Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

I wouldn't worry, that'd bridge will see a million bikes before it sees a single train

westtip

McAlban wrote: »

70k is a large amount of money to a lot of people, but in the grand scheme of things for infrastructure of all types, it's not a lot of money.



When are you going to accept that the WRT is about as alive as the WRC? Constant propaganda pieces from Sligo Greenway Co-Op or WOT aren't going to change that, It's why other projects are getting funded by councils and yours is not.

Constant propaganda - what an interesting comment. Actually, I prefer to use the phrase media management. One well known Mayo cllr said on the national airwaves several years ago "the Western Rail Corridor is not up for debate" he was referring to the choice of greenway or railway, he has been proven so wrong in terms of what is up for debate. I admit it is frustrating the greenway, despite huge popular support, has not yet got funded whilst other projects have, but it has nothing to do with media management of the debate on this subject, far from it. It is down to the near obsession now that West on Track have with stopping the greenway from happening, because they know it will be a success and they also know the railway is never going to happen. In any event, we are not seeking to get funded by councils, they have no money, it is government funding we are seeking, and believe me, it will be achieved.

schemingbohemia

Would the 70k not cover the design of a bridge that could be either a railway bridge or a greenway bridge? If both it's hardly a waste.

eastwest

westtip wrote: »

Constant propaganda - what an interesting comment. Actually, I prefer to use the phrase media management. One well known Mayo cllr said on the national airwaves several years ago "the Western Rail Corridor is not up for debate" he was referring to the choice of greenway or railway, he has been proven so wrong in terms of what is up for debate. I admit it is frustrating the greenway, despite huge popular support, has not yet got funded whilst other projects have, but it has nothing to do with media management of the debate on this subject, far from it. It is down to the near obsession now that West on Track have with stopping the greenway from happening, because they know it will be a success and they also know the railway is never going to happen. In any event, we are not seeking to get funded by councils, they have no money, it is government funding we are seeking, and believe me, it will be achieved.

It is interesting that although WOT has conceded that north of Claremorris is not a runner, judging by their deal in the formation of government, they still continue to block the greenway through Mayo, and indeed they still oppose it in Sligo despite it being a done deal in that county.
So you're right; the pro-rail lobby has long morphed into an anti greenway lobby.
Governments love this kind of division, it gives them an excuse to do nothing and invest nothing in the region.

eastwest

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Would the 70k not cover the design of a bridge that could be either a railway bridge or a greenway bridge? If both it's hardly a waste.

When the greenway is being built they are very unlikely to build a heavy rail bridge to carry it. Most likely is a lightweight footbridge that will.have to be separately designed, so I'm afraid this 70k really is money down the drain.
If an employee of the council did this they'd be in trouble, but these politicians seem immune.

sonnyblack

eastwest wrote: »

When the greenway is being built they are very unlikely to build a heavy rail bridge to carry it. Most likely is a lightweight footbridge that will.have to be separately designed, so I'm afraid this 70k really is money down the drain.
If an employee of the council did this they'd be in trouble, but these politicians seem immune.

But if you turn that on its head. The Greenway supporters claim that they want to use the line as a greenway for walking and cycling to preserve the line for use as a railway at some stage down the line if it ever came to pass. It's unlikely to happen but why not build a bridge now that is dual purpose and can work for both uses.

Muckyboots

sonnyblack wrote: »

But if you turn that on its head. The Greenway supporters claim that they want to use the line as a greenway for walking and cycling to preserve the line for use as a railway at some stage down the line if it ever came to pass. It's unlikely to happen but why not build a bridge now that is dual purpose and can work for both uses.

Correct- it makes it difficult to maintain the "protect the alignment" argument when you get animated over a small beans spend, albeit in a face saving exercise. If people are running around looking for facts and figures to rub into other peoples faces it just becomes personal and petty.

eastwest

sonnyblack wrote: »

But if you turn that on its head. The Greenway supporters claim that they want to use the line as a greenway for walking and cycling to preserve the line for use as a railway at some stage down the line if it ever came to pass. It's unlikely to happen but why not build a bridge now that is dual purpose and can work for both uses.

That's the issue; this bridge isn't going to be built. So why spend (waste) 70k on designing a bridge that won't be built?
Nobody in their right mind will spend a couple of million euros on a bridge to carry a greenway, when a simple prefabbed footbridge will do the job.
The problem is with designing a bridge before any project, railway or greenway, has been defined and approved. That is where the abuse of public funds has taken place.

rebel456

eastwest wrote: »

That's the issue; this bridge isn't going to be built. So why spend (waste) 70k on designing a bridge that won't be built?
Nobody in their right mind will spend a couple of million euros on a bridge to carry a greenway, when a simple prefabbed footbridge will do the job.
The problem is with designing a bridge before any project, railway or greenway, has been defined and approved. That is where the abuse of public funds has taken place.

