Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

Lord Glentoran · 03-12-2018 11:56am

Mikedexter wrote: »

The velorail is all tied to the FG side

I Don't.know.much about the wider picture

Someone call the tumble dryer, there’s a sock missing.

end of the road · 03-12-2018 12:39pm

eastwest wrote: »

'Faceless men' didn't close and don't close railways.

they do, and they did.

eastwest wrote: »

'Local people who don't use them are the ones that close them

no they aren't. especially where there was no service to actually use in the first place. 1 train a day each way or whatever the timetable was at the time of closure is quite likely not to have been designed with userfriendlyness in mind.

eastwest wrote: »

'you can't keep a railway open once usage drops down to a handful of people.
The reason local people don't use these 19th century routes of course is because there aren't enough of them, they don't suit their needs, and alternatives are more attractive and cost effective.

every rail route in the country is from the 19th century, so the 19th century nonsense is invalid. the "alternatives" that are supposibly "more cost effective" are really only so because they get away with not having their infrastructure cost counted as part of their running cost like rail has to put up with.

eastwest wrote: »

'The notion that resurrecting a piece of antiquated victorian infrastructure will solve the problems of the west is naive and shows a complete lack of understanding of why the west is in decline.

nobody said it would solve the problems of the west.

eastwest wrote: »

'This ignorance is often manifested be a hatred of tourism, one of the industries that helps sustain local communities elsewhere, that can be the catalyst for rural renewal, and that helps make areas attractive to modern in industries such as the IT sector. This ilogical hatred of outsiders coming to spend money on rural localities is often described in populist, disparaging terms as 'Dublin 4 types on bikes' or indeed in terms like 'compliant playground'.

this is complete nonsense tbh. i have saw absolutely nothing from those proposing the railway to show your claim to be the case. it sounds like the usual "they don't agree with us so they agin us" guff.

eastwest wrote: »

'Areas that understand basic economics and the development of sustainable industries are happy to allow high-end sustainable tourism to maintain local services, to support local jobs and to attract additional industries drawn by the resultant quality of life can and do profit from tourism infrastructure.

yes, however they also understand the reality that nothing is guaranteed, and they are realistic in terms of their projections in terms of what to expect, and what they will likely get.

eastwest wrote: »

'In laces like Kiltimagh and Claremorris however, a small number of people prefer to wallow in the past while leaving their brains outside the door.
The only way forward, while these views prevail, is downward.

it's nothing to do with some people who supposibly "Wallow in the past" . it's actually quite likely that these people actually do believe that these towns aren't really going to attract the numbers to make it worth while converting a cross-country corridor/main line into a greenway. perhapse they may believe and understand that for something for locals, something else could be found that would deliver just as much of a benefit to them.

03-12-2018 2:33pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

Where are you getting this stuff from? The anti-rail colours of those supporting the WRC project are really showing now. I'll say no more in case I get site banned.

What the hell are you talking about!
I was just making aa general comment about railway development in the past and why they came into being in the first place.

Del.Monte · 03-12-2018 3:34pm

Deleted User wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about!
I was just making aa general comment about railway development in the past and why they came into being in the first place.

If so it was misinformation in the Irish context given that most lines here were built for passengers and freight from the outset rather than the other way round.

Isambard · 03-12-2018 4:44pm

well of course there was no competition when lines were built, but nowadays people like the immediacy of their cars which means for a service to succeed there needs to be as intensive a service as possible.
It's no longer a case of people planning their journeys around the train times, they want transport when they want it and if there isn't a convenient train, they'll go another way. Of course adding more trains dilutes the passenger numbers and increases the costs, and there's a huge gulf there that is probably not fillable in most of Ireland.
I wonder how Bus Eireann does on it's services that aren't supposed to be subsidised? To add a rail service (from the same Company)when there's a parallel bus route seems crazy to me .

Lord Glentoran · 03-12-2018 7:43pm

Isambard wrote: »

well of course there was no competition when lines were built, but nowadays people like the immediacy of their cars which means for a service to succeed there needs to be as intensive a service as possible.
It's no longer a case of people planning their journeys around the train times, they want transport when they want it and if there isn't a convenient train, they'll go another way. Of course adding more trains dilutes the passenger numbers and increases the costs, and there's a huge gulf there that is probably not fillable in most of Ireland.
I wonder how Bus Eireann does on it's services that aren't supposed to be subsidised? To add a rail service (from the same Company)when there's a parallel bus route seems crazy to me .

So just cars, and buses as a fill-in for the majority of the country then. Yee-hah.

Isambard · 03-12-2018 7:56pm

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

So just cars, and buses as a fill-in for the majority of the country then. Yee-hah.

what choice is there? If you built 6 lines tomorrow you still would only be covering a tiny proportion of the population, most of the rest of whom you could never serve with a train or indeed a bus. What is the point of running buses and trains on parallel routes when much of rural Ireland has neither?

Lord Glentoran · 03-12-2018 8:07pm

Isambard wrote: »

what choice is there? If you built 6 lines tomorrow you still would only be covering a tiny proportion of the population, most of the rest of whom you could never serve with a train or indeed a bus. What is the point of running buses and trains on parallel routes when much of rural Ireland has neither?

