Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

westtip

eastwest wrote: »

I think they don't get that.
There appears to be a view among the rail lobby that a handful of cyclists want to run a private operation using state-owned lands, which couldn't be further from the truth.
Which makes the west on track support for the Kiltimagh velorail project all the more bizarre. In that instance, a private company is being given a lease on a section of the line for ten years, effectively preventing the building of a railway during that time. This project also raises concerns that a private company may be entitled to renew that lease on an ongoing basis, having established their business on the line. Unlike a local authority who would be obliged to relinquish the property if a railway was an option, a private company could arguably dig in forever if they wanted to.
The logic of this, in so far as there is any logic in their position, is that wot has conceded that the railway north of Tuam or maybe Claremorris will never be built, but that they are so opposed to cycling and walking tourism that they are prepared to give away state assets before they will concede to the greenway lobby.

Plus the fact the Velo rail project means no greenways in East Mayo, which the Minister for Westport was no doubt thinking of when he decided recently to chuck another €100,000 of our money at a project that doesn't even have planning permission yet.....just read this one about the Ringer granting more money to the Velo-Rail project, the local nod on the streets is that they have seen their way through the first €180,000 so he has chucked another €118,000 at them. Ring is keen to stop the Western Rail Trail for fear it might impinge on business on the Great Western Greenway and Westport.

http://www.con-telegraph.ie/news/roundup/articles/2017/12/13/4149722-completion-of-velo-rail-project-in-kiltimagh-is-on-course/

Ringer at his parochial best!

Hugh Jampton

Sustrans certainly ran a successful campaign preventing the reuse of the Comber Greenway for Belfast BRT. Here is just one bit of it.

Greenways kill Public Transport on disused railways. It may not be a deliberate and premeditated killing, but it is certainly the consequence of the act.

And before the pictures get put up again for the umpteenth time, American trails and tourist railways limited to 25 mph are not public transport.

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/documents/sustrans_comber_greenway_vision_june09.pdf

Hugh Jampton

Digging around for stuff regarding greenways and railways, this bit of complete sense was published in the Irish Times two years ago. I fully endorse this - fighting over whether a railway can be used or reconfigured as a greenway is the wrong debate.

Both should happen without compromising the other. Not parallel but separate.

Sir, – The debate between your readers in the northwest on the respective merits of railways versus greenways is confusing (August 10th). It seems the northwest is always happy to settle for less.
Killarney, Ireland’s premier tourist destination for over a century, owes its success to, among other things, its accessibility by rail, air, and road. It boasts the most extensive network of greenways in Ireland, and which are not at the expense of any other amenity.
Why does the northwest engage in a debate about choice when it should be campaigning for the full range of services – rail, air, road and, if possible, sea and any other which would help. The Kingdom would settle for nothing less. Enough is never sufficient! – Yours, etc,
GAYE MANIFOLD,
Killarney, Co Kerry.

Isambard

sustrans seem to me to be supporting the bus corridor

"This document has been prepared by
Sustrans as our vision of the future for
local transport in East Belfast. We would
like this to be assessed by the Northern
Ireland Assembly as an alternative to
plans already prepared under proposals
for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Sustrans
believes that the vision set out in this
document offers the best environmental,
social and economic solution to the future of
transport within and through East Belfast. It
will, in our view:
• increase the share of journeys made by
walking, cycling and bus, and offer a
real alternative to car journeys, including
those to school and work.
• enhance the Comber Greenway as a
green corridor and a valuable community
resource for those who live and travel
along it
• provide quality bus corridors, with park
and ride for fast, efficient access for
commuters and shopper"

from the link you quoted.

Hugh Jampton

Isambard wrote: »

sustrans seem to me to be supporting the bus corridor

"This document has been prepared by
Sustrans as our vision of the future for
local transport in East Belfast. We would
like this to be assessed by the Northern
Ireland Assembly as an alternative to
plans already prepared under proposals
for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Sustrans
believes that the vision set out in this
document offers the best environmental,
social and economic solution to the future of
transport within and through East Belfast. It
will, in our view:
• increase the share of journeys made by
walking, cycling and bus, and offer a
real alternative to car journeys, including
those to school and work.
• enhance the Comber Greenway as a
green corridor and a valuable community
resource for those who live and travel
along it
• provide quality bus corridors, with park
and ride for fast, efficient access for
commuters and shopper"

from the link you quoted.

