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

1139140142144145183

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 45 Decades


    To get from Ballina to Limerick does not need to go via Dublin.

    To get from Ballina to Waterford does not need to go via Dublin.

    At the present time, there is no rail connection to Foynes.

    Even to get to Foynes from Ballina does not need to go via Tuam and Athenry and the operational savings would be marginal, if at all.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Decades wrote: »
    Even to get to Foynes from Ballina does not need to go via Tuam and Athenry and the operational savings would be marginal, if at all.

    It would help if there was a rail connection from Limerick to Foynes, but that is a different ginger group.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,530 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Because of the line speeds on Limerick-Waterford, the nearly entirely single track status, lack of passing places etc I doubt that Ballina-Limerick(reverse)-Waterford would actually be any quicker than Ballina-Cherryville(reverse)-Waterford anyway. Also, operational costs would rocket due to needing to support the significantly higher amount of manual crossings outside of normal passenger operation hours.

    Diverting those flows wouldn't add to any basis for automating those crossings either, because diverting flows is not new demand, just moved demand.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    L1011 wrote: »
    Because of the line speeds on Limerick-Waterford, the nearly entirely single track status, lack of passing places etc I doubt that Ballina-Limerick(reverse)-Waterford would actually be any quicker than Ballina-Cherryville(reverse)-Waterford anyway. Also, operational costs would rocket due to needing to support the significantly higher amount of manual crossings outside of normal passenger operation hours.

    Diverting those flows wouldn't add to any basis for automating those crossings either, because diverting flows is not new demand, just moved demand.

    Additional costs for the operation of manned crossings only comes into it if additional trains are operated outside of regular hours, which is something of an assumption to through in here. Freight speeds are currently 50MPH and these broadly fits into line speeds on the line. Crossing points on Limerick to Waterford are....
    • Limerick-Killonan.
    • Limerick Junction.
    • Tipperary.
    • Clonmel.
    • Carrick on Suir although remains signalled for crossing and just requires the reinstatement of points; this can be done with a few hours work if and when required.

    A significant benefit of operating via this route would be utilising network capacity to take pressure off the network on the Galway-Athlone/Dublin-Port Laoise corridors. Late running and delays is causing network issues in and out of Dublin, with a knock on effect falling on freight traffic. Let it be said; running via Kildare has it's advantages as well.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 438 ✭✭andrewfaulk


    ezstreet5 wrote: »
    So there are 7/wk existing container trains to Dublin (that could/should be diverted to Waterford or Foynes), 2/wk new container trains to Waterford, and maybe 2/wk log trains. That's 11/wk existing demand; a good start for the freight component.

    No, the Dublin container flows should stay to/from Dublin via Athlone/Portarlington.. Foynes doesn't handle containers and Waterford has VERY limited shipping services(pretty much to Rotterdam and nowhere else)..

    Dublin is currently 5 per week, although negotiations are under way to increase back up to 7/8 per week..

    Timber is running 3/week, so IF XPO get going it will be 5/week WFD to BAL, so less than 1train per day which in no way supports the return of the WRC


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭ezstreet5


    Foynes doesn't handle containers and
    Foynes claim they can, and intend to expand capacity: https://www.sfpc.ie/containers/
    Dublin is currently 5 per week, although negotiations are under way to increase back up to 7/8 per week..
    OK, maybe IWT's website isn't current at 7/wk.
    Timber is running 3/week, so IF XPO get going it will be 5/week WFD to BAL, so less than 1train per day which in no way supports the return of the WRC
    So 5/wk with the possibility to divert 7/8/wk. (with a little vision).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 438 ✭✭andrewfaulk


    ezstreet5 wrote: »
    Foynes claim they can, and intend to expand capacity: https://www.sfpc.ie/containers/

    OK, maybe IWT's website isn't current at 7/wk.

    So 5/wk with the possibility to divert 7/8/wk. (with a little vision).

    Even if Foynes gets containers going, which is unlikely, they have tried and failed before.. It would be likely 1 service per week for local Limerick customers, hardly something worth running a container rail service to connect with.. For context Dublin port has 2/3 Lo/Lo services a DAY every day of the week

    Don't see where are you getting 2/3 extra trains with a little vision? It's 4/5 with timber and XPO and that is probably the market that is there for railfreight for NW to SE


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,530 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The boats are in Dublin, "diverting" them to another port for the fraction of containers that come by rail is fantasy land stuff.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 438 ✭✭andrewfaulk


    L1011 wrote: »
    The boats are in Dublin, "diverting" them to another port for the fraction of containers that come by rail is fantasy land stuff.

