Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

Lord Glentoran

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

The rail subforum is a friendly and informative place. With respect, this thread isn’t suitable for that.

If you put it that way, then you're correct.

There's a greenway thread on the infrastructure forum, may as well put it there because there will never be a train on it

Lord Glentoran

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a greenway thread on the infrastructure forum, may as well put it there because there will never be a train on it

Never is a long time. Perhaps ‘Never’ will be shorter than you think. Perhaps not.

eastwest

Irish Steve wrote: »

I am going to live dangerously, but it's reached that point where someone outside of "the system" has to say something, and it will be better for someone that's not a moderator of this forum to put up a post of this nature.

For technical reasons, this thread has almost reached it's size limit, so it will end up being closed in the relatively near future. Given that it seems to have become the playground of a very small minority, and has almost no connection with commuting, or transport, could I please ask that this thread and the replacement for it gets moved to somewhere more appropriate like maybe the regional West forum.

The blunt reality is that even if the tracks being talked about were still active, which is very much not the case, they would be of very little use for commuting, as a meandering single track low speed line that wanders around some of the lowest population density in the country is unlikely to be of much real use for commuting, and if the usage and income figures being reported for the Ennis to Athenry section of the southern section are anything to go by, there won't be a significant number of people ever likely to use it for transport either, and it will never be able to make any sort of contribution to the massive cost of reinstating it to usability.

Yes, the verbal machinations of some of the combatants in this thread are at times more than mildly amusing, but the harsh reality is that there are a host of other areas of the rail network crying out for additional investment ahead of this anachronistic relic of a former time that has very little relevance to modern requirements.

Some of the flights of fantasy about the potential future usage are even more nebulous, and what's even more concerning is that some of the participants really believe in their vision for it. If we were still living in the Ireland of 1918, then it might have some potential, but the Ireland of 2018 is a very different place to the Ireland of a century ago.

There is a very real possibility that with the advent of improved electric power vehicles, and the requirement to reduce carbon emissions, the rail networks will have to change dramatically. A much more appropriate use of limited resources would be to look at plans to build electric high speed tracks on the alignment of some of the motorways, so that longer distance travel could be done at higher speeds and with appropriate links along the route to traditional road vehicles, albeit electric powered, but for both passenger and freight services. The new rail links could very easily be used for both, using the intermediate points as drop off points for things like supermarket deliveries and the like that use diesel powered trucks at present.

Yes, that sort of advanced thinking will for sure upset the traditional rail only supporters, who seem to be unable to recognise that things have to change massively going forward if any form of heavy rail is going to survive. Ireland does not have enough heavy industry to justify the sort of freight systems that operate in other places, but we do send massive numbers of 40Ft trucks over very long distances to distribute everything that's needed for modern living. There's no good reason why a significant part of that distribution could not be done using updated freight handling systems that would use rail for substantial portions of the journey.

That however is not a subject for commuting and transport, some of it is very much infrastructure, so the more I look at it, the more I realise that this thread in this forum has served it's purpose, and really needs to be given a dignified send off as it reaches the natural end of life.

That's a good summary of this topic, but there are just a few things to be added, if I may.
First, the concept of railways for slow routes probably has a limited life. Already, virtual railways are being mooted in Asia, where ruibber tyred trains will run on virtual tracks on existing roads, with the 'tracks' created by a combination of signalling and some dedicated paths.
With regards to politicians who support the rail lobby on this route, and the lobbyist's themselves, I often wonder why they don't look at existing examples inn other countries before locking themselves into entrenched positions. The best example I can think of is the old Athens-Corinth line, which eventually died a death because it was so slow that nobody was using it. I recall missing a train once, and running down the track and catching it and being hauled aboard by passengers who were well used to such shenanigans. That's how slow it was in places where crossings occurred as frequently as they do on the Burma Road. I often wonder why the rail lobby hasn't sought a more viable route, using parts of the old alignment but mostly following the N17.
When Greece, like Ireland, lost the run of itself with borrowed money they decided to reopen the route, just as we did with Ennis Athenry. Like us, they were also building a motorway parallel to the route, and they stuck the new railway into the motorway alignment, meaning that a high speed commuter train could service the route. The old route is now abandoned, but there is now talk locally of a cycleway.
The other lesson that is to be learned from Athens Corinth though is that the shining new trains on the route are losing a fortune, priced out of business by bus companies on the new motorway, but that's another story.