70k is the cost of a Dáil vote. Will give the WOT folks a nice shiney graphic to show off I guess.

Just think of what 70k would do if invested in the Greenway...

McAlban

rebel456 wrote: »

70k is the cost of a Dáil vote. Will give the WOT folks a nice shiney graphic to show off I guess.

Just think of what 70k would do if invested in the Greenway...

About 1,200 Tonnes of Gravel.

Or about 500m of Surface.

rebel456

McAlban wrote: »

About 1,200 Tonnes of Gravel.

Or about 500m of Surface.

Lay that 500m through the town of Tuam and give the locals a sample of what they can expect. Would make a nice walkway for the town in its own right, including adding some life to the old station.

JCX BXC

rebel456 wrote: »

Lay that 500m through the town of Tuam and give the locals a sample of what they can expect. Would make a nice walkway for the town in its own right, including adding some life to the old station.

Not that simple, you've to worry about possible carparking, gates, fencing, etc.

5rtytry56

JCX BXC wrote: »

Not that simple, you've to worry about possible carparking, gates, fencing, etc.

don't forget cost of renovating station buildings in health and safety cobext: foot bridges

rebel456

JCX BXC wrote: »

Not that simple, you've to worry about possible carparking, gates, fencing, etc.

It's town centre, no need for a carpark.

5rtytry56 wrote: »

don't forget cost of renovating station buildings in health and safety cobext: foot bridges

Close it off until it can be renovated. As it's now more publicly accessible it's an incentive for the local council to fund a renovation. I don't see anyone wanting to invest in a building that would just straddle a little used freight line... look at Navan.

eastwest

rebel456 wrote: »

Lay that 500m through the town of Tuam and give the locals a sample of what they can expect. Would make a nice walkway for the town in its own right, including adding some life to the old station.

70k would lay a lot more than 500m. Don't forget that the stone ballast is already in place and just needs blinding and topping.
I'll happily deliver 2km of greenway through Tuam if somebody gives me 70k.

JCX BXC

How about not doing a half arsed job and actually doing something proper like the Waterford Greenway? Not close this part off and this and blah.

eastwest

JCX BXC wrote: »

How about not doing a half arsed job and actually doing something proper like the Waterford Greenway? Not close this part off and this and blah.

That's what the people of Tuam and Athenry are trying to do, but a handful.of politicians don't want it to happen.
in Waterford they had the same problem, with nine councillors fighting against the greenway right to the end. That's the parish pump, same everywhere. The deise greenway is a done deal now though, in spite of them, and it's the best thing to happen in waterford in a generation.
Sooner or later the same thing will.happen in Galway.

westtip

rebel456 wrote: »

70k is the cost of a Dáil vote. Will give the WOT folks a nice shiney graphic to show off I guess.

Just think of what 70k would do if invested in the Greenway...

Or pay for the feasibility study for the greenway, something that might actually happen, not waste it on a railway standard bridge that is simply not going to happen.

McAlban

eastwest wrote: »

That's what some the people of Tuam and Athenry are trying to do, but a handful.of politicians representing other people in Tuam and Athenry don't want it to happen.

Fixed that for you.

eastwest wrote:

in Waterford they had the same problem, with nine councillors fighting against the greenway right to the end. That's the parish pump, same everywhere. The deise greenway is a done deal now though, in spite of them, and it's the best thing to happen in Waterford in a generation.

Too soon after Sunday Man, Too Soon.

eastwest wrote:

Sooner or later the same thing will.happen in Galway.

Yep. On the M&GWR Galway to Clifden branch and the Dublin Galway Greenway (If they ever sort it out). Not on the WRC.

eastwest

McAlban wrote: »

Too soon after Sunday Man, Too Soon.

.

:D:D:D:D:D

eastwest

McAlban wrote: »

On the M&GWR Galway to Clifden branch and the Dublin Galway Greenway (If they ever sort it out). Not on the WRC.

It's the WRT now, in all but name.
Given that the first phase of the WRC is threatened with closure, and that both Varadkar and the Finance Minister have affirmed that the railway 'mistake' is not going to be repeated, I'd say we'll see Sinn Fein accepting nominations from the branches for an openly elected party leader before we see a train on that line.
I'd give it until Christmas, when like the war, it will be over.

westtip

Any news on when the NTA public consultation report on rail will be released, I was in touch with them in July and they said probably late September (which probably means November - but lets not put a year on it!) judging by the comments from Irish Rail a couple of weeks back about line closures my guess is that Sean Canney will be trying his level best to delay its publication even longer, I can't imagine the report will be recommending opening anymore of the so called Western Rail Corridor, in fact judging by what Irish Rail said three weeks ago, Ennis/Athenry might be under threat (this won't close) but the mere suggestion of it will of course finally kill off the remaining fantasy project.

eastwest

westtip wrote: »

Any news on when the NTA public consultation report on rail will be released, I was in touch with them in July and they said probably late September (which probably means November - but lets not put a year on it!) judging by the comments from Irish Rail a couple of weeks back about line closures my guess is that Sean Canney will be trying his level best to delay its publication even longer, I can't imagine the report will be recommending opening anymore of the so called Western Rail Corridor, in fact judging by what Irish Rail said three weeks ago, Ennis/Athenry might be under threat (this won't close) but the mere suggestion of it will of course finally kill off the remaining fantasy project.

