Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

Decades · 08-05-2021 12:32pm

end of the road wrote: »

it's still a railway, so he is correct.

Somes up the depth of the trains argument perfectly.

eastwest · 08-05-2021 1:37pm

end of the road wrote: »

it's still a railway, so he is correct.

It isn't. But once you believe, and squint a bit....

Sam Russell · 08-05-2021 1:52pm

I thought that for something to be a 'railway' it would need trains.

Otherwise it is just a 'railway track', assuming it still has rails, and they could support a train.

Otherwise it is just a 'railway alignment'.

Under those definitions, it is not a 'railway'.

end of the road · 08-05-2021 2:08pm

eastwest wrote: »

It isn't. But once you believe, and squint a bit....

it is, it has all the required infrastructure for a railway in place, ergo railway.
not about belief, but just simple facts.

Sam Russell wrote: »

I thought that for something to be a 'railway' it would need trains.

Otherwise it is just a 'railway track', assuming it still has rails, and they could support a train.

Otherwise it is just a 'railway alignment'.

Under those definitions, it is not a 'railway'.

if it has trains on it then it would be classed as a working railway.
if it doesn't, then it would be classed as either.
1. an inactive railway, if open but not opened to scheduled traffic but can take traffic.
2. a closed railway if not open to any traffic/is unable to support traffic.
if it has no track then yes it's just an alignment.
the WRC would be an inactive/closed railway as it does have track in place but is unable to support traffic without a rebuild.
that is how the terminology has always gone from my years of being involved in discussions of rail anyway.

ezstreet5 · 08-05-2021 7:08pm

Decades wrote: »

Typical trainspotter drivel. They could also formerly abandon it tomorrow with a small advert in the back of the Irish Times. Symantec nonsense that serves no one.

I'm sorry if the statutory definition of "railway" triggers.

08-05-2021 7:22pm

Support for the Quiet Man Greenway from the Galway City Council, great to see more of this happening

City Council backs development of local greenways

https://galwaybayfm.ie/galway-bay-fm-news-desk/city-council-backs-development-of-local-greenways/

Labour Councillor Niall McNelis submitted a motion for the Local authority to back the proposed Athenry to Claremorris greenway as well as the Galway to Athlone greenway which is currently in stage two of its public consultation process.

The motion further states that the council should back both projects as they will drive tourism and economic growth acoss the west and has been unanimously agreed

Councillor McNelis says it makes sense to back the projects as Galway city will be the ultimate destination for both greenways.

westtip · 10-05-2021 9:53am

eastwest wrote: »

They would need a railway order to build it north of claremorris.

You mean a miracle. But didn't they already have one of those in that area of the country.

Losty Dublin · 10-05-2021 1:48pm

eastwest wrote: »

They would need a railway order to build it north of claremorris.

Ezstreet wrote:

The whole line is "a railway" because Irish Rail can rebuild it tomorrow without a fresh Railway Order.

To be fair you are both right and wrong here. There is no need for a Railway Order to lay new track and ballast, reopen stations, replace crossing gates etc etc.

However a Railway Order allows for any works that ordinarily would require planning permission on a case by case basis to be legally undertaken subject to those works being included in said Order along with land acquisition needs if required. In essence it acts as a catch all planning permission and a CPO for such a project and thus it makes life a lot easier for the legal eagles.

ezstreet5 · 10-05-2021 2:30pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

However a Railway Order allows for any works that ordinarily would require planning permission on a case by case basis to be legally undertaken subject to those works being included in said Order along with land acquisition needs if required. In essence it acts as a catch all planning permission and a CPO for such a project and thus it makes life a lot easier for the legal eagles.

While that's true, Iarnród Éireann did not utilise the Railway Order approach to entitlements for Phase 1, and I doubt they'd use it for Phases 2 and 3. For Phase 1, "case-by-case" planning permission applications were used for new stations, field access structures, etc.

The only reason I could see for possibly seeking a new railway order would be if it were found that numerous bits of the permanent way had fallen into true adverse possession and needed to be reacquired. I don't suspect that is the case either, even up to Collooney. Adjacent landowners tend to chance various physical encroachments, but when it comes down to actually applying to the Land Registry for title, that would be a rare occurrence.

Losty Dublin · 10-05-2021 5:16pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

While that's true, Iarnród Éireann did not utilise the Railway Order approach to entitlements for Phase 1, and I doubt they'd use it for Phases 2 and 3. For Phase 1, "case-by-case" planning permission applications were used for new stations, field access structures, etc.

The only reason I could see for possibly seeking a new railway order would be if it were found that numerous bits of the permanent way had fallen into true adverse possession and needed to be reacquired. I don't suspect that is the case either, even up to Collooney. Adjacent landowners tend to chance various physical encroachments, but when it comes down to actually applying to the Land Registry for title, that would be a rare occurrence.