Lord Glentoran

eastwest wrote: »

That's a good summary of this topic, but there are just a few things to be added, if I may.
First, the concept of railways for slow routes probably has a limited life. Already, virtual railways are being mooted in Asia, where ruibber tyred trains will run on virtual tracks on existing roads, with the 'tracks' created by a combination of signalling and some dedicated paths.
With regards to politicians who support the rail lobby on this route, and the lobbyist's themselves, I often wonder why they don't look at existing examples inn other countries before locking themselves into entrenched positions. The best example I can think of is the old Athens-Corinth line, which eventually died a death because it was so slow that nobody was using it. I recall missing a train once, and running down the track and catching it and being hauled aboard by passengers who were well used to such shenanigans. That's how slow it was in places where crossings occurred as frequently as they do on the Burma Road. I often wonder why the rail lobby hasn't sought a more viable route, using parts of the old alignment but mostly following the N17.
When Greece, like Ireland, lost the run of itself with borrowed money they decided to reopen the route, just as we did with Ennis Athenry. Like us, they were also building a motorway parallel to the route, and they stuck the new railway into the motorway alignment, meaning that a high speed commuter train could service the route. The old route is now abandoned, but there is now talk locally of a cycleway.
The other lesson that is to be learned from Athens Corinth though is that the shining new trains on the route are losing a fortune, priced out of business by bus companies on the new motorway, but that's another story.

Bit of a circular argument then. Like the thread.

westtip

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Bit of a circular argument then. Like the thread.

Indeedie, what I cannot take serious though is takng this thread serious, I mean for all of ye, isn't it just a bit of a giggle, like banter down the pub, now and again engaging seriously. I mean come on, are there really people out there who give a fiddlers puck what happens or what is said on this thread?

Lord Glentoran

westtip wrote: »

Indeedie, what I cannot take serious though is takng this thread serious, I mean for all of ye, isn't it just a bit of a giggle, like banter down the pub, now and again engaging seriously. I mean come on, are there really people out there who give a fiddlers puck what happens or what is said on this thread?

It’s the interweb

Rawr

westtip wrote: »

Indeedie, what I cannot take serious though is takng this thread serious, I mean for all of ye, isn't it just a bit of a giggle, like banter down the pub, now and again engaging seriously. I mean come on, are there really people out there who give a fiddlers puck what happens or what is said on this thread?

I sometimes got the impression that WOT cared a bit about the discussion here. The frequency of newly registered posters arriving to counter the greenway argument always made me wonder if these individuals were here on the behest of WOT, or that they were merely ambitious supporters of WOT who wished to do their bit to support their cause.

That is just an impression I had and regardless of why they were here, these individuals did indeed inject in interesting dimension of energy or drama into the discussion...even if it did bring up repeated points.

I have long been a follower of this thread (and the earlier mega thread). I haven't posted often but I have always been interested in following the progress of the old "WRC Question". Should the thread end (since 9999 posts must be the software's upper limit), it will be missed, and I do hope that there will be future thread regarding the progress and fate of this old alignment.

This case has been a fascinating microcosm of infrastructure planning, the legacy of Victorian-era Ireland, the die-hard affection people can have for rail, and of course the incredible effects of local politics in Ireland. I bet this saga may have a book or two worth of material for someone to write one day.

As this might be might my last chance to post on this megalith of a thread, I would like to leave my final words to be; that at the end of this saga I hope that the WRC remains protected in public hands and is ultimately used in a way that benefits people the most.

Zubeneschamali

eastwest wrote: »

Even after the greenway is built, I'd say there will still be talk about a railway.