There's little doubt that Ennis-Athenry will be recommended for closure, along with two or three others, but that doesn't mean they'll all close. I agree, it will be the last one to face the chop, mostly because it is relatively new and in good condition and because it is just too political.
What I do expect to see is some kind of a statement to the effect that there will be no more investment in new railways, except for the Belfast-Cork route and maybe the Dublin Airport link. But will they stop short of spelling out the obvious, that any expansion of the WRC is dead in the water, or will they leave the door cracked open enough to keep the dreamers happy, particularly the IA rump of government?
My guess is that they will leave the wording ambiguous enough to keep the stalemate alive for another decade or two. Bad news for the west, but good enough for the populists eyeing the next election.

westtip

eastwest wrote: »

There's little doubt that Ennis-Athenry will be recommended for closure, along with two or three others, but that doesn't mean they'll all close. I agree, it will be the last one to face the chop, mostly because it is relatively new and in good condition and because it is just too political.
What I do expect to see is some kind of a statement to the effect that there will be no more investment in new railways, except for the Belfast-Cork route and maybe the Dublin Airport link. But will they stop short of spelling out the obvious, that any expansion of the WRC is dead in the water, or will they leave the door cracked open enough to keep the dreamers happy, particularly the IA rump of government?
My guess is that they will leave the wording ambiguous enough to keep the stalemate alive for another decade or two. Bad news for the west, but good enough for the populists eyeing the next election.

yes indeed it will be the usual way of dealing with it. can kicking. of course it depends if the greenway can be made an issue at the next election who knows the anti tourism TD in Tuam who opposes the greenway might be ousted on this issue.

end of the road

westtip wrote: »

yes indeed it will be the usual way of dealing with it. can kicking. of course it depends if the greenway can be made an issue at the next election who knows the anti tourism TD in Tuam who opposes the greenway might be ousted on this issue.

that would be impossible seeing as there is no anti tourism TD in Tuam. there is a td who opposes the greenway, who (assuming those who voted for him even have an interest in this issue either way) is reflecting the opinions of those who did vote for him.

eastwest

end of the road wrote: »

that would be impossible seeing as there is no anti tourism TD in Tuam. there is a td who opposes the greenway, who (assuming those who voted for him even have an interest in this issue either way) is reflecting the opinions of those who did vote for him.

If it walks like a duck........

westtip

end of the road wrote: »

that would be impossible seeing as there is no anti tourism TD in Tuam. there is a td who opposes the greenway, who (assuming those who voted for him even have an interest in this issue either way) is reflecting the opinions of those who did vote for him.

my guess is the greenway may be made an issue in Tuam and any td or candidate opposed to it will be seen as anti tourism. hence the label anti tourism TD. If enough people are made aware of his anti greenway anti tourism stance it may not stand him in good stead. I guess it will be upto other campaigners to manage information and make everyone aware of the anti greenway tourism stance of their local td

end of the road

westtip wrote: »

my guess is the greenway may be made an issue in Tuam and any td or candidate opposed to it will be seen as anti tourism. hence the label anti tourism TD. If enough people are made aware of his anti greenway anti tourism stance it may not stand him in good stead. I guess it will be upto other campaigners to manage information and make everyone aware of the anti greenway tourism stance of their local td

but the local td isn't anti-tourism. he just isn't in favour of the greenway. of course he wants tourism, what td doesn't. however, it could turn out that if built the greenway may not bring any tourism, what then?

westtip

end of the road wrote: »

but the local td isn't anti-tourism. he just isn't in favour of the greenway. of course he wants tourism, what td doesn't. however, it could turn out that if built the greenway may not bring any tourism, what then?

I guess we will have to wait and see. like they did in Waterford. if he wants tourism why does he oppose the greenway. he knows as an independent TD he will not change European TEN T transport policy already approved by the dept of transport. So we have to assume his anti greenway stance is in fact anti tourism and will need to make sure as many voters as possible know a vote for him blocks the greenway and blocks tourism. ergo anti tourism TD.

Del.Monte

As an aside, it's a good many years since I travelled over the Athenry/Claremorris section but I don't remember anything particularly scenic about it - am I wrong? The Waterford, Westport/Achill and even the Limerick Greenways all have scenery - is it another build it and they will come scenario?