Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

Pete2k

Isambard wrote: »

i think they intend to use the existing track, I think they'll get a shock when they find the sleepers basically don't exist anymore and will need replacing. money pit.......

Most of the sleepers are still there albeit some more rotten than others. The only part they'll replace I would think will be the section your man robbed a few years ago... as for the level crossings Id say mayo coco will be made foot the cost of removing the asphalt from over the rails seeing as it was them who tarred over them in the first place.

eastwest

All jesting apart, this project is an admission that there will be no more trains on the route.
It begs the question, why does wot support this scheme, something that is accessible only to local people with money to spend occasionally on it, while continuing to oppose a cycleway that would be free to locals all the time?

Muckyboots

Pete2k wrote: »

Most of the sleepers are still there albeit some more rotten than others. The only part they'll replace I would think will be the section your man robbed a few years ago... as for the level crossings Id say mayo coco will be made foot the cost of removing the asphalt from over the rails seeing as it was them who tarred over them in the first place.

Crossings? I know how you dismount a bicycle or perhaps install a cheap footbridge, but how is proposed to give safe road crossing to velorailers. Traffic lights? The truck drivers will love that one. interesting times ahead.

eastwest

Muckyboots wrote: »

Pete2k wrote: »

Most of the sleepers are still there albeit some more rotten than others. The only part they'll replace I would think will be the section your man robbed a few years ago... as for the level crossings Id say mayo coco will be made foot the cost of removing the asphalt from over the rails seeing as it was them who tarred over them in the first place.

Crossings? I know how you dismount a bicycle or perhaps install a cheap footbridge, but how is proposed to give safe road crossing to velorailers. Traffic lights? The truck drivers will love that one. interesting times ahead.

You can't criss roads with a velorail project, it's a recipe for disaster. I don't know of any such project that mixes with motor traffic.

Pete2k

eastwest wrote: »

You can't criss roads with a velorail project, it's a recipe for disaster. I don't know of any such project that mixes with motor traffic.

There is really only 1 crossing that poses any risk and that's the one on the Kilkelly Rd R322 which you may well see traffic lights or a zebra crossing type setup. For now its only going 6km towards swinford. In that distance bar the 322 there's 4 crossings but they're thru roads that between them all if they see 20 cars a day id be surprised. Av a look on street view to see how minor they are. Of course if they also go towards claremorris they'll av to cross the Knock Rd the other side of the station which would be pretty busy.

Isambard

Pete2k wrote: »

Most of the sleepers are still there albeit some more rotten than others. The only part they'll replace I would think will be the section your man robbed a few years ago... as for the level crossings Id say mayo coco will be made foot the cost of removing the asphalt from over the rails seeing as it was them who tarred over them in the first place.

It's been disused for decades...some will be only 99% rotten but most will be 100%

eastwest

Pete2k wrote: »

There is really only 1 crossing that poses any risk and that's the one on the Kilkelly Rd R322 which you may well see traffic lights or a zebra crossing type setup. For now its only going 6km towards swinford. In that distance bar the 322 there's 4 crossings but they're thru roads that between them all if they see 20 cars a day id be surprised. Av a look on street view to see how minor they are. Of course if they also go towards claremorris they'll av to cross the Knock Rd the other side of the station which would be pretty busy.

Has anyone got a map of the project that shows the actual limits of it in each direction?

JCX BXC

Ignoring of course it's economically unviability, how much would it cost to bring the Athentry-Tuam line back into service and what works would need to be completed?

Pete2k

Isambard wrote: »

It's been disused for decades...some will be only 99% rotten but most will be 100%

https://m.facebook.com/IRDKiltimagh/photos/pcb.10154311471348803/10154311471093803/?type=3&source=48

https://m.facebook.com/IRDKiltimagh/photos/pcb.10154311471348803/10154311471098803/?type=3&source=48

Well they still seem strong enough to support an excavator on rails don't they?!

