Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

Muckyboots

Greaney wrote: »

I'll begin by saying that I don't think that green ways should only be built if they're CPO free. There seems to be an understanding on this thread that CPOs are fine for motor vehicles (bus lanes, motorways etc.) so I believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

In short, river easements linking the historical (Ancient East) sites of East Galway between Tuam & Athenry. Some folk have started on this project (I attended a presentation on it) and I think it looks like it has real potential.

Nothing more than a cheap distraction trick that's had it's rug pulled from underneath it by landowners before it got a chance to crawl. Even the the TD who commissioned it denies its' validity now. Welease the wepot wossy and give our heads some peace.

Greaney

Greaney wrote: »

I'll begin by saying that I don't think that green ways should only be built if they're CPO free. There seems to be an understanding on this thread that CPOs are fine for motor vehicles (bus lanes, motorways etc.) so I believe what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

In short, river easements linking the historical (Ancient East) sites of East Galway between Tuam & Athenry. Some folk have started on this project (I attended a presentation on it) and I think it looks like it has real potential.

Nothing against CPO's they serve a purpose, just pointing out they wouldn't needed in the case of the disused rail line

Got a route that we could look at?

I've looked at a map and can see no way to link up Athenry & Tuam in the manner you outlined so I'm really curious to see what route this would take.

ezstreet5

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing against CPO's they serve a purpose, just pointing out they wouldn't needed in the case of the disused rail line

Got a route that we could look at?

I've looked at a map and can see no way to link up Athenry & Tuam in the manner you outlined so I'm really curious to see what route this would take.

You'd probably need some CPOs to provide access to all of the roads that the WRC crosses. Not all of that land is in the right of way. As for a way to link Athenry and Tuam, I would begin by linking Athlone to Galway via Athenry. Then you can begin to consider linking Tuam or Loughrea as subsidiary projects. Otherwise, there really isn't a project that would attract funding.

Greaney

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing against CPO's they serve a purpose, just pointing out they wouldn't needed in the case of the disused rail line

Got a route that we could look at?

I've looked at a map and can see no way to link up Athenry & Tuam in the manner you outlined so I'm really curious to see what route this would take.

No

Lord Glentoran

Greaney wrote: »

No

Seamus Heaney’s words apply here.

“Of open minds as open as a trap,

Where tongues lie coiled, as under flames lie wicks”

Geuze

I note that although the GP support the reopening of further sections of the WRC, they also suggest that fewer trains stop at some stations, so as to increase average speeds.

Greaney

Greaney wrote: »

No

Care to ask those folks who gave the presentation for the route?

Or let me know how to get in touch with them so I can ask them myself.

Sligo eye

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Care to ask those folks who gave the presentation for the route?

Or let me know how to get in touch with them so I can ask them myself.

I can only imagine the conversation you’ll want to have with them.

ShaneC1600

Why the fascination with a greenway between Tuam and Athenry though? The greatest merit a greenway has between the two towns is the disused CPO free railway, even in the unlikely event it becomes a used railway in the short term then why would a parallel greenway be built at a bigger cost to the council?
Especially when Athenry could be lobbying for Dublin to Galway greenway to go through the town.

Sligo eye

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

Why the fascination with a greenway between Tuam and Athenry though? The greatest merit a greenway has between the two towns is the disused CPO free railway, even in the unlikely event it becomes a used railway in the short term then why would a parallel greenway be built at a bigger cost to the council?
Especially when Athenry could be lobbying for Dublin to Galway greenway to go through the town.

I would have thought that the Dublin to Galway greenway would be a higher priority; however Ciaran Cannon scuppered that route by siding with the landowners when the route was being planned. To run that greenway alongside the railway would be madness, not least because the greenway would stop the line between Athlone and Galway being doubled (which it needs) but also who wants to cycle beside an operational railway anyway?

Muckyboots

Sligo eye wrote: »

who wants to cycle beside an operational railway anyway?

I do- and have done. You haven't lived until you've tried it. Very different experience to cycling alongside a busy road. And how do assume that a greenway alongside the railway will be at the expense of double-tracking? CPO'ing a few meters of land alongside the alignment is a very different prospect to running a lazy line through a map that divides farms in half and resricts access to farmers.

Sligo eye

Sligo eye wrote: »

I would have thought that the Dublin to Galway greenway would be a higher priority; however Ciaran Cannon scuppered that route by siding with the landowners when the route was being planned. To run that greenway alongside the railway would be madness, not least because the greenway would stop the line between Athlone and Galway being doubled (which it needs) but also who wants to cycle beside an operational railway anyway?

