Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

whisky_galore

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

A typo, it was over 31 million last year.

Shannon, Knock, Cork all suffer from the 'one for everyone in the audience' politics. They're all fighting each other over a catchment population barely enough to sustain one decent international airport.

Dublin centric people will never be happy until the rest of the country is a rural theme park without facilities so they can drive down to point and laugh at the yokels.

Probably secretly jealous some village called Cork has so much industry going on right now.

westtip

L1011 wrote: »

Supporting the ludicrous velo-rail as a tourism initiative over a Greenway is effectively deciding to artificially limit the number of tourists for the sake of keeping a set of effectively unusable rails on the ground - rails that would be removed before any reopening anyway.

Emotion has long since overridden sense here.

Hey you want to see what the IRD in Kiltimagh proposed to Mayo county council as an extension of the idea for the Velorail before it even got up and running - and before it got planning permission ----which it now needs to go and get.

Attached letter of December 2016 is one of the best yet, motorised velorail carts to run from Kiltimagh to Charlestown, will they not stop at anything to keep those rusting tracks in place! thankfully even Mayo coco turned this mad cap idea down...see attached letter obtained under FOI

Sam Russell

westtip wrote: »

Hey you want to see what the IRD in Kiltimagh proposed to Mayo county council as an extension of the idea for the Velorail before it even got up and running - and before it got planning permission ----which it now needs to go and get.

Attached letter of December 2016 is one of the best yet, motorised velorail carts to run from Kiltimagh to Charlestown, will they not stop at anything to keep those rusting tracks in place! thankfully even Mayo coco turned this mad cap idea down...see attached letter obtained under FOI

How would they pass each other on the sigle track? I presume the motorised vehicle would not be the only one on the track.

Would it have a Velocuiser driver? A daft idea if I ever saw one.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

How would they pass each other on the sigle track? I presume the motorised vehicle would not be the only one on the track.

Would it have a Velocuiser driver? A daft idea if I ever saw one.

Something like this I would imagine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilJAczgfmHk

Lord Glentoran

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Something like this I would imagine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilJAczgfmHk

Looks pretty cool, TBH.

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

Something like this I would imagine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilJAczgfmHk

That has to be a bad joke if a major tourist project is to be based on this kind of mickey mouse system. Try geting insurance cover for that.

Already €400 k spent on this junk.

Sligo eye

Looks like the velorail concept is a positive thing to have for Kiltimagh. Can’t think why that campaigner guy is trying to stall it. Must be anti tourism I guess.

Muckyboots

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Looks pretty cool, TBH.

You know and I know that the clip is not from a disused railway line - which makes it even cooler.

Sligo eye

Sligo eye wrote: »

Looks like the velorail concept is a positive thing to have for Kiltimagh. Can’t think why that campaigner guy is trying to stall it. Must be anti tourism I guess.

Yeah, that's it, exactly that, no other logical reason, lol

westtip

Sligo eye wrote: »

Looks like the velorail concept is a positive thing to have for Kiltimagh. Can’t think why that campaigner guy is trying to stall it. Must be anti tourism I guess.

Ask the people in KM, MCC and the IRD didn't. Interesting post though Sligoeye where have you been after 3 years and two months of last making a post - you come up with this gem as your 7th post on boards. I guess the moral of the story is they never stop watching...Have a look at what KM people think of the IRD tourism attaction, not lot is the answer.....

https://www.change.org/p/peter-hynes-mayo-county-manager-put-a-walking-and-cycling-path-for-everyone-to-enjoy-parallel-with-kiltimagh-velorail

jasper100

Sligo eye wrote: »

Looks like the velorail concept is a positive thing to have for Kiltimagh. Can’t think why that campaigner guy is trying to stall it. Must be anti tourism I guess.

Looking at the youtube video it looks like it could be a bit of craic. I assume they will have some sort of passing loops along the route.


Greenways are for scenic areas with a natural footfall of tourists. Tuam just doesn't cut it.


A velorail could prove to be an inspired project.

what_traffic

jasper100 wrote: »

Greenways are for scenic areas with a natural footfall of tourists. Tuam just doesn't cut it.


A velorail could prove to be an inspired project.

Why would all the local people in Tuam and the surrounding area want to use a velorail day in day out? They just want a walking and cycling resource for the locality that can be used every day.