Anybody know is this the first rail vehicle on this section of the WRC since the inspection car in the 80's?

Del.Monte

Pete2k wrote: »

https://m.facebook.com/IRDKiltimagh/photos/pcb.10154311471348803/10154311471093803/?type=3&source=48

https://m.facebook.com/IRDKiltimagh/photos/pcb.10154311471348803/10154311471098803/?type=3&source=48

Well they still seem strong enough to support an excavator on rails don't they?!

Anybody know is this the first rail vehicle on this section of the WRC since the inspection car in the 80's?

In September 1988 an A-class dragged two carriages up to Kiltimagh for the Folk Museum - that was the last rail movement over the line.

There's a pic here: http://www.museumsofmayo.com/Kiltimagh1.htm which appears to be that movement.

Pete2k

eastwest wrote: »

Has anyone got a map of the project that shows the actual limits of it in each direction?

Don't av a map but 6km towards swinford would be roughly to the level crossing on the N5 id say.

eastwest

Pete2k wrote: »

eastwest wrote: »

Has anyone got a map of the project that shows the actual limits of it in each direction?

Don't av a map but 6km towards swinford would be roughly to the level crossing on the N5 id say.

Sounds about right; they can't really have a series of these carts trundling across a main road.

eastwest

JCX BXC wrote: »

Ignoring of course it's economically unviability, how much would it cost to bring the Athentry-Tuam line back into service and what works would need to be completed?

It's about 28 km, and about €2 million/km should be a baseline. Plus the bridge at Ballyglunin and the grade adjustments either side of it. There are also major engineering challenges where it crosses the bog.
About 60 million plus rolling stock I'd reckon as an absolute minimum, if no problems were to be encountered. Plus a hefty subvention.

Muckyboots

eastwest wrote: »

It's about 28 km, and about €2 million/km should be a baseline. Plus the bridge at Ballyglunin and the grade adjustments either side of it. There are also major engineering challenges where it crosses the bog.
About 60 million plus rolling stock I'd reckon as an absolute minimum, if no problems were to be encountered. Plus a hefty subvention.

Plus- there would be a brand new station required at Tuam. Of course, it would be an autonomous style ghost station. It would have to be built from scratch and all the parking infrastructure included. Plenty of land there, but not enough potential users, I'm afraid.

Del.Monte

Muckyboots wrote: »

Plus- there would be a brand new station required at Tuam. Of course, it would be an autonomous style ghost station. It would have to be built from scratch and all the parking infrastructure included. Plenty of land there, but not enough potential users, I'm afraid.

Not forgetting that Irish Rail would have to install their beloved palisade fencing all the way from Athenry to Tuam.

monument

Pete2k wrote: »

There is really only 1 crossing that poses any risk and that's the one on the Kilkelly Rd R322 which you may well see traffic lights or a zebra crossing type setup. For now its only going 6km towards swinford. In that distance bar the 322 there's 4 crossings but they're thru roads that between them all if they see 20 cars a day id be surprised. Av a look on street view to see how minor they are. Of course if they also go towards claremorris they'll av to cross the Knock Rd the other side of the station which would be pretty busy.

On the Ballina line I think there was a collision between a van and a train on a crossing to one or two houses!

westtip

Have Kiltimagh IRD got planning permission for this project, one assumes they will need it for some stages of the project.

eastwest

westtip wrote: »

Have Kiltimagh IRD got planning permission for this project, one assumes they will need it for some stages of the project.

More to the point, will WOT be objecting to it? It must be giving them mixed feelings; a project designed to stop the greenway will also put an end to the railway if it's successful.
Decisions, decisions!

westtip

eastwest wrote: »

More to the point, will WOT be objecting to it? It must be giving them mixed feelings; a project designed to stop the greenway will also put an end to the railway if it's successful.
Decisions, decisions!

And the decision as to how to contend with the Japanese Knotweed in the area - I think there maybe some on the closed railway route....that is going to be a big problem.