    Exactly, would be a case of the tail wagging the dog..


  • Registered Users Posts: 45 Decades


    ezstreet5 wrote: »
    Foynes claim they can, and intend to expand capacity: https://www.sfpc.ie/containers/

    Eh??? "75% of the national population within our catchment area, the Shannon Foynes Port Company's expansion of container services is not alone in local but national interest."


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


    Decades wrote: »

    The claims of 5,000 truck loads (ie 5,000) 40 foot containers per year on the Dublin/Waterford line is I think wishful thinking. Take two week out for christmas. and it comes to 100 containers per week. Is that 50 outbound 50 inbound, on two trains a week? It is just fanciful thinking that traffic does not exist between Ballina and Waterford. My conjecture is that coca-Cola might be shifting some of their shipments to continental europe based Coca Cola bottlers to Waterford to be the anchor Tenant on this service, they must have an anchor tenant and that is the only one I can think is possible. As for Intermodal, with large retailers using this service, it is not flexible enough. My guess is this contract will trial for 6 to 9 months, and will be closed again by this time next year. I cannot see it adding any volume to ex Ballina.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 438 ✭✭andrewfaulk


    westtip wrote: »
    The claims of 5,000 truck loads (ie 5,000) 40 foot containers per year on the Dublin/Waterford line is I think wishful thinking. Take two week out for christmas. and it comes to 100 containers per week. Is that 50 outbound 50 inbound, on two trains a week? It is just fanciful thinking that traffic does not exist between Ballina and Waterford. My conjecture is that coca-Cola might be shifting some of their shipments to continental europe based Coca Cola bottlers to Waterford to be the anchor Tenant on this service, they must have an anchor tenant and that is the only one I can think is possible. As for Intermodal, with large retailers using this service, it is not flexible enough. My guess is this contract will trial for 6 to 9 months, and will be closed again by this time next year. I cannot see it adding any volume to ex Ballina.

    It’s the party number


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭donvito99


    L1011 wrote: »
    fantasy land stuff.

    Welcome to the forum.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,610 ✭✭✭eastwest


    westtip wrote: »
    The claims of 5,000 truck loads (ie 5,000) 40 foot containers per year on the Dublin/Waterford line is I think wishful thinking. Take two week out for christmas. and it comes to 100 containers per week. Is that 50 outbound 50 inbound, on two trains a week? It is just fanciful thinking that traffic does not exist between Ballina and Waterford. My conjecture is that coca-Cola might be shifting some of their shipments to continental europe based Coca Cola bottlers to Waterford to be the anchor Tenant on this service, they must have an anchor tenant and that is the only one I can think is possible. As for Intermodal, with large retailers using this service, it is not flexible enough. My guess is this contract will trial for 6 to 9 months, and will be closed again by this time next year. I cannot see it adding any volume to ex Ballina.

    This is a story about nothing, but it's purpose, the reason why it is in a very west on track newspaper at this time, has nothing to do with freight to Waterford.
    This particular tall tale has a different purpose. It is designed to persuade the more dim of the mayo county councilors that the government is imminently going to invest in the western transport corridor by building a railway on it. Many of the councillors are apparently being swayed in the direction of public opinion by the avalanche of submissions to the draft county development plan, and a few have apparently indicated to the greenway lobby that they will.support the 'greenway now, railway in the future' side of the debate.
    It was time to wheel out the teller of tall tales, and the party newspaper was happy to oblige.
    But it doesn't mean that somebody is going to fund an extra freight railway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,137 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    eastwest wrote: »
    This is a story about nothing, but it's purpose, the reason why it is in a very west on track newspaper at this time, has nothing to do with freight to Waterford.
    This particular tall tale has a different purpose. It is designed to persuade the more dim of the mayo county councilors that the government is imminently going to invest in the western transport corridor by building a railway on it. Many of the councillors are apparently being swayed in the direction of public opinion by the avalanche of submissions to the draft county development plan, and a few have apparently indicated to the greenway lobby that they will.support the 'greenway now, railway in the future' side of the debate.
    It was time to wheel out the teller of tall tales, and the party newspaper was happy to oblige.
    But it doesn't mean that somebody is going to fund an extra freight railway.