Muckyboots

jasper100 wrote: »

A velorail could prove to be an inspired project.

Inspired by a need to block a greenway using any excuse possible- and they've gone right down to the bottom of the barrel on this occasion. So far down that they've got themselves stuck, heads downs with their bare arses showing.

jasper100

what_traffic wrote: »

Why would all the local people in Tuam and the surrounding area want to use a velorail day in day out? They just want a walking and cycling resource for the locality that can be used every day.

But the greenway is not designed for locals though.

The Western Rail Trail Greenway concept is designed to bring a huge tourism boost to towns all along the line


I don't think the greenway will deliver the "huge" tourism boost campaigners say it will.

Just look at the Westport - Newport - Mulranny - Achill greenway. The bulk of usage is Mulranny - Achill.

If I was heading to Mayo to go on a greenway I know where I would be heading.

A velorail is at least a novel concept that might attract tourists.

what_traffic

jasper100 wrote: »

But the greenway is not designed for locals though.

No locals allowed to use it then? :rolleyes:
School kids in Tuam going to and from School - NOT allowed to use it?
People in Tuam going for a daily stoll - NOT allowed to use it?

Mix in local use with Tourism use and its a bargain.

end of the road

what_traffic wrote: »

Why would all the local people in Tuam and the surrounding area want to use a velorail day in day out? They just want a walking and cycling resource for the locality that can be used every day.

and they possibly could have had it by now if there wasn't such investment in the 1 route with no alternatives considered.

Muckyboots wrote: »

Inspired by a need to block a greenway using any excuse possible- and they've gone right down to the bottom of the barrel on this occasion. So far down that they've got themselves stuck, heads downs with their bare arses showing.

inspired by bringing something different to the country more like it.
the greenway supporters need to understand that you are not entitled to the land of the former rail route, over and beyond any other project which wishes to use it such as the rail biking. if another project such as the rail biking is able to get in first to use part of the route, then it's a simple case of first come first served. the rail biking is not blocking the greenway as there is no greenway, and they are only taking part of the route if it gets off the ground.
if you are unable to get a greenway on the route, then that is not the fault of the rail biking. perhapse instead of being invested in 1 route you should be considering alternatives as well instead of bickering with others and blaming everyone else and accusing people of being out to get you and stop the greenway when there is nothing to show this, but instead another project wishing to use part of a long rail route.

Lofidelity

The velorail is designed to be used by a group of people, so no use to a couple that show up by themselves. Its a novelty with limited appeal. Repeat business is unlikely. Tourists will not stray from the WWW route to visit this.

Muckyboots

end of the road wrote: »

the greenway supporters need to understand that you are not entitled to the land of the former rail route, over and beyond any other project which wishes to use it such as the rail biking.

There are deep and personalised trenches dug out by both sides, but public good should win out in the end. Open amenity will trump silly vanity projects, like the nonsensical velo-biking-rail whatchamacallit. Wheels on steel and tracks still there, etc etc.
Local elections- sorted. All we need now is a Minister for Transport with a pair, and she is coming, trust me.

jasper100

Lofidelity wrote: »

The velorail is designed to be used by a group of people, so no use to a couple that show up by themselves. Its a novelty with limited appeal. Repeat business is unlikely. Tourists will not stray from the WWW route to visit this.

And they certainly won't stray from the likes of the Achill or Connemara greenways, despite the claims of the promotors of the greenway.

jasper100

what_traffic wrote: »

No locals allowed to use it then? :rolleyes:
School kids in Tuam going to and from School - NOT allowed to use it?
People in Tuam going for a daily stoll - NOT allowed to use it?

Mix in local use with Tourism use and its a bargain.

Don't be silly. Nobody said locals won't be allowed use it.

The fact is it is being designed as a major tourism project, which it won't deliver.

jasper100

jasper100 wrote: »

Don't be silly. Nobody said locals won't be allowed use it.

The fact is it is being designed as a major tourism project, which it won't deliver.