However congratulations to Minister Ring for stopping the greenway for 6 km of the route, at least he has achieved his objective of stopping a greenway in East Mayo to compete as he sees it with the Great Western Greenway and has denied the people of Kiltimagh a simple leisure facility of a walking tracking - unless of course the plan is to put a safety cycling and walking access track along the route, I guess that will come out when the planning application comes through.

eastwest

westtip wrote: »

eastwest wrote: »

More to the point, will WOT be objecting to it? It must be giving them mixed feelings; a project designed to stop the greenway will also put an end to the railway if it's successful.
Decisions, decisions!

And the decision as to how to contend with the Japanese Knotweed in the area - I think there maybe some on the closed railway route....that is going to be a big problem.

However congratulations to Minister Ring for stopping the greenway for 6 km of the route, at least he has achieved his objective of stopping a greenway in East Mayo to compete as he sees it with the Great Western Greenway and has denied the people of Kiltimagh a simple leisure facility of a walking tracking - unless of course the plan is to put a safety cycling and walking access track along the route, I guess that will come out when the planning application comes through.

If they don't put a cycling and walking trail alongside the rails as part of the project, they not only omit emergency access in case of accidents but also exclude the majority of people in Kiltimagh from access to a publicly owned asset, in favour of a lesser number of customers of a private business.
However it is difficult to see how they could design a safe railcar operation without an access path, so I'd imagine it will have to be included.
As for the knotweed, no project goes ahead nowadays without a knotweed survey, so best practice would suggest that it would have to be done before a digger goes in and potentially scatters the problem to the detriment of neighbouring landowners.

Pete2k

eastwest wrote: »

If they don't put a cycling and walking trail alongside the rails as part of the project, they not only omit emergency access in case of accidents but also exclude the majority of people in Kiltimagh from access to a publicly owned asset, in favour of a lesser number of customers of a private business.
However it is difficult to see how they could design a safe railcar operation without an access path, so I'd imagine it will have to be included.
As for the knotweed, no project goes ahead nowadays without a knotweed survey, so best practice would suggest that it would have to be done before a digger goes in and potentially scatters the problem to the detriment of neighbouring landowners.

Going by the photos of the digger already making its way up the track either a survey has been done or they don't care and are clearing the line regardless.

eastwest

Pete2k wrote: »

eastwest wrote: »

If they don't put a cycling and walking trail alongside the rails as part of the project, they not only omit emergency access in case of accidents but also exclude the majority of people in Kiltimagh from access to a publicly owned asset, in favour of a lesser number of customers of a private business.
However it is difficult to see how they could design a safe railcar operation without an access path, so I'd imagine it will have to be included.
As for the knotweed, no project goes ahead nowadays without a knotweed survey, so best practice would suggest that it would have to be done before a digger goes in and potentially scatters the problem to the detriment of neighbouring landowners.

Going by the photos of the digger already making its way up the track either a survey has been done or they don't care and are clearing the line regardless.

Seems irresponsible, if that's the case, but it's unlikely to be the reality if this project is being run any way professionally.
Unless the digger was just put in there as a bit of grandstanding to back up the announcement of funding, which would be a bad way to start off.
If this project is being done in an amateur way it bodes badly for its future, but I honestly doubt that it's been done ahead of a survey.

Logue no2

Fantastic news coming from Cllr Shaun Cunniffe in Tuam that an alternative route for a Tuam Athenry Greenway is emerging that uses a dffierent route from the railway line. I am somewhat surprised that the Greenway campaigners on this thread are silent about it so far, however this is now a cast iron opportunity for the Tuam and Sligo Mayo Greenway campaigns to step up to the plate and prove for once and for all that they are not all about stopping or delaying the railway.

eastwest

Logue no2 wrote: »

Fantastic news coming from Cllr Shaun Cunniffe in Tuam that an alternative route for a Tuam Athenry Greenway is emerging that uses a dffierent route from the railway line. I am somewhat surprised that the Greenway campaigners on this thread are silent about it so far, however this is now a cast iron opportunity for the Tuam and Sligo Mayo Greenway campaigns to step up to the plate and prove for once and for all that they are not all about stopping or delaying the railway.