In reality, it is the track between Athlone and Portarlington that needs doubling as it serves both Galway and Westport/Ballina.

Greaney

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

Why the fascination with a greenway between Tuam and Athenry though? The greatest merit a greenway has between the two towns is the disused CPO free railway, even in the unlikely event it becomes a used railway in the short term then why would a parallel greenway be built at a bigger cost to the council?
Especially when Athenry could be lobbying for Dublin to Galway greenway to go through the town.

Yes, indeed, our first priority was the Eurovelo and what we could draw from there. We know the funding is in place and the negations had begun. Alas, our TD did something I honestly can't understand and I still don't understand. He took a 'sure thing' that was going through the heart of his constituency and sabotaged it with press releases.

Meanwhile, our community were not on the eurovelo and were looking for routes off it. We had a meeting to explore linking the Eurovelo up through East Galway. It makes sense to look to the rivers & historical sites, so we were looking at places like Abbeyknockmoy along the way.

So to answer everyones question 'no' we don't have paperwork we can upload on this forum. We're still at the google maps, pencil & paper stage It's also a moving target since the Velo is moving so slowly, so we're looking to engage with the velo and see can we offer support.... and maybe, if Loughrea don't want it through their town.... :rolleyes:

westtip

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

Why the fascination with a greenway between Tuam and Athenry though? The greatest merit a greenway has between the two towns is the disused CPO free railway, even in the unlikely event it becomes a used railway in the short term then why would a parallel greenway be built at a bigger cost to the council?
Especially when Athenry could be lobbying for Dublin to Galway greenway to go through the town.

It's not a greenway between Tuam and Athenry. the fascination is with a greenway between Athenry and Enniskillen, connected to the great western greenway via a link to the Castlebar-turlough house greenway, in Mayo, and to the Dublin Galway greenway at Athenry. That is the fascination or fantasy we are seeking......and as we have always said if the route is required for rail then so be it in the future when it is possible....the message does not change.

Sligo eye

westtip wrote: »

It's not a greenway between Tuam and Athenry. the fascination is with a greenway between Athenry and Enniskillen, connected to the great western greenway via a link to the Castlebar-turlough house greenway, in Mayo, and to the Dublin Galway greenway at Athenry. That is the fascination or fantasy we are seeking......and as we have always said if the route is required for rail then so be it in the future when it is possible....the message does not change.

And to be clear; the goal is to have a second North-South rail route from Derry-Cork to act as a spine for redevelopment of the key towns and cities in the Western half of the country. The route that the Greenway camp are seeking is under active requirement for a rail service so is not available.

Muckyboots

Greaney wrote: »

It makes sense to look to the rivers & historical sites, so we were looking at places like Abbeyknockmoy along the way.

So to answer everyones question 'no' we don't have paperwork we can upload on this forum. We're still at the google maps, pencil & paper stage It's also a moving target since the Velo is moving so slowly, so we're looking to engage with the velo and see can we offer support.... and maybe, if Loughrea don't want it through their town.... :rolleyes:

Link to Abbeyknockmoy, on and from, the Quiet Man Greenway at Ballyglunin with the cyclway into the village already fully completed.

westtip

Sligo eye wrote: »

And to be clear; the goal is to have a second North-South rail route from Derry-Cork to act as a spine for redevelopment of the key towns and cities in the Western half of the country. The route that the Greenway camp are seeking is under active requirement for a rail service so is not available.

Ah the Gerry Murray party line so...No problem with the North South Rail route, but why along the alignment of the Western Rail Trail route, no sane rail planner would choose that route, go look at the Road Lobbyists they always elect for an appropriate greenfield route that will deliver a proper product, why not follow their success instead of constantly seeking to use a C19th winding route that will not deliver what you are seeking to achieve.

Oh and is the Velorail in the same school a the saboteurs from the greenway camp?

Muckyboots

Sligo eye wrote: »

And to be clear; the goal is to have a second North-South rail route from Derry-Cork to act as a spine for redevelopment of the key towns and cities in the Western half of the country. The route that the Greenway camp are seeking is under active requirement for a rail service so is not available.

Bottom of page 5- https://cllr.galwaycoco.ie/media/MM.01.20%20Signed.pdf

Muckyboots

Muckyboots wrote: »

Link to Abbeyknockmoy, on and from, the Quiet Man Greenway at Ballyglunin with the cyclway into the village already fully completed.