The evidence of all other greenways say otherwise

end of the road

Muckyboots wrote: »

There are deep and personalised trenches dug out by both sides, but public good should win out in the end. Open amenity will trump silly vanity projects, like the nonsensical velo-biking-rail whatchamacallit. Wheels on steel and tracks still there, etc etc.
Local elections- sorted. All we need now is a Minister for Transport with a pair, and she is coming, trust me.

the rail biking is not a vanity project. it's a different idea and use for the infrastructure and it has just as much right of consideration as any other potential project. like i said, you will need to realise you are not entitled to use of the line over and beyond any other potential project.
local elections will do nothing. a minister for transport with a pair will do nothing either because there are greenway and rail projects elsewhere that could give a better return.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

The evidence of all other greenways say otherwise

the evidence of some other greenways just say it in relation to those greenways, as that is all it can do.

Sam Russell

This Velo rail scheme has me confused. Here are some questions for the proponents.

1: What advantages does running on rails as opposed to running on tarmac give the velo rail bikes? I assume 3 or 4 wheeled bikes would work on tarmac, while only 4 wheel bikes work on rail.

2: How is proposed that tourists on these velo rail bikes pass each other, given that there is only one track?

3: Will anyone be allowed to rent them? Will frail elderly tourist be expected to manhandle these bikes off the tracks to allow other frail elderly tourist to go the other way?

4: Will there be a demonstration of this high tech mode of transport before any more public money is poured into it? [€400K and counting]



5: How much would 12 km of greenway cost?

6: Could a greenway be run alongside the rails? You know, just in case one of these elderly tourist has an accident or some other emergency. And would normal greenway traffic be allowed to use it?

I think they need to think it out again.

Edit: This is the kind of bike I think might work.
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fsc02.alicdn.com%2Fkf%2FHTB1qLv7aMMPMeJjy1Xb763wxVXaK%2FNew-Style-4-Seater-Quadricycle-Surrey-Bike.png_350x350.png&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.alibaba.com%2Fproduct-detail%2FNew-Style-4-Seater-Quadricycle-Surrey_60641872706.html&docid=JPMdubSCQ9LPGM&tbnid=naorjP9qHq5W4M%3A&vet=10ahUKEwj77qbGxJjiAhVoTxUIHfQKDUYQMwhDKAMwAw..i&w=350&h=305&bih=865&biw=1188&q=tourist%204%20wheel%20bikes&ved=0ahUKEwj77qbGxJjiAhVoTxUIHfQKDUYQMwhDKAMwAw&iact=mrc&uact=8

jasper100

Deleted User wrote: »

The evidence of all other greenways say otherwise

Not so sure about that. I don't hear or see much about the great southern greenway when I pass along that way.


I don't see much activity on the Wesport Newport section of the achill greenway either.

Mulranny - Achill is where its at.

A greenway to Clifden will be a winner.

The West Clare Railway would be a winner.

A greenway around Tuam won't deliver the major tourism boost that its promotors are basing their campaign on.

If the promotors want to promote it as a local amenity then at least they are being honest.

In reality there are vastly superior greenway proposals for tourists out there.

Muckyboots

end of the road wrote: »

. like i said, you will need to realise you are not entitled to use of the line over and beyond any other potential project.
.

I think you misunderstand. I don't claim to be entitled to use the line over anybody else. Quite the opposite. I wan't everyone, and their grandmothers, to be able to use the line - unlike the vanity wheels on steel cart things.

Muckyboots

end of the road wrote: »

a minister for transport with a pair will do nothing either because there are greenway and rail projects elsewhere that could give a better return.

You seriously think that fiscal rectitude will have a bearing on any decision a minister makes? Come on, let us agree one more time!

end of the road

Muckyboots wrote: »

I think you misunderstand. I don't claim to be entitled to use the line over anybody else. Quite the opposite. I wan't everyone, and their grandmothers, to be able to use the line - unlike the vanity wheels on steel cart things.

i don't misunderstand, and your post suggests that essentially my point has been proved. your post suggests that you think the greenway is more entitled to use the alinement then rail biking. it's not. the rail biking project got in on part of the line first, so if it gets off the ground it is first come first served.

jasper100

end of the road wrote: »

i don't misunderstand, and you have essentially proved my point. you think the greenway is more entitled to use the alinement then rail biking. it's not. the rail biking project got in on part of the line first, so if it gets off the ground it is first come first served.

The velorail only want 12km. There is plenty of other sections for local communities to develop as a local amenity.

Muckyboots

end of the road wrote: »

so if it gets off the ground it is first come first served.

