Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

17475777980110

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,795 ✭✭✭Isambard


    well no. The extra handling costs would make the operation far more expensive.

    In addition,my local Railway Station has no facilities and the nearest with the necessary sidings etc is a further 12 miles on top of the 20 already travelled and then the train would have to go all round the country to get to the dock.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,869 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    monument wrote: »

    The best thing for freight from the west would be to invest in the existing infrastructure which is already operational and shared with passengers services - ie more or better passing loops, looking double tracking sections etc.

    Such improvements would benefit passenger services and allow for the expansion of freight services.

    That is the point I was trying to extract.

    Freight is a minor activity on Irish Rail, and the future of rail is heavily dependant on the Dublin passenger traffic - both in Dublin and into Dublin. Cork Limerick direct routing might be the exception.

    Get Dublin sorted and then look at the rest of the network, but keep what is there running and properly serviced. By that, I mean Metrolink (1 and 2), Dart expansion, Dart Underground, Enterprise, and Dublin/Cork Express service.


  • Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭ezstreet5


    Just screened the EY report. What an unmitigated disaster, regardless of your railway versus greenway view. Despite not including any of the raw data on which their analysis is based, their numbers (quite literally) do not add up. Their main CBA output tables in Appendix F contain dozens of errors. Those are not simple math errors, but rather, residual data left in the tables from a prior version of the analysis. When the benefit-to-cost ratio is recalculated using the prior data (e.g., cumulative benefits of €395.9 million by year 30 of operation), the CBR suddenly becomes 1.18, and the findings and conclusions of the report are completely reversed. EY were quite sloppy for not scrubbing the prior data from their report.

    Was also shocked that 73% of the 6,572 public participation responses were in favour of reactivating the railway, in contrast to 10% in favour of "cycling infrastructure."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,247 ✭✭✭Greaney


    1) Catchment areas are the population of the town and the surrounding area that uses it. The EY reports figures are Tuam-1059, Ballyglunin-unknown and Athenry 4445.

    Why are we funding a census every 5 years if the information doesn't get used???


    539606.png


    2) Now we know why Sean Canney & Louis O'Hara got the top two first preferences in the Tuam/Athenry constituency

    539607.png


    3) No wonder 73% prefer rail with the demographics of the catchment area. Above average numbers commute. Large population of children (parents constantly driving), car ownership at 93%.....

    539608.png

    Note all of these screen shots are from the actual report


  • Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭ezstreet5


    Digging deeper...

    When we look at Table 5: Total Capital Costs, first we see first that the "Phase 2 only" total is off by €9.1 million (doesn't EY use spreadsheets?). But even after that bonehead mistake is corrected, the capital costs are estimated to be about €4.9 million per km. Yet Phase 1, with all of its cost overruns, came in at just over €1.8 million per km. So we are supposed to believe that Phases 2 and 3 will somehow cost 2.7 times more than Phase 1? I'm sorry, that does not pass the laugh test, and I would tend to agree that the report is fatally flawed.

    https://assets.gov.ie/109762/c06750ba-391a-4074-a40e-4134ca8b017c.pdf


  • Registered Users Posts: 212 ✭✭ShaneC1600


    It is an absolute joke and very frustrating. If the report was water tight as we would have expected then the argument for rail vs trail would have been put to bed. Now we are again left in limbo, with one side crying foul. After spending 500k one would imagine we would be finished with this topic but unfortunately with the level and quantity of errors in the report it cannot be used for deciding on whether to rail or trail the line and more noise should be made to discredit it as the first story told is usually the story believed!
    Will EY will have to present the findings at an Oireachtas meeting?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,285 ✭✭✭MayoForSam


    I hear Rudy Giuliani is at a loose end, maybe he could take a look and bring it to the Supreme Court?


  • Registered Users Posts: 212 ✭✭ShaneC1600


    MayoForSam wrote: »
    I hear Rudy Giuliani is at a loose end, maybe he could take a look and bring it to the Supreme Court?

    You give him a call there so, super stuff


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,466 ✭✭✭mayo.mick


    ShaneC1600 wrote: »
    It is an absolute joke and very frustrating. If the report was water tight as we would have expected then the argument for rail vs trail would have been put to bed. Now we are again left in limbo, with one side crying foul. After spending 500k one would imagine we would be finished with this topic but unfortunately with the level and quantity of errors in the report it cannot be used for deciding on whether to rail or trail the line and more noise should be made to discredit it as the first story told is usually the story believed!
    Will EY will have to present the findings at an Oireachtas meeting?

    One would have to ask, what the hell was in the original report, if it took so long for it to be published.....


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Greaney wrote: »
    1) Catchment areas are the population of the town and the surrounding area that uses it. The EY reports figures are Tuam-1059, Ballyglunin-unknown and Athenry 4445.

    Why are we funding a census every 5 years if the information doesn't get used???
    It says it on the page you took that from - Ballyglunin is too small to register for those sort of statistics.

