Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

Pete_Cavan

The rail freight argument is just another distraction and has no credibility. We import very little which is actually suitable for rail freight. Even if we did we have multiple ports with operational rail connections (Dublin, Belview, Rosslare) and Marino Point in Cork could be used with little investment. These ports are all more suitable for shipping to Europe than Foynes. Freight already flows from Mayo to Belview, if there was demand for more than the existing capacity then upgrades to the existing route would be far more economical and delivered much faster than reopening disused lines.

You are looking at in the region of €300m to connect Claremoris to Foynes, there is nothing like the volume of freight to justify it and there is little passenger potential either. The EU aren't as gullible as Ryan and wont be putting big money into such a project, that money could do a lot more to reduce emissions if spent elsewhere if that is the goal.

Isambard

if it's a question of reducing emissions, we'd need new locos .

Greaney

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The rail freight argument is just another distraction and has no credibility. We import very little which is actually suitable for rail freight. Even if we did we have multiple ports with operational rail connections (Dublin, Belview, Rosslare) and Marino Point in Cork could be used with little investment. These ports are all more suitable for shipping to Europe than Foynes. Freight already flows from Mayo to Belview, if there was demand for more than the existing capacity then upgrades to the existing route would be far more economical and delivered much faster than reopening disused lines.

You are looking at in the region of €300m to connect Claremoris to Foynes, there is nothing like the volume of freight to justify it and there is little passenger potential either. The EU aren't as gullible as Ryan and wont be putting big money into such a project, that money could do a lot more to reduce emissions if spent elsewhere if that is the goal.

So what's the plan 'b' for an Athenry 2 Tuam greenway?

Pete_Cavan

Greaney wrote: »

So what's the plan 'b' for an Athenry 2 Tuam greenway?

I don't know. The subject of this thread is the Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail and that is still the most likely route for the Greenway.

blackwhite

Greaney wrote: »

The plans for the Western Rail Corridor, with regard to securing EU funding are perhaps a lot bigger than folk realize. This is an extract from an article in the Western People

Minister Ryan said: “We need to consider this matter, not just as it relates to the section of the rail line between Athenry and Claremorris, but in the wider regional context. I would go ever further south and add to this the potential reopening of the Foynes freight rail line, which I understand is a prerequisite if Foynes is to get any support in developing as a European TEN-T international port, in that the port, in any such development, must have rail freight capability. That makes sense because Europe is moving towards rail freight as a significant part of our climate change agenda.”

In its submission, the IEA states: “It is becoming increasingly apparent and ever more urgent that Irish freight will be snarled up in any delays that occur in British ports from January 1 next, whatever the outcome of [Brexit] negotiations. Britain is not ready for the transport challenges of Brexit. Alternatives to the landbridge using direct shipping from Irish ports to France and the Netherlands will be required to keep our supply chains flowing.”

There’s no business case to use West coast ports to ship to continental Europe. The cost and tome of sailing a vessel around Cork & Kerry outweighs any possible road or rail haulage savings.

The landbridge is attractive due to the time it takes to get from Dublin to North-West France (approx 20hrs). Any landbridge alternative will have to be from an East or South coast port to even get close to 24-25 hours to reach the same parts of France.

A rail link into the Port of Waterford, or adding the ability to handle unitised containers to Rosslare Port would be an actual effective solution to landbridge disruption from Brexit

eastwest

blackwhite wrote: »

There’s no business case to use West coast ports to ship to continental Europe. The cost and tome of sailing a vessel around Cork & Kerry outweighs any possible road or rail haulage savings.

The landbridge is attractive due to the time it takes to get from Dublin to North-West France (approx 20hrs). Any landbridge alternative will have to be from an East or South coast port to even get close to 24-25 hours to reach the same parts of France.