"The velorail only want 12km. There is plenty of other sections for local communities to develop as a local amenity."

We're sorted in Sligo and Galway with a greenway so.

westtip

jasper100 wrote: »

The velorail only want 12km. There is plenty of other sections for local communities to develop as a local amenity.

Indeed there is which is why people want to see a greenway from Charlestown to Swinford but as I posted up (I think yesterday) Kiltimagh IRD have the notion of extending the velorail to Charlestown with motorised gocarts on the track, Now people in Charlestown and Swinford may not want this idea.

In any event the Velorail has come to a grinding halt as a project until it gets planning permission for change of use; who knows if they get the planning permission from MCC it might well be sent back to ABP, so they could be 3 or 4 years away from even being allowed to be operational.

here is that letter again from December 2017 trying to suggest the velorail goes beyond its current licensed length of track to Swinford and beyond....

what_traffic

jasper100 wrote: »

Don't be silly. Nobody said locals won't be allowed use it.

The fact is it is being designed as a major tourism project, which it won't deliver.

:rolleyes:

Lofidelity

Why is the Achill greenway section a success? Im guessing because of the dramatic coastal scenery which would be beautiful on a day like today. The countryside in mid Mayo is not unpleasant, but not dramatic. So that will limit interest for tourists. That means its not going to give much financial return for the money invested in paving and fences.

My suggestion would be a hiking/ mountain bike trail along the existing tracks. If they could incorporate return loop sections using country roads that could make it more user friendly.

westtip

Lofidelity wrote: »

Why is the Achill greenway section a success? Im guessing because of the dramatic coastal scenery which would be beautiful on a day like today. The countryside in mid Mayo is not unpleasant, but not dramatic. So that will limit interest for tourists. That means its not going to give much financial return for the money invested in paving and fences.

My suggestion would be a hiking/ mountain bike trail along the existing tracks. If they could incorporate return loop sections using country roads that could make it more user friendly.

It is fully accepted that not every greenway will run through dramatic scenery, indeed East Mayo is pretty much open bogland, but it has a peace and quiet of its own, the whole point of this long running campaign to utilise the closed railway as a greenway is that it is the cheapest and most cost effective way to deliver a national network, so you can get on a bike in Dublin cycle Dublin Galway, turn north at Athenry and turn west at Swinford to cycle the entire network free of traffic. The railway north of Claremorris is never coming back, the Velorail idea around Kiltimagh has some merit but in truth will have novelty factor whichi is a once only experience, but if tourists decide to do this long distance trail they are going to see parts of Ireland that hitherto had virtually zero visitors or passing trade in terms of tourism. That is what this is all about creating a national network of greenways utilising closed railways that are not going to re-open, using canal banks etc that are already in public ownership and delivering the simple pleasure of a walk in the country for locals without having to wear high viz jackets and be constantly on guard for a 4x4 SUV coming around the corner. It is a pretty simple formula and why people can't grasp the fact the railway is not going to re-open again is beyond comprehension.

Lord Glentoran

westtip wrote: »

It is fully accepted that not every greenway will run through dramatic scenery, indeed East Mayo is pretty much open bogland, but it has a peace and quiet of its own, the whole point of this long running campaign to utilise the closed railway as a greenway is that it is the cheapest and most cost effective way to deliver a national network, so you can get on a bike in Dublin cycle Dublin Galway, turn north at Athenry and turn west at Swinford to cycle the entire network free of traffic. The railway north of Claremorris is never coming back, the Velorail idea around Kiltimagh has some merit but in truth will have novelty factor whichi is a once only experience, but if tourists decide to do this long distance trail they are going to see parts of Ireland that hitherto had virtually zero visitors or passing trade in terms of tourism. That is what this is all about creating a national network of greenways utilising closed railways that are not going to re-open, using canal banks etc that are already in public ownership and delivering the simple pleasure of a walk in the country for locals without having to wear high viz jackets and be constantly on guard for a 4x4 SUV coming around the corner. It is a pretty simple formula and why people can't grasp the fact the railway is not going to re-open again is beyond comprehension.

The greenway argument is then a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Leader II project some years back attempted to pay landowners for access to the countryside but it got bogged down in Ireland’s love affair with both compo and “get off my land” idiots like the guy who threatened walkers accessing Ben Bulben.

