Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

eastwest

Wagon360 wrote: »

There. I fixed that for you.

I've never met anyone who was anti rail, even on this thread, but don't let that stop you.

eastwest

voz es wrote: »

THIS NOT THE CASE I WOULD ASK ALL READERS TO READ ALL THE LINKS I AM PROVIDING IN WILL HAMMER HOME HOW IDIOTIC THIS GREENWAY IDEA IS ON A RAIL ROAD.

It's not on a railroad per se, it's on the alignment where a functioning railway used to run several decades back.
The assorted rusty rails, rotten sleepers and grassed and tarmaced over sections don't comprise a railway.
And unless some major miracle occurs, it won't be a railway in most of our lifetimes. But that's no reason to abandon it to squatters when there is a cheap solution that will keep it in public ownership until that miracle happens.

devnull

Posting in capitals is unacceptable and is considered uncivil and also all this 'fixed your post' stuff and changing the posts that you quote and continued focus on posters rather than their posts is also unacceptable.

If you cannot be civil to each other then you should not be too surprised if your posting rights are revoked and I'm sure none of you would want that.

Do not reply to this post.

- Moderator

voz es

I have never met a person who is anti tourism an I have seen no evidence of that on this page, just people defending rail infrastructure.

eastwest

voz es wrote: »

I have never met a person who is anti tourism an I have seen no evidence of that on this page, just people defending rail infrastructure.

However it has to be said that people opposing the interim use of closed rail lines for tourism purposes, in the context of their being no impending possibility of building railways on these routes, are de facto anti tourism.

Wagon360

eastwest wrote: »

However it has to be said that people opposing the interim use of closed rail lines for tourism purposes, in the context of their being no impending possibility of building railways on these routes, are de facto anti tourism.

Not at all. It’s just like implying that people who support abortion are “anti-life” because those who oppose abortion call themselves “pro-life”.

voz es

November 2017: Norway is getting cost estimates for 400 kilometers of railway line

---Norwegian minister notes that such a concept is environmentally friendly!!!

-Government considers spending Billions to back rail!!!


https://business.mb.com.ph/2017/11/27/norway-to-study-400-km-arctic-rail/


Wise Norway!!!!

voz es

voz es wrote: »

November 2017: Norway is getting cost estimates for 400 kilometers of railway line

---Norwegian minister notes that such a concept is environmentally friendly!!!

-Government considers spending Billions to back rail!!!


https://business.mb.com.ph/2017/11/27/norway-to-study-400-km-arctic-rail/


Wise Norway!!!!

Looking at a map, and that is one hell of a route!
A decent rail link would easily half the journey time and probably take advantage of natural resources up there.

Norway is investing heavily in rail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Norway#Future_expansion_plans

Isambard

Wagon360 wrote: »

You did accuse me of being a 1930s rail nostalgist for daring to suggest Ireland needs to look at its impending climate change emission fines. Would you tolerate being called a petrol dinosaur for being a fan of roads? Of course not.

the climate change card is a bankrupt theory. Trains use resources and empty or nearly empty trains waste resources.

Wagon360

Isambard wrote: »

the climate change card is a bankrupt theory. Trains use resources and empty or nearly empty trains waste resources.

I’m afraid it is not a bankrupt theory. Have a read from the link below.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-could-face-5-5bn-climate-bill-by-2030-says-expert-1.2787535%3fmode=amp

voz es

voz es wrote: »

November 2017: Norway is getting cost estimates for 400 kilometers of railway line

---Norwegian minister notes that such a concept is environmentally friendly!!!

-Government considers spending Billions to back rail!!!


https://business.mb.com.ph/2017/11/27/norway-to-study-400-km-arctic-rail/


Wise Norway!!!!

1. Norway being one of the richest countries per capita in the world, gives them the freedom to spend this kind of money. Little relation to real world economics in most countries. Another example of this is their insanely expensive perks to encourage people to switch to electric cars which has resulted in Norway having the highest electric car ownership by a factor of 3 to 2nd place Iceland and a factor of 10 to 3rd place Sweden
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country

2. This project is more to do with giving another route for troop and equipment movement than providing a rail line to 75k people, given the heightened tensions in the arctic region
- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/norway-send-deploy-hundreds-troops-russian-border-region-finnmark-cold-war-uk-us-surveillance-pact-a7531306.html