    Census small area statistics for anyone interested, select Small Area or Electoral Division for some basic pop detail.
    http://census.cso.ie/sapmap/
    Much easier on a PC.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,043 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    ezstreet5 wrote: »
    Just screened the EY report. What an unmitigated disaster, regardless of your railway versus greenway view. Despite not including any of the raw data on which their analysis is based, their numbers (quite literally) do not add up. Their main CBA output tables in Appendix F contain dozens of errors. Those are not simple math errors, but rather, residual data left in the tables from a prior version of the analysis. When the benefit-to-cost ratio is recalculated using the prior data (e.g., cumulative benefits of €395.9 million by year 30 of operation), the CBR suddenly becomes 1.18, and the findings and conclusions of the report are completely reversed. EY were quite sloppy for not scrubbing the prior data from their report.

    Was also shocked that 73% of the 6,572 public participation responses were in favour of reactivating the railway, in contrast to 10% in favour of "cycling infrastructure."

    Had a bit of time today so I went through the report in a bit of detail. Difficult to make out what is going on and seems to contain a lot of errors, particularly the CBA tables in Appendix F. The costs stated do appear to be very high and even the basic breakdown of them in Table 5 is very odd (particularly the Prelims).

    The benefits dont make any sense either. For Scenario B Hourly Claremorris - Galway, but for Phase 2 only and clearly stating Phase 2 of the project assumes that a railway line is opened between Athenry and Tuam only. Table 33 includes passengers for the following journeys; Craughwell - Galway, Tuam - Claremorris, Tuam - Ballyhaunis, Balla - Westport, and Castlereagh - Claremorris! It also includes 202 daily passengers for Athenry - Galway, while that journey would be possible on such a service, it is already possible. The Rail Census for 2019 shows 331 boards at Athenry northbound, would another 202 passengers suddenly at Athenry going to Galway just because the train has come from Tuam instead of Limerick/Dublin?

    It certainly appears that the EY report is a load of crap from start to finish, not just on one side of things. We know the Department received it, reviewed it and asked them to make changes. If the Department reviewed this, accepted it and approved it for issue, you would have to be very worried. They should have told EY to start the whole lot again. It wouldn't surprise me if it was more accurate before the Department sent it back.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,247 ✭✭✭Greaney


    It says it on the page you took that from - Ballyglunin is too small to register for those sort of statistics.

    Census small area statistics for anyone interested, select Small Area or Electoral Division for some basic pop detail.
    http://census.cso.ie/sapmap/
    Much easier on a PC.


    Exactly! So how couldn't the person, who cost €3k per page do that!!

    I.... or maybe they wanted us to see it was badly done :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭Del.Monte


    The last worthwhile report done on Irish railways was in 1948 by Sir James Milne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Milne_(railway_manager). He was General Manager of the Great Western Railway for almost 20 years and had served his time as a locomotive engineer and in most other departments and unlike the ****ing suits in McKinsey & Co., Ernst & Young and other consultants he knew what he was talking about. Of course, CIE who had commissioned him to produce the report then went on to ignore it.


    As anyone who has ever read the Milne report will know, it was written in concise, easy to understand English and didn't need reams of fancy, meaningless bar charts and graphs to bamboozle people. Consultants like Ernst & Young seem to have templates for reports which they append a new name to and shoe horn some stats in to make it look like they've done an in depth study and the gravy train rolls on. :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭ezstreet5


    Del.Monte wrote: »
    Consultants like Ernst & Young seem to have templates for reports which they append a new name to and shoe horn some stats in to make it look like they've done an in depth study and the gravy train rolls on. :rolleyes:

    Agreed. I love their statement on p. 100:
    As an aside, we considered using the NTM to produce an alternative forecast to our own, however this was not possible in the time available.

    So EY did not use NTA's official National Transport Model for the analysis due to the incredibly tight schedule and budget for this project?


  • Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Greaney wrote: »
    Exactly! So how couldn't the person, who cost €3k per page do that!!

    I.... or maybe they wanted us to see it was badly done :rolleyes:
    You missed my point.
    They were drawing from published, standardised statistics, which didn't include Ballyglunin as it was so small.
    Using different statistics tables and plugging them in would not be standardised, and might not be comparing like with like.

    If they used the small area statistic that says there is a population of 284 would it be appropriate?
    most of them have less than a 30 minute commute, a quarter have less than a 15 minute commute.
    http://census.cso.ie/sapmap2016/Results.aspx?Geog_Type=SA2017&Geog_Code=4c07d11e-0eb8-851d-e053-ca3ca8c0ca7f#SAPMAP_T11_1103


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,247 ✭✭✭Greaney


    You missed my point.
    They were drawing from published, standardised statistics, which didn't include Ballyglunin as it was so small.
    Using different statistics tables and plugging them in would not be standardised, and might not be comparing like with like.