So no point in the railways existing then. Thanks for the clarification.

Isambard · 03-12-2018 8:12pm

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

So no point in the railways existing then. Thanks for the clarification.

no point in parallel bus routes being put in in competition (if they don't exist) would be closer to my point.

Sam Russell · 03-12-2018 8:21pm

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

So no point in the railways existing then. Thanks for the clarification.

Well, not a lot of point having railways in remote rural areas that have small populations.

Lots of reason for having them feeding commuters into cities from outlying centres of population. This can be improved by feeder bus services and P&R facilities.

Hence Dart expansion, Metrolink, Dart Underground, Quad tracking of the mainline feeding Dublin. Cork could do with more trains as well as Limerick.

Del.Monte · 03-12-2018 8:44pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, not a lot of point having railways in remote rural areas that have small populations.

Lots of reason for having them feeding commuters into cities from outlying centres of population. This can be improved by feeder bus services and P&R facilities.

Hence Dart expansion, Metrolink, Dart Underground, Quad tracking of the mainline feeding Dublin. Cork could do with more trains as well as Limerick.

Why bother - surely buses are cheaper and faster and will do for the great unwashed and FT pass holders who don't have cars.

serfboard · 03-12-2018 9:13pm

Del.Monte wrote: »

Why bother - surely buses are cheaper and faster and will do for the great unwashed and FT pass holders who don't have cars.

No you're wrong. It's far better to have trains rattling around the countryside carrying an amount of passengers that wouldn't even fill a minibus - while taking longer and costing more.

Isambard · 03-12-2018 10:22pm

If buses are faster and cheaper for a particular journey, why would you need a slower dearer train?

Coillte_Bhoy · 06-12-2018 3:44pm

Mikedexter wrote: »

The cost overrun was on the rail lines

Not sure where the money will come from to complete the project

It certainly won't come from the so-called charity behind the project

Who are you referring to?

westtip · 06-12-2018 4:15pm

Well the Tuam Herald did us all a service this week!

Muckyboots · 14-12-2018 10:58am

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/518 http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/5187676
There is enough Irony in this to fully Ferrous Oxide the tracks from Sligo to Athenry.

serfboard · 14-12-2018 7:10pm

Muckyboots wrote: »

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/518 http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/5187676
There is enough Irony in this to fully Ferrous Oxide the tracks from Sligo to Athenry.

Jaysus that's feckin hilarious.

You could imagine a German MEP (let's call him Helmut Fritz) looking at a map of Ireland and thinking - "Yes, there is no rail infrastructure there. There should be."

Unfortunately, Herr Fritz is basing that analysis on the belief that Ireland is planned like Germany, where only people who work on the land live on the land, and everyone else is in a well-planned town or city.

That is not Ireland. Here, we scatter the houses throughout the countryside like confetti, hence no critical mass in our towns, hence no demand for rail services from those towns.

Bus and Rail Park 'n Rides on the peripheries of the cities are what's needed here. Not empty trains meandering around the countryside.

Muckyboots · 14-12-2018 9:42pm

serfboard wrote: »

Jaysus that's feckin hilarious.

You could imagine a German MEP (let's call him Helmut Fritz) looking at a map of Ireland and thinking - "Yes, there is no rail infrastructure there. There should be."

Unfortunately, Herr Fritz is basing that analysis on the belief that Ireland is planned like Germany, where only people who work on the land live on the land, and everyone else is in a well-planned town or city.

That is not Ireland. Here, we scatter the houses throughout the countryside like confetti, hence no critical mass in our towns, hence no demand for rail services from those towns.

Bus and Rail Park 'n Rides on the peripheries of the cities are what's needed here. Not empty trains meandering around the countryside.

These reports go on to the Commission next. I'd expect big Phil & Co will but a thooth in it so as not to leave the Government exposed to a half billion white elephant & to the EU stumped to match it. Zee Germans will get to march through and cycle our fair and pleasant lands and leave their easily earned euros in towns and villages all along the inner West. WAW for the yanks in hired cars and guided coaches.

westtip · 15-12-2018 9:18am

Muckyboots wrote: »

These reports go on to the Commission next. I'd expect big Phil & Co will but a thooth in it so as not to leave the Government exposed to a half billion white elephant & to the EU stumped to match it. Zee Germans will get to march through and cycle our fair and pleasant lands and leave their easily earned euros in towns and villages all along the inner West. WAW for the yanks in hired cars and guided coaches.

Clearly Matt Carthy did not let slip the following

23,000 have signed an online petition asking for a greenway on this route.
3,000 people marched on streets of Tuam asking for greenway
several more thousand have signed hard copy petitions for the greenway
Sligo county council have officially (no protesters or petitioners their Matt) applied for funding for a greenway on the Sligo section of the route
Galway county council have applied for funding for a study to look at the greenway on the route
Mayo County council (bless them) have received 300,000 euro use 12 km of the route for leisure purposes with a license for a Velo Rail until 2027 to us the route for leisure. This project is a bit of a hotchpotch but still it shows that even the diehard MCC WOT supporters don't see this becoming a railway.