True; they didn't need a RO for Ennis to Athenry but then again they may not have needed the extra powers that it offered. On the other hand one was used for the the disused but in situ Midleton project in 2007. A quick check shows that there were some freeholds changing hands; in this case it was obviously warranted.

As regards adverse possession, it's up to the applicant to prove that the former owner of the holding can't be located or traced and that they have also not exercised any use or interest or claim in the land. If the route was to suddenly reopen there'd sure be a lot less manicured gardens in the Sligo and Mayo region :pac:

ezstreet5 · 10-05-2021 8:11pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

True; they didn't need a RO for Ennis to Athenry but then again they may not have needed the extra powers that it offered. On the other hand one was used for the the disused but in situ Midleton project in 2007. A quick check shows that there were some freeholds changing hands; in this case it was obviously warranted.

I'd agree that there is an increased use of ROs, even for minor railway projects for whatever reasons.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

As regards adverse possession, it's up to the applicant to prove that the former owner of the holding can't be located or traced and that they have also not exercised any use or interest or claim in the land. If the route was to suddenly reopen there'd sure be a lot less manicured gardens in the Sligo and Mayo region :pac:

Adverse possession requires 12 years of demonstrated animus possidendi. It's a fairly high legal bar to meet. Most claimants will do exactly as you say - plant a garden, threaten adverse possession, do the math, and then agree to a small settlement. The point being that no major intervention is needed to protect the state owned asset.

westtip · 10-05-2021 10:25pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Support for the Quiet Man Greenway from the Galway City Council, great to see more of this happening

But how can that be, I heard from an organisation claiming to have 3,000 members that every council in the west supported the railway and only the railway, does this mean Sligo coco, Galway coco and now Galway coco don't actually agree with aforementioned organisation?

ezstreet5 · 10-05-2021 11:49pm

Worth a read:

https://www.impartialreporter.com/news/19267237.restoring-enniskillens-rail-links-key-priority/

https://twitter.com/CorkCommuter/status/1386985776630714368?fbclid=IwAR1Wghg62_60nFCIrSBGSLruRWCMVD7BZs0wg5C1FhGA3Ywo2eanOBCNZqo

11-05-2021 2:47am

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Worth a read

Not really.

I groaned when I saw the tired old comparison of the 1920's network with todays network. Told me all I needed to know about how the article was going to go and it didn't disappoint.

eastwest · 11-05-2021 8:51am

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Worth a read:

https://www.impartialreporter.com/news/19267237.restoring-enniskillens-rail-links-key-priority/

https://twitter.com/CorkCommuter/status/1386985776630714368?fbclid=IwAR1Wghg62_60nFCIrSBGSLruRWCMVD7BZs0wg5C1FhGA3Ywo2eanOBCNZqo

I can't remember who first used the phrase about an infinite capacity for self-delusion, but these two links illustrate it perfectly. Add two and two and get twenty-two.
'Cork Commuter' blithely conflates post-covid working from home with the need for commuter rail. He/she suggests that working from home equals an increased demand for commuter rail. Kinda misses the point.
Hard to argue with that kind of logic.

end of the road · 11-05-2021 11:11am

eastwest wrote: »

I can't remember who first used the phrase about an infinite capacity for self-delusion, but these two links illustrate it perfectly. Add two and two and get twenty-two.
'Cork Commuter' blithely conflates post-covid working from home with the need for commuter rail. He/she suggests that working from home equals an increased demand for commuter rail. Kinda misses the point.
Hard to argue with that kind of logic.

they really, really don't illustrate it.
they do illustrate modern thinking which as a country we aren't quite ready for yet, but we are moving in that direction ever so slowly.

Decades · 11-05-2021 11:53am

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really.

I groaned when I saw the tired old comparison of the 1920's network with todays network. Told me all I needed to know about how the article was going to go and it didn't disappoint.

That 1920's map (against the network now) is a great symbol of the degentrification and decolonisation of Ireland. Cracks me up whenever Sinn Fein throws it about. What did the Brits ever do for us? Let's bring back the big country houses and populate them with squires while we are at it. Modern Ireland Mehole.

westtip · 11-05-2021 11:56am

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really.

I groaned when I saw the tired old comparison of the 1920's network with todays network. Told me all I needed to know about how the article was going to go and it didn't disappoint.

Imagine that 1920s network as a greenway network with parallel greenways on the today network as well. What would that do for rural tourism as opposed to coastal tourism.

monument · 11-05-2021 3:26pm

Can everyone please cut out the name calling, unfounded accusations etc etc?

Ta!