    If they used the small area statistic that says there is a population of 284 would it be appropriate?
    most of them have less than a 30 minute commute, a quarter have less than a 15 minute commute.
    http://census.cso.ie/sapmap2016/Results.aspx?Geog_Type=SA2017&Geog_Code=4c07d11e-0eb8-851d-e053-ca3ca8c0ca7f#SAPMAP_T11_1103

    I followed your link and in three clicks I found the exact populations of the areas, it gives the numbers of each area.

    When you say commute, are you talking about those that don't drive?. The census says that 40% of folk in the three catchment areas are under the age of 18


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,720 ✭✭✭serfboard


    Greaney wrote: »
    Now we know why Sean Canney & Louis O'Hara got the top two first preferences in the Tuam/Athenry constituency
    People in General Elections vote based on the Transport Policy of candidates?

    Your evidence for this is what?

    Did everyone else who voted for Sinn Fein around the country do this on the basis of Transport policy too, or was it only in Galway East?

    You might want to look up the difference between correlation and causation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭ezstreet5


    serfboard wrote: »
    People in General Elections vote based on the Transport Policy of candidates?

    Your evidence for this is what?

    Did everyone else who voted for Sinn Fein around the country do this on the basis of Transport policy too, or was it only in Galway East?

    You might want to look up the difference between correlation and causation.

    I believe the rallying cry of the QMG campaign was "Anyone But Canney - ABC." But maybe that was because of his stance on direct provision.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,247 ✭✭✭Greaney


    serfboard wrote: »
    People in General Elections vote based on the Transport Policy of candidates?

    Your evidence for this is what?

    Did everyone else who voted for Sinn Fein around the country do this on the basis of Transport policy too, or was it only in Galway East?

    You might want to look up the difference between correlation and causation.


    When the Sinn Féin candidate was at my door, he said he didn't know that the Quiet Man Greenway was such an election issue.... Go figure


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,088 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Lads, stay on topic and stop the sniping.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,282 ✭✭✭westtip


    I wonder whether the original report sent to Lord Ross in November 2019 was that much different from the final report submitted in June 2020? It would be interesting to compare them, just saying like.:D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭Del.Monte


    Who's Dr.Bradley?


    This from WOT FB page this evening:


    Government Commissioned Report on WRC ‘truly shocking’ and ‘riddled with negligence’
    DR JOHN BRADLEY – Mayo News 19 January 2021
    In the national development strategy Project Ireland 2040 a commitment was given to examine the feasibility of restoring the WRC link from Athenry to Claremorris. Such a link would connect the Mayo towns on the Dublin-Westport/ Ballina line directly to Galway, Limerick and further south. In late 2018 the Dublin-based consultancy firm E&Y. were awarded the contract to carry out this evaluation and their long delayed report was finally exposed to public scrutiny last week.
    To say that the E&Y report is devastatingly negative would be an understatement. Cutting to the chase, it asserts that over a period of 30 years for every euro of public expenditure on the WRC restoration, the state would recoup only 21 cent: in other words, a benefit to cost ratio of 0.21. E&Y conclude that there is absolutely no justification for the WRC restoration. Restoring the WRC would be almost like a Famine Relief Work, i.e., digging holes and filling them in again in order to pay the workers enough to prevent starvation.
    I find myself in an unusual position. Far from quibbling with its parts, I reject the entire basis upon which the E&Y report was commissioned and executed. So permit me to set out my reasons briefly and propose a way forward.
    Buried amid the scattershot and confusing detail of the E&Y analysis are three crucial issues that combine to produce the damning negative financial verdict. The first issue is the front-loaded capital costs of WRC restoration. The second issue is the ticket and freight revenue forecasts. The third issue is the treatment of the wider benefits of the WRC in the context of regional development strategy.
    GOLD PLATING
    The €260 million E&Y capital costs are incurred between 2022 to 2026. Closer examination of these show that the restoration structure used by E&Y is massively over-engineered and overpriced; 'gold plating', to use the West on Track press release characterisation. Not by a few euro here and there. But by more than double the equivalent costs of the earlier Phase 1 Ennis-Athenry work. Perhaps E&Y had the costs of the English HS2 project in mind? Is the fact that they quote a 90mph (145kph) speed for the WRC extension indicative of English-centric thinking? On that basis the trip from Dublin to Westport would be achieved in under two hours!
    The E&Y forecasts of ticket and freight revenue from 2026 onwards are low and assume switching from road to rail, effectively ignoring new growth. Close examination of this projected revenue suggests that E&Y were singularly ignorant of the actual current nature of Ballina and Westport rail freight and the many current barriers to switching freight from road to rail.
    Better informed re-estimates suggest that the present value of future revenue could credibly reach €80 million, ie, 250 percent higher than the E&Y calculation of €30 million.
    Turning to the third issue, i.e. placing the WRC extension in a wider regional strategy context, this is the most disturbing feature both of the original terms of reference dictated by government and of the published E&Y analysis. The narrow and stringent Department of Finance 'value for money' requirement served to deflect the terms of reference away from any deep consideration of the WRC as a vital network link in transport infrastructure.
    Worse, there is absolutely no regional strategic context within the E&Y report, even one in line with their weak terms of reference. Rather, a hand-waving effort is made to add and subtract costs and benefits associated with C02 emissions, noise abatement, time saving, congestion abatement, etc. They even calculate the benefit of alternative use of the WRC land, i.e., selling it back to farmers! I could go on, but you get the point. None of these issues, however relevant, have anything to do with any wider regional development strategy.
    TEN -T
    OF course the strategic elephant in the government and E&Y room is the notorious elimination ten years ago of the Atlantic coast region from the Irish TEN-T proposals to the EC. This is studiously ignored, only coming back into the picture in a curious 'peer review' study by the Jaspers consultancy that came with the E&Y work. What that study says is very revealing:
    "The Trans- European Transport Network (TEN-T) describes a Europe-wide network of rail, road, inland waterway and maritime shipping corridors, as well as significant ports, airports and railroad terminals. The ultimate objective is to close gaps, remove bottlenecks and technical barriers across Europe, as well as to strengthen social, economic and territorial cohesion in the EU."
    However, the E&Y financial analysis being 'peer reviewed' was considered to be so damning that neither revision of the TEN-T decision nor evaluating the WRC as part of a genuine regional strategy could save it. Case closed! Next business!
    The fact that tax-payers money (rumoured to be multiple hundreds of thousand euro) was used to produce a report with serious errors and flaws, riddled with negligence and dissimulations, is truly shocking. So, what can be done?
    Various concerned groups have struggled over the years to bring a sense of realism and optimism to the role of the WRC as a crucial infrastructural backbone to the revival of the central and northern Atlantic Economic Corridor.
    Their goal is to promote a fundamental economic and social rethink of the West and a break from the East-West distortion that has poisoned political debate in Ireland, relegating the West to a second class development status.
    Overturning the E&Y flawed analysis is likely to be a David and Goliath struggle where the Dublin government has all the big guns. But the effort to do so must start. The first stage will be for people with real expertise to produce a comprehensive and reasoned 'alternative' WRC report that corrects the E&Y errors and omissions and presents a fair and unbiased WRC evaluation. Policy makers and the public can then examine both documents and see for themselves how western regional development strategy and the WRC were trashed unfairly in the E&Y report. The second stage will be political. There will be a need for serious and sustained engagement by concerned local and national politicians in a fight to bring truth and reason to a debate that has wide implications for regional development in Ireland.