Matt....Did the SF/WOT high command ask you to keep quiet about all this! Perhaps a few press releases into the right email boxes in Europe might do that!

25-01-2019 10:42pm

All the greenway groups along the route are actively now making submissions to the North West Regional Assembly after it was spotted that some WOT shenanigans were underway.

50843214_10156937165928917_6994637584823484416_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-bru2-1.xx&oh=102438295c43f555c29121cf5fbe3cb4&oe=5CF2C8CF

50843214_10156937165928917_6994637584823484416_n.jpg?_nc_cat=105&_nc_ht=scontent-bru2-1.xx&oh=102438295c43f555c29121cf5fbe3cb4&oe=5CF2C8CF

The submissions being made are as follows and are being submitted through the online submission form at https://www.nwra.ie/rses/

I am making a submission in relation to the RSES draft report. It is clear that Objectives 115 (a) and 115 (b) of the draft plan need to be removed as they clearly contravene the National Development Plan. Both objectives 115 (a) and 115 (b) are presumptive of the outcome of the Western Rail Corridor Review of the closed railway line that is currently being undertaken by the DTTAS as part of the Ireland 2040 National Development Plan. It is not within the remit of the Regional Spatial Economic Strategies to assume the outcome of the rail review. Objectives 115 (a) and objective 115 (b) contradict the Ireland 2040 National Development Plan which only facilitates a review of the line from Athenry to Claremorris and does not include the line north of Claremorris. Until this review is completed no assumptions can be made about the closed railway line ever being re-opened and to make such a sweeping assumption and build it into a Regional Strategy would be contrary to the National Development Plan. I suggest that objectives 115 (a) and (b) be reworded so they do not contravene the National Development plan and instead include the following text;

Revision of objectives 115 (a) and 115 (b): If the outcome of the Western Rail Corridor Review from Athenry to Claremorris indicates that the closed railway is unlikely to be re-opened before 2030, then the closed railway shall be considered for alternative uses, for example such as a greenway, until such time as a railway might be possible, in order to protect the route in public ownership. Such alternative usage of the closed railway route would be under a strict licensing arrangement with Irish Rail that if needed for railway in the future then railway will take precedence at that time.

25-01-2019 10:59pm

As for the rail review......

50233417_10156922382828917_6226457047274094592_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ht=scontent-bru2-1.xx&oh=ed2a6ba447cc8fe23716f1ce2fa2b801&oe=5CF2E671

50233417_10156922382828917_6226457047274094592_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ht=scontent-bru2-1.xx&oh=ed2a6ba447cc8fe23716f1ce2fa2b801&oe=5CF2E671

eastwest · 26-01-2019 9:55am

Deleted User wrote: »

All the greenway groups along the route are actively now making submissions to the North West Regional Assembly after it was spotted that some WOT shenanigans were underway.

The submissions being made are as follows and are being submitted through the online submission form at https://www.nwra.ie/rses/

I am making a submission in relation to the RSES draft report. It is clear that Objectives 115 (a) and 115 (b) of the draft plan need to be removed as they clearly contravene the National Development Plan. Both objectives 115 (a) and 115 (b) are presumptive of the outcome of the Western Rail Corridor Review of the closed railway line that is currently being undertaken by the DTTAS as part of the Ireland 2040 National Development Plan. It is not within the remit of the Regional Spatial Economic Strategies to assume the outcome of the rail review. Objectives 115 (a) and objective 115 (b) contradict the Ireland 2040 National Development Plan which only facilitates a review of the line from Athenry to Claremorris and does not include the line north of Claremorris. Until this review is completed no assumptions can be made about the closed railway line ever being re-opened and to make such a sweeping assumption and build it into a Regional Strategy would be contrary to the National Development Plan. I suggest that objectives 115 (a) and (b) be reworded so they do not contravene the National Development plan and instead include the following text;

Revision of objectives 115 (a) and 115 (b): If the outcome of the Western Rail Corridor Review from Athenry to Claremorris indicates that the closed railway is unlikely to be re-opened before 2030, then the closed railway shall be considered for alternative uses, for example such as a greenway, until such time as a railway might be possible, in order to protect the route in public ownership. Such alternative usage of the closed railway route would be under a strict licensing arrangement with Irish Rail that if needed for railway in the future then railway will take precedence at that time.

I'm surprised that an official body like the NWRA would propose a draft document like this with such an obvious anomaly. It smells of undue influence by the anti-greenway lobby, and it removes all credibility from the NWRA -- they are nothing more than another quango of expenses-gathering councillors with their thinking done for them by wot.

westtip · 10-02-2019 1:01pm

eastwest wrote: »

I'm surprised that an official body like the NWRA would propose a draft document like this with such an obvious anomaly. It smells of undue influence by the anti-greenway lobby, and it removes all credibility from the NWRA -- they are nothing more than another quango of expenses-gathering councillors with their thinking done for them by wot.