The solution is wide provision of public footpaths, bridleways and greenways, but not simply one path preventing reuse of transport infrastructure. The big flaw in the “we’ll hand over the railway if it’s needed, honest” argument made by the anti WRC campaigners is where will the path go then? Clearances, safety speed limits will prevent both a meaningful railway and a path coexisting.

So, if the anti WRC campaigners were serious about opening access to the countryside they would have been previously sought to save the Leader II scheme. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I see zero evidence of that. Instead, the earliest part of the first thread talks about using the trackbed for broadband instead. The zeal of the convert, or the hunt for a convenient alternative use to latch onto instead?

Sam Russell

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

The greenway argument is then a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Leader II project some years back attempted to pay landowners for access to the countryside but it got bogged down in Ireland’s love affair with both compo and “get off my land” idiots like the guy who threatened walkers accessing Ben Bulben.

The solution is wide provision of public footpaths, bridleways and greenways, but not simply one path preventing reuse of transport infrastructure. The big flaw in the “we’ll hand over the railway if it’s needed, honest” argument made by the anti WRC campaigners is where will the path go then? Clearances, safety speed limits will prevent both a meaningful railway and a path coexisting.

So, if the anti WRC campaigners were serious about opening access to the countryside they would have been previously sought to save the Leader II scheme. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I see zero evidence of that. Instead, the earliest part of the first thread talks about using the trackbed for broadband instead. The zeal of the convert, or the hunt for a convenient alternative use to latch onto instead?

What actually happened to the railway alignment from Sandyford to Bray that the Harcourt St line ran on?

Carawaystick

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

The solution is wide provision of public footpaths, bridleways and greenways, but not simply one path preventing reuse of transport infrastructure. The big flaw in the “we’ll hand over the railway if it’s needed, honest” argument made by the anti WRC campaigners is where will the path go then? Clearances, safety speed limits will prevent both a meaningful railway and a path coexisting.

The existing alignment will prevent a meaningful railway...
If land can be acquired for greenways, land could be acquired for a decent railway

end of the road

Sam Russell wrote: »

What actually happened to the railway alignment from Sandyford to Bray that the Harcourt St line ran on?

very simply, we were lucky that it was available so a light rail service could be instated. however that is no guarantee the same could or would happen with other similar alinements.

.

Sam Russell

end of the road wrote: »

very simply, we were lucky that it was available so a light rail service could be instated. however that is no guarantee the same could or would happen with other similar alinements.

.

Well, actually, there had to be a new alignment, and the old aligment would allow conversion to metro, but the new alignmen is not suitable. The new alignment is because the old one was not protected.

Even the bit from the canal to Sandyford had been taken over by adjoining properties and had to be bought back when the Luas was built.

At least a greenway prevents this.

Sligo eye

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, actually, there had to be a new alignment, and the old aligment would allow conversion to metro, but the new alignmen is not suitable. The new alignment is because the old one was not protected.

Even the bit from the canal to Sandyford had been taken over by adjoining properties and had to be bought back when the Luas was built.

At least a greenway prevents this.

A Greenway is not necessary to prevent the railway from being built on.

All of the track on the WRC is owned by CIE. The Greenway proposal is the latest in a line of proposals made by that Greenway campaigner in Sligo. He started off wanting broadband lines, then Corrib gas as a riposte to Shell to Sea and now a
Bike route. It’s really about stopping the railway. And development. And tourism.

Sligo eye

Sligo eye wrote: »

A Greenway is not necessary to prevent the railway from being built on.

All of the track on the WRC is owned by CIE. The Greenway proposal is the latest in a line of proposals made by that Greenway campaigner in Sligo. He started off wanting broadband lines, then Corrib gas as a riposte to Shell to Sea and now a
Bike route. It’s really about stopping the railway. And development. And tourism.

What about the rest of us? What's our motivation?

westtip

Sligo eye wrote: »

A Greenway is not necessary to prevent the railway from being built on.

All of the track on the WRC is owned by CIE. The Greenway proposal is the latest in a line of proposals made by that Greenway campaigner in Sligo. He started off wanting broadband lines, then Corrib gas as a riposte to Shell to Sea and now a
Bike route. It’s really about stopping the railway. And development. And tourism.

My dear chap, I have no wish to stop the railway, others have already done that.

