote: »

these difficulties are easily overcome. At pinch points you could have traffic controls and share the trackbed for instance. After all there is not likely to be more than 4 or 5 trains each way per day. It's not a major problem.

Can you explain what you mean share the trackbed?

westtip · 21-12-2019 11:16pm

Greaney wrote: »

1) My comments regarding Cllr, Murray are to do with the fact that he has been mis-represented in both media & online forums with what he said at the Sinn Féin meeting in Athenry. I have a serious issue with that. I've see the online Mob go to town on a lot of peoples reputations and I believe it can really warp, nay, misinform the public when they're are trying to form an opinion. (Thou shalt not bare false witness...)

2) Some of the loudest voices in the Quiet Man Greenway campaign are most certainly opposed to phase 2 of Western Rail Corridor opening (Ciarán Cannon TD, Brendan Quinn) and seem to be almost campaigning to close Phase 1 (It's bizarre)

3) Your point that both the rail & greenway could be done together was and is a point of consensus . That was repeatedly acknowledged and repeated at the aforementioned meeting. I've no problem with that, never did. It'll be tricky. I think the campaign have done a lot of damage in their relationship with Irish Rail who can be notoriously tricky to interface with at the best of times.

Your post names an individual who is not a politician by name, it is libelous as it claims Mr Brendan Quinn is campaigning to close, phase one. Mr Quinn has never advocated closing phase one, and I have spoken to him and he considers your comments defamatory and unless you can unequivocally prove Mr Quinn has stated phase one should be closed he will consider your comment as one of defamation.

ShaneC1600 · 21-12-2019 11:46pm

westtip wrote: »

Your post names an individual who is not a politician by name, it is libelous as it claims Mr Brendan Quinn is campaigning to close, phase one. Mr Quinn has never advocated closing phase one, and I have spoken to him and he considers your comments defamatory and unless you can unequivocally prove Mr Quinn has stated phase one should be closed he will consider your comment as one of defamation.

The referred post says "seems to be almost" campaigning not "is campaigning".

Is that still libelous?

Sligo eye · 22-12-2019 12:27am

westtip wrote: »

Your post names an individual who is not a politician by name, it is libelous as it claims Mr Brendan Quinn is campaigning to close, phase one. Mr Quinn has never advocated closing phase one, and I have spoken to him and he considers your comments defamatory and unless you can unequivocally prove Mr Quinn has stated phase one should be closed he will consider your comment as one of defamation.

It’s not April 1st is it? Could have sworn we haven’t had Christmas yet.

monument · 22-12-2019 1:33am

westtip wrote: »

Your post names an individual who is not a politician by name, it is libelous as it claims Mr Brendan Quinn is campaigning to close, phase one. Mr Quinn has never advocated closing phase one, and I have spoken to him and he considers your comments defamatory and unless you can unequivocally prove Mr Quinn has stated phase one should be closed he will consider your comment as one of defamation.

You or he can contact hello@boards.ie.

In the meanwhile you and everybody else should refrain from making legal claims.

-- moderator

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

The referred post says "seems to be almost" campaigning not "is campaigning".

Is that still libelous?

Don't discuss this.

-- moderator

Accidentally · 22-12-2019 6:29am

end of the road wrote: »

5 trains per day is likely only going to be the service level past tuem.
to tuam itself it's likely going to be a lot more. hourly or half hourly service would be the only level that would make any sense.

This is just nonsense. Tuam and nowhere within 100km of Tuam, generates enough passengers for an hourly service to Galway City.

People also need to stop using Bukes as a potential source of rail passengers. Burkes is very much a community bus service, as anyone who has used it would know. It collects passengers all the way from Dunmore and Milltown, and drops off a lot at Ballybrit and Mervue before it reaches Eyre Square. It also runs via the colleges in term time.

A rail service from Tuam to Athenry would not necessarily run through to Galway without a train change. Even if it did, it is useless for anyone not starting their journey in Tuam and ending in Galway City centre. Unfortunately this makes it useless for most of the potential passengers.