Thanks was going to point this out

Greaney

Greaney wrote: »

So to answer everyones question 'no' we don't have paperwork we can upload on this forum. We're still at the google maps, pencil & paper stage It's also a moving target since the Velo is moving so slowly, so we're looking to engage with the velo and see can we offer support.... and maybe, if Loughrea don't want it through their town.... :rolleyes:

So you say you want people to look at alternatives like "this one" but won't provide any details around it.

I recall a few years ago something like that suggestion being mooted. No route was provided then either when requested.

I look forward to being proven wrong but until a route map is produced I will be calling it was it is, a diversionary tactic and will treat it as such.

Provide a route and we'll talk, otherwise expect to be ignored

Sligo eye

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you say you want people to look at alternatives like "this one" but won't provide any details around it.

I recall a few years ago something like that suggestion being mooted. No route was provided then either when requested.

I look forward to being proven wrong but until a route map is produced I will be calling it was it is, a diversionary tactic and will treat it as such.

Provide a route and we'll talk, otherwise expect to be ignored

The ultimate diversionary tactic is the greenway campaign.

Sligo eye

Sligo eye wrote: »

The ultimate diversionary tactic is the greenway campaign.

Diverting against waste of an unused state asset, towards using it for the benefit of all the towns and villages all along the route, guilty as charged

Greaney

Deleted User wrote: »

So you say you want people to look at alternatives like "this one" but won't provide any details around it.

I recall a few years ago something like that suggestion being mooted. No route was provided then either when requested.

I look forward to being proven wrong but until a route map is produced I will be calling it was it is, a diversionary tactic and will treat it as such.

Provide a route and we'll talk, otherwise expect to be ignored

Look, I don't actually have to prove anything to you. I'd really rather if you did ignore me., but you can't seem to allow anyone who's pro-rail alone on line. You jump into every conversation demanding attention. :rolleyes:

If our projects are successful, folk know. If they're not... we don't scream & shout online to set ourselves up for public failure. I've seen enough folk in our community do that and everyone is getting tired of it. Our group are busying away doing what we do. We collaborate with other community groups, fellow cycling activists, and environmental groups to achieve our goals.

We don't want another 'Grand old Duke of York' project in our community, where the leadership take everyone on a merry dance to end up with nothing... deflated and disappointed.

I was advised many years ago, to keep working committees small, and plans private, till there was something to show.... It was good advice.

westtip

Muckyboots wrote: »

Bottom of page 5- https://cllr.galwaycoco.ie/media/MM.01.20%20Signed.pdf

MB they just cannot accept what is happening, give them time to get over it.

westtip

Sligo eye wrote: »

The ultimate diversionary tactic is the greenway campaign.

And the Velorail?

Greaney

Greaney wrote: »

Look, I don't actually have to prove anything to you. I'd really rather if you did ignore me., but you can't seem to allow anyone who's pro-rail alone on line. You jump into every conversation demanding attention.

Make up your mind, you want people to explore options or you don't and you want to keep them secret?

You offered an alternative, I engaged with you on that alternative, you refused to provide further info and were called on it, simple as.

btw, you do realise this is a discussion forum, right?

ezstreet5

The Draft Programme of Government contains the following goals regarding rail transport.

Rail

We will protect existing services by continuing to ensure the level of payment required to operate the Public Service Obligation fleet is adequate to maintain and improve service capacity and frequency.

We will:

● In line with the commitment in the National Planning Framework to balanced regional development, prioritise rail projects in Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford on existing and unused lines.
● Continue to fund safety works and capital improvements to the rail network, expand the Irish Rail fleet and progress the electrification of rail services to decrease journey times and emissions.
● Commission an economic evaluation of higher speed rail links between our main cities.
● Improve cycling and storage facilities at stations and on trains, where possible.
● Enhance suburban and commuter rail across the country.
● Consider the report on the future of the Western Rail Corridor and take appropriate action.
● Ringfence funding to ensure swift train platform lift repair and upgrades, to ensure accessibility.

ezstreet5

And for Greenways:

Greenways

We will lead the development of an integrated national greenways strategy. This has the potential to transform modal shift, improve air quality and public health.

This commitment to cycling will enable us to achieve the huge ambition of developing an integrated national network of greenways to be used by commuters, leisure cyclists and tourists. We will continue the coordinated approach between central government, local authorities and agencies to deliver on this ambition.

***
Tourism

We will:

● Work with local authorities and appropriate agencies to continue development of an integrated national network of greenways to be used by commuters, students, leisure cyclists and tourists.