Not on the Greenway. if you read it through, it advocates

Development of quality bus corridors with continuous bus lanes at peak times along the Upper Newtownards and Albert Bridge Roads. The majority of destinations are located on these arterial roads within a short walk to Metro bus.

and explains inter alia that the greenway should not have a public transport corridor placed on it.

eastwest

The entire Comber debate is irrelevant in the context of the Western Rail trail. The license agreement used by Irish Rail for closed railways gives them the absolute right to revert to rail use, should rail ever make sense on a particular route.
The mullingar athlone greenway is a good example. Of any of the closed lines, this one is probably the only one likely to see rail use in a few decades time, and it is protected from squatters or encroachment by the greenway.
The rail line from Athenry to Collooney on the other hand will simply be lost to public ownership.over time, if the anti tourism lobby gets its way.

L1011

Comber gets dragged up over and over as it is effectively the only example that can be found - and its completely irrelevant due to the ownership situation here. When that's the best argument you can make you've lost the debate.

Hugh Jampton

eastwest wrote: »

The entire Comber debate is irrelevant in the context of the Western Rail trail. The license agreement used by Irish Rail for closed railways gives them the absolute right to revert to rail use, should rail ever make sense on a particular route.
The mullingar athlone greenway is a good example. Of any of the closed lines, this one is probably the only one likely to see rail use in a few decades time, and it is protected from squatters or encroachment by the greenway.
The rail line from Athenry to Collooney on the other hand will simply be lost to public ownership.over time, if the anti tourism lobby gets its way.

There will never be a rail service on the Mullingar - Athlone line again, because the cycling lobby will, like Comber, protest and prevent it happening. Secondly, all CIE have to do to prevent squatting is to do one of its occasional fence renewals. Reviewing this thread shows that this has been pointed out before.

In my view, the greenway was always a convenient peg to hang anti rail sentiment on. It was a late comer to the original thread long after fibre optic cabling etc were canvassed as alternative uses.

eastwest

Hugh Jampton wrote: »

There will never be a rail service on the Mullingar - Athlone line again, because the cycling lobby will, like Comber, protest and prevent it happening. Secondly, all CIE have to do to prevent squatting is to do one of its occasional fence renewals. Reviewing this thread shows that this has been pointed out before.

In my view, the greenway was always a convenient peg to hang anti rail sentiment on. It was a late comer to the original thread long after fibre optic cabling etc were canvassed as alternative uses.

That is nonsense, based on nothing but the usual west on track anti tourism propaganda, which you appear to have accepted without question.
The alignment belongs to Irish Rail and the greenway was built on it by permissive access. If they want to build a railway there in twenty years time, there is nothing to stop them.
In such an event, given the success of the greenway, it will of course have to be relocated, but there is generally enough room in the alignment to do that.

westtip

Isambard wrote: »

sustrans seem to me to be supporting the bus corridor

"This document has been prepared by
Sustrans as our vision of the future for
local transport in East Belfast.

from the link you quoted.

#

Jaysus lads can't you see why we must retain the greenway through East Belfast. It has nothing to do with railways. Amazed that SF/WOT are kicking a fuss up about this one, it is a United Ireland via bicycle.

westtip

westtip wrote: »

#

Jaysus lads can't you see why we must retain the greenway through East Belfast. It has nothing to do with railways. Amazed that SF/WOT are kicking a fuss up about this one, it is a United Ireland via bicycle.

Sure, Milton Keynes has the Redways, so why not the Orangeway in Belfast! :pac:

serfboard

Hugh Jampton wrote: »

all CIE have to do to prevent squatting is to do one of its occasional fence renewals.

When was this last done on the WRC north of Athenry?

Hugh Jampton

westtip wrote: »

#

Jaysus lads can't you see why we must retain the greenway through East Belfast. It has nothing to do with railways. Amazed that SF/WOT are kicking a fuss up about this one, it is a United Ireland via bicycle.

I’m a Fine Gaeler. Whatever about a United Ireland and all that I’m almost as far from being a Sinn Féiner as you can get in the Republic.

I think that’s enough self-revelation for now.

Hugh Jampton

serfboard wrote: »

When was this last done on the WRC north of Athenry?

I’m not CIÉ either. Wasn’t there some work every few years on it? I’m sure Google will oblige you.

Hugh Jampton

eastwest wrote: »

That is nonsense, based on nothing but the usual west on track anti tourism propaganda, which you appear to have accepted without question.
The alignment belongs to Irish Rail and the greenway was built on it by permissive access. If they want to build a railway there in twenty years time, there is nothing to stop them.
In such an event, given the success of the greenway, it will of course have to be relocated, but there is generally enough room in the alignment to do that.

I’m not a betting man, but I am willing to bet you a Chicken Pot Noodle that you will be proved wrong in this. An equally glossy brochure with happy kids on My Little Pony bikes will be got up, and a lobbying campaign will prevent trains running on Athlone-Mullingar as sure as it did for the Belfast BRT proposals on the Comber Greenway.

eastwest

Hugh Jampton wrote: »

I’m not CIÉ either. Wasn’t there some work every few years on it? I’m sure Google will oblige you.

