Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

Does anybody have the source of the report Minister Cannon used in his recent GBFM interview? The one where he mentions an 8 to 100 against rail on the WRC. I have requested it from multiple sources but I cant find it anywhere. Cheers.

Did Cannon quote that statistic again today?

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Did Cannon quote that statistic again today?

No not today, it was from two weeks ago, I would like to see the report is all.

galwaytt wrote: »

Can we assume now that the WRC north leg is now dead, thanks, and move on ? https://www.galwaydaily.com/news/historic-moment-for-east-galway-as-quiet-man-greenway-gets-thumbs-up/?fbclid=IwAR0oHX4LLzbpAbPnM7JTXkNwtB82iVISKMqmPxveAKN9cKkWqDwXD15JmlY

It has been dead for a long time, but kept on life support by a small number of politicians whose cause it suited.
The rail report is a perfect example. Proposed simply as a means to block the greenway, it succeeded over the lifetime of the most recent government in stagnating progress and blocking key investment in the west. The adoption of the greenway project in the RSES is likewise no guarantee that some determined 'anti' won't drag it out for another five years by filibustering with pie in the sky talk of trains.
They should release the rail report though. We paid half a million euro for it, and if it is buried for ever it means that we simply paid half a million of our taxes for no good reason, unless you consider that the re-election of one particular politician in East Galway was in the public interest.

eastwest wrote: »

It has been dead for a long time, but kept on life support by a small number of politicians whose cause it suited.
The rail report is a perfect example. Proposed simply as a means to block the greenway, it succeeded over the lifetime of the most recent government in stagnating progress and blocking key investment in the west. The adoption of the greenway project in the RSES is likewise no guarantee that some determined 'anti' won't drag it out for another five years by filibustering with pie in the sky talk of trains.
They should release the rail report though. We paid half a million euro for it, and if it is buried for ever it means that we simply paid half a million of our taxes for no good reason, unless you consider that the re-election of one particular politician in East Galway was in the public interest.

That's your opinion, there are plenty of railway supporters for the reactivation of the railway north of Athenry that the politician you refer to is doing a master job because we all know that the railway will never be reinstated if the greenway is constructed on the 5ft. Maybe if the greenway is to be constructed along the boundary it would be better! No CPO's but a hell of a cost, might not have the same support though.
The constant derogatory tone regarding the railway might well be the reason this particular greenway campaign is akin to Marmite!

eastwest wrote: »

'To seek completion ......of the review of the western rail corridor.'

I can't identify a definitive conclusion from that strategy publication.

- Publish the review of the WRC
- Re-instate the WRC
- Accelerate the re-instatement of the WRC
- Build the Quietman Greenway.
....
- Trains for some, bicycles for others.

donvito99 wrote: »

Have you got a date?

Well, 2021 is the EC's Year of Rail. So maybe 2021.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/attachment/862958/european-year-of-rail_en.pdf.pdf

eastwest wrote: »

There was never going to be a railway, once the DTTAS realised they had been sold a pup on phase one.

Obviously you don't use that train or even view that train passing with an out of date statement like that.

eastwest wrote: »

The rail review put the final nail in that coffin, which wasn't the outcome that a certain politician had in mind, so it was buried.
But he can't keep it buried for ever.
The clock is ticking.

Where is your proof? Plenty of greenway supporters have the outcome stated already on the QMG Facebook page, they must have read the report. Have you seen it too?

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

Where is your proof? Plenty of greenway supporters have the outcome stated already on the QMG Facebook page, they must have read the report. Have you seen it too?

One might believe the the greenway was granted full planning permission and full funding by statements from Cannon to the effect of:

• This is a 'historic moment'
• Inclusion of the greenway in the RSES 'makes it a certainty.'
• Local Authorities from Sligo, Mayo, and Galway are now 'obliged to deliver it.'
• The greenway has been given the 'thumbs up.'
• The greenway has been given the 'green light.'
• We now have have a truly 'groundbreaking commitment.'
• There could be no 'clearer endorsement.'
• I am more than confident that the Quiet Man Greenway will be the 'gift to this region that keeps on giving.'