● Support cross-border greenway projects, such as the Sligo-Enniskillen Greenway, and continue to fund longer-term projects across the country like the Galway to Dublin Greenway, Fingal Coastal Way and the extension of the Waterford greenway into the city centre.

****

See the full document for context: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/strongly-green-influenced-programme-for-government-drawn-up-1.4279051

Muckyboots

ezstreet5 wrote: »

See the full document for context: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/strongly-green-influenced-programme-for-government-drawn-up-1.4279051

This is good news and it looks like the WRC can is going to be picked up and its rancid contents finally served. Some people will be disappointed. I honestly don't care if I am one of them.

westtip

Muckyboots wrote: »

This is good news and it looks like the WRC can is going to be picked up and its rancid contents finally served. Some people will be disappointed. I honestly don't care if I am one of them.

I think its great news all we have been asking for; The report to be seen, and if EY consulting have said build the railway then build it and slap a greenway in alongside, if they have said its a non runner then keep the route and build a greenway. Let's face it there was always going to be a fudge as long as that report remains under lock and key and this wording is probably the best way of keeping all parties happy.

It looks like the independent report from EY remains pivotal, so let's just see it and get closure on this whole thing one way or the other.

One thing is for sure there are no excuses now the report has be to be published, Although we have been told that the report has not been seen by the negotiating teams I no longer believe that, the sentence re the report would not be in the PFG unless they knew what they were letting themselves in for, would they be so open ended about a potential commitment to €250 million capex and ongoing subvention of millions a year. No they would not be that stupid, mark my words this report has been seen by the negotiating team and wording the PFG reference to the WRC like they have means the anti greenway crowd pro WOTs cannot use the WRC as an excuse not to support the agreement. End game me thinks, either way. Thank goodness

91wx763

● In line with the commitment in the National Planning Framework to balanced regional development, prioritise rail projects in Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford on existing and unused lines.

Knocks a few greenways on the head ??? (Le cúnamh Dé)

intellectual dosser

westtip wrote: »

No they would not be that stupid, mark my words this report has been seen by the negotiating team and wording the PFG reference to the WRC like they have means the anti greenway crowd pro WOTs cannot use the WRC as an excuse not to support the agreement. End game me thinks, either way. Thank goodness

I think looking at the bullet-points that ezstreet5 posted they have left themselves plenty of ambiguity to move either way. We should start getting more information and lip service from government but I fear the end game is still a long way down the line.

How would we all feel if the report says there is no gleaming immediate term business case to re-instate railway but also no definitive evidence it would be a roaring failure either? I'd be very surprised if the conclusion of the report was 'no chance'.

Muckyboots

91wx763 wrote: »

Knocks a few greenways on the head ??? (Le cúnamh Dé)

No need to be clutching at straws. I don't think it could be any more specific on the WRC as it was elsewhere in the document.

Del.Monte

Deleted User wrote: »

In reality, it is the track between Athlone and Portarlington that needs doubling as it serves both Galway and Westport/Ballina.

In reality. it's the line between Athlone and Mullingar that needs reopening.

Greaney

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I think looking at the bullet-points that ezstreet5 posted they have left themselves plenty of ambiguity to move either way. We should start getting more information and lip service from government but I fear the end game is still a long way down the line.

How would we all feel if the report says there is no gleaming immediate term business case to re-instate railway but also no definitive evidence it would be a roaring failure either? I'd be very surprised if the conclusion of the report was 'no chance'.

I believe that you're pretty close to the truth there. I was speaking to someone about it who, I have no doubt read it. He works for one of the parties, and he said, it doesn't commit to any 'stand' on the issue.

I think the issues that are going to decide what's next for the WRC are emissions, rural car dependence, infrastructural investment in the West, rather than tourism & cycling. It won't come soon enough for any of us faraor

L1011

Del.Monte wrote: »

In reality. it's the line between Athlone and Mullingar that needs reopening.

The slower route with no spare capacity?

Can you, in detail, explain why?

westtip

intellectual dosser wrote: »

I think looking at the bullet-points that ezstreet5 posted they have left themselves plenty of ambiguity to move either way. We should start getting more information and lip service from government but I fear the end game is still a long way down the line.

How would we all feel if the report says there is no gleaming immediate term business case to re-instate railway but also no definitive evidence it would be a roaring failure either? I'd be very surprised if the conclusion of the report was 'no chance'.