3. This investment is for a line developed from scratch. This bears no relation to the WRC which has a useless route and would be pointless to develop further as the subvention alone would pay for double tracking of most of the Galway-Dublin line where needed and prove far more beneficial to a majority of rail users

Lastly, Norway is a country with several thousand km's of cycleways around the country, wise Norway indeed
- https://www.biroto.eu/en/cycle-routes/norway

voz es

[Deleted User] wrote: »

1. Norway being one of the richest countries per capita in the world, gives them the freedom to spend this kind of money. Little relation to real world economics in most countries. Another example of this is their insanely expensive perks to encourage people to switch to electric cars which has resulted in Norway having the highest electric car ownership by a factor of 3 to 2nd place Iceland and a factor of 10 to 3rd place Sweden
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car_use_by_country

2. This project is more to do with giving another route for troop and equipment movement than providing a rail line to 75k people, given the heightened tensions in the arctic region
- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/norway-send-deploy-hundreds-troops-russian-border-region-finnmark-cold-war-uk-us-surveillance-pact-a7531306.html

3. This investment is for a line developed from scratch. This bears no relation to the WRC which has a useless route and would be pointless to develop further as the subvention alone would pay for double tracking of most of the Galway-Dublin line where needed and prove far more beneficial to a majority of rail users

Lastly, Norway is a country with several thousand km's of cycleways around the country, wise Norway indeed
- https://www.biroto.eu/en/cycle-routes/norway

1) Have a look at African rail expansion in earlier links. or just Google it, it's brimming with different countries expanding different lines. That might give you some food for thought re: linking rail expansion to money.
2) many varying different reasons for expanding rail, very good point.
3) I have worked in Galway city and I assure you there is plenty from the counties above it buying houses there or just wasting ridiculous money on rent wishing to he living in their home counties bit there is no work. Here is an excellent example look at the Mayo Gaa mens football team. You have one training session in Mayo and another in Dublin have the team have to go up there for work and educational opportunities. Just because people are in the city dose not mean the want to be there!!!

It should be noted that in most of the recent rail expansion projects around the world, the principal driver is international trade. These new rail lines are opening up whole regions that currently have very poor or non-existent road networks. Which ironically is what got most of the original railways built in the UK & Ireland built in the first place.

Stephen15

voz es wrote: »

1) Have a look at African rail expansion in earlier links. or just Google it, it's brimming with different countries expanding different lines. That might give you some food for thought re: linking rail expansion to money.

Most of the rail expansion was Chinese funded and Africa is hardly a gleaming light when it comes to rail infrastructure. Sure Africa as a continent is virtually rail free.

devnull

If you have a problem with a post report it - do not discuss it here.

A reminder of all posters to read the charter before posting again.

- Moderator

Hugh Jampton

marno21 wrote: »

Very few anti rail posters around here. Most greenway campaigners are pro rail where it makes sense. If I suggest that a motorway to Bangor Erris is a bad idea it doesn't make me anti road.

Where does rail make sense in Ireland, then?

marno21

Hugh Jampton wrote: »

Where does rail make sense in Ireland, then?

Primarily commuter services to carry large volumes of people into urban centres, commuter rail in Dublin/Cork and potentially Limerick/Waterford.

Secondly, intercity rail where there is demand and/or the train beats the journey time of the road/the road is quite long (Sligo, Mayo, Kerry). The primary reason for justifying this is that the lines are already open and have no capital costs required, only operating expenses. These lines already have an established customer base. In some cases, demand has fallen due to improved road links (Rosslare line for example).

Thirdly, there is limited opportunities for freight whereby there is considerable consistant volumes to be hauled (Tara Mines) or where the road links are poor (Ballina-Waterford).

Spending €100m on a slow windy rail line in the low density west coast is a poor use of money no matter what your stance is on trains, roads or cycle paths. It's simple economics. There are hundreds of transport projects scoring better on a cost benefit analysis than a railway line with a 9 figure capital cost and continued subvention required, which may be large.

For people apparently interested in rail, some of you seem oblivious to its use. Rail is a poor transport medium for people coming from dispersed backgrounds to a nearby city where they will disperse again and the city has no functioning public transport system. These commuters from Claremorris/Tuam/Dunmore etc that are clogging up the N83 into Claregalway are not going to drive to Tuam railway station, take a slow train to Galway and then get a bus back out to Parkmore. It may be feasible when Galway has a thriving, dense city centre with lots of city centre jobs and attractions. Until then it's a waste of time.