A rail link into the Port of Waterford, or adding the ability to handle unitised containers to Rosslare Port would be an actual effective solution to landbridge disruption from Brexit

Since we stopped exporting most of our forestry output, the amount of potential rail-based freight that could come out of Mayo is small. The Coca Cola output won't transfer to Foynes because of cost and speed; a third of their output goes to the UK and there is no way they will want to add another day or two to the trip, apart from the extra cost.
Ahead of Brexit, the big ferry companies in ro-ro sector have already put capacity in on the Dublin-Cherbourg route, so even if the landbridge is choked by delays, the alternatives are there and can be ramped up very quickly by reassigning ships.
Foynes is a red herring where the WRC is concerned. The tonnage simply isnt there, and there are no plans for any kind of industrial development that will produce the critical mass needed to build another railway out of Mayo, given that the existing one is hardly used by industry standards.
The budget rightly concentrated on rail fundig where it is needed, and the Minister's speech emphasised the need for all capital spending to be scrutinised for value for money.
There is no WRC, and there is no sign of any WRC coming.

eastwest

Muckyboots wrote: »

Only riparian rights there. Would require CPO's from start to finish. Access to the river bank for anglers is by permission of the landowner. Unfortunately, it's a non runner.

That's the route that was proposed by a politician a few years back, isn't it? A fantasy route based on nothing except an arbitrary line on a map.
A lot like the wrc, in fact.

blackwhite

eastwest wrote: »

Since we stopped exporting most of our forestry output, the amount of potential rail-based freight that could come out of Mayo is small. The Coca Cola output won't transfer to Foynes because of cost and speed; a third of their output goes to the UK and there is no way they will want to add another day or two to the trip, apart from the extra cost.
Ahead of Brexit, the big ferry companies in ro-ro sector have already put capacity in on the Dublin-Cherbourg route, so even if the landbridge is choked by delays, the alternatives are there and can be ramped up very quickly by reassigning ships.
Foynes is a red herring where the WRC is concerned. The tonnage simply isnt there, and there are no plans for any kind of industrial development that will produce the critical mass needed to build another railway out of Mayo, given that the existing one is hardly used by industry standards.
The budget rightly concentrated on rail fundig where it is needed, and the Minister's speech emphasised the need for all capital spending to be scrutinised for value for money.
There is no WRC, and there is no sign of any WRC coming.

There could be all the tonnage in the world from industry in the West - it would still be more efficient to bring it by rail to ports on the East and South coasts and ship it from there to Europe than it would be to ship from Limerick.

For example - Foynes to Cherbourg is approx 490 nautical miles, compared to 412NM from Dublin, 342NM from Rosslare , 332NM from Cork or 330NM from Waterford. At the very best - Foynes is a 5 hours longer voyage than Dublin, and 8-9 hours longer than Cork, Waterford or Rosslare.

L1011

Greaney wrote: »

The plans for the Western Rail Corridor, with regard to securing EU funding are perhaps a lot bigger than folk realize. This is an extract from an article in the Western People

Minister Ryan said: “We need to consider this matter, not just as it relates to the section of the rail line between Athenry and Claremorris, but in the wider regional context. I would go ever further south and add to this the potential reopening of the Foynes freight rail line, which I understand is a prerequisite if Foynes is to get any support in developing as a European TEN-T international port, in that the port, in any such development, must have rail freight capability. That makes sense because Europe is moving towards rail freight as a significant part of our climate change agenda.”

In its submission, the IEA states: “It is becoming increasingly apparent and ever more urgent that Irish freight will be snarled up in any delays that occur in British ports from January 1 next, whatever the outcome of [Brexit] negotiations. Britain is not ready for the transport challenges of Brexit. Alternatives to the landbridge using direct shipping from Irish ports to France and the Netherlands will be required to keep our supply chains flowing.”

Calling these "plans" is a massive overstatement

They're desperate back of fag packet scratchings being done by Ryan because clearly the report says passenger use is unviable.

Forcing a few trains a week that are already using rail over the WRC will not justify reinstating it. Even a few new flows a week wouldn't.

And if it did, it'd only be reinstated to freight standard anyway - cut back weeds, replace any missing turnouts and any buried track, manual level crossings, no stations.