On the Athlone-Mullingar greenway, the rail enthusiasts forced proponents to leave the old rails in place to maintain the fiction that it might reopen as a railway someday.

Even though the first thing they'd have to do to reopen a railway on the route is pull up the crappy old track and lay a new one.

eastwest

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

On the Athlone-Mullingar greenway, the rail enthusiasts forced proponents to leave the old rails in place to maintain the fiction that it might reopen as a railway someday.

Even though the first thing they'd have to do to reopen a railway on the route is pull up the crappy old track and lay a new one.

That's the thing that has often puzzled me, the obsession with a long pile of scrap iron that has no role or value in the construction of any future railway. Although the rails and sleepers have to be taken up anyway, regardless of what use the route is put to, the rail enthusiasts have made this a red line issue, if you'll excuse the term.
There is zero logic in their position, but their view is so entrenched that in the case of mullingar athlone it was felt that leaving half the old tracks in place would minimise opposition to the greenway, and so it proved.

JCX BXC

Although I have to say it has added to the character of the route.

Zubeneschamali

eastwest wrote: »

in the case of mullingar athlone it was felt that leaving half the old tracks in place would minimise opposition to the greenway, and so it proved.

Half?

The route was single-tracked back in the 1920s sometime.

westtip

eastwest wrote: »

Even after the greenway is built, I'd say there will still be talk about a railway.

Of course we should because the greenway will be protecting the route until such time as a railway is needed and can be afforded, also by the time the greenway opens I will probably have a free travel pass; and will need the parallel railway to take me and my probably electric bike back in the direction I came from.

Build the greenway and then I join west on track for a parallel railway campaign.

westtip

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

On the Athlone-Mullingar greenway, the rail enthusiasts forced proponents to leave the old rails in place to maintain the fiction that it might reopen as a railway someday.

Even though the first thing they'd have to do to reopen a railway on the route is pull up the crappy old track and lay a new one.

funny thing is that this is one rail route I have always been a supporter of to re-open as a railway line, in particular to allow Galway - Dublin trains to come into Dublin via the Sligo line into Connolly, and there may be an argument for a decent commuter service connecting Athlone, Mullingar into Connolly. This kind of service would be of benefit, and the parallel greenway now along the closed railway would prove the two can live side by side. I think the problem is the junction for this route is on the wrong side of the new Athlone railway station, I think it is west of the new town station and sits between the new station and the old Athlone Town station on the Roscommon side which served the Barracks. This route would have been far greater service to the West of Ireland giving greater connectivity to Dublin, had West on Track focussed on this kind of project, or double tracking Dublin Galway, and double tracking Mullingar - Dublin, they would have got the full support of many more people, concentrating on a branch line from Athenry to Claremorris did the West a huge disservice.

Lord Glentoran

I must remember to screenshot posts before they get deleted. #9566

JCX BXC

westtip wrote: »

Of course we should because the greenway will be protecting the route until such time as a railway is needed and can be afforded, also by the time the greenway opens I will probably have a free travel pass; and will need the parallel railway to take me and my probably electric bike back in the direction I came from.

Build the greenway and then I join west on track for a parallel railway campaign.

Disagree, have always said while I support the Greenway, the protecting the alignment stuff is a moot point. A Greenway will never be allow become a railway.

marno21

JCX BXC wrote: »

Disagree, have always said while I support the Greenway, the protecting the alignment stuff is a moot point. A Greenway will never be allow become a railway.

Mostly because they are old abandoned alignments that have little use as railways. If we ever reach the stage where a railway is required between Claremorris and Collooney then it'll be built on a new alignment. The existing alignment is useless.

The only recently closed railway with a greenway proposal is the South Wexford line. The viability of the South Wexford line will be totally killed off when the N25 New Ross bypass opens in 2019.

Lord Glentoran

marno21 wrote: »

Mostly because they are old abandoned alignments that have little use as railways. If we ever reach the stage where a railway is required between Claremorris and Collooney then it'll be built on a new alignment. The existing alignment is useless.