  • Registered Users Posts: 212 ✭✭ShaneC1600


    Surely that report will not be used for any major longterm decisions? Obviously the greenway supporters are happy with the conclusions in it but what do ye think of the report? The standard of it, the calculations used in it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭Del.Monte


    That's the whole point. the report will join the others gathering dust and in the meantime....


  • Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    According to the Mayo News:
    Murrisk-based economist Dr John Bradley is formerly a Research Professor at the ESRI, thereafter a research consultant in economic development, working in several EU states.

    Edited after thanks:
    It's an opinion piece. An economist complaining about the front loading of capital costs on a railway proposal is a bit odd - when else are they going to be incurred?
    Equally to dismiss current quantifiable demand and argue instead for 'growth' delivering 250% higher revenues is laughable.
    Referencing 'Better informed re-estimates' while mocking the use of MPH, which I learnt on here is the standard for rail in Ireland, is also rich.
    His third point about taking a broader view of development does have merit, but not at any cost. Current developments in Mayo like the improvements to the N5 will have a much greater impact.
    ShaneC1600 wrote: »
    Surely that report will not be used for any major longterm decisions? Obviously the greenway supporters are happy with the conclusions in it but what do ye think of the report? The standard of it, the calculations used in it?
    What is long term in your opinion? I believe this has pushed any further rail review on this line back for 20 years. A political generation essentially.
    Given that it was requested by a rail backing TD and delivered by a Green minister for transport there isn't much hope for a 'better outcome' from another report in the near future.
    But then reviews are cheap and might placate someone or other.
    Practically I haven't read it, just skimmed it, haven't had time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭Seaswimmer


    According to the Mayo News:
    Murrisk-based economist Dr John Bradley is formerly a Research Professor at the ESRI, thereafter a research consultant in economic development, working in several EU states.

    I have only ever followed the debate on the WRC on this thread but surely Dr John Bradley has been involved before the publication of the report or is he only now getting involved??


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,559 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    That John Bradley article is interesting. He rejects that it would be significantly more expensive to restore a longer closed, poorer quality alignment to modern standards and specifically objects to it being brought up to a reasonable line speed.

    The ops cost and journey times on a cheaply restored line would be significantly higher and usership significantly lower - so reframing the report on that basis still won't get the answer they want.

    It is not written to a standard that I would expect from a research professor and contains many unsourced statements of "fact" in opposition to the report.


  • Registered Users Posts: 212 ✭✭ShaneC1600


    L1011 wrote: »
    That John Bradley article is interesting. He rejects that it would be significantly more expensive to restore a longer closed, poorer quality alignment to modern standards and specifically objects to it being brought up to a reasonable line speed.