No, there wasn't.
A car dealership in Bellaghy has covered in the line with a mound of soil and parks cars on it, has done for well more than a decade. For instance.
Lots of other examples, just get out of the car anywhere along the line and walk a couple of hundred yards in any direction.

eastwest

Hugh Jampton wrote: »

I’m not a betting man, but I am willing to bet you a Chicken Pot Noodle that you will be proved wrong in this. An equally glossy brochure with happy kids on My Little Pony bikes will be got up, and a lobbying campaign will prevent trains running on Athlone-Mullingar as sure as it did for the Belfast BRT proposals on the Comber Greenway.

What do you base this assumption on, particularly given that the Comber issue has nothing to do with the agreement between Westmeath county council and Irish Rail?
I thought I'd explained that in a number of earlier posts; bringing up Comber in the context of the Western Rail trail is like comparing turnips to county councillors, only more so.

Hugh Jampton

eastwest wrote: »

What do you base this assumption on, particularly given that the Comber issue has nothing to do with the agreement between Westmeath county council and Irish Rail?
I thought I'd explained that in a number of earlier posts; bringing up Comber in the context of the Western Rail trail is like comparing turnips to county councillors, only more so.

You are certain that the scenario I outlined won’t happen? I’m certain that it will.

It is however a case of Schrodingers Turnips as the case for or against that happening can only be proved with time.

eastwest

Hugh Jampton wrote: »

You are certain that the scenario I outlined won’t happen? I’m certain that it will.

It is however a case of Schrodingers Turnips as the case for or against that happening can only be proved with time.

The old 'I'm certain it will rain tomorrow because I bought an umbrella' argument.
Whatever works for you.

westtip

Hugh Jampton wrote: »

I’m a Fine Gaeler. Whatever about a United Ireland and all that I’m almost as far from being a Sinn Féiner as you can get in the Republic.

I think that’s enough self-revelation for now.

Glad to hear it you should listen to your leader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07kR1YDn9lM

re SF/WOT a well known Mayo SF cllr has strong opinions about the WRC, according to him it's not up for discussion take a listen to this clip of Gerry "not up for discussion" Murray of SF/WOT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07kR1YDn9lM

Wagon360

There is no such organisation as SF/WOT.

Isambard

Wagon360 wrote: »

There is no such organisation as SF/WOT.

you joined just to say that?

Hugh Jampton

Isambard wrote: »

you joined just to say that?

Well SF/WOT *feels* true to Sligo Mayo Greenway’s cheerleaders. So, it’s as true as the claims made as ‘fact’ by the pro-Brexit campaign. Logically then the Greenway campaign should therefore be called SMG/Brexit.

Hugh Jampton

westtip wrote: »

Glad to hear it you should listen to your leader

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07kR1YDn9lM

re SF/WOT a well known Mayo SF cllr has strong opinions about the WRC, according to him it's not up for discussion take a listen to this clip of Gerry "not up for discussion" Murray of SF/WOT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07kR1YDn9lM

Don’t follow leaders, watch your parking meters. That’s my motto. I leave sheep to the shepherds.

westtip

Hugh Jampton wrote: »

Don’t follow leaders, watch your parking meters. That’s my motto. I leave sheep to the shepherds.

Well that is good that you are an independent party supporter, being as not only does Leo not support the WRC neither did Paschal whilst Minister for Transport and there is nothing in FG party policy which supports the WRC, so whilst you can have your personal views re the WRC there is simply no point in trying to link them with FG or in fact FF these days. the policy makers in both parties have no interest in this fantasy project any longer, you will continue to plough a lonely path on this one when it comes to mainstream political decision makers, some of you still supporting the WRC really need to wake up to the fact you no longer have the wider political support you need. Its gone, the project is over get used to it.

Hugh Jampton

westtip wrote: »

Well that is good that you are an independent party supporter, being as not only does Leo not support the WRC neither did Paschal whilst Minister for Transport and there is nothing in FG party policy which supports the WRC, so whilst you can have your personal views re the WRC there is simply no point in trying to link them with FG or in fact FF these days. the policy makers in both parties have no interest in this fantasy project any longer, you will continue to plough a lonely path on this one when it comes to mainstream political decision makers, some of you still supporting the WRC really need to wake up to the fact you no longer have the wider political support you need. Its gone, the project is over get used to it.

You have assumed all this from my declared party interest - and I declared that because of the

SF/WOT

silliness.