These are awful strong positive statements regarding single reference in the RSES to the "Quiet Man Greenway" along with four our five references favoring rail reactivation. Neither project is listed in the Programme for Government, and the Greens support rail reactivation in their transport policy: https://www.greenparty.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Transport-Policy.pdf

So either Cannon knows something we don't know (which is possible), or it is just unsubstantiated glee (which we have seen before).

Deleted User wrote: »

Under Rail on Page 10 of the PFG
"Consider the report on the future of the Western Rail Corridor and take appropriate action."

Do you honestly believe that I haven't read that? And do you honestly believe that it is a commitment to a project to be undertaken? It's perfectly neutral. And if you want to split hairs, the scope of the 'report' was to assess only the possibility of rail reactivation, and not alternative uses. So even if it says 'There is no future for the line as a railway' (which I don't believe the report will say at all), it will in no case state, 'The line should be converted to a greenway.'

ezstreet5 wrote: »

The Greens support rail reactivation in their transport policy: https://www.greenparty.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Transport-Policy.pdf

So either Cannon knows something we don't know (which is possible), or it is just unsubstantiated glee (which we have seen before).

Yes, it's right there in their policy document.



'Bus services will continue to provide the main transport connections within our cities and throughout the country.'


'We would give priority to the completion of the Kildare Route Project Phase 2, and the Navan Railway Line (extension from M3 Parkway station to Navan).'

'Following the completion of the Kildare Route Project Phase 2, we would give priority to the Interconnector (DART Undeground) between Spencer dock and Inchcore.'

'We would keep open the proposed route of the Metro North from St. Stephen’s Green to Swords if a viable case can be made for its construction.'

'The Luas in Dublin should be extended to Finglas and light rail introduced in other cities.'


Obviously, although they don't mention the WRC, they will get to it once they have delivered all the other more pressing rail projects.

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Try Crtl+F and then type the word "Western" and you should be able to locate it.

So, not a priority as per their multi billion euro wishlist above?
The whole point of the greenway campaign, as now consolidated in the RSES, is that for the next twenty or thirty years, while nothing is happening on a disused line through a sparsely populated area, it should be used as a greenway. Not just for the benefits it can bring at low cost, but aslo to preserve the route in case some government in the future decides to build a railway on some or all of it.
The current government is set to last about four years, assuming it comes together at all. If the Greens get some of their list past the Department of Finance in that time, which bits do you think will be prioritised? (Hint: They told us already, areas of high population density).
Leaving aside the rail review, the most optimistic rail enthusiast can't expect the WRC to be on the table for a decade at least, and that's in a scenario where there is a lot of funding for capital projects and the entire Brexit/Covid hit doesn't affect our capacity to spend. Any realist would say that at best, discussion of the WRC in the real world is twenty years away.
So, what to do in the interim? Let the asset disappear, or use available funding to build a cheap piece of infrastructure that has nothing but positive effect?
The mindset that diverts the funding to the Waterfords of this world is that a greenway will prevent a railway being built. It's wrong, and makes no sense, but that's not always the reason for doing something.

eastwest wrote: »

So, not a priority as per their multi billion euro wishlist above?

Except that you excluded the first bullet point of that list:

• We favour greater investment in rail infrastructure as it is a more environmentally friendly and efficient alternative to road and air transport.

eastwest wrote: »

The whole point of the greenway campaign, as now consolidated in the RSES, is that for the next twenty or thirty years, while nothing is happening on a disused line through a sparsely populated area, it should be used as a greenway.

I don't accept the premise that nothing will happen for the next 20-30 years. That does not need to be the case with a little vision.

eastwest wrote: »

Not just for the benefits it can bring at low cost, but aslo to preserve the route in case some government in the future decides to build a railway on some or all of it.

Preserve the route from what? Adverse possession? Or a fence being constructed across the line? If you really get a recalcitrant landowner, just CPO the land back. The line has been idle for more than 12 years, so either option will face this same (easily surmountable) obstacle.

eastwest wrote: »

The current government is set to last about four years, assuming it comes together at all. If the Greens get some of their list past the Department of Finance in that time, which bits do you think will be prioritised? (Hint: They told us already, areas of high population density).
Leaving aside the rail review, the most optimistic rail enthusiast can't expect the WRC to be on the table for a decade at least, and that's in a scenario where there is a lot of funding for capital projects and the entire Brexit/Covid hit doesn't affect our capacity to spend. Any realist would say that at best, discussion of the WRC in the real world is twenty years away.
So, what to do in the interim? Let the asset disappear, or use available funding to build a cheap piece of infrastructure that has nothing but positive effect?

