Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

westtip

end of the road wrote: »

that possibility of it having to take a different route couldn't have been ruled out, given the odd similar situation in the uk where proposals to reopen a railway along a route now cycled by 1 man and his dog were stopped by a very very powerful who shouldn't have any say in anything group.
granted we don't have such a group here so maybe it would have been easy to take it back.

Or the velo rail in Mayo which has a 12 year licence on the closed railway - a scheme supported by West on track - to allow the line to be closed to any prospect of rail for 12 years. Strange one that when they won't accept that a greenway also protects the route.

JCX BXC

Because a Greenway won't protect the route. I've said it before and I'll say it again, once we see a Greenway, we will never see a railway, lobby groups would most certainly never allow the Greenway to close.

Of course, we probably wouldn't have ever seen it anyway, so I'd still be in favour of it. However this nonsense that it will protect it is BS

end of the road

westtip wrote: »

Or the velo rail in Mayo which has a 12 year licence on the closed railway - a scheme supported by West on track - to allow the line to be closed to any prospect of rail for 12 years. Strange one that when they won't accept that a greenway also protects the route.

i would agree. however i can't imagine that project will see out it's 12 years.

marno21

westtip wrote: »

Or the velo rail in Mayo which has a 12 year licence on the closed railway - a scheme supported by West on track - to allow the line to be closed to any prospect of rail for 12 years. Strange one that when they won't accept that a greenway also protects the route.

Whatever about Tuam-Athenry the chances of ever seeing trains around there is absolute zero.

westtip

end of the road wrote: »

i would agree. however i can't imagine that project will see out it's 12 years.

Actually it will be a surprise if it even gets off the ground.

eastwest

eastwest wrote: »

We also have a much tighter licensing arrangement by CIE when allowing greenways on closed lines. The problems that arose in the case you mention could not feature here -- railway use always has first call on the asset.

JCX BXC wrote: »

Because a Greenway won't protect the route. I've said it before and I'll say it again, once we see a Greenway, we will never see a railway, lobby groups would most certainly never allow the Greenway to close.

Of course, we probably wouldn't have ever seen it anyway, so I'd still be in favour of it. However this nonsense that it will protect it is BS

Although this is the line often taken by the west on track lobby group, it simply is not true. It's just a bit of anti-tourism and anti-greenway propaganda that has somehow found its way into common acceptance, but it's entirely made up and has zero basis in fact.
The Irish rail official position on the wrc is that it is 'required for future rail use.' That is the truth of the matter; don't believe the other nonsense.

end of the road

eastwest wrote: »

Although this is the line often taken by the west on track lobby group, it simply is not true. It's just a bit of anti-tourism and anti-greenway propaganda that has somehow found its way into common acceptance, but it's entirely made up and has zero basis in fact.
The Irish rail official position on the wrc is that it is 'required for future rail use.' That is the truth of the matter; don't believe the other nonsense.

it's not "anti-tourism and anti-greenway" "propaganda" . it has a lot of basis in fact based on similar situations across the water. just because it may not happen here doesn't mean it can be dismissed.

JCX BXC

eastwest wrote: »

Although this is the line often taken by the west on track lobby group, it simply is not true. It's just a bit of anti-tourism and anti-greenway propaganda that has somehow found its way into common acceptance, but it's entirely made up and has zero basis in fact.
The Irish rail official position on the wrc is that it is 'required for future rail use.' That is the truth of the matter; don't believe the other nonsense.

Completely disagree, think about it logically for a second rather than with an agenda. If it becomes a Greenway, even a popular one, do you really think that local politicians will allow this amenity to be taken away and become a railway? It most certainly won't. This should not stop the Greenway, but it most certainly cannot be used as an argument for it, as it doesn't make sense.

I don't accept it for a minute, and don't respect you referring to this as anti-greenway anti-tourism sentiment, they're just handy buzzwords to use when you don't agree. I'd fully support a Greenway.

eastwest

end of the road wrote: »

it's not "anti-tourism and anti-greenway" "propaganda" . it has a lot of basis in fact based on similar situations across the water. just because it may not happen here doesn't mean it can be dismissed.