I don't believe the NWRA planners were fully aware of the facts, my understanding is that SF/WOT virtually told them at the pre-draft stage of the new regional plans, there was to be no mention of greenway or western rail trails in the initial first draft. From what I have heard the NWRA planners met and listened to the greenway advocates in the now closed public consultation period and seemed to take on the ideas as quite rational. I also understand an unprecedented number of submissions has been made on the greenway idea so at least it might be up for discussion. Mind you we have been at this a long time, and you never can tell what SF/WOT might do to make sure the members of the North West Regional Assembly don't even get the chance to debate the greenway, they have done this before now, they (SF/WOT) still consider the closed railway as "not up for discussion"

monument · 11-02-2019 12:28am

westtip wrote: »

I don't believe the NWRA planners were fully aware of the facts, my understanding is that SF/WOT virtually told them at the pre-draft stage of the new regional plans, there was to be no mention of greenway or western rail trails in the initial first draft. From what I have heard the NWRA planners met and listened to the greenway advocates in the now closed public consultation period and seemed to take on the ideas as quite rational. I also understand an unprecedented number of submissions has been made on the greenway idea so at least it might be up for discussion. Mind you we have been at this a long time, and you never can tell what SF/WOT might do to make sure the members of the North West Regional Assembly don't even get the chance to debate the greenway, they have done this before now, they (SF/WOT) still consider the closed railway as "not up for discussion"

Posters have been warned on this before -- cut out the SF/WOT nonsense.

-- mod

westtip · 11-02-2019 9:19pm

eastwest wrote: »

I'm surprised that an official body like the NWRA would propose a draft document like this with such an obvious anomaly. It smells of undue influence by the anti-greenway lobby, and it removes all credibility from the NWRA -- they are nothing more than another quango of expenses-gathering councillors with their thinking done for them by wot.

Yep we might still come up against this nonsense - A member of Mayo coco and apparently on the NWRA by virtue of the fact he is on some committee of councillors called "The committee of the Regions", I know you couldn't make it up, I think it is a quango for European Expenses Cllr Murray who represents Sinn Fein who is also very Pro West on Track who said this in 2014.... it is the infamous "The Western Rail Corridor is not on the table and is not up for discussion" quote on national TV. He will do his best to stop the debate created by the hundreds of submissions the NWRA has received on this issue:

Here is a reminder of how intolerant some politicians are of debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7G_Zd47HRc

westtip · 17-02-2019 12:21pm

Sources suggest that the NWRA got just over a thousand submissions on the new Regional Planning Strategies, unofficial indications are that about 80% of all submissions called for the Western Rail Trail to happen on the closed railway from Athenry to Sligo. Submissions in support of the greenway came in from several of the TDs in Sligo and Galway, businesses, sports clubs and hundreds of members of the public - Mayo TDS were conspicuous in their silence. Several cllrs also made submissions and Sligo county council executive made a greenway supporting submission to counter any attempt by West on Track to try and stop the Sligo Greenway from happening, but you never can tell what might happen on that one.

It would appear that the myth of all councils in the west now only supporting the railway option is just that ......a myth.

The TDs who made submissions supporting the greenway were from FF and FG, it can be safely said that the only party that clearly has a one track mind re the railway is SF, although privately party members do support the plan to create tourism jobs with a greenway.

There will now be a battle of political minds in the North West Regional Assembly to get the greenway written into the regional plans and to make sure the issue gets debated by members. What is clear though is that the Western Rail Corridor is most certainly up for discussion.

westtip · 25-02-2019 3:59pm

More pressure on politicians in Galway East that refuse to support the Greenway, and as for Mayo, dinosaurs still prevail.

https://www.tuamherald.ie/news/roundup/articles/2019/02/20/4169634-greenway-group-form-company/

McAlban · 26-02-2019 9:12pm

westtip wrote: »

More pressure on politicians in Galway East that refuse to support the Greenway, and as for Mayo, dinosaurs still prevail.

https://www.tuamherald.ie/news/roundup/articles/2019/02/20/4169634-greenway-group-form-company/

I wonder how much LEO money will be thrown at this company to support their "marketing" god knows the group could do with some better copywriters than the usual anti WOT/SF rubbish that's being put out lately. That said they would need an actual business plan to get that funding, it would be interesting to read to see where they think the business case is.

westtip · 27-02-2019 11:45am

McAlban wrote: »

I wonder how much LEO money will be thrown at this company to support their "marketing" god knows the group could do with some better copywriters than the usual anti WOT/SF rubbish that's being put out lately. That said they would need an actual business plan to get that funding, it would be interesting to read to see where they think the business case is.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/interiors/postman-pad-village-post-office-with-a-history-gets-new-lease-of-life-1.3800220?mode=amp&fbclid=IwAR2Rph5IVjTHVZ5wPfNXinOhlWTQp1eNjpJY8IVaP7SLn8G1rePz_8OCKkg

I think they might find the business case in Kilmactomas, Newport, etc suggest you read the "rubbish" article from the Irish Times about a property owner in Kilmactomas reinventing a family home for tourism, or look at the case study of the Great Western greenway and read every article written on how greenway-nomics transforms small communities, villages and towns. Duh...have you not glanced at all the public articles espousing the economic miracles that greenways bring! And you ask about the business case...Haha go look at every business in Tuam town centre with a sticker in the window saying they support the QMG!