The only recently closed railway with a greenway proposal is the South Wexford line. The viability of the South Wexford line will be totally killed off when the N25 New Ross bypass opens in 2019.

So, what other railways will be

totally killed off

?
Is it surprising then that some of us have fought that particular dismal consensus - and got posts deleted for our trouble?

marno21

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

So, what other railways will be ?
Is it surprising then that some of us have fought that particular dismal consensus - and got posts deleted for our trouble?

Not sure what you're saying here - what I meant is the viability of the South Wexford line will be finally killed when the N25 opens. The journey times to the region the line serves will be drastically improved. One of the main reasons the South Wexford line was supposedly viable was poor road access to the area it served.

It's sad to see lines closing but a certain amount of pragmatism is required too - lines requiring massive subsidy for no real benefit should be rightfully closed. Lines requiring large operating subventions are just placing excess costs on the rest of the economy and the money could be better spent elsewhere (and before anyone says it I'm not saying that railways are the main cause of money being wasted - this applies to the entire Government expenditure)

end of the road

marno21 wrote: »

The only recently closed railway with a greenway proposal is the South Wexford line. The viability of the South Wexford line will be totally killed off when the N25 New Ross bypass opens in 2019.

i have saw nothing to prove this. i suspect it will be proven to be wishful thinking.

marno21 wrote: »

Not sure what you're saying here - what I meant is the viability of the South Wexford line will be finally killed when the N25 opens. The journey times to the region the line serves will be drastically improved. One of the main reasons the South Wexford line was supposedly viable was poor road access to the area it served.

which will remain poor. the motor way does not serve the areas.

marno21 wrote: »

It's sad to see lines closing but a certain amount of pragmatism is required too - lines requiring massive subsidy for no real benefit should be rightfully closed. Lines requiring large operating subventions are just placing excess costs on the rest of the economy and the money could be better spent elsewhere (and before anyone says it I'm not saying that railways are the main cause of money being wasted - this applies to the entire Government expenditure)

any money spent on anything could be better spent. the money the railway gets is quite low so the rest of the economy isn't effected and isn't losing much if anything. lines being closed in the 21st century in a modern country are closed due to long term failure to run them properly. closing them is rewarding such behaviour.

eastwest

end of the road wrote: »

i have saw nothing to prove this. i suspect it will be proven to be wishful thinking.



which will remain poor. the motor way does not serve the areas.



any money spent on anything could be better spent. the money the railway gets is quite low so the rest of the economy isn't effected and isn't losing much if anything. lines being closed in the 21st century in a modern country are closed due to long term failure to run them properly. closing them is rewarding such behaviour.

Building railway lines is only part of the issue, running them in the absence of passengers is a major problem and a drain on the rest of the network.
If the population of Connaught doubled, and car usage halved and one off housing disappeared, we might not be having this debate at all. But if you compare the numbers for metro north -- 15,000 per hour at peak -- and consider how that project struggled to get funding over the last decade, it becomes obvious that the wrc is not on anybody's radar at the DOT.
The other issue is the one of the suitability of the route. The original line, particularly north of Claremorris, was built cheaply, which meant lots and lots of level crossings and a winding route that limits speed. Any proposal for a railway on that route would have to look at a new alignment, and that is where the rail lobby has failed to use their imagination over the years, preferring to commit themselves to the closed and redundant line that is there.
A rail lobby that proposed the creation of a new alignment alongside the M17/N/17 might have at least created viable route that could at some time in the future see a railway, but their obsession with the existing route means that this has only one end game, and it doesn't involve trains.
Unless they count their little project at Kiltimagh, of course.