Might keep people who just want to see trains happy but there won't be passenger services.

dowlingm

Isambard wrote: »

if it's a question of reducing emissions, we'd need new locos .

or proceeding with the re-powering project that was kicked around at one point? Assuming 224 wasn’t a canary in the coal mine in respect of expected fleet lifespan, of course
https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/113006/0/0?returnUrl=&b=ETENDERS_SIMPLE

westtip

L1011 wrote: »

Calling these "plans" is a massive overstatement

They're desperate back of fag packet scratchings being done by Ryan because clearly the report says passenger use is unviable.

Forcing a few trains a week that are already using rail over the WRC will not justify reinstating it. Even a few new flows a week wouldn't.

And if it did, it'd only be reinstated to freight standard anyway - cut back weeds, replace any missing turnouts and any buried track, manual level crossings, no stations.

Might keep people who just want to see trains happy but there won't be passenger services.

This all comes from those absurd claims in the Dail recently that a thousand freight trains a year leave mayo for dublin and waterford, Calleary must have picked those figures out of the air is my guess and is trying to pull off the biggest con trick in years. I reckon he will get found out sooner or later and be left with egg on his face.

Jamie2k9

westtip wrote: »

This all comes from those absurd claims in the Dail recently that a thousand freight trains a year leave mayo for dublin and waterford, Calleary must have picked those figures out of the air is my guess and is trying to pull off the biggest con trick in years. I reckon he will get found out sooner or later and be left with egg on his face.

In pre-covid times its around 1,000 per year when you include return services...

What someone should ask Calleary is how does he propose to make rail freight viable and at the very least break even and has he a detailed cost/benefit analysis and what will be the subsidy cost to the taxpayer.

westtip

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

In pre-covid times its around 1,000 per year when you include return services...

What someone should ask Calleary is how does he propose to make rail freight viable and at the very least break even and has he a detailed cost/benefit analysis and what will be the subsidy cost to the taxpayer.

Calleary stated in the Dail there are one thousand trains a year leaving Mayo for Waterford and Dublin. No mention of round trip volumes he was absolutely clear on this he even said how many trucks it gets off the road!!! Any chance he got his facts wrong? I wonder? He wouldn't have exaggerated the figures and misled the Minister and the Dail would he?

andrewfaulk

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

In pre-covid times its around 1,000 per year when you include return services...

What someone should ask Calleary is how does he propose to make rail freight viable and at the very least break even and has he a detailed cost/benefit analysis and what will be the subsidy cost to the taxpayer.

It was never 1000 year, the average in round trips/train pairs(industry standard measurement) is/was,

IWT( Dublin/Ballina) 300/Annum
DFDS (Waterford/Ballina) 100/Annum
Coillte (Waterford/Ballina) 125/Annum

Even allowing for IWT operating at 9 trains per week, which has been done but isn't currently, he is off by a factor of 2..

And it in no way makes sense to route IWT via the WRC, so remove that from the equation and you have 250/trains a year to Waterford.. And the WRC is not the best routing from Claremorris to Waterford unless the south tipp line was also give a major upgrade

andrewfaulk

blackwhite wrote: »

There’s no business case to use West coast ports to ship to continental Europe. The cost and tome of sailing a vessel around Cork & Kerry outweighs any possible road or rail haulage savings.

The landbridge is attractive due to the time it takes to get from Dublin to North-West France (approx 20hrs). Any landbridge alternative will have to be from an East or South coast port to even get close to 24-25 hours to reach the same parts of France.

A rail link into the Port of Waterford, or adding the ability to handle unitised containers to Rosslare Port would be an actual effective solution to landbridge disruption from Brexit

And yet their are regular shipments from the Shannon Estuary to the UK, Europe and Scandanvia?

blackwhite

andrewfaulk wrote: »

And yet their are regular shipments from the Shannon Estuary to the UK, Europe and Scandanvia?

For non-perishables - the type of stuff that doesn't currently use the landbridge.