A rail line from north Galway to the city could work, but it needs to go through the areas where people live and work, and unfortunately the existing line does not and never will.

Isambard · 22-12-2019 10:29am

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

Can you explain what you mean share the trackbed?

like the LUAS does or like a road and footpath share at a pedestrian crossing. Like main lines in the US do (straight up the main street is not uncommon)

It's not rocket science, when there's a conflict, traffic lights stop the cycle traffoc to allow the train to pass the pinch point.

Isambard · 22-12-2019 10:38am

Accidentally wrote: »

This is just nonsense. Tuam and nowhere within 100km of Tuam, generates enough passengers for an hourly service to Galway City.

People also need to stop using Bukes as a potential source of rail passengers. Burkes is very much a community bus service, as anyone who has used it would know. It collects passengers all the way from Dunmore and Milltown, and drops off a lot at Ballybrit and Mervue before it reaches Eyre Square. It also runs via the colleges in term time.

A rail service from Tuam to Athenry would not necessarily run through to Galway without a train change. Even if it did, it is useless for anyone not starting their journey in Tuam and ending in Galway City centre. Unfortunately this makes it useless for most of the potential passengers.

A rail line from north Galway to the city could work, but it needs to go through the areas where people live and work, and unfortunately the existing line does not and never will.

yes it's nonsense. To suggest an hourly service would be far better than the southern section and half hourly I'd suggest would be impossible without double track all the way from Tuam to the City. What would happen is you'd get a slow service (with a change likely) that doesn't go directly to the City, much the same as the southern section.

To suggest a service level on a par with (or twice as frequent) as Cork to Dublin is quite the most astounding thing I've seen here for a long while.

Muckyboots · 22-12-2019 11:15am

Greaney wrote: »

1) My comments regarding Cllr, Murray are to do with the fact that he has been mis-represented in both media & online forums with what he said at the Sinn Féin meeting in Athenry. I have a serious issue with that. I've see the online Mob go to town on a lot of peoples reputations and I believe it can really warp, nay, misinform the public when they're are trying to form an opinion. (Thou shalt not bare false witness...)
.

As you yourself quoted, Cllr Gerry Murray misrepresented the criteria for greenway funding at a public meeting. He got called out in local media and online. I don't see anything wrong with that. WOT, and their political supporters, have had a monopoly on ideas and the media for over 40 years. If there is an alternative approach that creates challenges for WOT - they'll just have to learn to deal with it. In truth there will be no progress for either side without some agreement on common ground. There's the Christmas challenge for both sides.

westtip · 22-12-2019 11:19am

end of the road wrote: »

5 trains per day is likely only going to be the service level past tuem.
to tuam itself it's likely going to be a lot more. hourly or half hourly service would be the only level that would make any sense.

Five trains a day from Claremorris to Athenry! OMG the hilarity of it, and every half hour from Tuam! I know you suggested that would be the service required for it to make sense; it's the level of service from Greystones to Connolly on the DART. A line that only serves a population of about 400,000 along the south DART section.

Please see attached - it is one of the slides I presented to EY the consulting company that has written the Western Rail Corridor Review none of us are allowed to see.

ShaneC1600 · 22-12-2019 12:00pm

Isambard wrote: »

like the LUAS does or like a road and footpath share at a pedestrian crossing. Like main lines in the US do (straight up the main street is not uncommon)

It's not rocket science, when there's a conflict, traffic lights stop the cycle traffoc to allow the train to pass the pinch point.

A heavy rail, hopefully designed to 80-90mph sharing the trackbed with a greenway. Luas max speed 40mph and thats not where it can interact with pedestrians. Traffic light system being trialled for level crossings at present can only be used as an indication i.e amber or red. I'd be surprised if the CRR would allow shared usage and would the merit of a greenway especially along the wrc not be reduced if the railway was reintroduced?

Greaney · 22-12-2019 12:01pm

Accidentally wrote: »

This is just nonsense. Tuam and nowhere within 100km of Tuam, generates enough passengers for an hourly service to Galway City.