And please don't get started on freight. If there is no freight carried on the WRC phase that connects to a city I can't see why they would transport freight to even smaller locations with dispersed population. And if you want, go ahead and try to justify spending €100m on a freight line to "provide an alternative for infrequent freight trains going from Ballina to Waterford". No one is going to sanction that kind of spend, and employing all those gatekeepers etc for this pipe dream.

end of the road

marno21 wrote: »

Primarily commuter services to carry large volumes of people into urban centres, commuter rail in Dublin/Cork and potentially Limerick/Waterford.

so, 99% of the network as we have it then.

marno21 wrote: »

Secondly, intercity rail where there is demand and/or the train beats the journey time of the road/the road is quite long (Sligo, Mayo, Kerry). The primary reason for justifying this is that the lines are already open and have no capital costs required, only operating expenses. These lines already have an established customer base.

again 99% of the network, because all of the existing regional rail lines from dublin aren't quite as fast by road as is made out.

marno21 wrote: »

In some cases, demand has fallen due to improved road links (Rosslare line for example).

the improved links haven't had as much of an effect as has been made out. they have had an effect, but the journey time isn't much faster then the train service bar the middle of the day and even then that is if you are lucky. even when the whole lot is finished, increased traffic will bring congestion and it will not be financially viable to expand road capacity further thankfully. dispite the road links, the line is still a well used rail line. oh i'm sure you won't like to hear that from someone with local knowledge like myself.

marno21 wrote: »

And please don't get started on freight. If there is no freight carried on the WRC phase that connects to a city I can't see why they would transport freight to even smaller locations with dispersed population. And if you want, go ahead and try to justify spending €100m on a freight line to "provide an alternative for infrequent freight trains going from Ballina to Waterford". No one is going to sanction that kind of spend, and employing all those gatekeepers etc for this pipe dream.

well no gate keepers would be employed so your argument falls down to near the bottom on that score.

westtip

voz es wrote: »

3) I have worked in Galway city and I assure you there is plenty from the counties above it buying houses there or just wasting ridiculous money on rent wishing to he living in their home counties bit there is no work. Here is an excellent example look at the Mayo Gaa mens football team. You have one training session in Mayo and another in Dublin have the team have to go up there for work and educational opportunities. Just because people are in the city dose not mean the want to be there!!!

The economic development of rail route as 21st century economic driver with a gas pipeline (food processing industry) industrial strength fibre optic cabling (technology and cloud in particular), a linear windfarm (sustainable energy) and greenway (tourism) would create a dam site more jobs in the counties you have identified. A greenway btw will also make the small towns along the route a more attractive place to live. What exactly could someone remind me will this ill fated railway bring to a place like Kiltimagh for example, or perhaps someone could quantify for me how Gort has benefitted from the new rail link. It nice to have is not an socio economic argument.

marno21

end of the road wrote: »

so, 99% of the network as we have it then.



again 99% of the network, because all of the existing regional rail lines from dublin aren't quite as fast by road as is made out.



the improved links haven't had as much of an effect as has been made out. they have had an effect, but the journey time isn't much faster then the train service bar the middle of the day and even then that is if you are lucky. even when the whole lot is finished, increased traffic will bring congestion and it will not be financially viable to expand road capacity further thankfully. dispite the road links, the line is still a well used rail line. oh i'm sure you won't like to hear that from someone with local knowledge like myself.



well no gate keepers would be employed so your argument falls down to near the bottom on that score.

Regarding the first two points, I'm saying that any capital spending on rail needs to go into improved commuter services. These trains are jam packed and are in massive need of expansion. The Western Rail Corridor is not

Regarding Rosslare, I don't doubt your knowledge of the line. But this time year the Enniscorthy bypass will nearly be finished and work will begin on capacity upgrades of the M11/N11 near Glen of the Downs. Rail will have less of a journey time advantage over road then. I think if Luas is expanded to Bray it'd be positive for the Rosslare line.

Does the costed figure for the Athenry-Claremorris section include automation of all level crossings? If so scrap my point on gatekeepers.

rebel456

voz es wrote: »

As is well published an analysis of commuting numbers on the reopened line from Ennis to Limerick shows very healthy figures. Happy to highlight that.

voz es wrote: »

Eastwest you appear to quote WOT on every reply you make to my posts. I am not a member of WOT but appreciate what they are trying to do, if you would, could stop trying to link me with WOT as they may well not agree with all my views and I don't represent them. Fair play to them though.