I tend to agree with you, the report is likely to be fudge, it suits Govt of whatever shade to do nothing when two divergent points of view are in place. We will all have to wait and see. Hardly worth discussing anymore, nobody is listening to either side.

donvito99

L1011 wrote: »

The slower route with no spare capacity?

Can you, in detail, explain why?

Because it used to be a railway. That's all we need to know.

Geuze

Deleted User wrote: »

In reality, it is the track between Athlone and Portarlington that needs doubling as it serves both Galway and Westport/Ballina.

Yes.

Was this originally two track?

And, if so, does that mean no land acquisition required to re-double?

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

Yes.

Was this originally two track?

And, if so, does that mean no land acquisition required to re-double?

The trackbed and bridges were designed for two tracks, but only one was ever laid.
It would need minor earthworks to level the second line and some digging at the Tullamore cutting along the entire route there is space for the second track.

L1011

L1011 wrote: »

The slower route with no spare capacity?

Can you, in detail, explain why?

It would need the line between Mullingar - Dublin improving and ideally another station to replace Broadstone as a terminus.

Sligo eye

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The trackbed and bridges were designed for two tracks, but only one was ever laid.
It would need minor earthworks to level the second line and some digging at the Tullamore cutting along the entire route there is space for the second track.

My understanding was that the GSR singled the line in the 1930s?

Losty Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

The trackbed and bridges were designed for two tracks, but only one was ever laid.
It would need minor earthworks to level the second line and some digging at the Tullamore cutting along the entire route there is space for the second track.

Tullamore is actually on the line from Portarlington to Athlone. It was built and laid as a single line track although some of the bridges on the line can accommodate two lines. The section approaching Tullamore would need significantly blasting to widen it but it could easily be retained as a single section for the 1/4 mile or so that it is.

My understanding was that the GSR singled the line in the 1930s?

The line between Mullingar and Athlone and Ballinasloe was a double track, as was the line from Athenry to Galway. The GSR singled the line from Clonsilla in the mid 1930's and used the surplus track work for relaying elsewhere along the network.

L1011

Deleted User wrote: »

It would need the line between Mullingar - Dublin improving and ideally another station to replace Broadstone as a terminus.

There is very little scope to improve the line between Mullingar and Dublin. The section from Maynooth inwards is going to have an ever increasing number of commuter trains on an appalling, effectively unchangeable alignment.

An entirely new alignment might be possible Kilcock-Mullingar at immense expense as it would be an entirely new railway, nowhere near the existing appalling (except for before Killucan where they diverge from the canal) alignment. Could get the win of serving Kinnegad; but any time savings there would not counteract the Maynooth section.

Sligo eye

Sligo eye wrote: »

My understanding was that the GSR singled the line in the 1930s?

not the Athlone - Portarlington line, the Athlone Mullingar line was singled.

L1011

L1011 wrote: »

There is very little scope to improve the line between Mullingar and Dublin. The section from Maynooth inwards is going to have an ever increasing number of commuter trains on an appalling, effectively unchangeable alignment.

An entirely new alignment might be possible Kilcock-Mullingar at immense expense as it would be an entirely new railway, nowhere near the existing appalling (except for before Killucan where they diverge from the canal) alignment. Could get the win of serving Kinnegad; but any time savings there would not counteract the Maynooth section.

Yes, it would need major investment. The question is, would it be worth it?
With the "new Normal" of WFH and fewer commuters, it may never be viable.

goingnowhere

Mullingar Maynooth is not about straight line, going double will end the pain of waiting at stations for the section to be clear, even at current line speeds you could see 10-15 minutes saved at peak.

Getting rid of the level crossings on the Maynooth line will save several minutes as will new signalling as Clonsilla - Connolly is 1970's its not really setup for the high frequency we need today

Sam Russell

Sligo eye wrote: »

My understanding was that the GSR singled the line in the 1930s?

Deleted User wrote: »

not the Athlone - Portarlington line, the Athlone Mullingar line was singled.

Lines were singled so the track could be reused to repair other bits around he network. The country and the train companies were broke and it was the best that they could do to keep the trains running. We were on our own.

ezstreet5

Sam Russell wrote: »

Lines were singled so the track could be reused to repair other bits around he network. The country and the train companies were broke and it was the best that they could do to keep the trains running. We were on our own.

Beware the modern-day scavengers of our rail system.

Muckyboots

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Beware the modern-day scavengers of our rail system.

You can only scavenge broken down wrecks. If it's not worth fixing -it's just not worth fixing. I loved my Renault 4 with go faster stripes, but...... sorry, there's me going on about cars again.