People also need to stop using Bukes as a potential source of rail passengers. Burkes is very much a community bus service, as anyone who has used it would know. It collects passengers all the way from Dunmore and Milltown, and drops off a lot at Ballybrit and Mervue before it reaches Eyre Square. It also runs via the colleges in term time.

A rail service from Tuam to Athenry would not necessarily run through to Galway without a train change. Even if it did, it is useless for anyone not starting their journey in Tuam and ending in Galway City centre. Unfortunately this makes it useless for most of the potential passengers.

A rail line from north Galway to the city could work, but it needs to go through the areas where people live and work, and unfortunately the existing line does not and never will.

I agree with you on some of these points. The Bus serves the towns along the road route and those towns desperately need that public transport.

Ballyglunin don't get a bus and their station restoration group are lobbying to have the WRC re-opened. Ballyglunin would also catch Abbeyknockmoy & Turloughmore.

It's a pity that getting the train from Tuam to Dublin doesn't seem to make it into this discussion.

I've popped down to the station on Sunday evening myself to note the train from Galway (to Limerick) had 85 folk on it (10+ got off). Then the train from Dublin stopped, another 15 crossed the bridge to change for Limerick.

The experience of Oranmore & Athenry is that many folk like to park & ride. Interestingly there's a bike track that runs along the N63, between Abbeyknockmoy & the turn off to Ballyglunin.

Isambard · 22-12-2019 12:22pm

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

A heavy rail, hopefully designed to 80-90mph sharing the trackbed with a greenway. Luas max speed 40mph and thats not where it can interact with pedestrians. Traffic light system being trialled for level crossings at present can only be used as an indication i.e amber or red. I'd be surprised if the CRR would allow shared usage and would the merit of a greenway especially along the wrc not be reduced if the railway was reintroduced?

it was but one suggestion of how problems could be overcome. Problems are as easy to dispose of as they are to dream up. A cycle way aproaching a rail crossing at right angles is no different to a cycleway approaching a level crossing parallel. In both cases they share the few metres of ground where they intersect.
80 or 90 mph seems a little unlikely in any case. I can't understand how you could think the service would be like an Inter City service. It would be a secondary service at best.

Accidentally · 22-12-2019 12:32pm

Greaney wrote: »

I agree with you on some of these points. The Bus serves the towns along the road route and those towns desperately need that public transport.

Ballyglunin don't get a bus and their station restoration group are lobbying to have the WRC re-opened. Ballyglunin would also catch Abbeyknockmoy & Turloughmore.

It's a pity that getting the train from Tuam to Dublin doesn't seem to make it into this discussion.

I've popped down to the station on Sunday evening myself to note the train from Galway (to Limerick) had 85 folk on it (10+ got off). Then the train from Dublin stopped, another 15 crossed the bridge to change for Limerick.

The experience of Oranmore & Athenry is that many folk like to park & ride. Interestingly there's a bike track that runs along the N63, between Abbeyknockmoy & the turn off to Ballyglunin.

Ballyglunin has a bus service on the N63, 5 minutes away. It doesn't get anything more than that because to be honest, it's townland in the middle of nowhere, where very few people live. Those that do live there are primarily in one off houses, scattered across the area.

There is very little demand from Tuam to Dublin, and most of it is trying to get to the airport, so rail is a waste of time

ShaneC1600 · 22-12-2019 1:13pm

Isambard wrote: »

it was but one suggestion of how problems could be overcome. Problems are as easy to dispose of as they are to dream up. A cycle way aproaching a rail crossing at right angles is no different to a cycleway approaching a level crossing parallel. In both cases they share the few metres of ground where they intersect.
80 or 90 mph seems a little unlikely in any case. I can't understand how you could think the service would be like an Inter City service. It would be a secondary service at best.

It will be designed for 80 at minimum between Tuam and Athenry. I did not pluck the figure out of thin air. 80mph is not exactly high speed. We should be aiming higher.