Alternatively, perhaps we could re-open the business case again for Athenry/Ennis and see if the business case blindfold can be pulled over the eyes of the independent consultants doing the rail review for Tuam - Claremorris.

and as far as I know LEO won't be funding a not for profit community based company in Galway East, unlike some community based companies in Mayo that have had €300K thrown at them by their local chummy TD and Minister for the velo rail project - a project supported by the aforementioned group you refer to with a five letter synonym which I dare not type.

Hey ho, keep taking the pills old chap, you cannot stop a Tsunami.

eastwest · 27-02-2019 12:36pm

McAlban wrote: »

I wonder how much LEO money will be thrown at this company to support their "marketing" god knows the group could do with some better copywriters than the usual anti WOT/SF rubbish that's being put out lately. That said they would need an actual business plan to get that funding, it would be interesting to read to see where they think the business case is.

Is that a typo. or do you mean 'Leader money'? As far as I know, the Tuam group is entirely voluntary and self-funded, so they don't qualify for funding from government.

McAlban · 27-02-2019 8:07pm

westtip wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/interiors/postman-pad-village-post-office-with-a-history-gets-new-lease-of-life-1.3800220?mode=amp&fbclid=IwAR2Rph5IVjTHVZ5wPfNXinOhlWTQp1eNjpJY8IVaP7SLn8G1rePz_8OCKkg

I think they might find the business case in Kilmactomas, Newport, etc suggest you read the "rubbish" article from the Irish Times about a property owner in Kilmactomas reinventing a family home for tourism, or look at the case study of the Great Western greenway and read every article written on how greenway-nomics transforms small communities, villages and towns. Duh...have you not glanced at all the public articles espousing the economic miracles that greenways bring! And you ask about the business case...Haha go look at every business in Tuam town centre with a sticker in the window saying they support the QMG!

Alternatively, perhaps we could re-open the business case again for Athenry/Ennis and see if the business case blindfold can be pulled over the eyes of the independent consultants doing the rail review for Tuam - Claremorris.

and as far as I know LEO won't be funding a not for profit community based company in Galway East, unlike some community based companies in Mayo that have had €300K thrown at them by their local chummy TD and Minister for the velo rail project - a project supported by the aforementioned group you refer to with a five letter synonym which I dare not type.

Hey ho, keep taking the pills old chap, you cannot stop a Tsunami.

Perhaps you and your buddies should stop drinking the cool aid?

Greenways already approved in local development plans have difficulty getting funding, sure GWG and Tramore or Carlingford/Omeath have been successful I use them myself regularly, but they are connecting what are already tourism centres, what's true for railway passenger numbers is also true for Greenways. The Group in this area would be better served supporting viable greenways already in planning elsewhere than trying to get a greenway through boring flat bogland between small urban centres with limited tourism potential.

Much like WOT or any WRC supporter, no hyperbole (or social media based propaganda) of any sort from the campaign spokespeople is going to change that.

Sam Russell · 27-02-2019 8:23pm

McAlban wrote: »

Perhaps you and your buddies should stop drinking the cool aid?

Greenways already approved in local development plans have difficulty getting funding, sure GWG and Tramore or Carlingford/Omeath have been successful I use them myself regularly, but they are connecting what are already tourism centres, what's true for railway passenger numbers is also true for Greenways. The Group in this area would be better served supporting viable greenways already in planning elsewhere than trying to get a greenway through boring flat bogland between small urban centres with limited tourism potential.

Much like WOT or any WRC supporter, no hyperbole (or social media based propaganda) of any sort from the campaign spokespeople is going to change that.

Is that not truer for a railway project than a greenway that lives or dies by walkers or cyclist passing along it. Running cost - zero. Rail project requires paying passengers who may or may not wish to travel from small urban centre to a smaller urban centre. The railway is from one end to the other with no stop in between, so little to be gained by those in between.

The greenway does not need level crossing gate keepers, or station staff, or ticket collectors, nor does it need train drivers - whether anyone goes or not. It also will not need expensive trains that need millions to purchase and constant maintenance and fuel.

The greenway is the only solution.

eastwest · 27-02-2019 9:03pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

McAlban wrote: »

Perhaps you and your buddies should stop drinking the cool aid?

Greenways already approved in local development plans have difficulty getting funding, sure GWG and Tramore or Carlingford/Omeath have been successful I use them myself regularly, but they are connecting what are already tourism centres, what's true for railway passenger numbers is also true for Greenways. The Group in this area would be better served supporting viable greenways already in planning elsewhere than trying to get a greenway through boring flat bogland between small urban centres with limited tourism potential.

Much like WOT or any WRC supporter, no hyperbole (or social media based propaganda) of any sort from the campaign spokespeople is going to change that.

Is that not truer for a railway project than a greenway that lives or dies by walkers or cyclist passing along it. Running cost - zero. Rail project requires paying passengers who may or may not wish to travel from small urban centre to a smaller urban centre. The railway is from one end to the other with no stop in between, so little to be gained by those in between.

The greenway does not need level crossing gate keepers, or station staff, or ticket collectors, nor does it need train drivers - whether anyone goes or not. It also will not need expensive trains that need millions to purchase and constant maintenance and fuel.