We had a poster claiming that extending the WRC to Foynes should be done to offer alternatives if there's landbridge delays due to Brexit. Read the full post instead of responding to bits pulled out of context

andrewfaulk

blackwhite wrote: »

For non-perishables - the type of stuff that doesn't currently use the landbridge.


We had a poster claiming that extending the WRC to Foynes should be done to offer alternatives if there's landbridge delays due to Brexit. Read the full post instead of responding to bits pulled out of context

Apologies, but I don't have the willpower to read every post in this thread.

Your comments did not read to me as if they were talking solely in the context of landbridge, particularly this one..

"There could be all the tonnage in the world from industry in the West - it would still be more efficient to bring it by rail to ports on the East and South coasts and ship it from there to Europe than it would be to ship from Limerick"

eastwest

westtip wrote: »

This all comes from those absurd claims in the Dail recently that a thousand freight trains a year leave mayo for dublin and waterford, Calleary must have picked those figures out of the air is my guess and is trying to pull off the biggest con trick in years. I reckon he will get found out sooner or later and be left with egg on his face.

The figure for all of Mayo is somewhere north of 300 freight trains annually, so I don't know where he got 1,000.
Maybe he added in the figures for Athenry-Galway? I wouldn't be the first time somebody used them to pad out a weak argument:):)

Isambard

added in passenger trains perhaps?

Jamie2k9

andrewfaulk wrote: »

It was never 1000 year, the average in round trips/train pairs(industry standard measurement) is/was,

IWT( Dublin/Ballina) 300/Annum
DFDS (Waterford/Ballina) 100/Annum
Coillte (Waterford/Ballina) 125/Annum

Even allowing for IWT operating at 9 trains per week, which has been done but isn't currently, he is off by a factor of 2..

And it in no way makes sense to route IWT via the WRC, so remove that from the equation and you have 250/trains a year to Waterford.. And the WRC is not the best routing from Claremorris to Waterford unless the south tipp line was also give a major upgrade

Yeah my rough cacl was x 6 IWT, x 3 Timber x 52 weeks and adding the return which was around 930 while not considering all the variables.

Looking at the website I can only assume he or someone did the calculation and included the returns based on what is published. Over 52 weeks its 1,144, no other reasonable way to come up with over 1,000 trains a year. Handed a peice of paper and probably just read it out in the Dail.

https://www.irishrail.ie/about-us/iarnrod-eireann-fleet/freight-fleet

Of course it doesn't make sense to run via WRC, if congestion in GDA is an issue you return to old evening/night scheduling. Problem solved and saving hundreds of millions!

Greenway all the way for this line.

westtip

eastwest wrote: »

The figure for all of Mayo is somewhere north of 300 freight trains annually, so I don't know where he got 1,000.
Maybe he added in the figures for Athenry-Galway? I wouldn't be the first time somebody used them to pad out a weak argument:):)

I reckon if he wasn't telling the truth and telling porkie pies to enhance a capital project for his own constituency he must have been misleading the minister and the Dail. That's pretty serious isn't it? Could he be bought to task on that? Afterall the Mayo press seem to have their heads up his arsene wenger believing everything he says and using what he says to publish very misleading stories. Surely when politicians refer to empirical measurable facts in the Dail they can be held accountable can't they? Is there anyway this can be done? Suppose someone got the actual figures from Irish Rail and Dara "i don't even play golf" Calleary was found to have misled the house would that be serious?

blackwhite

andrewfaulk wrote: »

Apologies, but I don't have the willpower to read every post in this thread.

Your comments did not read to me as if they were talking solely in the context of landbridge, particularly this one..

"There could be all the tonnage in the world from industry in the West - it would still be more efficient to bring it by rail to ports on the East and South coasts and ship it from there to Europe than it would be to ship from Limerick"

And now it’s an out of context snip from a post talking about using a rail-link from Charlestown and above to the ports. You dont get the concept of different posts addressing different points either - do you?

Foynes is suitable for non-perishables, and only for those produced in bulk, within a relatively small radius of the port. Once you get outside of that quite small radius, the additional sailing time and cost means that Cork, Waterford, Rosslare and even Dublin are better options in terms of cost and time.

eastwest

Isambard wrote: »

added in passenger trains perhaps?

