Western Rail Corridor (all disused sections)

Hugh Jampton

Quackster wrote: »

Wow, what a sweeping generalisation!

As a greenway supporter, I certainly don't support the forced upgrading of the Barrow tow-path against the will of the local community. Both sides need to sit down, talk and work out a compromise that best meets the needs of everyone.

The Barrow Line doesn’t need any ‘upgrading’, forced or otherwise.

Wagon360

JCX BXC wrote: »

However in the case of the remaining part of the WRC, there's absolutely no grounds for its reopening, so it's either rot or become a Greenway!

If eventually there was a demand, it's probably better if it's built along a new alignment anyway.

There are plenty of grounds for reopening, certainly to provide a freight path for the increasing numbers of freight trains from Ballina. This would allow more passenger trains from Mayo to Dublin and also relive the bottleneck at Kildare. More freight will be coming to and from Foynes also. The alignment from Athenry to Claremorris is not built as a light railway as some here claim but is heavy rail. Yes the line needs to be relaid but relaying on the existing alignment is far cheaper than trying to get a new alignment.

JCX BXC

Look, I've argued both ways on this thread, but there's absolutely no grounds for opening a line for a very small number of freight trains, which can take a different route anyway. It simply doesn't make economic sense.

To be honest, I'm sad that the section between Ennis and Galway wasn't built on a new alignment. Would have made it a much more attractive form of travel.

eastwest

Wagon360 wrote: »

I agree with everything you’ve written up to the point you took a crack at railways again. The problem for most people with the greenway campaign is that it’s all really about stopping the railway at all costs. At a time when nearly all European countries are actively expanding their railways and tackling climate change targets the greenway campaigners just want to grab the railway and make sure it is never fit to run trains on again. Ireland faces massive climate change fines because we have become too reliant on road transport. If we rip up our remaining railways to satisfy three Greenway campaigners dotted around the country we are really going to face billions in fines in the future. Instead we need to plan ahead to reduce our reliance on Dublin as an economic engine and look to the rejuvenation of towns like Tuam.

I'm not anti railway, not by a long shot, but I'm a realist. Nobody is going to build a railway through a thinly populated area in my lifetime, but I see that asset as something to be used for the common good as part of a greenway network. If demographics change, we'll still own the asset and a railway can be built on some of it -- some of it will never see rails because of its routing.
'Ripping up railways' is an emotive term that clouds the debate. Leaving a scrap railway in situ to appease one sector of the electorate is silly; the existing junk will.have to be removed ('ripped up', if you prefer) before building a railway or a greenway or whatever kind of infrastructure best meets the needs of the population.
We should take the funding that is available and use it to stop depopulation of small towns, instead of whining for a railway that is guaranteed to fail at this point in time, and that no government will fund in the foreseeable future. The greenway won't stop the railway, it will keep the route open and might just start the process of recovery that could deliver a railway in time.
Why should we continue to hurl ourselves at a brick wall when there is an open door waiting to be pushed?

Del.Monte

JCX BXC wrote: »

Look, I've argued both ways on this thread, but there's absolutely no grounds for opening a line for a very small number of freight trains, which can take a different route anyway. It simply doesn't make economic sense.

To be honest, I'm sad that the section between Ennis and Galway wasn't built on a new alignment. Would have made it a much more attractive form of travel.

What possible 'new alignment' are you talking about? You can't just draw a straight line on a map between Ennis and Galway City. The 'new alignment' comment so frequently used on C+T threads is just parroted by many posters who probably have never even been within an asses roar of the WRC - or perhaps any Irish railway.

JCX BXC

Del.Monte wrote: »

What possible 'new alignment' are you talking about? You can't just draw a straight line on a map between Ennis and Galway City. The 'new alignment' comment so frequently used on C+T threads is just parroted by many posters who probably have never even been within an asses roar of the WRC - or perhaps any Irish railway.

Where do you think new roads come from Del? That M18/M17 wasn't built over an old road you know

As for your second point, well that's just a pathetic attempt to insult anyone with a differing point. Respectful discussion please, is that so hard to manage?

Del.Monte

When were you last on the WRC?

JCX BXC

Del.Monte wrote: »

When were you last on the WRC?

Will ignore the pedantic nature of this post for now

Shortly before Christmas, not that that has anything to do with the point at hand.

Take a look back around late August, I remember commenting on the brilliant numbers shortly after the fleadh.

Quackster

Wagon360 wrote: »

I agree with everything you’ve written up to the point you took a crack at railways again. The problem for most people with the greenway campaign is that it’s all really about stopping the railway at all costs. At a time when nearly all European countries are actively expanding their railways and tackling climate change targets the greenway campaigners just want to grab the railway and make sure it is never fit to run trains on again. Ireland faces massive climate change fines because we have become too reliant on road transport. If we rip up our remaining railways to satisfy three Greenway campaigners dotted around the country we are really going to face billions in fines in the future. Instead we need to plan ahead to reduce our reliance on Dublin as an economic engine and look to the rejuvenation of towns like Tuam.