The greenway is the only solution.

The greenway delivers people to local areas and they cannot then speed away to somewhere else. As they've found in waterford, the journey on the greenway is the destination, and the benefits ooze out to the communities through which it passes.
The myth that a railway between Galway and Sligo might benefit towns along the route is just that, a myth. It didn't work for Gort and it wouldn't work for Tuam or Kiltimagh.

McAlban · 27-02-2019 9:13pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Is that not truer for a railway project than a greenway that lives or dies by walkers or cyclist passing along it. Running cost - zero. Rail project requires paying passengers who may or may not wish to travel from small urban centre to a smaller urban centre. The railway is from one end to the other with no stop in between, so little to be gained by those in between.

The greenway does not need level crossing gate keepers, or station staff, or ticket collectors, nor does it need train drivers - whether anyone goes or not. It also will not need expensive trains that need millions to purchase and constant maintenance and fuel.

The Greenway is the only solution.

I'm not advocating for the re-opening of the WRC, as the development of the west is not there to support it yet, (while Dublin and the east coast is grinding to a halt). The Line must be preserved however, but investing in a greenway in this location is not the answer. While your points on the comparison between running a railway and greenway are valid, they still need massive investment initially, and yes that's true for both Greenway and Railway in relative terms. However, Changing this over to a Greenway will kill the possibility of it ever re-opening as a railway, in 10, 50 or 100 years. Comber valley Case in point.

eastwest wrote: »

The greenway delivers people to local areas and they cannot then speed away to somewhere else. As they've found in waterford, the journey on the greenway is the destination, and the benefits ooze out to the communities through which it passes.
The myth that a railway between Galway and Sligo might benefit towns along the route is just that, a myth. It didn't work for Gort and it wouldn't work for Tuam or Kiltimagh.

Actually a rail service from Tuam to Galway might serve a lot of people. Judging by the mess the M17 and old N17 are creating when you get to Galway city by Car.

I wouldn't trust CIE to run such a service anyway, ever since it's foundation it's been running railways all over the country into the ground.

There are a lot more rail projects around the country that are more viable and in some cases urgently needed than the WRC.

There are a lot more Greenways around the country that are more viable than the WRT and they deserve the funding.

Isambard · 27-02-2019 9:22pm

destroyed your argument with the Comber reference.

27-02-2019 11:57pm

Please research Comber fully before using it as justification, as pointed out, you just shot yourself in the foot

eastwest · 28-02-2019 12:20am

McAlban wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

Is that not truer for a railway project than a greenway that lives or dies by walkers or cyclist passing along it. Running cost - zero. Rail project requires paying passengers who may or may not wish to travel from small urban centre to a smaller urban centre. The railway is from one end to the other with no stop in between, so little to be gained by those in between.

The greenway does not need level crossing gate keepers, or station staff, or ticket collectors, nor does it need train drivers - whether anyone goes or not. It also will not need expensive trains that need millions to purchase and constant maintenance and fuel.

The Greenway is the only solution.

I'm not advocating for the re-opening of the WRC, as the development of the west is not there to support it yet, (while Dublin and the east coast is grinding to a halt). The Line must be preserved however, but investing in a greenway in this location is not the answer. While your points on the comparison between running a railway and greenway are valid, they still need massive investment initially, and yes that's true for both Greenway and Railway in relative terms. However, Changing this over to a Greenway will kill the possibility of it ever re-opening as a railway, in 10, 50 or 100 years. Comber valley Case in point.

eastwest wrote: »

The greenway delivers people to local areas and they cannot then speed away to somewhere else. As they've found in waterford, the journey on the greenway is the destination, and the benefits ooze out to the communities through which it passes.
The myth that a railway between Galway and Sligo might benefit towns along the route is just that, a myth. It didn't work for Gort and it wouldn't work for Tuam or Kiltimagh.

Actually a rail service from Tuam to Galway might serve a lot of people. Judging by the mess the M17 and old N17 are creating when you get to Galway city by Car.

I wouldn't trust CIE to run such a service anyway, ever since it's foundation it's been running railways all over the country into the ground.

There are a lot more rail projects around the country that are more viable and in some cases urgently needed than the WRC.

There are a lot more Greenways around the country that are more viable than the WRT and they deserve the funding.

Pretty much everybody, including Irish Rail, accepts that greenways help keep routes in public ownership in case they are ever needed for rail. The alternative, allowing them to be lost to squatters or to road needs, is not effective in retaining these assets in state ownership.
All licenses issued by Irish Rail fir gteenway development are contingent on rail having priority. The Comber issue, frequently trotted out by **/*** as a reason to oppose greenways, is entirely different and not relevant at all to the case of the WRT.

London Correspondent · 28-02-2019 12:44am

Deleted User wrote: »

Please research Comber fully before using it as justification, as pointed out, you just shot yourself in the foot

Here is some research https://irishrailwaydevelopments.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/107/

L1011 · 28-02-2019 9:06am

And it's misinformed. They changed the plans entirely to a conventional articulated bus system, on road.