For what it is worth me old chum, when it comes to listening to reasoned argument actually old boy, Sligo county council listened to me, not you, which is why they applied for Greenway funding on the closed railway. An Bord Pleanala listened to me not Mayo county council, which is why planning permission is now required for the toy velorail project. hey ho on we go, now make me a promise would you; Please please please, keep taking the pills. I am worried about you:D

Sligo eye

westtip wrote: »

My dear chap, I have no wish to stop the railway, others have already done that.

For what it is worth me old chum, when it comes to listening to reasoned argument actually old boy, Sligo county council listened to me, not you, which is why they applied for Greenway funding on the closed railway. An Bord Pleanala listened to me not Mayo county council, which is why planning permission is now required for the toy velorail project. hey ho on we go, now make me a promise would you; Please please please, keep taking the pills. I am worried about you:D

Well whatever you do don’t phone or text me to express your worry!

westtip

Deleted User wrote: »

What about the rest of us? What's our motivation?

da cor indeedie, our mutual friend needs to check out the near 25,000 people who have signed the petition for the greenway, but apparently this chap needs to focus his energy on one person.

Corca Baiscinn

Sligo eye wrote: »

A Greenway is not necessary to prevent the railway from being built on.

All of the track on the WRC is owned by CIE. The Greenway proposal is the latest in a line of proposals made by that Greenway campaigner in Sligo. He started off wanting broadband lines, then Corrib gas as a riposte to Shell to Sea and now a
Bike route. It’s really about stopping the railway. And development. And tourism.

You're joking right? Have you checked the tourist numbers on old rail alignments between Waterford and Dungarvan or Westport and Achill? Are you aware that Activity Tourism is the new American Coach Tour as far as Fáilte Ireland is concerned? Dont know who "that Greenway campaigner in Sligo" is but he seems to have rallied the troops as far as Sligo and Quiet Man portions of Greenway are concerned

Also you say Greenway not necessary to prevent track being built on but who would pay to fence and police an unused non-revenue generating track. with Greenways the responsibility passes from CIE which given their problems maintaining lines with trains running on them must be a relief

eastwest

Sligo eye wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, actually, there had to be a new alignment, and the old aligment would allow conversion to metro, but the new alignmen is not suitable. The new alignment is because the old one was not protected.

Even the bit from the canal to Sandyford had been taken over by adjoining properties and had to be bought back when the Luas was built.

At least a greenway prevents this.

A Greenway is not necessary to prevent the railway from being built on.

All of the track on the WRC is owned by CIE. The Greenway proposal is the latest in a line of proposals made by that Greenway campaigner in Sligo. He started off wanting broadband lines, then Corrib gas as a riposte to Shell to Sea and now a
Bike route. It’s really about stopping the railway. And development. And tourism.

A greenway is not necessary to prevent the railway being built on?
What railway? There is no railway on the route through sligo.

mayo.mick

https://twitter.com/ColinJohnHogan1/status/1127678427480428545

mayo.mick

https://www.facebook.com/voteformichaelsmyth/posts/421602291955066

eastwest

mayo.mick wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/voteformichaelsmyth/posts/421602291955066

Interesting to see that councillors in mayo are beginning to see the light on this issue. Wot used to have a grip on the executive in mayo (they even apparently hold their meetings in the council offices), and councillors were afraid to support the greenway lobby in case they found doors locked when trying to get potholes fixed.
The fact that individual councillors have found the courage to oppose that tired narrative shows the groundswell of support for the greenway project.
There are a lot of realists out there, and they all have a vote. The councillors that recognise that will do well.

jasper100

Corca Baiscinn wrote: »

You're joking right? Have you checked the tourist numbers on old rail alignments between Waterford and Dungarvan or Westport and Achill? Are you aware that Activity Tourism is the new American Coach Tour as far as Fáilte Ireland is concerned? Dont know who "that Greenway campaigner in Sligo" is but he seems to have rallied the troops as far as Sligo and Quiet Man portions of Greenway are concerned

Also you say Greenway not necessary to prevent track being built on but who would pay to fence and police an unused non-revenue generating track. with Greenways the responsibility passes from CIE which given their problems maintaining lines with trains running on them must be a relief

They are build in spectacular locations though. Tourists won't be flocking to use the Tuam greenway.