You can't compare it to a couple of British situations where the agreement was different. The Irish rail position on this is absolutely clear and unequivocal -- 'asset required for future rail use'.

Muckyboots

JCX BXC wrote: »

Because a Greenway won't protect the route. I've said it before and I'll say it again, once we see a Greenway, we will never see a railway, lobby groups would most certainly never allow the Greenway to close.

Of course, we probably wouldn't have ever seen it anyway, so I'd still be in favour of it. However this nonsense that it will protect it is BS

If there were a demand, and capital secured, for a job supporting public transport option on the WRC- no lobby group would stop it and no politician would block it. The greenway would have protected the alignment under a rolling lease agreement from CIE to the local authority. But it's obvious that we all now agree that we will never see trains (as we know them today) ever using the tracks again and this is where the "it's my railway" anti-greenway lobby gets sweaty and flushed - and quite devious and malicious too.

JCX BXC

Muckyboots wrote: »

If there were a demand, and capital secured, for a job supporting public transport option on the WRC- no lobby group would stop it and no politician would block it.

Very much disagree, and this is my point. Even with demand and capital secured, it would never be allowed turn back to a railway. Planning objections galore would stop it alone, nevermind countless TD's who would not allow it. Can you imagine the carnage if a TD even suggested turning a popular walking and cycling route into a railway? How about we change the word railway to motorway, would it be allowed then?

Outrage among people, would result into capitalising TD's. Anyone who wants a few votes would strongly oppose it if this very very very unlikely circumstance would arise.

Turn it into a Greenway, but don't lie and say it could become a railway again, it really cannot.

Muckyboots

JCX BXC wrote: »

Very much disagree, and this is my point. Even with demand and capital secured, it would never be allowed turn back to a railway. Planning objections galore would stop it alone, nevermind countless TD's who would not allow it. Can you imagine the carnage if a TD even suggested turning a popular walking and cycling route into a railway? How about we change the word railway to motorway, would it be allowed then?

Outrage among people, would result into capitalising TD's. Anyone who wants a few votes would strongly oppose it if this very very very unlikely circumstance would arise.

Turn it into a Greenway, but don't lie and say it could become a railway again, it really cannot.

It will never be a "railway" again. It just may be some other form of CPO free public transport route in the future though. My point earlier re Harcourt line to Luas.

westtip

JCX BXC wrote: »

Very much disagree, and this is my point. Even with demand and capital secured, it would never be allowed turn back to a railway. Planning objections galore would stop it alone, nevermind countless TD's who would not allow it. Can you imagine the carnage if a TD even suggested turning a popular walking and cycling route into a railway? How about we change the word railway to motorway, would it be allowed then?

Outrage among people, would result into capitalising TD's. Anyone who wants a few votes would strongly oppose it if this very very very unlikely circumstance would arise.

Turn it into a Greenway, but don't lie and say it could become a railway again, it really cannot.

Yes it can if needs be, and a greenway would run alongside it. What part of this argument don't the anti-tourism faction understand, the greenway will not be taken away, but if in the dim distant future a railway can be justified put it in with a new greenway alongside - but protect the alignment now, with a greenway. Its actually not rocket science

eastwest

JCX BXC wrote: »

Very much disagree, and this is my point. Even with demand and capital secured, it would never be allowed turn back to a railway. Planning objections galore would stop it alone, nevermind countless TD's who would not allow it. Can you imagine the carnage if a TD even suggested turning a popular walking and cycling route into a railway? How about we change the word railway to motorway, would it be allowed then?

Outrage among people, would result into capitalising TD's. Anyone who wants a few votes would strongly oppose it if this very very very unlikely circumstance would arise.

Turn it into a Greenway, but don't lie and say it could become a railway again, it really cannot.

For the foreseeable future, a greenway is the only option, and politicians and others who suggest otherwise are deluded or devious.
A greenway is the only realistic way to protect the route. CIE has no budget to protect or maintain closed rail lines.
Given the nature of the agreements used by CIE, there is nothing to stop them applying for a railway order and building a railway on some or all of the greenway route, assuming funds and a business case allowed. A successful greenway would have to be accommodated as part of that project, but that is a simple job in engineering terms and wouldn't cause any problems (other than short temporary diversions past sections of the works.
There would of course be no question of closing the greenway to accommodate the railway, there is simply no conflict at all between the two.