Lord Glentoran

eastwest wrote: »

Building railway lines is only part of the issue, running them in the absence of passengers is a major problem and a drain on the rest of the network.
If the population of Connaught doubled, and car usage halved and one off housing disappeared, we might not be having this debate at all. But if you compare the numbers for metro north -- 15,000 per hour at peak -- and consider how that project struggled to get funding over the last decade, it becomes obvious that the wrc is not on anybody's radar at the DOT.
The other issue is the one of the suitability of the route. The original line, particularly north of Claremorris, was built cheaply, which meant lots and lots of level crossings and a winding route that limits speed. Any proposal for a railway on that route would have to look at a new alignment, and that is where the rail lobby has failed to use their imagination over the years, preferring to commit themselves to the closed and redundant line that is there.
A rail lobby that proposed the creation of a new alignment alongside the M17/N/17 might have at least created viable route that could at some time in the future see a railway, but their obsession with the existing route means that this has only one end game, and it doesn't involve trains.
Unless they count their little project at Kiltimagh, of course.

But sure you've argued that

The other lesson that is to be learned from Athens Corinth though is that the shining new trains on the route are losing a fortune, priced out of business by bus companies on the new motorway, but that's another story.

so its just another way to kill the railway. Rings hollow.

Lord Glentoran

Doing a google for something else, I came across this. Made me smile.

The Irish approach to social development -

'Would you get €15 a head?'
'I'd say €10-€12'
'Around 15,000 a day at €12 a head then?'
'We'd need more, probably best to cut a carriage or two off the line and take out some seats, pack more in'.
'So that'd be 30,000 at €12 a head?'
'You'd have to make €17-€20 to make it work'.
'Sure haven't we the buses?'

*** Startled Scandanavian puts his head in: "If you create an efficient system with frequent services won't that lead economic development and allow much greater economic mobility and opportunities for all?"

'Eh? What do you know about Ireland fella?' (Closes tinted window in mercedes)

westtip

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Doing a google for something else, I came across this. Made me smile.


The Irish approach to social development -

'Would you get €15 a head?'
'I'd say €10-€12'
'Around 15,000 a day at €12 a head then?'
'We'd need more, probably best to cut a carriage or two off the line and take out some seats, pack more in'.
'So that'd be 30,000 at €12 a head?'
'You'd have to make €17-€20 to make it work'.
'Sure haven't we the buses?'

*** Startled Scandanavian puts his head in: "If you create an efficient system with frequent services won't that lead economic development and allow much greater economic mobility and opportunities for all?"

'Eh? What do you know about Ireland fella?' (Closes tinted window in mercedes)

I really don't see the point you are making, are you seriously suggesting building an efficient system for trains every ten minutes like an urban metro service from Claremorris to Athenry will create its own demand for 15,000 passengers per hour at peak in the West of Ireland? When the bit that has been built from Ennis to Athenry would struggle to get 15,000 passenger journies per month! This is the whole issue on this debate, many people say the likes of me and EASTWEST and others are anti-rail, I personally am not. I am anti waste, and very pro-rail where appropriate. All that has ever been said to the railway advocates is that apart from balanced regional development can you actually provide a business case for the Western Rail Corridor, I mean real numbers, potential passenger numbers (the first phase Ennis/Athenry has failed on that account), actual freight demand (a report commissioned 3 years ago by the pro West Rail Corridor quango, The Western Development commission failed to do that). Instead of the argument we want it, can we have the argument we want it because.....

Isambard

end of the road wrote: »

i have saw nothing to prove this. i suspect it will be proven to be wishful thinking.



which will remain poor. the motor way does not serve the areas.



any money spent on anything could be better spent. the money the railway gets is quite low so the rest of the economy isn't effected and isn't losing much if anything. lines being closed in the 21st century in a modern country are closed due to long term failure to run them properly. closing them is rewarding such behaviour.

for a start it isn't a motor way, it's an N road. Secondly, one of the advantages the railway line had was that it avoided the trek around via the bridge in New Ross. That advantage will now be substantailly nullified by the new bridge and bypass, whilst it doesn't run through the railway line's hinterland directly, it does provide a better journey time . In any case the railway line's hinterland is very sparcely populated and has little potential now the beet has stopped.

end of the road

Isambard wrote: »

for a start it isn't a motor way, it's an N road. Secondly, one of the advantages the railway line had was that it avoided the trek around via the bridge in New Ross. That advantage will now be substantailly nullified by the new bridge and bypass, whilst it doesn't run through the railway line's hinterland directly, it does provide a better journey time.

again, i have saw nothing to prove this. in fact i'd suggest (knowing the area as i do) the journey time will be the same. new-ross was only a tiny issue once maybe twice a day anyway and certainly didn't require this waste of money.