What utter lazy nonsense. We absolutely need to spend billions on rail in this country - where it is needed! And where it's needed is within the commuter belts of the major cities and between the major cities.

Rail is a seriously cost-inefficient method of providing public transport in dispersed rural areas. The focus here should be on massively increasing funding for Local Link and similar community-based initiatives. And on converting useless abandoned railways into something that will bring money, and life, back into the communities they run though - greenways!

Quackster

And just to kill this nonsense that you're either in the greenway camp or the rail camp and they're each in absolute opposition to the other.

I'm a frequent intercity rail user. As I said above, I want to see billions poured into upgrading our rail (and other public transport) infrastructure.

And based on the success of re-opening Limerick-Ennis, I'd be supportive of also re-opening Athenry-Tuam - if an economic case can be proven. But having said that, Athenry-Tuam would be well down the rail priority list.

But the flip side of this is that the abject failure of Ennis-Athenry makes abundantly clear that the WRC north of Tuam has no future as a rail-line and resisting attempts to put it to immediate economic use as a greenway is utter folly.

JCX BXC

Quackster wrote: »

But the flip side of this is that the abject failure of Ennis-Athenry

Abject failure? Really? Look at Limerick-Ballybrophy and LJ-Waterford, the per passenger subsidy of both which are several times the cost per passenger of Ennis to Athenry.

It performs slightly worse than many routes on the network, however it's far from abject. It's been about as much of a success that you could have expected it to be in IR. Ardrahan should never have been opened, and if it hadn't financials would be slightly less terrible (There's no good financials in IR).

Nothing should be built on from Athenry, however the current new section isn't performing terribly.

On a side note, if we got rid of the many many inefficiencies in Iarnrod Éireann I'd like to see what the per passenger subsidy would be in that case (On all routes)

Quackster

JCX BXC wrote: »

Abject failure? Really? Look at Limerick-Ballybrophy and LJ-Waterford, the per passenger subsidy of both which are several times the cost per passenger of Ennis to Athenry.

I don't disagree with you on Limerick-Ballybrophy. As it is it's pretty pointless and should have been shut down years ago but for political interference. LJ-Waterford, with Clonmel in the middle, should have potential, but IR has been mismanaging that line for many years. But they're both lines that were never closed and I'm specifically talking about the success (or otherwise) of closed lines that have been reopened.

The Limerick-Galway journey time is woeful compared to the motorway (and cannot be improved upon due to the poor alignment) and the passenger numbers and fare revenue on end-to-end journeys reflect that. That's why I consider reopening it an expensive failure.

eastwest

Wagon360 wrote: »

There are plenty of grounds for reopening, certainly to provide a freight path for the increasing numbers of freight trains from Ballina. This would allow more passenger trains from Mayo to Dublin and also relive the bottleneck at Kildare. More freight will be coming to and from Foynes also. The alignment from Athenry to Claremorris is not built as a light railway as some here claim but is heavy rail. Yes the line needs to be relaid but relaying on the existing alignment is far cheaper than trying to get a new alignment.

In the interests of accuracy, there aren't 'plenty of grounds' for reopening this line for freight. A consultancy report commissioned by the very wot influenced WDC a year or so ago showed no case for additional.freight capacity out of Mayo. A very best case most optimistic scenario suggested an additional train per day, more or less, certainly no justification for building a second railway out of Mayo.
Given the trialling of longer trains on the existing route, it appears that the WDC's most optimistic scenario won't deliver a single extra train even if their best case freight growth comes about.
On a related topics, can any insiders tell us whether the stories around the delivery of that WDC report are factual? The way I heard it, the consultants were told to take the draft report away and remove all references to the potential value of the route for recreational purposes.
I'm sure an FOI could tell us, but if anyone here was at that meeting in castlebar, they might enlighten us as to the full story.

Wagon360

eastwest wrote: »

In the interests of accuracy, there aren't 'plenty of grounds' for reopening this line for freight. A consultancy report commissioned by the very wot influenced WDC a year or so ago showed no case for additional.freight capacity out of Mayo. A very best case most optimistic scenario suggested an additional train per day, more or less, certainly no justification for building a second railway out of Mayo.
Given the trialling of longer trains on the existing route, it appears that the WDC's most optimistic scenario won't deliver a single extra train even if their best case freight growth comes about.
On a related topics, can any insiders tell us whether the stories around the delivery of that WDC report are factual? The way I heard it, the consultants were told to take the draft report away and remove all references to the potential value of the route for recreational purposes.
I'm sure an FOI could tell us, but if anyone here was at that meeting in castlebar, they might enlighten us as to the full story.