Banjoxed

eastwest wrote: »

For the foreseeable future, a greenway is the only option, and politicians and others who suggest otherwise are deluded or devious.
A greenway is the only realistic way to protect the route. CIE has no budget to protect or maintain closed rail lines.
Given the nature of the agreements used by CIE, there is nothing to stop them applying for a railway order and building a railway on some or all of the greenway route, assuming funds and a business case allowed. A successful greenway would have to be accommodated as part of that project, but that is a simple job in engineering terms and wouldn't cause any problems (other than short temporary diversions past sections of the works.
There would of course be no question of closing the greenway to accommodate the railway, there is simply no conflict at all between the two.

Unlike of course the Comber Busway plan that had to be dropped due to the opposition of Sustrans and cycle campaigners. Six years later, the plans are still stalled. Linky link: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-15210788

You're having a laugh lads if we think that you'll ever facilitate trains between Tuam and Galway again.

Muckyboots

Banjoxed wrote: »

Unlike of course the Comber Busway plan that had to be dropped due to the opposition of Sustrans and cycle campaigners. Six years later, the plans are still stalled. Linky link: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-15210788
You're having a laugh lads if we think that you'll ever facilitate trains between Tuam and Galway again.

Read that through and it looks like they changed their minds for "cost reasons" and at a political level in the Assembly. Absolutely no relevance with greenways like Mullingar-Athlone, Great Southern Trail and, with luck, Athenry-Enniskillen which all operate on the pleasure of CIE Property.
But I do like the fact that you assume us such power .

Banjoxed

Muckyboots wrote: »

Read that through and it looks like they changed their minds for "cost reasons" and at a political level in the Assembly. Absolutely no relevance with greenways like Mullingar-Athlone, Great Southern Trail and, with luck, Athenry-Enniskillen which all operate on the pleasure of CIE Property.
But I do like the fact that you assume us such power .

Well with great power comes great responsibility. I'll have popcorn ready when the penny drops in East Galway that, oh noes, there can't be a railway servicing Tuam because Greenway.

Quackster

Banjoxed wrote: »

Well with great power comes great responsibility. I'll have popcorn ready when the penny drops in East Galway that, oh noes, there can't be a railway servicing Tuam because Greenway.

This really is a red herring. If Ennis-Athenry has thought us anything, it is just how stupid it is to rebuild railways on ancient alignments that aren't fit for purpose in the modern era.

If a railway to Tuam or beyond ever is justified, having a greenway on the existing alignment may prove to be a blessing in ensuring the calamity that is Ennis-Athenry is never repeated.

marno21

Quackster wrote: »

This really is a red herring. If Ennis-Athenry has thought us anything, it is just how stupid it is to rebuild railways on ancient alignments that aren't fit for purpose in the modern era.

If a railway to Tuam or beyond ever is justified, having a greenway on the existing alignment may prove to be a blessing in ensuring the calamity that is Ennis-Athenry is never repeated.

Exactly. There is a motorway from Tuam to Athenry now. The existing rail alignment wouldn't be fit for purpose, and a new alignment would be cost prohibitive.

westtip

Banjoxed wrote: »

Well with great power comes great responsibility. I'll have popcorn ready when the penny drops in East Galway that, oh noes, there can't be a railway servicing Tuam because Greenway.

There won't be a railway servicing Tuam from Athenry, and not because of any greenway that might be built, I am afraid to tell you once again for fear of being called boring or repetitive , but the simple matter that European TEN T Transport policy does not include the Western Rail Corridor as part of its key routes for investment, it does BTW include the N17/18/15 and 20, so there you go. We can all bleat on as much as we like, the simple fact is without some partial EU structural funds big motorway and rail projects will not happen.