As far as I am aware, and I'm open to correction, this news didn't come from Shaun Cunniffe but from another Councillor. It seems a bit vague at the moment but if it is genuine it is of course great news and would create a start for a greenway from Athenry to Collooney.
However there is also some talk that this is little more than a line on a map drawn by somebody and just following roads. Until there is clarity about this proposal, separating the truth from the rumours, it would be premature to comment on it. For instance there was an initial rumour that this was wayleaved along river banks and approved by the IFA, but that now seems to have been a false rumour.
So, if it's true, it's great, but I'd like to see the actual proposal.

loyatemu

why go from Tuam to Athenry if your not using the railway alignment - why not find a route direct from Tuam to Galway?

eastwest

loyatemu wrote: »

why go from Tuam to Athenry if your not using the railway alignment - why not find a route direct from Tuam to Galway?

It's about blocking the greenway on the disused railway alignment.

Logue no2

eastwest wrote: »

It's about blocking the greenway on the disused railway alignment.

So about an hour before you stated it was premature to comment on the scheme and now you are commenting? That was fast.

eastwest

loyatemu wrote: »

why go from Tuam to Athenry if your not using the railway alignment - why not find a route direct from Tuam to Galway?

There's probably a more valid argument for finding a rail route direct from Galway to Tuam, if they ever want Tuam commuters to use it. The Tuam-Athenry-Galway proposal for a commuter rail route has two major flaws; it takes a slow, roundabout route via athenry and it doesn't deliver commuters to where the majority of jobs are located.
A light rail project that followed the old N17 and took in the industrial estates, ucg and uchg might have a chance of hitting a critical mass of customers, but in reality it wouldn't be any more efficient than a good bus service on dedicated bus lanes.
The motorway will kill off the railway proposal completely, but there is little hope for the greenway proposal either; Galway isn't waterford, and pennies take a lot longer to drop in parts of the west.

eastwest

Logue no2 wrote: »

eastwest wrote: »

It's about blocking the greenway on the disused railway alignment.

So about an hour before you stated it was premature to comment on the scheme and now you are commenting? That was fast.

He asked a different question altogether, about a greenway directly from Galway to Tuam.
If the proposal to effectively abandon the railway completely and find a viable route for the greenway has merit and isn't just an arbitrary line on a map, of course I'll support it. In the absence of a proposal though, as distinct from a rumour, I couldn't possibly comment

Logue no2

eastwest wrote: »

He asked a different question altogether, about a greenway directly from Galway to Tuam.
If the proposal to effectively abandon the railway completely and find a viable route for the greenway has merit and isn't just an arbitrary line on a map, of course I'll support it. In the absence of a proposal though, as distinct from a rumour, I couldn't possibly comment

So on the back of that comment, am I right in thinking your prime objective is to stop the railway by using the Greenway as a mechanism to stop it from ever being used as a railway line? Forgive me if I'm wrong.

eastwest

Logue no2 wrote: »

eastwest wrote: »

He asked a different question altogether, about a greenway directly from Galway to Tuam.
If the proposal to effectively abandon the railway completely and find a viable route for the greenway has merit and isn't just an arbitrary line on a map, of course I'll support it. In the absence of a proposal though, as distinct from a rumour, I couldn't possibly comment

So on the back of that comment, am I right in thinking your prime objective is to stop the railway by using the Greenway as a mechanism to stop it from ever being used as a railway line? Forgive me if I'm wrong.

You're forgiven; you're completely wrong.
I have no interest in stopping the railway, or in stopping the European space agency from relocating to claregalway, even though the latter is probably a more likely scenario.
I have no interest in the railway one way or another. It's just a myth, like draining the Shannon, that suits politicians when thinking of what they can promise voters. It's a lot like santa clause in terms of being in touch with reality.
So, am I interested in stopping the railway? You might as well ask me if I'm interested in stopping santa clause.