    The ops cost and journey times on a cheaply restored line would be significantly higher and usership significantly lower - so reframing the report on that basis still won't get the answer they want.

    It is not written to a standard that I would expect from a research professor and contains many unsourced statements of "fact" in opposition to the report.

    I agree reframing the report may not change the overall outcome of the report but it will bring the lines closer together. 90mph design speed between Tuam and Claremorris using the current corridor would be very difficult if at all possible so why did EY price for it? 80mph would be easily achieved at a considerably lower cost without reducing the quality of the corridor.

    The EY report is not written to a standard that most would expect either, bar maybe the followers that only read the greenway sound bytes. This whole thing has been and is a joke to all and the saga will continue.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,559 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The engineering standards difference between 80 and 90 is minimal

    You'd have to revert to 50mph to do it on the cheap and that would no longer be competitive with express coaches

    The complaints I see about the EY report amount to nitpicking and edge-pulling by those unhappy with its overall outcome, which would not be changed even with said nits altered.


  • Registered Users Posts: 212 ✭✭ShaneC1600


    L1011 wrote: »
    The engineering standards difference between 80 and 90 is minimal

    You'd have to revert to 50mph to do it on the cheap and that would no longer be competitive with express coaches

    The complaints I see about the EY report amount to nitpicking and edge-pulling by those unhappy with its overall outcome, which would not be changed even with said nits altered.

    Can you furnish us with a little more information on the differences between the engineering standards?

    Wow, it’s down to calling it nitpicking when a reported 500k report can be pulled apart on multiple areas, these are not just spelling errors you know? Have you actually read the report?

    If the same report favoured rail and was as easily ripped apart the same argument would be made from the other side.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,559 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    If you really want to waste some hours reading up on track geometry requirements, knock yourself out - curve radius and superelevation are the main categories that affect line speed but there are also issues relating to structures, the quality of the trackbed and so on. Here's the US standards, ours would be much the same

    https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=15770

    (if you think the WOT press release claiming a 250% increase in construction costs versus Phase 1 is down to going from 80mph to 90mph, you need to stop trusting WOT press releases as sources of fact; and maybe look at the general increase in construction costs in Ireland since Phase 1; as well as the superior condition of the existing alignment on Phase 1 versus this. It is not down to a minor change in line speed, at all)


    The errors cited on this thread are all nit-picking - Ballyglunin's tiny population that was not provided via an official source would be statistical noise in any demand calculations for a project of this scale; plus lots of complaints about display errors that do not actually impact the results.

    These do not amount to something being "pulled apart", they are just weak, nit-picking and edge-pulling attempts to discredit something due to not liking the results.

    I've read the report and have not seen any glaring errors that would discredit its result. I suspect many of those who think its "easily ripped apart" have not read it; but have read the posts and articles of those who claim there are with little to no basis.


  • Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭ezstreet5


    L1011 wrote: »
    These do not amount to something being "pulled apart", they are just weak, nit-picking and edge-pulling attempts to discredit something due to not liking the results.
    I've read the report in detail, and there are over 100 numerical errors scattered throughout. I've replicated EY's main CBA output table (Table 75 in Appendix F). There are 15 calculation errors in that table alone. Table 75 includes tens of millions in cumulative Capex and Opex costs, which are included in the NPV and BCR metrics, which are nowhere documented in the report text or annexes. It also includes hundreds of millions of cumulative benefits where are NOT included in the NPV and BCR metrics and are likewise nowhere in the report text or annexes. The magnitude of these discrepancies rises to a level that would reverse the findings of the report.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    ezstreet5 wrote: »
    I've read the report in detail, and there are over 100 numerical errors scattered throughout. I've replicated EY's main CBA output table (Table 75 in Appendix F). There are 15 calculation errors in that table alone. Table 75 includes tens of millions in cumulative Capex and Opex costs, which are included in the NPV and BCR metrics, which are nowhere documented in the report text or annexes. It also includes hundreds of millions of cumulative benefits where are NOT included in the NPV and BCR metrics and are likewise nowhere in the report text or annexes. The magnitude of these discrepancies rises to a level that would reverse the findings of the report.

    I look forward to you publishing your detailed findings


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,559 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ezstreet5 wrote: »
    I've read the report in detail, and there are over 100 numerical errors scattered throughout. I've replicated EY's main CBA output table (Table 75 in Appendix F). There are 15 calculation errors in that table alone. Table 75 includes tens of millions in cumulative Capex and Opex costs, which are included in the NPV and BCR metrics, which are nowhere documented in the report text or annexes. It also includes hundreds of millions of cumulative benefits where are NOT included in the NPV and BCR metrics and are likewise nowhere in the report text or annexes. The magnitude of these discrepancies rises to a level that would reverse the findings of the report.

    So you're making the assumption that the findings of the report are based on some typesetting errors in a table?