In a debate that was about freight and nothing else?
He clearly stated that 1,000 freight trains leave Mayo every year, so either he was grossly exaggerating the numbers in order to persuade the Minister that there was a case for a second freight railway for Mayo, or he was blindly quoting grossly exaggerated figures fed to him by his handlers in that particular lobby group.
Either way, he got it horribly wrong, but I have no doubt that by now the Department officials will have put the Minister right on the reality.
Interestingly, the west on track lobbying is now all about freight, they appear to have accepted the blindingly obvious with regards to the most recent rail report, which Minister Ryan also alluded to in the Dail when he said that any argument for passengers north of Tuam will be difficult to win. However if WOT wants for some reason best known to themselves to lobby for a second freight railway to carry a small share of the 300+ trains leaving Mayo every year, they should start by getting their facts right. Wildly optimistic claims might have got them phase one of the WRC, but that kind of blather is too easily called out and won't keep them at the table.
Their local tame TD won't be too happy if they have fed him a load of horse manure and encouraged him to put it on the Dail record, and the Minister, once appraised of the facts, will certainly have a lot less trust in WOT than heretofore.

Pete_Cavan

I'd say someone told Calleary there are over 1,000 freight trains in and out of Mayo each year and by the time he stood up in the Dail, he had it in his head to was 1,000 trains out and that's what he said. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that his bias towards the project lead to him inadvertently getting his facts wrong, rather than intentionally misleading parliament.

I think we are all in agreement though that, even if the number of freight trains leaving Mayo pa was double what it actually is, reinstating the WRC has little benefits. I think it is fair to say that spending the €150m upgrading the existing network would offer more benefits to freight and passenger services to/from the west.

westtip

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I'd say someone told Calleary there are over 1,000 freight trains in and out of Mayo each year and by the time he stood up in the Dail, he had it in his head to was 1,000 trains out and that's what he said. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that his bias towards the project lead to him inadvertently getting his facts wrong, rather than intentionally misleading parliament.
.

If that is the case all he needs to do is make a statement in the Dail that he inadvertently misled the House, apologizes, and corrects the matter for the Minister and the members. He knows how to say sorry and put the record straight, but as it stands he has mislead the Dail. He needs to make that statement though.

IE 222

westtip wrote: »

If that is the case all he needs to do is make a statement in the Dail that he inadvertently misled the House, apologizes, and corrects the matter for the Minister and the members. He knows how to say sorry and put the record straight, but as it stands he has mislead the Dail. He needs to make that statement though.

Better still, you could stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

donvito99

IE 222 wrote: »

Better still, you could stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

An apt turn of phrase for this particular project.

IE 222

donvito99 wrote: »

An apt turn of phrase for this particular project.

Maybe so but trying to conjure up a Freight Gate scandal and implying a major capital project will be approved on the grounds of 1 TD's calculated number of freight trains instead of a commissioned study is rather pathetic.

westtip

IE 222 wrote: »

Better still, you could stop trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

He didn't tell the truth in the Dail, it is not a mountain out of a molehill, these things have a habit of gathering pace, if you look at the western media in particular the Mayo media on this; His one comment has led to a riot of misleading information for public consumption. Rose Conway Walsh, Eamon O'Cuiv and Dara Calleary all supported this nonsense freight argument that day in the Dail; Statements have a habit of becoming self perpetuating fact. The whole premise of the argument made by West on Track and the supporting TDs in the chamber that day, is based on a myth that a thousand trains a year already leave Mayo per annum, the actual figure is nearer to one third of that. All Dara Calleary has to do is state clearly in our Parliamentary Chamber, where he is supposed to tell the truth in regard to factual matters; And this is a matter of fact, a statement along these lines:

I just wish to correct the record, on September 24th I stated over a thousand freight trains a year leave Mayo for Dublin and Waterford, this statement was based on misleading information I had been given by West on Track, having been given the correct figures sourced from Irish Rail, I can confirm that on the day I made that statement, in the previous 12 months preceding the day of my statement the correct figure was 378 outbound trains, not 1000 as I stated I wish to apologise to the house for any misunderstanding that came from my comments.