Even if your 20-year horizon is correct (which is denied), I would do what every other railroad does to protect their inactive ROWs. I would send inspection cars along the route once per year, cut vegetation, and perform minimal maintenance of way. I would take legal action against encroachment.

eastwest wrote: »

The mindset that diverts the funding to the Waterfords of this world is that a greenway will prevent a railway being built. It's wrong, and makes no sense, but that's not always the reason for doing something.

And continuing, I certainly would not grant a license allowing local authorities and/governments to design and build a 25 million euro project only to rip it up a decade later.

ezstreet5 wrote: »

And continuing, I certainly would not grant a license allowing local authorities and/governments to design and build a 25 million euro project only to rip it up a decade later.

I wouldn't be against the idea if the greenway was positioned just inside the IE boundary but I bet the greenway supporters wouldnt jump on that one.
I wonder would the previous licence stating that the council would be required to indemnify the railway against costs of removing the greenway put any of the councillors off the greenway in the 5ft idea if there is a chance the greenway will be ripped up in 10 years.

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

I wouldn't be against the idea if the greenway was positioned just inside the IE boundary but I bet the greenway supporters wouldnt jump on that one.
I wonder would the previous licence stating that the council would be required to indemnify the railway against costs of removing the greenway put any of the councillors off the greenway in the 5ft idea if there is a chance the greenway will be ripped up in 10 years.

Most greenway campaigners would be happy with that, if it made sense. But closer scrutiny makes it less attractive from a taxpayer standpoint.
Sligo county council did a financial study on this option, and found that it would cost between three and five times as much as just putting it on the already stoned track bed. If a greenway was to be built on the edge of the alignment, there is no guarantee it wouldn't have to be rebuilt or altered as part of a railway project.
The error being made by rail lobbyists is that the less informed of them believe there is a railway on the route at the minute. There isn't, what is there is scrap, and that includes the stone ballast that is there now. Building a railway north of athenry would involve removing everything that is there. All of it.
I know that logic doesn't always solve a problem where two polar opposite views hold sway. But logic dictates that the cheap option, building a greenway on the existing stone base, is the best option for now. If a railway is to be built in the future, the greenway should at that point be relocated to the edge of the alignment, or marginally outside it with relevant CPOs. That is the time to build the extra footbridges or underpasses, as a tiny part of a major engineering project.
Even the aesthetics of putting the greenway on the edge of the alignment at this point are wrong. Letting the trackbed grow wild and overgrown, while maintaining the greenway would do nothing for the appeal of the greenway. On the sections north of Claremorris, where large stretches of the proposed railway are likely to be diverted, it would make no sense to build a greenway on the edge, in the absence of a plan as to which parts will be bypassed.
There is also that issue of the diversion of sections of any future railway away from the current alignment, to avoid the multiple road crossings on the existing route. Entire sections may well (if they are ever built) be located alongside an improved N17, arguably the piece of infrastructure must urgently needed between sligo and galway.
I'd have no problem with a proposal to build the greenway at the edge of the alignment, but as a taxpayer I would be uncomfortable with a waste of money on that scale, just to appease a particular opposition group. I would really hope that councillors might take the same view.
Although when you see money spent on reports which are then suppressed, you'd have to wonder at the respect or otherwise that some public representatives hold for our hard-earned money.

eastwest wrote: »

The error being made by rail lobbyists is that the less informed of them believe there is a railway on the route at the minute. There isn't, what is there is scrap, and that includes the stone ballast that is there now. Building a railway north of athenry would involve removing everything that is there. All of it.

I think most understand this fact. Re-laying the rail is a small expense. Modern rail building techniques can recycle/refresh the ballast and lay rail at a rate that can be measured in tenths of miles per hour. The real costs are a replacing a missing bridge, inspecting and upgrading existing bridges, installing modern level crossings, signaling, and station refurbishment.