The sole argument people have to support that claim is "but but Comber" when it isn't even true

If CIE retain ownership and lease with break options they can reclaim at any of those times. Signed walks have been closed due to land access expiring in Ireland already - that's precedent worth citing, not desperately scrambling at Comber

westtip · 28-02-2019 12:29pm

McAlban wrote: »

the comparison between running a railway and greenway are valid, they still need massive investment initially, and yes that's true for both Greenway and Railway in relative terms.

There are a lot more Greenways around the country that are more viable than the WRT and they deserve the funding.

Just to pull a bit of your speech there. A greenway in relative terms is not massive investment, the accepted (and I think over the top) costing is about 100k per km. So for the WRT we are talking about 180 km from Athenry to Collooney, so ball park 18 million, in fact with no land ownership issues and the ballast from the train track there already it will probably be less. It is not a lot of money in the grand scheme and the payback forecasts range from 2 to 5 years, an incredible payback for a capital project. The railway, well lets not even talk about the potential billions that could cost and then there is the subvention cost. So please lets not muddy the economic waters about a greenway being a massive investment, in real terms its not.

Now your second point about a lot more greenways being more deserving. You are of course entitled to view on this, I am not sure of the logistics of your view, in fact neither are the department of transport mandarins and planners who will make the recommendation, as the original Greenway Strategy actually listed the Western Rail Trail by name as a greenway of strategic importance due to its length and connecting Dublin-Galway greenway with Enniskillen and with Achill. So your view is rather subjective and personal. Our view is also subjective but also happens to be backed up by being a shared idea in the department of transport, in sligo County council and now thankfully in Galway county council. It has also been supported by several TDs who have made submissions supporting the idea to the North West Regional Assembly in regard to the new Regional Planning Guidelines.

Perhaps you could come back to me on why the WRT is less deserving and the issue of the actual costs of building a greenway with no more than a five year payback for less than €20million as opposed to the economic argument for a train line that will cost billions (probably about 2 billion for the whole way to Sligo), will be a drain on Irish Rail subvention and for which there is not a strong economic argument.

It will be interesting to hear your well thought out structured arguments.

Remember the West of Ireland is not St Albans.

westtip · 28-02-2019 12:40pm

London Correspondent wrote: »

Here is some research https://irishrailwaydevelopments.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/107/

I think what is most interesting about your link is the column on the right hand side of the main "story" about Comber and the bus corridor

1. An editorial from the Western People about the Western Rail Corridor

2. An article from Sean Kyne about the Western Rail Corridor

3. An article about the so called Atlantic Economic Corridor and need for the railway along it.

In other words, London Correspondent ( and nice of you to join the debate with 10 posts so far on boards), its seems to be that Irish Railway Developments is a quasi lobbying publication for the Western Rail Corridor.

Say it as it is please and don't try to flannel any of us that lobbyists publications are independent research or views.

Anything published by Irish Railway Developments is a lobbying publication that support **/WOT and is not an independent viewpoint.

London Correspondent · 28-02-2019 1:10pm

God forbid anyone dissents from the prevailing view westtip. How many posts I have under this account is relevant? Enjoy your “debate”. I don’t engage with harassers.

westtip · 28-02-2019 1:17pm

London Correspondent wrote: »

God forbid anyone dissents from the prevailing view westtip. How many posts I have under this account is relevant? Enjoy your “debate”. I don’t engage with harassers.

Hilarious, anyone is allowed to dissent from the prevailing view, whatever that happens to be. My point was made simply. You put up a link asking people to read some "research", it wasn't research it was an article in a publication that quite clearly supports the **/WOT view, all I did was point this out to other readers, I was welcoming you to the debate as a new poster, which actually is quite relevant, unless you are suggesting you hold more than one account on boards, which may indicate you are in fact trolling.

Hey ho. Keep taking the pills.

eastwest · 01-03-2019 10:49am

London Correspondent wrote: »

God forbid anyone dissents from the prevailing view westtip. How many posts I have under this account is relevant? Enjoy your “debate”. I don’t engage with harassers.

Sorry to see you go; the alternative view of the western rail trail is always interesting, even if it's not based on anything.
Maybe you'll come back and not just kill off the London Correspondent when the debate was getting interesting?

Although I suppose there's always re-incarnation.

Lord Glentoran · 01-03-2019 1:03pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Please research Comber fully before using it as justification, as pointed out, you just shot yourself in the foot

Must have missed the Glider buses running on it when I last looked so.

Lord Glentoran · 01-03-2019 1:04pm

London Correspondent wrote: »

God forbid anyone dissents from the prevailing view westtip. How many posts I have under this account is relevant? Enjoy your “debate”. I don’t engage with harassers.

It would be like debating with The Wall of Gammon on BBC’s Question Time.

McAlban · 01-03-2019 6:28pm

westtip wrote: »

Just to pull a bit of your speech there. A greenway in relative terms is not massive investment, the accepted (and I think over the top) costing is about 100k per km. So for the WRT we are talking about 180 km from Athenry to Collooney, so ball park 18 million, in fact with no land ownership issues and the ballast from the train track there already it will probably be less.
It is not a lot of money in the grand scheme and the payback forecasts range from 2 to 5 years, an incredible payback for a capital project. The railway, well lets not even talk about the potential billions that could cost and then there is the subvention cost. So please lets not muddy the economic waters about a greenway being a massive investment, in real terms its not.