Isambard wrote: »

In any case the railway line's hinterland is very sparcely populated and has little potential now the beet has stopped.

i'm afraid you are incorrect.

Isambard

tiny issue? Jeez I've been queued back 2 miles from New Ross bridge. The journey time will be slashed.

end of the road

Isambard wrote: »

tiny issue? Jeez I've been queued back 2 miles from New Ross bridge. The journey time will be slashed.

yes, a tiny issue in my experience. it has only ever happened me once. i'm regularly driving through there and the most i have been held up is for a couple of minutes, and that is even at peak time. it's a nucence but it would have done.

eastwest

end of the road wrote: »

yes, a tiny issue in my experience. it has only ever happened me once. i'm regularly driving through there and the most i have been held up is for a couple of minutes, and that is even at peak time. it's a nucence but it would have done.

A couple of minutes?
I also cross that bridge regularly and it can often be a lot more than that. And if I take a chance and go through the town that can backfire too. About two weeks back I got stuck for twenty minutes trying to get to the bridge. The new bypass will.be a great asset.

Grandeeod

end of the road wrote: »

yes, a tiny issue in my experience. it has only ever happened me once. i'm regularly driving through there and the most i have been held up is for a couple of minutes, and that is even at peak time. it's a nucence but it would have done.

Sorry, but I have to call you out on this one. New Ross on the N25 is an unnecessary nightmare. You must be driving it regularly during the night, because during daylight hours it adds to drive times outside of peak hours and during peak hours, its a disaster in terms of an efficient National Primary route and E30 European route.

To claim that the New Ross bypass is a waste of money (and that's what you claimed) is an opinion that belongs in an Ireland long ago. To say that the bypass won't shorten the journey times is an opinion that also belongs to an Ireland long ago. It's also a downright stupid opinion.

Grandeeod

end of the road wrote: »

i'm afraid you are incorrect.

In any case the railway line's hinterland is very sparcely populated and has little potential now the beet has stopped.

You claim that the quoted poster is incorrect? Seriously? Back it up, because the South Wexford line runs through a virtual no moans land.

Lord Glentoran

Grandeeod wrote: »

You claim that the quoted poster is incorrect? Seriously? Back it up, because the South Wexford line runs through a virtual no moans land.

It’s remarkable that bypasses and motorways open up land for development though. You would be forgiven for believing that vested interests want money spent on railways diverted to road building.

Lord Glentoran

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

It’s remarkable that bypasses and motorways open up land for development though. You would be forgiven for believing that vested interests want money spent on railways diverted to road building.

Money spent on the right rail projects with a solid user base and sound economic case, make total sense.

As a semi regular user of the Galway to Dublin line, double tracking of it would make total sense as it would allow for increased frequency and lower travel times. I would love to see a sub 90 min travel time on that route.

The wrc makes no sense no matter what kind of analysis is done, be that cost, demand, travel times etc

eastwest

Deleted User wrote: »

Money spent on the right rail projects with a solid user base and sound economic case, make total sense.

As a semi regular user of the Galway to Dublin line, double tracking of it would make total sense as it would allow for increased frequency and lower travel times. I would love to see a sub 90 min travel time on that route.

The wrc makes no sense no matter what kind of analysis is done, be that cost, demand, travel times etc

I would use Dublin Galway regularly if it was faster, but currently the door to door times with the car are less than half the time.
I couldn't see me using the wrc, a good donkey cart would give it a run for its money.

westtip

Deleted User wrote: »

Money spent on the right rail projects with a solid user base and sound economic case, make total sense.