Pete2k

eastwest wrote: »

As far as I am aware, and I'm open to correction, this news didn't come from Shaun Cunniffe but from another Councillor. It seems a bit vague at the moment but if it is genuine it is of course great news and would create a start for a greenway from Athenry to Collooney.
However there is also some talk that this is little more than a line on a map drawn by somebody and just following roads. Until there is clarity about this proposal, separating the truth from the rumours, it would be premature to comment on it. For instance there was an initial rumour that this was wayleaved along river banks and approved by the IFA, but that now seems to have been a false rumour.
So, if it's true, it's great, but I'd like to see the actual proposal.

According to tuam herald it was Cllr Billy Connelly who has said he's seen the alternative route proposed. And that he was shown it by Sean Canney.

Muckyboots

Pete2k wrote: »

According to tuam herald it was Cllr Billy Connelly who has said he's seen the alternative route proposed.

The "alternative" cycle route, pulled out of hat by Cllr Billy Connelly when it looked like Cllr Shaun Cunniffe was about to have a motion passed in favour of a Greenway Feasibility Study, has turned out to be bits and pieces of minor roads, boreens and riverbanks strung together with signposts. In other words " not a greenway". Greenway campaigners won't be fobbed off with that kind piecemeal, undeliverable, political shenanigans.

Logue no2

Muckyboots wrote: »

The "alternative" cycle route, pulled out of hat by Cllr Billy Connelly when it looked like Cllr Shaun Cunniffe was about to have a motion passed in favour of a Greenway Feasibility Study, has turned out to be bits and pieces of minor roads, boreens and riverbanks strung together with signposts. In other words " not a greenway". Greenway campaigners won't be fobbed off with that kind piecemeal, undeliverable, political shenanigans.

It seems to me at least that Greenway Campaigners seem to be more "we're agin' them trains" than "let's see how this could work before we dismiss opportunities". Hey ho.

Muckyboots

40 years! We'll give this a month or two. But let's be straight. It's not a Greenway.

westtip

Logue no2 wrote: »

So on the back of that comment, am I right in thinking your prime objective is to stop the railway by using the Greenway as a mechanism to stop it from ever being used as a railway line? Forgive me if I'm wrong.

You are forgiven, because yes I believe you are wrong. The prime objective, if you are at all interested, of the greenway campaign is to make use of the public asset that is the closed railway. As you know, in the south London suburbs with which you are very familiar I am sure, trains work very well because in large urban areas where frequent trains fill up to capacity at rush hour, this is not the case in the West of Ireland. I am sure you know all that. For the last time, on behalf of anyone who writes in favour of the greenway can I tell you that the Greenway campaign is not against the railway, we just know it is not going to happen, for all the reasons long since covered in this thread, however protecting the route in public ownership and creating tourism related jobs is a benefit worth fighting for.

Anyway, how was the 18.37 from Victoria tonight, packed to the gunnels?

westtip

Logue no2 wrote: »

It seems to me at least that Greenway Campaigners seem to be more "we're agin' them trains" than "let's see how this could work before we dismiss opportunities". Hey ho.

The fact they have come up with this alternative greenway (does this sound like "alternative facts"!) route shows the likes of Canney are getting it in the ear on this subject. It looks like this greenway thing could become an election issue in Tuam, I just wonder if another independent candidate stood in the general election and focused on this single local issue could he/she make a critical dent in the Canney vote.....There is some way to go to the next GE. But who knows this one might have a head of steam, as they used to say on the Brighton Bell.

eastwest

Pete2k wrote: »

eastwest wrote: »

As far as I am aware, and I'm open to correction, this news didn't come from Shaun Cunniffe but from another Councillor. It seems a bit vague at the moment but if it is genuine it is of course great news and would create a start for a greenway from Athenry to Collooney.
However there is also some talk that this is little more than a line on a map drawn by somebody and just following roads. Until there is clarity about this proposal, separating the truth from the rumours, it would be premature to comment on it. For instance there was an initial rumour that this was wayleaved along river banks and approved by the IFA, but that now seems to have been a false rumour.
So, if it's true, it's great, but I'd like to see the actual proposal.