— moderator

ezstreet5 · 11-05-2021 5:50pm

Decades wrote: »

That 1920's map (against the network now) is a great symbol of the degentrification and decolonisation of Ireland. Cracks me up whenever Sinn Fein throws it about. What did the Brits ever do for us? Let's bring back the big country houses and populate them with squires while we are at it. Modern Ireland Mehole.

So true. When the Americans ousted the British in 1783, their first course of action was to rip up all of the British colonial railways. Or perhaps I'm wrong, and they went mad building transcontinental railways. Maybe somebody can correct me.

Decades · 11-05-2021 9:10pm

ezstreet5 wrote: »

So true. When the Americans ousted the British in 1783, their first course of action was to rip up all of the British colonial railways. Or perhaps I'm wrong, and they went mad building transcontinental railways. Maybe somebody can correct me.

You're comparing transcontinental pioneer lines with Lord Fitzwilliam's very own Shillelagh Branch Line and the like? Apples and Potatoes.

end of the road · 11-05-2021 9:37pm

Decades wrote: »

You're comparing transcontinental pioneer lines with Lord Fitzwilliam's very own Shillelagh Branch Line and the like? Apples and Potatoes.

it would if that was what he was doing, which he wasn't.
read his post again, it's very obvious the point he was making.

Decades · 14-05-2021 8:21am

https://www.irishrail.ie/en-ie/news/iarnrod-eireann-and-xpo-logistics-to-begin-new-twi

L1011 · 14-05-2021 8:56am

Decades wrote: »

https://www.irishrail.ie/en-ie/news/iarnrod-eireann-and-xpo-logistics-to-begin-new-twi

Diversion of existing rail flows is not a justification for investment. This service does not use or need the WRC

Sam Russell · 14-05-2021 9:40am

L1011 wrote: »

Diversion of existing rail flows is not a justification for investment. This service does not use or need the WRC

Two trains per week?

Even two trains per day would not justify it, besides it is likely these trains will go by night.

[Edit - If the WTC was open, all it would mean is that the train would go from Ballina to Tuam, then Athenry, then Ballinasloe, Athlone, and so on rather than Ballina, Manulla Junction, Claremorris, Rosscommon, Athlone. Not much difference, and certainly not a better route.]

ezstreet5 · 14-05-2021 10:22am

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.

L1011 · 14-05-2021 10:23am

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.

And all on the existing line. Diverting them is not creating demand for the WRC.

ezstreet5 · 14-05-2021 10:26am

L1011 wrote: »

And all on the existing line. Diverting them is not creating demand for the WRC.

The benefit is shorter journeys and avoiding congestion of Dublin.

Sam Russell · 14-05-2021 10:40am

ezstreet5 wrote: »

The benefit is shorter journeys and avoiding congestion of Dublin.

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.

L1011 · 14-05-2021 10:41am

ezstreet5 wrote: »

The benefit is shorter journeys and avoiding congestion of Dublin.

Trains to Dublin Port are going to continue going to Dublin Port.

Its 17km *longer* to Dublin, with an added reverse/run-around, to go via the closed line.

Waterford services don't go through Dublin.

It is disingenuous and misleading to try claim that exisitng freight flows are of any benefit to the WRC.

Decades · 14-05-2021 11:04am

Sam Russell wrote: »

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.

Sam Russell · 14-05-2021 11:11am

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.

L1011 · 14-05-2021 11:18am

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.

Losty Dublin · 14-05-2021 12:31pm

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.

andrewfaulk · 14-05-2021 12:38pm

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

ezstreet5 · 14-05-2021 1:14pm

andrewfaulk wrote: »

Foynes doesn't handle containers and

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

andrewfaulk wrote: »

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.

andrewfaulk wrote: »

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).

andrewfaulk · 14-05-2021 1:17pm

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

L1011 · 14-05-2021 2:09pm

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

andrewfaulk · 14-05-2021 3:04pm

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..

Decades · 14-05-2021 3:10pm

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."

westtip · 16-05-2021 2:22pm

Decades wrote: »

https://www.irishrail.ie/en-ie/news/iarnrod-eireann-and-xpo-logistics-to-begin-new-twi

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.

andrewfaulk · 16-05-2021 5:30pm

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

donvito99 · 18-05-2021 9:13pm

L1011 wrote: »

fantasy land stuff.

Welcome to the forum.

eastwest · 18-05-2021 11:35pm

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.

end of the road · 18-05-2021 11:49pm

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.

eastwest · 19-05-2021 8:52am

end of the road wrote: »

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.

westtip · 19-05-2021 9:54am

end of the road wrote: »

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.

ezstreet5 · 19-05-2021 5:23pm

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.

westtip · 19-05-2021 6:39pm

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.

ezstreet5 · 19-05-2021 6:45pm

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.

Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

Comments