I rather suspect there aren’t any “insiders” here.

Grandeeod

end of the road wrote: »

while traffic may have increased slightly, one can still have the responsibility to work around it and be safe. local roads are as safe in 2018 as 1988 if you are careful. if you have your headphones in or are yapping away well then you aren't concentrating to the full IMO. when we have our public transport system up to scratch which would benefit a lot more people, then we can think about greenways in the west for a minority activity.

You say traffic has increased slightly on local roads in the last 30 years and one is as safe in 2018 as one was in 1988. Where have you been? Have you considered the massive increase in car ownership nationwide? The increase in one off housing in all parts of rural Ireland? Even current R roads that I cycled/walked in the 80s, would be a bloody deathtrap these days.

Well?

Hugh Jampton

Grandeeod wrote: »

You say traffic has increased slightly on local roads in the last 30 years and one is as safe in 2018 as one was in 1988. Where have you been? Have you considered the massive increase in car ownership nationwide? The increase in one off housing in all parts of rural Ireland? Even current R roads that I cycled/walked in the 80s, would be a bloody deathtrap these days.

Well?

46 cycling deaths 1990,17 deaths 2017.

Link - http://irishcycle.com/collisions/

Of course this should be zero but it is not accurate to say that the roads are more dangerous than ever for cyclists.

Grandeeod

Hugh Jampton wrote: »

46 cycling deaths 1990,17 deaths 2017.

Link - http://irishcycle.com/collisions/

Of course this should be zero but it is not accurate to say that the roads are more dangerous than ever for cyclists.

Those stats mean absolutely nothing. Most likely less people cycling in certain areas in 2017 because they can afford a car. If you think the roads in 2018 are not more dangerous for cyclists and add to that other drivers and pedestrians, then you are deluded. It doesn't even need explaining.

Hugh Jampton

Grandeeod wrote: »

Those stats mean absolutely nothing. Most likely less people cycling in certain areas in 2017 because they can afford a car. If you think the roads in 2018 are not more dangerous for cyclists and add to that other drivers and pedestrians, then you are deluded. It doesn't even need explaining.

So, stats are fake news?

end of the road

Grandeeod wrote: »

You say traffic has increased slightly on local roads in the last 30 years and one is as safe in 2018 as one was in 1988. Where have you been? Have you considered the massive increase in car ownership nationwide? The increase in one off housing in all parts of rural Ireland? Even current R roads that I cycled/walked in the 80s, would be a bloody deathtrap these days.

Well?

i have yes . and not every single local road fits that description. there are local roads still with barely any traffic.

Wagon360

Grandeeod wrote: »

Those stats mean absolutely nothing. Most likely less people cycling in certain areas in 2017 because they can afford a car. If you think the roads in 2018 are not more dangerous for cyclists and add to that other drivers and pedestrians, then you are deluded. It doesn't even need explaining.

I'm struggling to understand how anyone who backs up an argument with facts is deluded.

eastwest

end of the road wrote: »

i have yes . and not every single local road fits that description. there are local roads still with barely any traffic.

Yes, but to get to the minor roads you have to cycle on dangerous roads. A greenway that links towns and goes to the centre of towns is a very safe place for children and families.
Thirty or forty years ago it was common to see most children cycling to school, but in most cases nowadays that simply isn't an option. In Tuam however the greenway will pass close to most of the schools. The sligo greenway will make safe cycle commuting available to a substantial number of school pupils.

end of the road

eastwest wrote: »

Yes, but to get to the minor roads you have to cycle on dangerous roads. A greenway that links towns and goes to the centre of towns is a very safe place for children and families.
Thirty or forty years ago it was common to see most children cycling to school, but in most cases nowadays that simply isn't an option. In Tuam however the greenway will pass close to most of the schools. The sligo greenway will make safe cycle commuting available to a substantial number of school pupils.

children cycling to school is very very unlikely to be a common occurrence again, no matter how many greenways are built. a combination of our litigation culture and the "everyone's a predator" brigade have helped insure it.

Quackster

Grandeeod wrote: »

Those stats mean absolutely nothing. Most likely less people cycling in certain areas in 2017 because they can afford a car. If you think the roads in 2018 are not more dangerous for cyclists and add to that other drivers and pedestrians, then you are deluded. It doesn't even need explaining.

Our roads are a lot safer now than in all previous decades since recording of RTC deaths/injuries began.

But that's beside the point. The suggestion that rural roads open to motorised traffic are any sort of an acceptable alternative to dedicated traffic-free greenways is beyond comprehension.