According to tuam herald it was Cllr Billy Connelly who has said he's seen the alternative route proposed. And that he was shown it by Sean Canney.

That would make sense.
Not the proposal; the source of the proposal.
I didn't know that inheriting a seat meant you couldn't do your own thinking!

eastwest

Logue no2 wrote: »

Muckyboots wrote: »

The "alternative" cycle route, pulled out of hat by Cllr Billy Connelly when it looked like Cllr Shaun Cunniffe was about to have a motion passed in favour of a Greenway Feasibility Study, has turned out to be bits and pieces of minor roads, boreens and riverbanks strung together with signposts. In other words " not a greenway". Greenway campaigners won't be fobbed off with that kind piecemeal, undeliverable, political shenanigans.

It seems to me at least that Greenway Campaigners seem to be more "we're agin' them trains" than "let's see how this could work before we dismiss opportunities". Hey ho.

Did I miss the bit about opportunities? What was that about?
The only opportunity on the cards would seem to be the greenway. The train isn't a runner, as is obvious to anyone who looks at the facts.
Let's get one thing straight; the train only exists in the minds of a tiny group of railway enthusiasts harking after the way things used to be, and in the manifestos of a few cute politicians, some of whom have been heard to rubbish it in private.

westtip

Logue no2 wrote: »

It seems to me at least that Greenway Campaigners seem to be more "we're agin' them trains" than "let's see how this could work before we dismiss opportunities". Hey ho.

We are not "agin them trains" but others are: (trains from Athenry to Claremorris that is)

European TEN T Transport Policy...approved by our government and by they way 27 other nation state members of the EU
Successive Transport Ministers, including the last one who now happens to be in charge of the purse strings
Can't comment on the current one, he seems to have a colleague holding a gun to his head.
The greater need of other project stakeholders.....too numerous to mention.
The evidence given by the Western Development Commission in a report on freight from the West which showed with an optimistic forecast of 4 freight trains a day (2 in and 2 out) of the west which the current infrastructure is well able to handle.

You see, the Railway campaign is using the greenway campaign as a scapegoat, saying we are against the railway and trying to stop the railway from re-opening We are not, but there is a queue of bodies that is. So please put away your persecution complex. The Greenway campaigners are not against the trains or railway, they just know they are not going to happen. That is the fact of the matter. Get used to it, and stop crying into your beer.

Logue no2

westtip wrote: »

You are forgiven, because yes I believe you are wrong. The prime objective, if you are at all interested, of the greenway campaign is to make use of the public asset that is the closed railway. As you know, in the south London suburbs with which you are very familiar I am sure, trains work very well because in large urban areas where frequent trains fill up to capacity at rush hour, this is not the case in the West of Ireland. I am sure you know all that. For the last time, on behalf of anyone who writes in favour of the greenway can I tell you that the Greenway campaign is not against the railway, we just know it is not going to happen, for all the reasons long since covered in this thread, however protecting the route in public ownership and creating tourism related jobs is a benefit worth fighting for.

Anyway, how was the 18.37 from Victoria tonight, packed to the gunnels?

You know I could respond to your taunts in detail but I really can't be bothered.

I think you will get quite a land when the responses to the rail review are published. The Ten-T designation is likely to change with the next government and future planning and population growth over the next 30 years will show that no government will allow rail assets to be squandered Comber Greenway style over a loud anti rail campaign led by someone who googles their opponents and puts the results on boards.

I have no doubt you wouldn't want the results of a google search on your name plastered on a boards post either so please grow up and debate the facts as they are, not how you want them to be.