I’m not a member of West on Track either. For that reason, and in the politest possible way, I’m not going to take a lecture from you what I should and should not support.

Wagon360

westtip wrote: »

Well that is good that you are an independent party supporter, being as not only does Leo not support the WRC neither did Paschal whilst Minister for Transport and there is nothing in FG party policy which supports the WRC, so whilst you can have your personal views re the WRC there is simply no point in trying to link them with FG or in fact FF these days. the policy makers in both parties have no interest in this fantasy project any longer, you will continue to plough a lonely path on this one when it comes to mainstream political decision makers, some of you still supporting the WRC really need to wake up to the fact you no longer have the wider political support you need. Its gone, the project is over get used to it.

While you may reign supreme on this thread, you don’t where it really counts which is at the Department of Transport or at the County Council offices up and down the country. Perhaps they have had one too many of your thought leadership emails, it’s hard to say. In this country you should have figured out by now that Bullying and sneering doesn’t make campaigns succeed.

westtip

Wagon360 wrote: »

While you may reign supreme on this thread, you don’t where it really counts which is at the Department of Transport or at the County Council offices up and down the country. Perhaps they have had one too many of your thought leadership emails, it’s hard to say. In this country you should have figured out by now that Bullying and sneering doesn’t make campaigns succeed.

Indeed like the bullying tactics of certain county managers instructing the county council solicitors to send bullying letters to campaigners because they have had the audacity to challenge them. Did they really think that was thought leadership!? As you are clearly in the know about the county councils could you tell me why Sligo county council changed their county plan to embrace the greenway? Re the department of transport I doubt there is a single senior civil servant in the Department or NTA advocating the WRC. The current Minister has avoided this issue due to pressure from the Claremorris (sic) TD Sean Canney, who is in turn ignoring the Sans Cullottes of Tuam, and you know what happens to politicians who ignore the Sans Cullottes. I really don't care if they feel they have had one to many emails, the message is getting through, the matter is getting debated and the unrelenting attitude to get the message across has worked, go read the Issues paper about Ireland 2035 issued by the North West Regional Assembly, using language myself and other pro tourist campaigners have written, I will pop the link in below. Now admittedly Mayo CC are resisting change and failing to listening to intelligent argument, that is not my problem, they will in time, be dragged kicking and screaming in to listen to the people who are telling them this is what we want and they have to take the personal problems they have out of the equation. As I mentioned Sligo are converted and great efforts have been made (not by me) to get Galway over the line.

Thank you for saying I reign supreme on this thread, I take it as a compliment but I will resist accepting your crowning. This is a debating forum, using wit intelligence and very simple arguments is not bullying, it is debating, eventually what the pro-tourism lobby is advocating will be adopted.

Go read this http://www.nwra.ie/rses/ go to the section on the Western Rail Corridor and then come back and tell me what me and others have written as thought leadership is not getting through. It is. Get used to it. The arguments are now over, that is not bullying its fact.

westtip

Hugh Jampton wrote: »

More like baiting than debating, I reckon.

Not intended that way, however do take a read of that North West Regional Assembly document in particular this passage:
Read this extract from page 32 item 6.4

“The Western Rail Corridor is a long standing preserved corridor, and County Development Plans in Mayo, Sligo & Galway recognise the need to preserve the line, whether for rail (passenger and, or freight), or for an alternative use, such as a Greenway project, or indeed both. The retention and preservation of publicly owned lines should remain a key public priority, and indeed the railway line in some parts of our Region are already earmarked for trails, whether walking routes, or greenways, or a combination.”

This kind of language would never have been used in a document from "official Ireland" without the persistent campaigning, I really have no wish to make this personal, Mayo county council have already done that by sending me threatening solicitors letters - a move which I hope is going to backfire on them. Just read the paragraph above, it could have come from one of the endless posts by the likes of me, EASTWEST, Muckyboots or any of the other pro-tourist lobby posters on this thread. The simple fact is our language is now being used by a group (North West Regional Assembly) that is made up of West of Ireland councillors so when I hear the poppycock, that we don't have any influence on the county councils I just laugh and say "Yeh right" when I read emails I had from the two previous Transport Ministers who now happen to be the two most powerful men in Irish politics and I am told we have no influence on the Department of Transport, I do the same. Have a good laugh and make myself a cup of coffee. Read our influence in the document extract above. It is not baiting it is just pointing out the facts of the matter.

Wagon360 thank you again for your compliment, again it is not baiting, maybe a bit of salt rubbing, ouch.

devnull

Final Warning.

Keep on the topic at hand rather than focusing on each other.

Bans will follow for those who do not tow the line and they will not be short ones.

- Moderator