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

Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail

Options
1…3334363839…182

Comments

  • Options
    #1052
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,410 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    serfboard wrote: »
    If you're going to open the line to Tuam, you may as well go all the way to Claremorris (which will at least open the line to through services) or not bother at all.

    I'm on the side of not bothering at all, because doing so would be as much if not more of a waste of money than the previous section.

    Tuam is currently very well served by public transport with almost 40 bus services per day serving Tuam. Spending another 100 million or more developing a service that will not serve the employment hubs of Ballybrit/Parkmore/Mervue and NUIG/UHG, or the education facilities of GMIT & NUIG would be a waste of money, and for that reason, simply will not happen.

    Spending that amount would better spent on the Navan-Drogheda line, or the Mullingar-Athlone line.


  • Options
    #1053
    Muckyboots
    Closed Accounts Posts: 652 ✭✭✭Muckyboots


    This is nice, even if it is a bit contrived. https://www.irishtimes.com/sponsored/iarnrod-eireann/heading-west-eight-stories-from-the-dublin-to-westport-rail-line-1.3968497?mode=amp


  • Options
    #1054
    Del.Monte
    Registered Users Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭Del.Monte


    Muckyboots wrote: »
    This is nice, even if it is a bit contrived. https://www.irishtimes.com/sponsored/iarnrod-eireann/heading-west-eight-stories-from-the-dublin-to-westport-rail-line-1.3968497?mode=amp

    Nothing there for me - what's it about?

    ****



  • Options
    #1055
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,991 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    serfboard wrote: »
    If you're going to open the line to Tuam, you may as well go all the way to Claremorris (which will at least open the line to through services) or not bother at all.

    I'm on the side of not bothering at all, because doing so would be as much if not more of a waste of money than the previous section.

    Tuam is currently very well served by public transport with almost 40 bus services per day serving Tuam. Spending another 100 million or more developing a service that will not serve the employment hubs of Ballybrit/Parkmore/Mervue and NUIG/UHG, or the education facilities of GMIT & NUIG would be a waste of money, and for that reason, simply will not happen.

    and it can be served twice as well with a new rail line to galway, with a light rail system linking from galway station to all of those places of employment, removing those 40 space wasting buses from the roads. or, the whole lot could be light rail, whichever.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #1056
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,845 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Spending that amount would better spent on the Navan-Drogheda line, or the Mullingar-Athlone line.

    Mullingar-Athlone wouldn't meet a C/BA - it may seem more direct but it'd be vastly slower and the Maynooth line is close to capacity anyway (remember you have Docklands services on the bulk of it too). It'd give local connections and bring Moate back on the network but that wouldn't give a huge amount of benefits.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1057
    Lord Glentoran
    Closed Accounts Posts: 876 ✭✭✭Lord Glentoran


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Spending that amount would better spent on the Navan-Drogheda line, or the Mullingar-Athlone line.

    It’s railways. That either/or is simply not going to happen with Official Ireland.


  • Options
    #1058
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    L1011 wrote: »
    Mullingar-Athlone wouldn't meet a C/BA - it may seem more direct but it'd be vastly slower and the Maynooth line is close to capacity anyway (remember you have Docklands services on the bulk of it too). It'd give local connections and bring Moate back on the network but that wouldn't give a huge amount of benefits.
    If only Broadstone station was still available to reopen, most of the intercity trains could terminate there for transfer to the trams


  • Options
    #1059
    Muckyboots
    Closed Accounts Posts: 652 ✭✭✭Muckyboots


    Del.Monte wrote: »
    Nothing there for me - what's it about?
    Talking bout good, good, good good vibrations.


  • Options
    #1060
    JJJackal
    Registered Users Posts: 1,016 ✭✭✭JJJackal


    end of the road wrote: »
    and it can be served twice as well with a new rail line to galway, with a light rail system linking from galway station to all of those places of employment, removing those 40 space wasting buses from the roads. or, the whole lot could be light rail, whichever.

    Your solution would probably cost close to 1 billion though. The buses and roads are already in place for Tuam


  • Options
    #1061
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,991 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    JJJackal wrote: »
    Your solution would probably cost close to 1 billion though. The buses and roads are already in place for Tuam

    even if that is the case, it would be money well spent given the proven track record of light rail, which generally attracts greater usage then bus transport.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1062
    Isambard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    end of the road wrote: »
    even if that is the case, it would be money well spent given the proven track record of light rail, which generally attracts greater usage then bus transport.

    well you could be right, but how would it ever stack up on a cost/benefit basis with a brand new motorway already in place?