Isambard · 22-12-2019 3:17pm

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

It will be designed for 80 at minimum between Tuam and Athenry. I did not pluck the figure out of thin air. 80mph is not exactly high speed. We should be aiming higher.

on a short line like that, with a possible stop at Ballyglunin or elsewhere, there would be very little scope for that speed between Tuam and Athenry.

end of the road · 22-12-2019 3:54pm

Accidentally wrote: »

This is just nonsense. Tuam and nowhere within 100km of Tuam, generates enough passengers for an hourly service to Galway City.

well no to be fair it's not nonsense.
tuam is likely to grow as time goes on, and a rail service in place is likely going to make tuam a more attractive place to live, meaning such a service level if not viable on the first day (all though it should be implemented to get people using it) it will quite likely be very much viable quite quickly.

Accidentally wrote: »

People also need to stop using Bukes as a potential source of rail passengers. Burkes is very much a community bus service, as anyone who has used it would know. It collects passengers all the way from Dunmore and Milltown, and drops off a lot at Ballybrit and Mervue before it reaches Eyre Square. It also runs via the colleges in term time.

i haven't saw anyone here use burks as a source of rail passengers. in fact some of us have said that burks services are not justification against a railway, or even for it, that they are a separate form of transport which will attract some, but not others.

Accidentally wrote: »

A rail service from Tuam to Athenry would not necessarily run through to Galway without a train change. Even if it did, it is useless for anyone not starting their journey in Tuam and ending in Galway City centre. Unfortunately this makes it useless for most of the potential passengers.

the reality is we can say nothing with certainty in terms of the service level or pattern. we just do not know what it will be, historical service patterns also won't be a clue to what the service pattern and level will be now on the reopened line should it happen.
realistically though, it will have to run through to galway, and the campaigners who want this line reopened will no doubt campaign for through services as well.

Accidentally wrote: »

A rail line from north Galway to the city could work, but it needs to go through the areas where people live and work, and unfortunately the existing line does not and never will.

that's not necessarily a problem. it would be great yes, but if it sorts out tuam at least then job done.

end of the road · 22-12-2019 4:32pm

Isambard wrote: »

yes it's nonsense. To suggest an hourly service would be far better than the southern section and half hourly I'd suggest would be impossible without double track all the way from Tuam to the City. What would happen is you'd get a slow service (with a change likely) that doesn't go directly to the City, much the same as the southern section.

To suggest a service level on a par with (or twice as frequent) as Cork to Dublin is quite the most astounding thing I've seen here for a long while.

half hourly service is the minimum service level for any outer suburban line, and tuam would be an outer suburban town in the context of galway.
i'm sure that the suggestion of providing such a service level on the cork suburban would have been laughed at at one stage also, and yet that is now provided, not to mention that apparently CIE had to essentially be forced to start providing a meaningful outer suburban service out of dublin to maynooth, and eventually, droghida, which in time grew.
yes those other examples involve bigger populations, but the basic principal is ultimately the same.
it's to tuam there would be an hourly or half hourly service, past tuam the service level would be nothing like that.

Muckyboots wrote: »

As you yourself quoted, Cllr Gerry Murray misrepresented the criteria for greenway funding at a public meeting. He got called out in local media and online. I don't see anything wrong with that. WOT, and their political supporters, have had a monopoly on ideas and the media for over 40 years. If there is an alternative approach that creates challenges for WOT - they'll just have to learn to deal with it. In truth there will be no progress for either side without some agreement on common ground. There's the Christmas challenge for both sides.

well no, that's not what he quoted, his post did not say that Cllr Gerry Murray misrepresented anything, but rather his comments were misrepresented.

Isambard · 22-12-2019 4:52pm

Gort is pretty comparable....does it have a half hour service? In other parts of the country....does Mallow?

There's no way round it.... there are dozens of examples of towns deserving a better service than Tuam. Just around Cork, I can cite Ballincollig, Blarney Carrigaline. People really need to get the "because it's there (or was once) " mentality out of their heads and start looking at priorities and cost/benefit.

Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail

Comments