As a semi regular user of the Galway to Dublin line, double tracking of it would make total sense as it would allow for increased frequency and lower travel times. I would love to see a sub 90 min travel time on that route.

The wrc makes no sense no matter what kind of analysis is done, be that cost, demand, travel times etc

Exactly and if we can steer clear of the N25 and New Ross lads (must be a thread somewhere!), this has always been the issue of West on Track, they have been campaigning for years for a heap of dung, this is what they got from Ennis to Athenry, a glorified modernisation of a totally useless alignment, which will always mean a two and a bit hour train journey, from Limerick to Galway. A 60 mile journey that can be done in just over an hour by car or 80 mins by X51 express bus. They want to see this heap of dung protracted further using the old alignment for what will be another slow journey time. Had West on Track focussed on projects like double tracking Dublin Galway, re-opening Athlone-Mullingar, more passing loops on Westport-Dublin and Sligo-Dublin, these kind of projects would and could make Rail more competitive and deliver faster journey times and more efficient freight movements. I'm not anti rail I am for better rail.

Isambard

Deleted User wrote: »

Money spent on the right rail projects with a solid user base and sound economic case, make total sense.

As a semi regular user of the Galway to Dublin line, double tracking of it would make total sense as it would allow for increased frequency and lower travel times. I would love to see a sub 90 min travel time on that route.

The wrc makes no sense no matter what kind of analysis is done, be that cost, demand, travel times etc

even partial double tracking would help..the so-called Dynamic Loops.

eastwest

The flaw in the whole WOT argument is that rail is not the solution to all transport needs.
It's a bit like what a friend of mine calls 'the curse of the free site', where people build houses on sites that don't really suit their work or lifestyle needs, simply because they get the site for nothing on the family farm.
Just because there is an old rail alignment there already, it doesn't mean that a railway on the route is the optimal solution for transport users along the route. Add this to the low population density and you don't have a case for re-opening it.
But that is no excuse for letting it slip away out of public ownership either. This strip of land is an asset, and indeed some bits of it may have a use for transport needs in the future, but it's not a viable railway.
Remember, it closed for a reason.

Sam Russell

France went for TGV trains that could go at 200 km/h to solve intercity rather than looking at aircraft. It worked for them because the train will always be quicker city to city than anything else. It is also more 'modern' to have fast shiny trains.

When motorways opened up, train services should have responded by speeding up and greater frequency, but they did not.

In the sixties, when British Railways had Beeching close all the 'loss making' branch lines, they discovered most of the main line passengers started or finished their journeys on those branch lines so changed to driving or going by coach on the new motorways.

Once a rail line closes, it rarely reopens.

Isambard

with respect, TGVs across a large country between large cities has no relevance to the WRC.

serfboard

Sam Russell wrote: »

When motorways opened up, train services should have responded by speeding up and greater frequency, but they did not.

Maybe because over 100 million of the money that could have been used doing that was instead spent on Ennis->Athenry?

Sam Russell

Isambard wrote: »

with respect, TGVs across a large country between large cities has no relevance to the WRC.

Cork/Dublin; Belfast/Dublin; Limerick/Dublin; Waterford/Dublin; Dalway/Dublin - all of these routes could do with going above an average of 120 km/hr, and with higher frequency. If that was the aim, then there would be passengers for the trains, but a wobbly branch line that floods in winter and meanders across a bog is not going to make enough to pay the driver, let alone the cost of maintaining the permanent way.

The Metrolink and Dart Underground is where the smart railway infrastructure money needs to go.

eastwest

Sam Russell wrote: »

a wobbly branch line that floods in winter and meanders across a bog is not going to make enough to pay the driver, let alone the cost of maintaining the permanent way.
.

More importantly, there is solid proof from the figures on ennis athenry to show that a line north of Athenry would also fail to deliver.
In many ways, given the solid data available, it is bizarre to even consider repeating the mistake of phase 1 of the wrc. We know exactly what the outcome would be, and it wouldn't be pretty.