  • Options
    #1063
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,991 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Isambard wrote: »
    well you could be right, but how would it ever stack up on a cost/benefit basis with a brand new motorway already in place?


    it may pass easy enough. of course that would require ireland to be a modern forward thinking country, rather then one stuck in the 1960s where road and spraul are the only options wanted by the powers that be, with everything else just about tolerated until they are left with no option but to improve those things.
    a motor way, brand new or not, never negates the need for rail where cities are concerned, we have decades of experience both ourselves and from other countries to show this. it can only ever be part of the solution, not thee solution. having it as thee solution as we can see is expensive and unsustainable.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #1064
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,410 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    end of the road wrote: »
    it may pass easy enough. of course that would require ireland to be a modern forward thinking country, rather then one stuck in the 1960s where road and spraul are the only options wanted by the powers that be, with everything else just about tolerated until they are left with no option but to improve those things.
    a motor way, brand new or not, never negates the need for rail where cities are concerned, we have decades of experience both ourselves and from other countries to show this. it can only ever be part of the solution, not thee solution. having it as thee solution as we can see is expensive and unsustainable.

    But neither Tuam or Athenry, or even Ennis are cities. The train will not go near a city once it leaves Limerick.


  • Options
    #1065
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,991 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    But neither Tuam or Athenry, or even Ennis are cities. The train will not go near a city once it leaves Limerick.


    galway is a city, and the service is limerick to galway. so yes the train will (never mind go near) but will actually go to another city once it leaves limerick.
    also as has been suggested multiple times already, the service pattern in the event of a reopening to tuam is unlikely to be limerick to tuam but tuam to galway.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #1066
    Isambard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    but that lines there, aren't we talking about Tuam and points north?

    Tuam is a very small town and no one would dream of suggesting a rail line to a town that size in the real world.


  • Options
    #1067
    Muckyboots
    Closed Accounts Posts: 652 ✭✭✭Muckyboots


    end of the road wrote: »
    it may pass easy enough. of course that would require ireland to be a modern forward thinking country, rather then one stuck in the 1960s .

    The return of a failed 19th-century rail line? One that that was closed in 1974. We can do better than that with rail options for the West. Who exactly is "stuck in the 60's" ? - hardly the greenway bogey men.


  • Options
    #1068
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,991 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Muckyboots wrote: »
    The return of a failed 19th-century rail line? One that that was closed in 1974. We can do better than that with rail options for the West. Who exactly is "stuck in the 60's" ? - hardly the greenway bogey men.

    failed by what metric? closure isn't in itself a metric of failure of the line itself as lines can close for many possible reasons.
    plenty of lines around the world closed in the 70s and reopened later on so again that means nothing.
    and limerick claremorris didn't close in 1974 but in the late 90s. there were simply no regular passenger services and there were some freight operations.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #1069
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,099 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    end of the road wrote: »
    failed by what metric? closure isn't in itself a metric of failure of the line itself as lines can close for many possible reasons.
    plenty of lines around the world closed in the 70s and reopened later on so again that means nothing.
    and limerick claremorris didn't close in 1974 but in the late 90s. there were simply no regular passenger services and there were some freight operations.

    The metric that was a railway alignment unfit for 21st century infrastructure. When it closed to passenger traffic in the 1970s (forget freight) our road infrastructure was crap, but could still beat the train. These days it the M18/17 and in a small, low populated country like Ireland the alternative railway is redundant.

    You can talk all day about subsidies and the Green agenda if you want, but it doesn't change the reality. In a perfect world the WRC would be paved over for bikes and pedestrians and a completely new alignment built to serve the region as it exists now.


  • Options
    #1070
    Isambard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    the other week I visited a vintage show in Mountbellew ( near Tuam and Athenry). I was there, in a 40 yr old car, from rural North Cork in a shade over 2 hours door to door. No railway could ever compete with that.


  • Options
    #1071
    Lord Glentoran
    Closed Accounts Posts: 876 ✭✭✭Lord Glentoran


    Isambard wrote: »
    the other week I visited a vintage show in Mountbellew ( near Tuam and Athenry). I was there, in a 40 yr old car, from rural North Cork in a shade over 2 hours door to door. No railway could ever compete with that.

    We’ll have to dismantle the lot and give them to the bike fraternity then. Sorry lads, the railway is kaput. Maybe we’ll have a stationary diesel running on a plinth on the razed remains of Mallow Station, or something.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1072
    Greaney
    Registered Users Posts: 1,247 ✭✭✭Greaney


    Lord Glentoran wrote: »
    We’ll have to dismantle the lot and give them to the bike fraternity then. Sorry lads, the railway is kaput. Maybe we’ll have a stationary diesel running on a plinth on the razed remains of Mallow Station, or something.

    I get the feeling it's not the bike fraternity that want the end of rail. Bikes on trains are free, and easier to get on and off.... it's the 'think of the tourist dollars' fraternity... who don't actually cycle, who are chomping at the bit to dismantle the lot. They're not really pro-bike but anti-rail, by the looks of their face book page.


