Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sligo CoCo Feasibility Study for a greenway on the disused line

What's that to do with the Athenry - Claremorris section. Doesn't seem to give any suggestion on the numbers using it.

IE 222 wrote: »

We need to dig a bit deeper into the demographics here rather than just throwing out numbers. I think we can safely say it wasn't under 18s and over 70s that were emigrating.

You'll want to consider unemployment, which likely stood at around 5% at the time the forecasts were made, and was likely about 15% when Phase 1 opened. I guess it doesn't matter since nobody can provide the original business case to substantiate the 250k figure.

ezstreet5 wrote: »

C'mon, not that discredited report again based on the Great Western Greenway.

If you really want a discredited report I will give you one word:

McCann.

westtip wrote: »

Like the Junk arithmetic of Dara Calleary and his buddies 1,000 freight trains a year leaving Mayo indeed!!!

I would hardly call Dáil member statements "science," but at least Dara's statitic was within a factor of two. Leo Varadkar was off by an order of magnitude, which sent Ciarán Cannon's head spinning with calls to "Close the Railways!!!" (oh yeah, and) "The Ballinasloe to Galway greenway is completely unviable."

IE 222 wrote: »

So can you offer us any figures for the greenway.

Sure. The Sligo Greenway Feasibility Study was based on the 2016 Meehan Tully report, which was based on the 2011 Fitzpatrick Associates report of the Great Western Greenway. Table 3.4 of the original report states:

• 43% of greenway users will be "local users" who will be induced to spend €27.31 in the local area each day they use the greenway.
  
• 37% of greenway users will be "domestic visitors," who will stay in the local area for 4.8 days (on average) and spend €49.85 per person, per day due to the greenway.
  
• And 20% of greenway users will be "overseas visitors" who will stay in the local area for 6.8 days (on average) and spend €50.71 per person, per day due to the greenway.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You won't accept anything that is not a specific business case analysis for a specific section of greenway which doesn't exist yet and refuse to look at the documented evidence from other greenways around the country

But by all means, keep asking for it

Well to be honest, before you decided to weight in we were debating specifically about the Athenry - Claremorris section of the line. The debate was mainly focused about usage and demand of the said section and claims of misleading information been released in the dail in terms of passenger numbers and volume of trains. For whatever reason you decided to add a report referring to a completely different section of the line and didn't offer anything we could at least try and use a guide to measure expected volume.

I don't understand how you can rubbish actual reports without having some sort of evidence or factual information to back up your claims.

IE 222 wrote: »

So can you offer us any figures for the greenway.

westtip wrote: »

I am deffo having a Homer Simpson moment "Duhhhh?" Have you not heard the noblesse of West on Track talking about re-opening the railway line to Sligo....phase 4 I think they call it. The Sligo Greenway is very much part of the Western Rail Trail from Enniskillen to Athenry along the route of the closed railway line....It has been discussed on this thread many times as I am sure you are aware.

Enniskillen to Atherny? You might get Claremorris to Enniskellen. You might not.

westtip wrote: »

Ah sure who knows. Can't see the train coming back in any event. to tough for ER to sell to cabinet but hey ho WOT can hold out for an SF government who will of course deliver on everything.....:D:D:D

I can see Tuam to Athenry. 2000 passengers/day already taking the bus, and hopefully some single-occupancy vehicles would mode shift. So I would disagree with ER that a case cannot be made solely on passenger numbers Tuam to Galway. It can.

westtip wrote: »

I don't think the rail review concurs with your thoughts based on the comments in the Dail by ER on Sept 24th, and the fact WOT have moved their entire argument to freight. Look if he pulls it off, so be it and stick the greenway in alongside, I just don't think he will.

Well, we'll need to see it. I would hate it if it said, "There is a competing motorway from Tuam to Galway, so there is no need for rail service." That would be gross misunderstanding of local conditions. Freight, I believe, is advanced to qualify for TEN-T funds. So that the Irish would not need to foot the bill entirely for reactivation of the line.

westtip wrote: »

I am deffo having a Homer Simpson moment "Duhhhh?" Have you not heard the noblesse of West on Track talking about re-opening the railway line to Sligo....phase 4 I think they call it. The Sligo Greenway is very much part of the Western Rail Trail from Enniskillen to Athenry along the route of the closed railway line....It has been discussed on this thread many times as I am sure you are aware.

WOT wishes are one thing but the discussion in the dail is about Phases 2 and 3. It's not been purposed to reroute your 1000 freight trains via Sligo. Debating and rubbishing claims regarding the Athenry - Claremorris section with greenway plans in Sligo is more Homer Simpson style. Surely you must be able to offer some sort of greenway figures in order to counter the rail claims for the Athenry - Claremorris.

We know x amount of people are commuting between Tuam and Galway and what its expected to cost but what information are you using to tell us a greenway between Tuam and Athenry is a better benefit.

L1011 wrote: »

Diverting existing railfreight flows would not qualify for a cent, though.

Which is why Ryan's "plan" is a pipe dream, clearly concocted to try give some glimmer of hope in light of a report saying passenger is unviable.

You've not seen the report, and neither have I. My concern is that it won't address Galway a.m. and p.m. bottlenecks.

Greaney wrote: »

Perhaps. I think it would be prudent for Quietman Greenway campaign to look into that, along with other alternatives. They're so passionate about it, it would be sad to just give up if the railway line re-opened

I'm sure the feasibility study into the greenway will consider the alongside option, just like that for the greenway north of Claremorris. If usable space is available and it is feasible, I'm sure the report will recommend it (it wasn't feasible north of Claremorris). I'm sure those associated with the greenway campaign, and everyone who supports the idea of the greenway, would be more than willing to accept it alongside the rail line or provision for same, most probably see that as the best option.

Given the greenway is far more likely to happen in the short to medium term, the rail campaign should actively support the greenway alongside. Not doing so will see nothing happen with the line for many years while the line deteriorates and the prospect of adverse possession increases. It would be great if the rail campaign would look into such alternatives, rather than imaginary freight.

Geuze wrote: »

Given that it's been stated here that the permanent way is 18m wide between Athenry and Tuam, then surely a greenway and relaid track can co-exist beside each other?

They could, of course, but it would require a railway to be built and a greenway put in place as part of the project.
In Sligo, the feasibility report showed that laying a greenway on the track bed was about a quarter of the cost compared to building it alongside the remains of the old railway. It would involve new bridges, culverts etc while bypassing what is already there, existing infrastructure that may never be used for anything. The increased cost would make it uncompetitive when applying for funding, as well as being wasteful, and it wouldn't necessarily protect the rail route.
The smart option is to build the greenway cheaply using the existing base. Then if a railway is ever funded, the project can include a greenway alongside it, a simple job in the context of building a railway.
Personally, while I think a railway may be an option in a couple of decades if demographics change drastically, I don't see it happening in many of our lifetimes. But if it does, it is unlikely to be built entirely on the old route. Blocking an interim use of the old route is not smart thinking.
Really smart thinking might involve pushing for a dual carriageway to replace the N17, with enough land acquired for a railway alongside it that could accommodate trains doing more than thirty miles an hour, and the old rail route developed as a major tourist and leisure corridor.
But smart doesn't win votes.

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.sligococo.ie/n17kcaec/#maincontent
The Knock to Collooney N17 replacement is already being planned. Some of the options cross the disused railway.

If West on Track was really serious about a Sligo-Galway rail link, they'd be screaming for a rail alignment alongside the improved roadway, bypassing the twisting, slow old alignment.
But that won't happen, so neither will the railway.