I'll finish with the wise words of a good friend of mine. "The train's coming back. The West's On Track!"

eastwest

Logue no2 wrote: »

I think you will get quite a land when the responses to the rail review are published. The Ten-T designation is likely to change with the next government and future planning and population growth over the next 30 years will show that no government will allow rail assets to be squandered Comber Greenway style "

The Comber issue is continually raised by WOT as a reason why Irish Rail shouldn't allow disused rail lines to be preserved by building greenways on them, but it's simply not relevant to this debate.
Comber was badly handled from the point of view of keeping it in mind for future rail use, but that is emphatically not the model used by Irish Rail or being sought by greenway campaigners here.
Irish Rail has given local authorities access to disused lines in the case of Athlone-Mullingar, Waterford-Dungarvan, Navan Kingscourt and others on the basis of permissive access, so that the railway company can take the asset back any time they like, and that is as it should be.
Greenway campaigners are not anti-rail; we are against dereliction, against the waste of assets, against the loss of state-owned assets by squatting and creeping encroachment by roads and private interests. We favour jobs, amenities for citizens and the preservation of railway assets and railway heritage. It is disingenuous to describe us as anti-rail, and disingenuous to quote a completely irrelevant scenario such as exists in Comber in the context of this debate. This blinkered and untruthful campaigning by WOT is just helping to block tourism and amenity development, it isn't and won't bring their dream of slow, empty trains any closer.
As for the outcome of the rail review, it will say the same as every other review, that there is no business case for extending the railway north of Athenry. The subvention to Irish rail is very bad value for money in terms of the number of passengers moved, and the only way that IR can continue to run Ennis Athenry and the other two heavy loss-making lines is by paring back services on viable lines. People in Galway, Mayo and Sligo know that they want, a decent N17 that gives them access to the motorway network.

westtip

Logue no2 wrote: »

The Ten-T designation is likely to change with the next government

Ah yes, The new promised land. TEN-T designation is not at the whim of our government to change, it was agreed by the European Parliament, endorsed by 27 national governments. The changing TEN-T promise might be the next way of promising the railway is coming, all we have to do is persuade 27 EU governments to get on track and on side!

As for the Rail Review, I doubt very much it will divert from the views of Senior management at Irish Rail, the views of the Minister of Public Expenditure, or the views of Senior Civil Servants in the DTTAS that any talk of railway lines being extended north of Athenry is purely and utterly the realms of fantasy land.

Muckyboots

Logue no2 wrote: »

I'll finish with the wise words of a good friend of mine. "The train's coming back. The West's On Track!"

As in...
Digs Coal- #MAGA ! - Donald J Trump

eastwest

westtip wrote: »

Logue no2 wrote: »

The Ten-T designation is likely to change with the next government

Ah yes, The new promised land. TEN-T designation is not at the whim of our government to change, it was agreed by the European Parliament, endorsed by 27 national governments. The changing TEN-T promise might be the next way of promising the railway is coming, all we have to do is persuade 27 EU governments to get on track and on side!

As for the Rail Review, I doubt very much it will divert from the views of Senior management at Irish Rail, the views of the Minister of Public Expenditure, or the views of Senior Civil Servants in the DTTAS that any talk of railway lines being extended north of Athenry is purely and utterly the realms of fantasy land.

There is a possibility that Ten-T will be extended to this route, but definitely not for rail. The only game in town is the N17, and if the handful of rail obsessors hadn't been involved in such high level lobbying for a railway that is never coming, the region might well have got the road infrastructure it needed by now.
This whole sorry saga will be viewed on hindsight as a complete debacle filled with missed opportunities, with the distraction of the rail lobby getting in the way of real progress.

eastwest

Logue no2 wrote: »

.

"The train's coming back. The West's On Track!"

Try this quote from Downtown Express instead; it's closer to the truth...