Lord Glentoran

eastwest wrote: »

More importantly, there is solid proof from the figures on ennis athenry to show that a line north of Athenry would also fail to deliver.
In many ways, given the solid data available, it is bizarre to even consider repeating the mistake of phase 1 of the wrc. We know exactly what the outcome would be, and it wouldn't be pretty.

Indeed. Another 10,000 post thread of fist-shaking :pac:

eastwest

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Indeed. Another 10,000 post thread of fist-shaking :pac:

Sometimes it takes a lot of repeating of a simple message for it to get through.

Sam Russell

Just looking at the IR timetable, it looks like intercity averages about 80 km/h.

That is not significant in any way to entice anyone out of their car, and when you take into account the fare and the frequency, it really is quite unattractive. The coach service is quicker and cheaper and more frequent.

It is not just the branch lines that are under threat, and no new minor lines will open anytime soon - so no WRC.

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

In the sixties, when British Railways had Beeching close all the 'loss making' branch lines, they discovered most of the main line passengers started or finished their journeys on those branch lines so changed to driving or going by coach on the new motorways.

Interestingly, even before Beeching, rail usage in the UK had almost halved since it's peak in 1910 (1.6 billion passengers a year in 1910 to 900 million at the start of the 60's) so the decline was already well underway before Beeching, I would assume due to increasing numbers of cars and buses.

Numbers continued to decline after Beeching, but relatively inline with the decreases before. Beeching was more about cutting back rail costs to better match the decreasing numbers it was now carrying, rather then increasing it.

It started to pick up again in the 70's with high speed rail, but really only recovered massively since the late 90's and privatisation, jumping from 800 million in 1997 to 1.7billion last year, the most it has ever carried!

It seems people didn't really care for slow, sleepy, meandering Victorian rails, but love high speed, high frequency mass transport.

I'd say Beeching was a necessary correction of rail services due to changing demand and the modern world we live in.

Lord Glentoran

Sam Russell wrote: »

Just looking at the IR timetable, it looks like intercity averages about 80 km/h.

That is not significant in any way to entice anyone out of their car, and when you take into account the fare and the frequency, it really is quite unattractive. The coach service is quicker and cheaper and more frequent.

It is not just the branch lines that are under threat, and no new minor lines will open anytime soon - so no WRC.

Of course IR should be faster, but really, is there any coach service that averages over 80 km/h an hour including stop-start traffic at the city centre ends?

Sam Russell

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Of course IR should be faster, but really, is there any coach service that averages over 80 km/h an hour including stop-start traffic at the city centre ends?

Aircoach does Dublin to Cork in 3 hrs vs IR 2 hrs 30 mins, but does Cork to Dublin Airport in 3 hrs 20 which IR does not do.

So CC to CC it is much of a muchness, but other journeys, well that depends where you are going but coaches are more flexible and more frequent, if not much faster (but not much slower).

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

Cork/Dublin; Belfast/Dublin; Limerick/Dublin; Waterford/Dublin; Dalway/Dublin - all of these routes could do with going above an average of 120 km/hr, and with higher frequency. If that was the aim, then there would be passengers for the trains, but a wobbly branch line that floods in winter and meanders across a bog is not going to make enough to pay the driver, let alone the cost of maintaining the permanent way.

The Metrolink and Dart Underground is where the smart railway infrastructure money needs to go.

Personally, I believe that a golden opportunity was recently missed when the LUAS was extended to Broombridge.
It should have stopped at Broadstone and the station reopened along with the Athlone - Mullingar line, this would have provided an alternative path into Dublin for commuters from the West & Northwest, while releasing capacity on the east coast lines.

Lord Glentoran

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I believe that a golden opportunity was recently missed when the LUAS was extended to Broombridge.
It should have stopped at Broadstone and the station reopened along with the Athlone - Mullingar line, this would have provided an alternative path into Dublin for commuters from the West & Northwest, while releasing capacity on the east coast lines.

That would have been common sense, but as we all can agree on, common sense ain't that common.