Quackster

end of the road wrote: »

children cycling to school is very very unlikely to be a common occurrence again, no matter how many greenways are built. a combination of our litigation culture and the "everyone's a predator" brigade have helped insure it.

I suggest you take a walk/cycle on the section of the Tralee/Fenit railway that's already been converted any morning/afternoon of any school-day and you'll see lots of children both walking and cycling to/from school.

Opportunity + encouragement = results.

Stephen15

end of the road wrote: »

children cycling to school is very very unlikely to be a common occurrence again, no matter how many greenways are built. a combination of our litigation culture and the "everyone's a predator" brigade have helped insure it.

I wouldn't say that's the reason now to be fair as the children and their parents would be the ones to benefit from our litigation culture child falls over child breaks bone parents sue the council or whoever.

I would personally it's more the laziness of parents. In Dublin I don't know about down the country now but you'd be surprised at the amount of children who can't actually cycle a bike as they have never taught which is a disgrace IMO but that's a debate for a different day.

Most Greenways wouldn't really be in that close proximity to schools.

I'm not against Greenways I have cycled the Waterford Greenway and I really enjoyed it I have to say but I do believe that public transport should be number one and cycling second and don't think the success of the Waterford or Mayo Greenways would necessarily be repeated in the rest of the country. There was actually a short greenway that was proposed not far from me from Cornelscourt to Cherrywood which I supported however this was shutdown by local nimbys.

Quackster

Stephen15 wrote: »

I'm not against Greenways I have cycled the Waterford Greenway and I really enjoyed it I have to say but I do believe that public transport should be number one and cycling second and don't think the success of the Waterford or Mayo Greenways would necessarily be repeated in the rest of the country. There was actually a short greenway that was proposed not far from me from Cornelscourt to Cherrywood which I supported however this was shutdown by local nimbys.

Not every greenway will have the tourist potential of the Mayo and Galway greenways, sure, but IMO the tourist element is just the icing on the cake. The primary users of greenways generally are those living within a relativity close range and that's where the primary benefit lies - improving the livability of communities across the country.

But as more greenways are opened and we start moving towards the join-the-dots phase, the tourist potential of every greenway will only increase as we begin to create a network of truly world-class long-distance traffic-free walking/cycling trails.

But, alas, that's some way off yet.

eastwest

Quackster wrote: »

Not every greenway will have the tourist potential of the Mayo and Galway greenways, sure, but IMO the tourist element is just the icing on the cake. The primary users of greenways generally are those living within a relativity close range and that's where the primary benefit lies - improving the livability of communities across the country.

But as more greenways are opened and we start moving towards the join-the-dots phase, the tourist potential of every greenway will only increase as we begin to create a network of truly world-class long-distance traffic-free walking/cycling trails.

But, alas, that's some way off yet.

The only reason we aren't moving ahead like the rest of the world is a combination of our natural tendency to say no to everything and the fact that we allow local authorities to manage important infrastructure like greenway networks.
We can't do much about the former, the sort of attitude that cost us the apple project in athenry and that is stopping the greenway through Tuam, but the latter could be fixed if the government had a national strategy on greenways. A post communist region like Istria can get their act together and recognise the potential of a network that can sustain a week or two of a cycling holiday.
The west of Ireland though was always a bit backward, and will remain so. The blockers always get their way.

TCDStudent1

I grew up in north Galway near a section of the WRC. I regularly cycled those roads as a kid. However, it is quite rare to see kids cycling them now. The roads around that particular area have definitely gotten busier.

whisky_galore

JCX BXC wrote: »

Hilarious when one considers the success that the nearby Greenway to Dungarvan has been.

Great and all that the Greenway is, I thought it a bit sterile, it's almost as if everything *must* be a carbon-copy, neatly surfaced Greenway with concrete fences, galvanised gates and PC EU compliant signage. It contrasted with a few greenways I cycled/walked in Australia where there was a minimal amount of intrusive 'landscaping' if you could call it that.
It's nice to walk in places where trees encroach without fear of being flattened by Tour de France wannabes going full belt. The rail trail around Shillelagh is an example of this. Variety and all that.

eastwest

whisky_galore wrote: »

Great and all that the Greenway is, I thought it a bit sterile, it's almost as if everything *must* be a carbon-copy, neatly surfaced Greenway with concrete fences, galvanised gates and PC EU compliant signage. It contrasted with a few greenways I cycled/walked in Australia where there was a minimal amount of intrusive 'landscaping' if you could call it that.
It's nice to walk in places where trees encroach without fear of being flattened by Tour de France wannabes going full belt. The rail trail around Shillelagh is an example of this. Variety and all that.

Agree, the county councils tend to over specify greenways. Quite often, less would do.