    Are we really reduced to this?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I've yet to hear anything which would alter the outcome of the report


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,043 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    From my not read of the EY report, I certainly consider it full of flaws and inaccuracies. These extend to all areas of the report, both those which weaken the case for reinstating rail services and those which strengthen it. I can't understand why they would request changes to the first issue and then publish this as is, I wonder was the first issue actually more accurate! It probably suits some to have the waters muddied. I have no doubt that a better report would come to the same conclusions (and that people would still be trying to pick holes, even if none exist).

    If the next step, as Ryan indicated, will be for WRC to be looked at further as part of a wider network review. This will undoubtedly recommend against further reopening of WRC. We should be investing in the core network and ensuring that it is as efficient and attractive to passengers as possible. Investing nine figure sums to tack on bits on the periphery at large ongoing subvention is a ridiculous way to go about things. Imagine the €100m put into WRC Phase 1 was spent on the line between Galway and Athenry (passing loops, LC removal, new stations, etc.).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,247 ✭✭✭Greaney


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    . Imagine the €100m put into WRC Phase 1 was spent on the line between Galway and Athenry (passing loops, LC removal, new stations, etc.).

    There is political will to do that, so I have no doubt it will happen, eventually.

    Likewise the 73% who support phase 2 of the WRC as a trainline may also give our politicians food for thought. That figure may be explained with 41% of the catchment area being under 18. An extra 10 hours per week of giving children & teens 'lifts' for years (school run aside) can take it's toll...


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Greaney wrote: »
    There is political will to do that, so I have no doubt it will happen, eventually.

    Likewise the 73% who support phase 2 of the WRC as a trainline may also give our politicians food for thought. That figure may be explained with 41% of the catchment area being under 18. An extra 10 hours per week of giving children & teens 'lifts' for years (school run aside) can take it's toll...

    That 73% number is gas, I commend SF on their email campaign.

    However boots on the ground would indicate the level of support swings much further in the opposite direction given 3,000 turned out to Tuam to support the greenway and the last WRC meeting in Athenry barely scrapped 30 attendees and 6 of those were greenway supporters, same as you Greaney, I was there.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,869 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Greaney wrote: »
    There is political will to do that, so I have no doubt it will happen, eventually.

    Likewise the 73% who support phase 2 of the WRC as a trainline may also give our politicians food for thought. That figure may be explained with 41% of the catchment area being under 18. An extra 10 hours per week of giving children & teens 'lifts' for years (school run aside) can take it's toll...

    So, the only choice is:

    1. Reinstate a long closed railway line hat goes from a small remote town to a smaller town that is even more remote to carry children and teens - for whatever reason.

    2. Force the parents of those children and teens for ten hours per week.

    Where are these kids going, and how would that train help, as it goes from such a remote place to another remote place?

    Surely, a school bus service might be able to provide such a service, particularly since the bus service could use the newly constructed M17 that runs parallel to the closed railway.

    There is not the population within the catchment area of East Galway to ever justify the provision of such a railway. Railway services need population to be viable, and East Galway does not have any large towns. Even one of the proposed stops, Ballyglunin, has a population too small to be counted in the report. Even if the railway had not been closed a generation or two ago, it would now be up for closure.

    I would have thought a Luas line out from Galway City centre to Claregalway might be a better focus for investment. [Obviously as part of a Galway Luas system].


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,720 ✭✭✭serfboard


    There is not the population within the catchment area of East Galway to ever justify the provision of such a railway. Railway services need population to be viable, and East Galway does not have any large towns.
    And WOT know that there is no passenger argument, which is why they are pushing the (imagined) freight argument. If we build this, freight will come ...
    Even one of the proposed stops, Ballyglunin, has a population too small to be counted in the report.

    The continuous talk about a stop in a non-hamlet like Ballyglunin shows what an absolute joke the Phase 2 talk is.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,247 ✭✭✭Greaney



    Surely, a school bus service might be able to provide such a service, particularly since the bus service could use the newly constructed M17 that runs parallel to the closed railway.


    If you read my post I said that 10 hours was on top of school run. I don't see evidence of many on this thread doing the heavy lifting when it comes to child rearing (yet??). Two children, say over 12, who've got a few hobbies, will clock up a lot of 10-20 min runs to practice, competition clock up more time than you'd think


    I've years of coaching experience under my belt. This is a story about the impact of public transport on young people. There were two successful gymnastics clubs (I coached in one), looking for a premises. One chose a place, cheap rent, 5 miles from the town with no transport links. It had to close within months & move back to the town because parents wouldn't/couldn't drive to it. It was now too difficult for the students to use it, the reason it had thrived before. They club wasn't able to expand or create more jobs.

    The one I worked in made a different choice. We learnt from the other club. We put a good case to the committee etc, on why we needed to be near a major transport artery in the city (some folk thought we should have moved out to the country!!! :rolleyes: ) Because of it, our students stayed past 6th class (12 yrs) which is BIG deal in sports in Ireland. Then numbers rocketed, we've created over 15 jobs since and it's one of the largest clubs in the country with competitors in junior Olympics.