Sean Canney, Galway County council even the great big county council in Dublin won't change TEN-T or at least not until 2030, So why can't you just accept this fact, when it comes to transport investment along that route a greenway is about as good as it gets for the moment (ie until 2030 when TEN -T will be reviewed)

eastwest

Banjoxed wrote: »

Unlike of course the Comber Busway plan that had to be dropped due to the opposition of Sustrans and cycle campaigners. Six years later, the plans are still stalled. Linky link: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-15210788

You're having a laugh lads if we think that you'll ever facilitate trains between Tuam and Galway again.

This is a complete red herring that has been trotted out time and again by wot, and you're not the first to swallow it.
The fact is that the Comber greenway was not built under a lease agreement such as is used by CIE for greenways in this state. The Comber experience is entirely irrelevant to the Athenry Collooney route.

end of the road

marno21 wrote: »

Exactly. There is a motorway from Tuam to Athenry now. The existing rail alignment wouldn't be fit for purpose, and a new alignment would be cost prohibitive.

not as cost prohibitive as the motor way was. the motor way existing is no reason not to have a railway if it is ever warrented.

eastwest

Banjoxed wrote: »

Unlike of course the Comber Busway plan that had to be dropped due to the opposition of Sustrans and cycle campaigners. Six years later, the plans are still stalled. Linky link: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-15210788

You're having a laugh lads if we think that you'll ever facilitate trains between Tuam and Galway again.

This is a complete red herring that has been trotted out time and again by wot, and you're not the first to swallow it.
The fact is that the Comber greenway was not built under a lease agreement such as is used by CIE for greenways in this state. The Comber experience is entirely irrelevant to the Athenry Collooney route.

marno21

end of the road wrote: »

not as cost prohibitive as the motor way was. the motor way existing is no reason not to have a railway if it is ever warrented.

The WRC between Ennis and Athenry carries less than 10% of the traffic of the M18, and no freight. The M18 doesn't require an operating subvention

eastwest

marno21 wrote: »

The WRC between Ennis and Athenry carries less than 10% of the traffic of the M18, and no freight. The M18 doesn't require an operating subvention

The M18 attracted substantial EU funding.
The M18 meets the needs of the population.
The M18 doesn't charge for use.

JCX BXC

marno21 wrote: »

The WRC between Ennis and Athenry carries less than 10% of the traffic of the M18, and no freight. The M18 doesn't require an operating subvention

That's more of an argument against all rail systems in Ireland. What's the ratio for the M8-Cork-Dublin line?

marno21

JCX BXC wrote: »

That's more of an argument against all rail systems in Ireland. What's the ratio for the M8-Cork-Dublin line?

I was being very very conservative with my 10% estimate. The actual figure would be closer to 1% but I don't have Ennis-Athenry figures that aren't distorted by including Limerick-Ennis figures.

The M8 would be at least 10-15 times that if not more.

I'll give a look the next time I'm at a keyboard

end of the road

marno21 wrote: »

The WRC between Ennis and Athenry carries less than 10% of the traffic of the M18, and no freight. The M18 doesn't require an operating subvention

the fact it requires no operating subsidy is irrelevant as it requires massive infrastructure subvention.

eastwest

marno21 wrote: »

I was being very very conservative with my 10% estimate. The actual figure would be closer to 1% but I don't have Ennis-Athenry figures that aren't distorted by including Limerick-Ennis figures.

The M8 would be at least 10-15 times that if not more.

I'll give a look the next time I'm at a keyboard

The traffic counts at the start of the M18 project in 2013 were 25,000 vehicles a day at Claregalway, or 37,500 passengers plus freight assuming vehicle occupancy of 1.5.

That amounts to 13 m passengers a year, compared to (at the same time) around 150,000 rail passengers on the wrc, including the commuter traffic at both ends.

So, the 1% figure is close enough.

marno21

end of the road wrote: »

the fact it requires no operating subsidy is irrelevant as it requires massive infrastructure subvention.

Which is more than covered by the obscene cost of motoring in this country and the reduction in cost to the economy of road deaths on intercity boreens

If you say that each fatality on the roads costs the economy circa. €2.5m on average, that's €20m on the N20 in the last year and a half alone. That would more than cover the infrastructural operating costs of a motorway