Wagon360 wrote: »

Google is your friend.

If you could please answer which report you're referring to, that would be great. Are you referring to the West on Track report?

eastwest

marno21 wrote: »

Primarily commuter services to carry large volumes of people into urban centres, commuter rail in Dublin/Cork and potentially Limerick/Waterford.

Secondly, intercity rail where there is demand and/or the train beats the journey time of the road/the road is quite long (Sligo, Mayo, Kerry). The primary reason for justifying this is that the lines are already open and have no capital costs required, only operating expenses. These lines already have an established customer base. In some cases, demand has fallen due to improved road links (Rosslare line for example).

Thirdly, there is limited opportunities for freight whereby there is considerable consistant volumes to be hauled (Tara Mines) or where the road links are poor (Ballina-Waterford).

Spending €100m on a slow windy rail line in the low density west coast is a poor use of money no matter what your stance is on trains, roads or cycle paths. It's simple economics. There are hundreds of transport projects scoring better on a cost benefit analysis than a railway line with a 9 figure capital cost and continued subvention required, which may be large.

For people apparently interested in rail, some of you seem oblivious to its use. Rail is a poor transport medium for people coming from dispersed backgrounds to a nearby city where they will disperse again and the city has no functioning public transport system. These commuters from Claremorris/Tuam/Dunmore etc that are clogging up the N83 into Claregalway are not going to drive to Tuam railway station, take a slow train to Galway and then get a bus back out to Parkmore. It may be feasible when Galway has a thriving, dense city centre with lots of city centre jobs and attractions. Until then it's a waste of time.

And please don't get started on freight. If there is no freight carried on the WRC phase that connects to a city I can't see why they would transport freight to even smaller locations with dispersed population. And if you want, go ahead and try to justify spending €100m on a freight line to "provide an alternative for infrequent freight trains going from Ballina to Waterford". No one is going to sanction that kind of spend, and employing all those gatekeepers etc for this pipe dream.

This post sums up the realities, and also reinforces my series of questions (so far ignored/unanswered by anyone making the rail argument for this route). Where (specifically) will the money come from for the wrc, and which other national priority will lose its place in the queue to allow the wrc to be built?

Wagon360

eastwest wrote: »

This post sums up the realities, and also reinforces my series of questions (so far ignored/unanswered by anyone making the rail argument for this route). Where (specifically) will the money come from for the wrc, and which other national priority will lose its place in the queue to allow the wrc to be built?

That is the sort of question only policy makers can really answer.

Hugh Jampton

marno21 wrote: »

Primarily commuter services to carry large volumes of people into urban centres, commuter rail in Dublin/Cork and potentially Limerick/Waterford.

Secondly, intercity rail where there is demand and/or the train beats the journey time of the road/the road is quite long (Sligo, Mayo, Kerry). The primary reason for justifying this is that the lines are already open and have no capital costs required, only operating expenses. These lines already have an established customer base. In some cases, demand has fallen due to improved road links (Rosslare line for example).

Thirdly, there is limited opportunities for freight whereby there is considerable consistant volumes to be hauled (Tara Mines) or where the road links are poor (Ballina-Waterford).

Spending €100m on a slow windy rail line in the low density west coast is a poor use of money no matter what your stance is on trains, roads or cycle paths. It's simple economics. There are hundreds of transport projects scoring better on a cost benefit analysis than a railway line with a 9 figure capital cost and continued subvention required, which may be large.

For people apparently interested in rail, some of you seem oblivious to its use. Rail is a poor transport medium for people coming from dispersed backgrounds to a nearby city where they will disperse again and the city has no functioning public transport system. These commuters from Claremorris/Tuam/Dunmore etc that are clogging up the N83 into Claregalway are not going to drive to Tuam railway station, take a slow train to Galway and then get a bus back out to Parkmore. It may be feasible when Galway has a thriving, dense city centre with lots of city centre jobs and attractions. Until then it's a waste of time.

And please don't get started on freight. If there is no freight carried on the WRC phase that connects to a city I can't see why they would transport freight to even smaller locations with dispersed population. And if you want, go ahead and try to justify spending €100m on a freight line to "provide an alternative for infrequent freight trains going from Ballina to Waterford". No one is going to sanction that kind of spend, and employing all those gatekeepers etc for this pipe dream.