    This is only one example of how important public transport, that can be used independently, is to both a community & an economy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,720 ✭✭✭serfboard


    Greaney wrote: »
    If you read my post I said that 10 hours was on top of school run. I don't see evidence of many on this thread doing the heavy lifting when it comes to child rearing (yet??). Two children, say over 12, who've got a few hobbies, will clock up a lot of 10-20 min runs to practice, competition clock up more time than you'd think

    I've years of coaching experience under my belt. This is a story about the impact of public transport on young people. There were two successful gymnastics clubs (I coached in one), looking for a premises. One chose a place, cheap rent, 5 miles from the town with no transport links. It had to close within months & move back to the town because parents wouldn't/couldn't drive to it. It was now too difficult for the students to use it, the reason it had thrived before. They club wasn't able to expand or create more jobs.

    The one I worked in made a different choice. We learnt from the other club. We put a good case to the committee etc, on whey we needed to be near a major transport artery in the city (some folk thought we should have moved out to the country!!! :rolleyes: ) Because of it, our students stayed past 6th class (12 yrs) which is BIG deal in sports in Ireland. Then numbers rocketed, we've created over 15 jobs since and it's one of the largest clubs in the country with competitors in junior Olympics.

    This is only one example of how important public transport, that can be used independently, is to both a community & an economy.
    That anecdote would only prove what you think it proves if you had figures which showed what percentage of people used public transport to get to the club now.

    To me, it sounds more like a story of how people used Galway's favourite method of non-car commuting, walking, to get to the club. Or it could be that they cycle. Or, it could be that they are driving, but just didn't want to drive out of town.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,869 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Greaney wrote: »
    This is only one example of how important public transport, that can be used independently, is to both a community & an economy.

    If only someone would invent a means of transport suitable for young teens that did not require them to be driven by parents.

    Maybe it would have two wheels, and be propelled by the rider using say pedals. It might have electric lights so it could be ridden after dark, and perhaps the rider might wear hi-viz clothing and a helmet for protection. Of course it would need a bell to warn others of its approach because it would be quick and silent. I'm sure someone might invent such a device.

    Maybe, the local council might invest in a making disused railway lines into greenways to facilitate this new form of transport.

    What a transformation that would be.

    Meanwhile, parents will have to run a free taxi service for their kids.


  • Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    @Greaney I don't think anyone is questioning the value of investment in good public transport.
    We are questioning whether this is good public transport.


  • Registered Users Posts: 212 ✭✭ShaneC1600


    L1011 wrote: »
    If you really want to waste some hours reading up on track geometry requirements, knock yourself out - curve radius and superelevation are the main categories that affect line speed but there are also issues relating to structures, the quality of the trackbed and so on. Here's the US standards, ours would be much the same

    https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=15770

    (if you think the WOT press release claiming a 250% increase in construction costs versus Phase 1 is down to going from 80mph to 90mph, you need to stop trusting WOT press releases as sources of fact; and maybe look at the general increase in construction costs in Ireland since Phase 1; as well as the superior condition of the existing alignment on Phase 1 versus this. It is not down to a minor change in line speed, at all)


    The errors cited on this thread are all nit-picking - Ballyglunin's tiny population that was not provided via an official source would be statistical noise in any demand calculations for a project of this scale; plus lots of complaints about display errors that do not actually impact the results.

    These do not amount to something being "pulled apart", they are just weak, nit-picking and edge-pulling attempts to discredit something due to not liking the results.

    I've read the report and have not seen any glaring errors that would discredit its result. I suspect many of those who think its "easily ripped apart" have not read it; but have read the posts and articles of those who claim there are with little to no basis.

    I would imagine there is quite a difference in the cost of both design speeds and I think at the very least the same design speed as between Athenry and Ennis should have been used (80mph). Of course we would like to see 90mph but it would not be easily achieved between Tuam and Claremorris and would have added a considerable cost and considering Athlone to Westport has a design speed of 70mph why price for 90mph for this section and then give benefits of a substantially poorer railway?

    The most common speed restriction between Ennis and Athenry is due to level crossings and increasing the speed from 80mph to 90mph would require 50m increase in viewing distance both directions. If this was not achieved there would need to be a speed restriction or removal of the level crossing at a considerable capitol cost.
    The horizontal curvature is simple enough but the transitions for 90mph would be longer due to the height of required cant thus introducing more pinch points between Tuam and Claremorris which would need to be designed out again at a considerable cost when compared to 80mph.
    Even the bog strip into Tuam that requires civil works was substantially over priced, similar projects have been completed in recent times that should have been used as a cost indicator.
    There are too many cost errors in the report, I do not require WOT to inform me of any such conclusions, I think any educated individual should be able to establish that the report EY presented is not fit for purpose and should not have been accepted by IÉ or the government.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 212 ✭✭ShaneC1600


    serfboard wrote: »

    The continuous talk about a stop in a non-hamlet like Ballyglunin shows what an absolute joke the Phase 2 talk is.