People at the station / Checkin’ the time / Been waitin’ so long
To hear that whistle whine / There’s a shine on the rails
And a clickety-clack / But there ain’t no train / Comin’ down the track

serfboard

eastwest wrote: »

There is a possibility that Ten-T will be extended to this route, but definitely not for rail. The only game in town is the N17, and if the handful of rail obsessors hadn't been involved in such high level lobbying for a railway that is never coming, the region might well have got the road infrastructure it needed by now.

I don't think that the railway lobbying prevented roads being built. However, the over 100 Million spent on Ennis->Athenry could have been better spent elsewhere on the rail system, such as double-tracking Portarlington->Athlone and/or Maynooth->Longford.

eastwest

serfboard wrote: »

I don't think that the railway lobbying prevented roads being built. However, the over 100 Million spent on Ennis->Athenry could have been better spent elsewhere on the rail system, such as double-tracking Portarlington->Athlone and/or Maynooth->Longford.

It's been a distraction, an gave an impression that all the communities in Galway-Mayo wanted was a railway, when in fact political efforts should have been behind an upgrade of the N17.

monument

Logue no2 wrote: »

You know I could respond to your taunts in detail but I really can't be bothered.

I think you will get quite a land when the responses to the rail review are published. The Ten-T designation is likely to change with the next government and future planning and population growth over the next 30 years will show that no government will allow rail assets to be squandered Comber Greenway style over a loud anti rail campaign led by someone who googles their opponents and puts the results on boards.

I have no doubt you wouldn't want the results of a google search on your name plastered on a boards post either so please grow up and debate the facts as they are, not how you want them to be.

I'll finish with the wise words of a good friend of mine. "The train's coming back. The West's On Track!"

He was reported and then got a warning but you still had to engage.

-- moderator

westtip

eastwest wrote: »

There is a possibility that Ten-T will be extended to this route, but definitely not for rail. The only game in town is the N17, and if the handful of rail obsessors hadn't been involved in such high level lobbying for a railway that is never coming, the region might well have got the road infrastructure it needed by now.
This whole sorry saga will be viewed on hindsight as a complete debacle filled with missed opportunities, with the distraction of the rail lobby getting in the way of real progress.

East West no worries on that - the N17 is actually included in TEN-T, which is why the N17 dual carriageway from the interchange with the M4 near Athenry running north of Tuam will be opened, I think in June of this year. All the cllrs and TDs in the west received the attached PDF about how TEN-T means the end of the Western Rail Corridor but was good news because the N17, N4 and N5 plus other key routes in the west are included. They got this information on their desks in December 2013 over three years ago! We are in the queue for funding for these projects, which by the way will not be 100% funding but part funding by EU and remainder funding from internal (ie taxpayer) funding.

At the time a former MEP tried to claim TEN-T gave nothing to the west of Ireland, this is simply not true. Other TDs in the west have also tried to do this, all focusing on the Western Rail Corridor as if it will be some kind of saviour of the west. The west will actually do quite well if it gets the funding for the road projects listed in TEN-T. Pleased read the attached PDF to find out what the west can hope to achieve in transport infrastructure from EU funding over the next decade, it really is not as bad as some would make us think, but like the rest of Europe we are in a queue. The critical thing is to get the real TEN-T projects to the top of the national priority list we need politicians representing us who will drop the distraction of the Western Rail Corridor, this is what is so discouraging, to have some of our politicians wasting energy lobbying in Leinster House for projects that simply will not happen. The only projects that will happen are those listed in TEN-T, take that list to the DTTAS and say this project is in TEN-T we can get part European Funding for it, Roscommom needs it or Galway needs it or Mayo or Sligo or Donegal etc needs it. TEN-T projects are the only show in town.
This is what West on Track don't want everyone to know, TEN-T is now the Transport infrastructure policy for Europe until 2030, End of, not going to change, period, get used to it. Anyone who wants to know what our politicians have known for over three years read the attached, then ask them why they still have their heads in the sand......or bog and are barking up the wrong tree.