    it would be a rebuilding of a railway on the western railway corridor, since a railway currently exists.
    for it to be building a railway, that would require no railway to have existed before, meaning a brand new railway would be built from scratch.
    there is no greenway now railway in the future currently, there is only greenway and that is it, where a railway is turned into a greenway.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,610 ✭✭✭eastwest


    it would be a rebuilding of a railway on the western railway corridor, since a railway currently exists.
    for it to be building a railway, that would require no railway to have existed before, meaning a brand new railway would be built from scratch.
    there is no greenway now railway in the future currently, there is only greenway and that is it, where a railway is turned into a greenway.
    There's a lane way near my house, currently overgrown with briars, but I call it a motorway, myself. I know that any day now there'll be lines of trucks on it. Because I believe it.


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


    it would be a rebuilding of a railway on the western railway corridor, since a railway currently exists.
    for it to be building a railway, that would require no railway to have existed before, meaning a brand new railway would be built from scratch.
    there is no greenway now railway in the future currently, there is only greenway and that is it, where a railway is turned into a greenway.

    Western Transport Corridor please, lets use the official language of the Department of Transport, not to mention to remind you of their thinking and that of Irish Rail BTW. At some point you really have to listen to the policy makers.
    “To that end we would welcome the protection of the Western Rail Corridor as a “Transport Corridor” rather that solely as a railway line”…..”This minor change would not prohibit the reinstatement of the railway line but it would also ensure that consideration could be given at a future time for the construction of a greenway”……”This would be particularly welcome for phase IV of the western rail corridor from Claremorris to Charlestown”

    Source: Submission 1027 DOT: https://consult.mayo.ie/en/submission/myo-c11-1027

    Submission from Irish Rail:
    “continue to provide conditional support for the development of a greenways in locations where the railway does not have a short to medium term viable business case for reintroduction of services. In terms of the Western Rail Corridor, this conditional support is subject to the section north of Claremorris. Greenways help to keep the asset in state ownership and keep the asset utilised, and then if there is a decision at some time in the future that it should go back to railway use, the licensing arrangement is such that it can do so”
    Source: Submission number 1027 Irish Rail https://consult.mayo.ie/en/submission/myo-c11-696


    Hey Ho on we go.


  • Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭ezstreet5


    westtip wrote: »
    Western Transport Corridor please, lets use the official language of the Department of Transport, not to mention to remind you of their thinking and that of Irish Rail BTW. At some point you really have to listen to the policy makers.
    Oh good Lord, we've lost it entirely.


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


    ezstreet5 wrote: »
    Oh good Lord, we've lost it entirely.

    I am just the messenger apparently this is what the department now call the piece of land available for transport solutions between Collooney and Athenry that some people refer to as the Western Rail corridor that used to have a railway on it until the mid 1970s, but is now officially called the Western Transport Corridor, if you don't like it drop a line to the Minister. Hey ho.

    BTW I presume these sentence don't need to much explaining ”
    This would be particularly welcome for phase IV of the western rail corridor from Claremorris to Charlestown” (DOT) and "this conditional support is subject to the section north of Claremorris." (irish Rail).

    I guess in a way you are right in saying
    We've lost it entirely
    , the We I presume is West on Track? In that you have lost that section of the Western Transport to a consensus opinion of the landowner and the DOT to the acceptance a greenway is the best idea on that section now? so yes you are right you have "lost it"!

    Hey ho on we go.


  • Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭ezstreet5


    westtip wrote: »
    I am just the messenger apparently this is what the department now call the piece of land available for transport solutions between Collooney and Athenry that some people refer to as the Western Rail corridor that used to have a railway on it until the mid 1970s, but is now officially called the Western Transport Corridor, if you don't like it drop a line to the Minister. Hey ho.
    So official! What would even be 'transported' via a bicycle trail? The 'department' may need an awakening, and they might get one soon.


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


    ezstreet5 wrote: »
    So official! What would even be 'transported' via a bicycle trail? The 'department' may need an awakening, and they might get one soon.

    Ah sure I have heard one mayo cllr say it would be illegal to put a greenway on the transport corridor but he fully supports its use as a velorail which has already received almost €500k in funding, the last €198k was a bung from Leader.

    Transported via a bicycle trail, err same as in Waterford and West Mayo - money spending tourists transforming the local economy, I think the department might support that idea.


  • Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭ezstreet5


    westtip wrote: »
    Ah sure I have heard one mayo cllr say it would be illegal to put a greenway on the transport corridor but he fully supports its use as a velorail which has already received almost €500k in funding, the last €198k was a bung from Leader.

    Transported via a bicycle trail, err same as in Waterford and West Mayo - money spending tourists transforming the local economy, I think the department might support that idea.

    The issue is not one to be decided by Mayo, Galway, or Sligo Councils, or any combination. It's not even an issue to be decided by 'the Department.' And if you are focused on Velorail, you are also misguided, as it is likewise unimportant. And I would say it it fanciful to believe that an inland, Tier 2 (or 3) greenway segment, unconnected to the national network, will have any massive economic impact, as is envisioned. There is no yellow-bricked 'sconeway,' sorry about that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,137 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    eastwest wrote: »
    There's a lane way near my house, currently overgrown with briars, but I call it a motorway, myself. I know that any day now there'll be lines of trucks on it. Because I believe it.


    it's just a lane in fairness.


    westtip wrote: »
    Western Transport Corridor please, lets use the official language of the Department of Transport, not to mention to remind you of their thinking and that of Irish Rail BTW. At some point you really have to listen to the policy makers.



    Source: Submission 1027 DOT: https://consult.mayo.ie/en/submission/myo-c11-1027

    Submission from Irish Rail:
    Source: Submission number 1027 Irish Rail https://consult.mayo.ie/en/submission/myo-c11-696


    Hey Ho on we go.


    i'm fine with western railway corridor thanks.
    just because the policy makers decide something does not mean i must go along with it, and i won't be doing so.
    i believe athenry to claremorris should reopen as a railway, and has little to no potential as a greenway and will not be the tourist benanza, annd i oppose such a greenway on the basis that i believe people are being promised something that won't be another waterford.
    to be honest from what i see, as time goes on fewer and fewer people go along with the greenways keeping the asset in state hands yada yada, most of us know if a greenway is built then that is it, until such time as we actually see any former rail route in this country that has a greenway built on it returned to railway use which will then prove us incorrect.
    westtip wrote: »
    I am just the messenger apparently this is what the department now call the piece of land available for transport solutions between Collooney and Athenry that some people refer to as the Western Rail corridor that used to have a railway on it until the mid 1970s, but is now officially called the Western Transport Corridor, if you don't like it drop a line to the Minister. Hey ho.

    BTW I presume these sentence don't need to much explaining ”

    I guess in a way you are right in saying , the We I presume is West on Track? In that you have lost that section of the Western Transport to a consensus opinion of the landowner and the DOT to the acceptance a greenway is the best idea on that section now? so yes you are right you have "lost it"!

    Hey ho on we go.


    there is still a railway on the western rail corridor, it is disused currently and would need rebuilding, and it was operational between athenry and claremorris up until the late 90s.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    to be honest from what i see, as time goes on fewer and fewer people go along with the greenways keeping the asset in state hands yada yada, most of us know if a greenway is built then that is it, until such time as we actually see any former rail route in this country that has a greenway built on it returned to railway use which will then prove us incorrect.

    I'm not sure you understand how leases work


  • Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭ezstreet5


    I'm not sure you understand how leases work
    Let's be clear. There is no "greenway lease" that will ever be converted back to a railway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,530 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    I see we're at the "but but but but Comber" fallacy again.

    The entire plan in Belfast was changed to a different system, not even vaguely due to the moaning about Comber.

    A leased greenway can entirely be taken back by the railway owner; that is the purpose of the lease. Don't even bother mentioning Comber, everyone knows its a fallacy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭ezstreet5


    L1011 wrote: »
    I see we're at the "but but but but Comber" fallacy again.

    The entire plan in Belfast was changed to a different system, not even vaguely due to the moaning about Comber.

    A leased greenway can entirely be taken back by the railway owner; that is the purpose of the lease. Don't even bother mentioning Comber, everyone knows its a fallacy.
    What are you even on about "Comber?" I'm not even gonna look that up. And there is no case, anywhere, in the Western world where a railbnaked corridor was reactivated. It is a failed concept.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,530 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Where, precisely, have there been serious proposals to do so?


  • Registered Users Posts: 356 ✭✭ezstreet5


    L1011 wrote: »
    Where, precisely, have there been serious proposals to do so?
    R8


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,530 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ezstreet5 wrote: »
    R8

    ?

    Google hasn't even got a clue.


Advertisement