    I think a park and ride on the N63 where the bridge has been removed in Ballyglunin would be a great idea. There is a large amount of secondary school students studying in Athenry and Tuam from that area and surely the catchment would be very large north of Ballyglunin?

    The trick of the report seems to be to show no benefit to the area, no benefit of the possible usership but introduce a stop that will slow the journey times between end destinations, excellent if you do not want reintroduction of the railway!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,282 ✭✭✭westtip


    Greaney wrote: »
    There is political will to do that, so I have no doubt it will happen, eventually.

    Likewise the 73% who support phase 2 of the WRC as a trainline may also give our politicians food for thought. That figure may be explained with 41% of the catchment area being under 18. An extra 10 hours per week of giving children & teens 'lifts' for years (school run aside) can take it's toll...

    I wouldn't take too much heed of the 73% who responded support phase 2, the machinery of the political party that backs WOT will have got the vote out to skew those figures, its like one of those adverts that claim of the 100 dogs that showed a preference 75% went for pedigree chum type thing, meaningless but playful. What the attempts to discredit the reports have shown is that one political party is wedded to the WRC and to WOT and have a huge influence on WOT. "The Party" has a strong PR machine which has gone into overdrive since the report came out. The plan is pretty clear now to try and discredit the report and kick the can for the national review and of course then the North South Review, if this latter document has overinfluence from the political party that has been blathering away all week on this issue then that will be a concern, What I still fail to see is what is the obsession by some of these Western politicians in the WRC, I see one of the mantras of having both is back on the airwaves, they fail to point out that having one option, the greenway is about a 10 million euro option, but the both option is a hundreds of millions option, that is clearly why we cannot have both. Simples.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,282 ✭✭✭westtip


    Greaney wrote: »
    If you read my post I said that 10 hours was on top of school run. I don't see evidence of many on this thread doing the heavy lifting when it comes to child rearing (yet??). Two children, say over 12, who've got a few hobbies, will clock up a lot of 10-20 min runs to practice, competition clock up more time than you'd think


    I've years of coaching experience under my belt. This is a story about the impact of public transport on young people. There were two successful gymnastics clubs (I coached in one), looking for a premises. One chose a place, cheap rent, 5 miles from the town with no transport links. It had to close within months & move back to the town because parents wouldn't/couldn't drive to it. It was now too difficult for the students to use it, the reason it had thrived before. They club wasn't able to expand or create more jobs.

    The one I worked in made a different choice. We learnt from the other club. We put a good case to the committee etc, on why we needed to be near a major transport artery in the city (some folk thought we should have moved out to the country!!! :rolleyes: ) Because of it, our students stayed past 6th class (12 yrs) which is BIG deal in sports in Ireland. Then numbers rocketed, we've created over 15 jobs since and it's one of the largest clubs in the country with competitors in junior Olympics.

    This is only one example of how important public transport, that can be used independently, is to both a community & an economy.

    The difference is you are talking about your fantastic sounding sports facility for youngsters and well done, but you are clearly talking about a facility probably in Dublin near the Dart or a good bus corridor route. With buses or darts every 15 minutes. This is never going to be the case with the WRC and to compare the kind of service levels on the WRC you will get (at best a train an hour) with an arterial commuter route in Dublin is just not comparable. I couldn't see the WRC replacing one school run in say East Galway could you? And by the way I am most certainly in that heavy lifting phase of taxi driving for teenagers so don't assume anything about people on this thread, I find it bloody patronising for one. Congratulations on the work you are doing in training.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,282 ✭✭✭westtip


    @Greaney I don't think anyone is questioning the value of investment in good public transport.
    We are questioning whether this is good public transport.

    One sentence sums up the entire issue.


  • Registered Users Posts: 212 ✭✭ShaneC1600


    westtip wrote: »
    I wouldn't take too much heed of the 73% who responded support phase 2, the machinery of the political party that backs WOT will have got the vote out to skew those figures, its like one of those adverts that claim of the 100 dogs that showed a preference 75% went for pedigree chum type thing, meaningless but playful. What the attempts to discredit the reports have shown is that one political party is wedded to the WRC and to WOT and have a huge influence on WOT. "The Party" has a strong PR machine which has gone into overdrive since the report came out. The plan is pretty clear now to try and discredit the report and kick the can for the national review and of course then the North South Review, if this latter document has overinfluence from the political party that has been blathering away all week on this issue then that will be a concern, What I still fail to see is what is the obsession by some of these Western politicians in the WRC, I see one of the mantras of having both is back on the airwaves, they fail to point out that having one option, the greenway is about a 10 million euro option, but the both option is a hundreds of millions option, that is clearly why we cannot have both. Simples.


    If the result was reversed with similar inaccuracies I bet equal if not more press releases would be gracing our screens and papers!! But sure this is Ireland, its grand if it suits my agenda so its fine!!


  • Advertisement
Advertisement