So you’d close Athlone to Galway as well. This fixation with ‘slow’ trains is a bit strange too. Creating an Irish problem out of an Irish solution by chucking tarmac at congestion is going to create even more congestion. The other point that you ignore is land use. Rail works best with greater planning densities but no one on the rip up the rails side wants to engage with the development of dense suburbs in Galway and commuter towns in Gort, Athenry and Tuam.

eastwest

Wagon360 wrote: »

That is the sort of question only policy makers can really answer.

Not really. Anyone arguing for the construction of a railway where the last one closed down for lack of use and where the first phase is a flop must surely be able to suggest where the money might come from. Equally, they should be able to give their opinion on what other urgent projects should be prioritised below it.

Hugh Jampton

eastwest wrote: »

Not really. Anyone arguing for the construction of a railway where the last one closed down for lack of use and where the first phase is a flop must surely be able to suggest where the money might come from. Equally, they should be able to give their opinion on what other urgent projects should be prioritised below it.

On that basis, those advocating alternate uses for railways should also be able to calculate and model the scenarios on a ten, twenty and thirty year basis for car based transport and unchanged land use in Galway City and County.

Muckyboots

Hugh Jampton wrote: »

So you’d close Athlone to Galway as well. This fixation ....

On the contrary, most posters from the alternative use for the WRC argument are suggesting double tracking Athlone to Galway which would also open up potential of more frequent commuter shuttles from Athenry to Galway. Whether this would work as a Park N Ride for a wider area would depend on the "stops" that could be facilitated. Based on the success of this you could then realistically start a campaign for a commuter link to Tuam.

westtip

All I want for Christmas is the Rail Review Report the Minister has been sitting on for three months, it would save us all a lot of pontificating on this thread (including greenway supporters!) if only the Minister would share with us the results of the rail review which massive public consultation, and which clearly is available and finished. Perhaps if this review finally kills off the WRC the inevitable can be accepted and if they are going to build the dam thing could they just get on with it and let us know what the recommendations are?

Hugh Jampton

westtip wrote: »

All I want for Christmas is the Rail Review Report the Minister has been sitting on for three months, it would save us all a lot of pontificating on this thread (including greenway supporters!) if only the Minister would share with us the results of the rail review which had heavy heavy public consultation, and which clearly is available and finished. Perhaps if this review finally kills off the WRC the inevitable can be accepted and if they are going to build the dam thing could they just get on with it and let us know what the recommendations are?

Who knows what the Rail Review has,and whether any putative suggestions will be implemented. Or not. Official Ireland has had a plethora of reports over the last forty years on any number of things, and it is fair to say that not everything recommended has come to pass. Not least in transport.

alias no.9

The former sugar industry in Ireland was heavily dependent on rail freight to bring coal from the ports and sugar beet from all over to 4 main processing centres, Tuam on the WRC route and no longer served by rail, Mallow, Thurles and Carlow, all still on mainline rail.

Replacement industry has been scarce. In the still rail connected areas, Thurles lost its other big factory Erin Foods which is now just a giant eyesore while Carlow gained MSD but also lost Braun. Mallow has no significant new industry. Rail connectivity has offered zero to any of the locations in terms of attracting industry but maybe the west is different and would become an industrial powerhouse if the WRC could only be reopened.

On the surface, rail has aided the transformation of Mallow into a dormitory town for Cork city, Carlow fulfills that role to a somewhat lesser degree for Dublin while Thurles has a surprising number of commuters going both directions by rail despite the distance. But what of Tuam, deprived of its railway? It has also been transformed into a dormitory town for Galway, the public transport element just happens to be bus.

The presence or not of mainline rail in these towns has not made a material difference in attracting new industry and hasn't changed the macro trend of large scale employment opportunities drifting towards larger population centres.

There are countless sites all across the country adjacent to operational railway and close to ports, none of them are attracting industry dependent on rail freight. Building another railway in the hope of attracting such industry is futile. If trends change over time, then this should be reassessed but right now it's utterly pointless.

What should be considered in the west is a masterplan for public transport in Galway including some form of light rail or rapid transit, one that enables further growth in population and in employment without strangling the place even further and ideally alleviate some of the current mess. This in turn can enable employment opportunities in the regional towns for SME's providing goods and services to both the large employers in Galway and to the retail and service economy within the city.