....I am sure these figures are easily obtainable from Irish Rail if someone hasn't got them already.

That is all he has to do. No mountain, No molehill no fuss, and a level playing field.

IE 222

westtip wrote: »

He didn't tell the truth in the Dail, it is not a mountain out of a molehill, these things have a habit of gathering pace, if you look at the western media in particular the Mayo media on this; His one comment has led to a riot of misleading information published for public consumption. Rose Conway Walsh, Eamon O'Cuiv and Dara Calleary all supported this nonsense freight argument that day in the Dail; Statements have a habit of becoming self perpetuating fact. The whole premise of the argument made by West on Track and the supporting TDs in the chamber that day, is based on a myth that a thousand trains a year already leave Mayo per annum, the actual figure is nearer to one third of that. All Dara Calleary has to do is state clearly in our Parliamentary Chamber, where he is supposed to tell the truth in regard to factual matters; And this is a matter of fact, a statement along these lines:

I just wish to correct the record, on September 24th I stated over a thousand freight trains a year leave Mayo for Dublin and Waterford, this statement was based on misleading information I had been given by West on Track, having been given the correct figures sourced from Irish Rail, I can confirm that on the day I made that statement, in the previous 12 months preceding the day of my statement the correct figure was 378 outbound trains (or whatever the actual figure is)....I am sure these figures are easily obtainable from Irish Rail if someone hasn't got them already.

That is all he has to do. No mountain, No molehill no fuss, and a level playing field.

He could just add the word "arrive" to it as well and be done with it. Again you'd be very naive if you really think his comments are going to add any weight to a project of this scale been selected or not.

Any campaign focusing on such trivial matters is destined to fail. You probably inflicted more damage upon the campaign than he did by dishing out that level of tripe.

Carawaystick

westtip wrote: »

He didn't tell the truth in the Dail
....

I just wish to correct the record,
...


That is all he has to do. No mountain, No molehill no fuss, and a level playing field.

If I was getting het up about correcting the record, I'd get my own ducks in a row

The Deputy doesn't work in the Dail, they work in the Dáil

eastwest

IE 222 wrote: »

He could just add the word "arrive" to it as well and be done with it.

He'd still be wrong, with around 250 imaginary trains still on the record.

seekers

Could we get back to wondering how this line could open again. Remember the motorway to Galway from gort and the Waterford Dublin motorway don't pay for themselves either

eastwest

seekers wrote: »

Could we get back to wondering how this line could open again. Remember the motorway to Galway from gort and the Waterford Dublin motorway don't pay for themselves either

They do, if they're used.
Which sums up the problem with phase 1 of the wrc, and explains why it's not going any further. Any investment made with our money should be based on facts, not wishful thinking.
So on that note, maybe we could get back to wondering whether Calleary will correct the false information he gave to the Dail?

seekers

eastwest wrote: »

They do, if they're used.
Which sums up the problem with phase 1 of the wrc, and explains why it's not going any further. Any investment made with our money should be based on facts, not wishful thinking.
So on that note, maybe we could get back to wondering whether Calleary will correct the false information he gave to the Dail?

And what about the limerick tunnel Waterford motorway. M18? All built to front load connectivity

eastwest

seekers wrote: »

And what about the limerick tunnel Waterford motorway. M18? All built to front load connectivity

Waterford was another political decision, and not a smart one. The Dublin-Cork motorway should have routed via Kilkenny with a dual carriageway link to Waterford. It might be performing better than the WRC, but it was still an overkill for that route.
But thankfully these kinds of decisions,made in an era when we though we had unlimited money, are a thing of the past

end of the road

eastwest wrote: »

They do, if they're used.
Which sums up the problem with phase 1 of the wrc, and explains why it's not going any further. Any investment made with our money should be based on facts, not wishful thinking.
So on that note, maybe we could get back to wondering whether Calleary will correct the false information he gave to the Dail?