Taking each project on it's own merits, both are a huge investment. Relative to a Railway, Motorway, Hospital etc. it is not a large investment, but as a capital investment in recreational facilities €18m is a huge investment. Where do you want the money to come from? You're increased LPT if the Council is paying for it? Of Course EU and regional funding can also be secured, but that must be matched locally.

GWG = 42km @ €7.5m
WGW = 46Km @ €15m

I think 180km @ €18m is a bit optimistic even factoring in the Land Ownership and existing state of the permanent way. No Land was purchased for the GWG for example.

westtip wrote:

Now your second point about a lot more greenways being more deserving. You are of course entitled to view on this, I am not sure of the logistics of your view, in fact neither are the department of transport mandarins and planners who will make the recommendation, as the original Greenway Strategy actually listed the Western Rail Trail by name as a greenway of strategic importance due to its length and connecting Dublin-Galway greenway with Enniskillen and with Achill. So your view is rather subjective and personal. Our view is also subjective but also happens to be backed up by being a shared idea in the department of transport, in sligo County council and now thankfully in Galway county council. It has also been supported by several TDs who have made submissions supporting the idea to the North West Regional Assembly in regard to the new Regional Planning Guidelines.

The Logistics of my view is irrelevant, do you now speak for the DOT? Strategy is just that, and I would 100% back a strategy that turns every disused and abandoned railway line in the country into a greenway (and we are overly blessed with them). However, the bean counters and vested interests will be arguing over that limited funding for years, some greenways will win, some will lose, for the points I mentioned already, WRT is not a priority compared to other greenways, sure TD's and councillors can make submissions and will, it's easy vote winning to be seen to support local projects. For example where I live in North Dublin they've been doing it for years, but no move on the Cycleways and Greenways approved in the LDP's. Snags appear everywhere (Example: https://www.independent.ie/regionals/fingalindependent/news/broadmeadow-way-project-hits-snag-36997638.html) My MSc. In Sustainable Development (Focusing on Transport) allows me to make such "Subjective and Personal" conclusions when compared to emotional rhetoric and conspiracy theories relating to opposing viewpoints.

westtip wrote:

Perhaps you could come back to me on why the WRT is less deserving and the issue of the actual costs of building a greenway with no more than a five year payback for less than €20million as opposed to the economic argument for a train line that will cost billions (probably about 2 billion for the whole way to Sligo), will be a drain on Irish Rail subvention and for which there is not a strong economic argument.

It will be interesting to hear your well thought out structured arguments.

Remember the West of Ireland is not St Albans.

In my previous post, I said "I'm not advocating for the re-opening of the WRC, as the development of the west is not there to support it yet"
So please point out where I said the WRT is less deserving than the WRC? As usual you seem to think that anyone opposing your subjective and very personal view must be some kind of WOT/SF troll. I am neither.

I certainly did opine that it was less deserving than other Greenway routes that will or already have planning and funding, e.g. Carlingford Lough/Great Easter Greenway which is getting funding matching from the EU, Newry and Louth Councils.

Finally...

westtip wrote:

Greenway Strategy actually listed the Western Rail Trail by name as a greenway of strategic importance due to its length and connecting Dublin-Galway greenway with Enniskillen and with Achill.

Except it won't link Dublin-Galway with Eniskillen and Achill yet.

Eniskillen to Collooney
Collooney to Ballahy/Charlestown
The Existing Tour de Humber route (using a very loose definition of Greenway here.)
Swinford to Tougher Greenway
Tougher to Castlebar
Castlebar to Westport (and onto GWG)

Which of these these planned or existing Greenways do you think the WRT should be prioritised over?

All these would all need to be completed first before that statement is even remotely true. Long Term Strategy at best, Magical thinking at worst.
Hopefully like Dart Underground, Metro-link, and the Luas these routes will be completed when I retire in 2048.

Muckyboots · 02-03-2019 8:44pm

London Correspondent wrote: »

Here is some research https://irishrailwaydevelopments.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/107/

"Here's one I made earlier" - you meant, surely.ðŸ˜

Lord Glentoran · 05-03-2019 12:59pm

Muckyboots wrote: »

"Here's one I made earlier" - you meant, surely.ðŸ˜

I bet if I speculated here about your identity the mods would be on top of me like a ton of bricks.

westtip · 05-03-2019 3:51pm

McAlban wrote: »

do you now speak for the DOT?

I have only taken this short piece from you extensive post, all I can do is show you how the department was thinking in January last year with their first drafts of the greenway strategy.

The attached initial draft of the greenway strategy clearly identified several named greenway long distance projects, one of which was the Western Rail Trail, actually named that way, go to page 9 of the attached document and then look at the map that was originally included which I gave to the Tuam Herald to publish.

I don't speak for the DOT but have had enough dealings with them to have an inkling on what the views of the senior civil servants are in that department to the Western Rail Corridor and the Western Rail Trail. What do you think about what they wrote in this original strategy, it got pulled by the way due to political influence by WOT

Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

Comments