    Bikes and rail really mix well. It's easier to take yer bike on the train and then pedal out to where ever you work. Some folk don't drive, don't have a car, need public transport, simple as.


  • Options
    #1073
    Isambard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    Greaney wrote: »
    I get the feeling it's not the rail fraternity that want the end of rail. Bikes on trains are free, and easier to get on and off.... it's the 'think of the tourist dollars' fraternity... who don't actually cycle, who are chomping at the bit to dismantle the lot. They're not really pro-bike but anti-rail, by the looks of their face book page.


    Bikes and rail really mix well. It's easier to take yer bike on the train and then pedal out to where ever you work. Some folk don't drive, don't have a car, need public transport, simple as.

    I'm tired of pointing this out but Greenways are not intended to be transport facilities. They are leisure facilities.

    Noone is campaigning to scrap working railways, the ones the greenway people have in mind have been defunct for decades.


  • Options
    #1074
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,991 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Isambard wrote: »
    I'm tired of pointing this out but Greenways are not intended to be transport facilities. They are leisure facilities.

    well no, to justify their existance they will need to be transport facilities as well. they will need to appeal to as many people as possible.
    facilities like these need users. such activity is a very much minority activity, hence throwing them in anywhere and everywhere isn't going to work. areas with tourism potential, and areas where there is likely usage for various reasons, needs to be the aim for these, rather then simply a leasure facility hardly used by anyone.
    Isambard wrote: »
    Noone is campaigning to scrap working railways, the ones the greenway people have in mind have been defunct for decades.

    well, sure, there is nobody actually going so far as to set up a campaign group in the aim of achieving the scrapping of working railways, but those who believe in such nonsense are still around and pipe up from time to time.
    they haven't gone away you know.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #1075
    XPS_Zero
    Registered Users Posts: 910 ✭✭✭XPS_Zero


    end of the road wrote: »
    failed by what metric? closure isn't in itself a metric of failure of the line itself as lines can close for many possible reasons.
    plenty of lines around the world closed in the 70s and reopened later on so again that means nothing.
    and limerick claremorris didn't close in 1974 but in the late 90s. there were simply no regular passenger services and there were some freight operations.


    You talk such crap sometimes, every time


  • Options
    #1076
    Isambard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    Doesn't he just. Go look at the operating ones and see the numbers using them and the real jobs created


  • Options
    #1077
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,991 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Isambard wrote: »
    Doesn't he just. Go look at the operating ones and see the numbers using them and the real jobs created

    yes, some greenways have caused job creation and that is good. but it does not mean that the same will happen for every single one.
    those existing greenways show that facilities can be used and jobs can be created, they don't, and can't show that jobs will absolutely, definitely be created and the proposed facility will absolutely, definitely be used.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #1078
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,255 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    end of the road wrote: »
    yes, some greenways have caused job creation and that is good. but it does not mean that the same will happen for every single one.
    those existing greenways show that facilities can be used and jobs can be created, they don't, and can't show that jobs will absolutely, definitely be created and the proposed facility will absolutely, definitely be used.

    The same could be said for reopening railways as well.


  • Options
    #1079
    Greaney
    Registered Users Posts: 1,247 ✭✭✭Greaney


    Isambard wrote: »
    I'm tired of pointing this out but Greenways are not intended to be transport facilities. They are leisure facilities.

    Noone is campaigning to scrap working railways, the ones the greenway people have in mind have been defunct for decades.

    You're right, they are leisure facilities, however, over in the greenway page, they are being suggested as commuter routes

    You should have a look at this page on facebook, these guys certainly seem to be looking to close the open section of the western rail corridor, which was defuncet for years. Re-opening old railway lines is nothing new. There are campaigns to re-open lines all over the UK.


  • Options
    #1080
    Isambard
    Registered Users Posts: 5,796 ✭✭✭Isambard


    i'm afraid your links need to be more specific if you are to make your point.

    All footpaths and cycleways of every description can be used for commuting, if someone desires to do so. It isn't the primary raison d'etre though


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1081
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Greaney wrote: »
    You're right, they are leisure facilities, however, over in the greenway page, they are being suggested as commuter routes

    You should have a look at this page on facebook, these guys certainly seem to be looking to close the open section of the western rail corridor, which was defuncet for years. Re-opening old railway lines is nothing new. There are campaigns to re-open lines all over the UK.

    You are making repeated assertions with little to back them up

    As a matter of clarification, posts in that Facebook group talking about the open section point to the lack of usage, the ridership being far, FAR, below the original projections, the insane subsidies required to keep it open and the farcical proposal to extend the line given all of those facts.

    Point of fact, it would be cheaper for the exchequer to pay for taxis for the current users than to keep the line open.


Advertisement