roads simply being used doesn't mean they necessarily automatically pay for themselves by virtue of the fact they are simply being used, it will depend on a number of factors i would imagine such as the pricing structure for usage among others, which would then determine if simple usage is enough to pay for itself.
phase 1 of the wrc is being used, the fact it doesn't pay for itself is just realism in terms of most passenger railways.
nobody in government has as yet stated that further phases definitely will or won't happen, forget about the last government's view as decisions change, so therefore nobody can say with any certainty what will or won't happen because we just do not know.
all investments are based on facts or political wishes, and this will be no different i would expect.
what Calleary stated is a complete non-issue, if he is incorrect then the minister likely already knows this anyway and if he has sense will have saw it for what it is, a tiny mistake which is not worth making an issue over.

westtip

IE 222 wrote: »

Any campaign focusing on such trivial matters is destined to fail. You probably inflicted more damage upon the campaign than he did by dishing out that level of tripe.

Lying in the Dail is not a trivial matter, nor should it be, asking him to correct his statement is simple; that is all. It is not pivotal to any campaign and as for damage to the greenway campaign, you are entitled to your views, however citizens are equally entitled to truthful statements, it just depends what kind of democracy you want to live in, its simple really, he was misled, probably by the lobbyists he supports, with misinformation which he may have thought was right, it was wrong, he needs to correct the Dail record. End of really.

IE 222

eastwest wrote: »

He'd still be wrong, with around 250 imaginary trains still on the record.

Well at least they'd be proven numbers unlike the imaginary up take the greenway will deliver.

IE 222

westtip wrote: »

Lying in the Dail is not a trivial matter, nor should it be, asking him to correct his statement is simple; that is all. It is not pivotal to any campaign and as for damage to the greenway campaign, you are entitled to your views, however citizens are equally entitled to truthful statements, it just depends what kind of democracy you want to live in, its simple really, he was misled, probably by the lobbyists he supports, with misinformation which he may have thought was right, it was wrong, he needs to correct the Dail record. End of really.

He didn't set out to lie. Its easily explained as to how he came to that figure and realistically it would be you left red faced rather than him.

westtip

IE 222 wrote: »

He didn't set out to lie. Its easily explained as to how he came to that figure and realistically it would be you left red faced rather than him.

No problem then so, lets just allow him to get away with telling porkies then so to suit the needs of him and his wee clan in the Dail to mislead the Minister. We can agree to disagree on this matter. he needs to retract his statement you think its trivial, ok then so, we disagree. end of, I would be more than happy to be red faced and expose his lies.

IE 222

eastwest wrote: »

They do, if they're used.
Which sums up the problem with phase 1 of the wrc, and explains why it's not going any further. Any investment made with our money should be based on facts, not wishful thinking.
So on that note, maybe we could get back to wondering whether Calleary will correct the false information he gave to the Dail?

Obviously depends on your agenda but if it wasn't for the WRC Athenry - Galway numbers would only be a fraction of what they are.

westtip

IE 222 wrote: »

Obviously depends on your agenda but if it wasn't for the WRC Athenry - Galway numbers would only be a fraction of what they are.

If the money had been spent on double tracking, Athlone to Galway, the Athenry Galway numbers could be just as much. You don't need a train starting in Limerick to increase usage of the Dublin Galway line form Athenry into Galway, you need investment in the Dublin-galway line to allow for stopping commuter services - Athlone to Galway and express services. A benefit accrued from the WRC is indeed the increased numbers using the more frequent service from Athenry to Galway, on the extant Dublin Galway line but that more frequent service could have been delivered with double tracking the main line from Athlone, it would have been of far more benefit to the region and would have helped Irish Rail really compete with the xpress bus services belting up and down the M6 every half an hour.

end of the road

westtip wrote: »

If the money had been spent on double tracking, Athlone to Galway, the Athenry Galway numbers could be just as much. You don't need a train starting in Limerick to increase usage of the Dublin Galway line form Athenry into Galway, you need investment in the Dublin-galway line to allow for stopping commuter services - Athlone to Galway and express services. A benefit accrued from the WRC is indeed the increased numbers using the more frequent service from Athenry to Galway, on the extant Dublin Galway line but that more frequent service could have been delivered with double tracking the main line from Athlone, it would have been of far more benefit to the region and would have helped Irish Rail really compete with the xpress bus services belting up and down the M6 every half an hour.

i believe on the galway corridor that irish rail are in fact very competitive with the express buses which have to belt up and down to gain any sort of slight competitiveness, and that's dispite the trains sprinting rather then belting.

IE 222

westtip wrote: »

If the money had been spent on double tracking, Athlone to Galway, the Athenry Galway numbers could be just as much. You don't need a train starting in Limerick to increase usage of the Dublin Galway line form Athenry into Galway, you need investment in the Dublin-galway line to allow for stopping commuter services - Athlone to Galway and express services. A benefit accrued from the WRC is indeed the increased numbers using the more frequent service from Athenry to Galway, on the extant Dublin Galway line but that more frequent service could have been delivered with double tracking the main line from Athlone, it would have been of far more benefit to the region and would have helped Irish Rail really compete with the xpress bus services belting up and down the M6 every half an hour.

No it wouldn't. The WRC allowed the Limerick stock to work services into Galway. It also allows them to run local services during turn around times. IE doesn't have the stock to be sending ICRs to do local services in Galway. If you don't need a train starting in Limerick how would one stating in Dublin offer better benefits. The stock is based in Limerick. In order to meet local Galway demand IE would need to be running services from Dublin at 5:30am.

Double tracking the line would of cost many more multiples than the WRC and offer very little benefit without doubling to Portarlington. Even when the line is eventually doubled Galway local services will remain tied in with WRC services one way or another. The WRC allows IE to maximize fleet utilisation and I'd imagine Phase 3 will do the same with Westport and Ballina.

IE 222

westtip wrote: »

No problem then so, lets just allow him to get away with telling porkies then so to suit the needs of him and his wee clan in the Dail to mislead the Minister. We can agree to disagree on this matter. he needs to retract his statement you think its trivial, ok then so, we disagree. end of, I would be more than happy to be red faced and expose his lies.

Fair enough but I think it just shows the strength of your campaign if that's the carry on you've to resort to.

ezstreet5

westtip wrote: »

No problem then so, lets just allow him to get away with telling porkies then so to suit the needs of him and his wee clan in the Dail to mislead the Minister. We can agree to disagree on this matter. he needs to retract his statement you think its trivial, ok then so, we disagree. end of, I would be more than happy to be red faced and expose his lies.

It goes both ways. I've quoted the following Leo Varadkar Dáil statement from 14th Feb 2018 many times:

The commitment on the western rail corridor in the programme for Government is not to build or complete it but to carry out such an appraisal of such a benefit to cost ratio. The last time it was done it came out negatively at a cost of 100 against six - 100 being the cost and six the benefit. Most rail projects come out around 100 to 80. It did not come out of that well and had a negative net present value over 30 years.

We all know that the "last time" was the 2030 Rail Network Strategy Review (2011) prepared by AECOM/Goodbody. The actual scores reported were 61/100 for Phase 2 and 37/100 for Phase 3 and not 6/100.

westtip

IE 222 wrote: »

Fair enough but I think it just shows the strength of your campaign if that's the carry on you've to resort to.

La di da.

westtip

IE 222 wrote: »

The WRC allows IE to maximize fleet utilisation and I'd imagine Phase 3 will do the same with Westport and Ballina.

Anyway as the Minister for freight transport said on Sept 24th: "If we try to win this project on the basis of it being a commuting route from Tuam or Claremorris to Galway, an argument based on those numbers will be difficult to win”

.....and as the passenger service argument now appears to be lost and is probably dead and buried by the EY report there will be no passenger services on this route, so I don't follow your line of argument about phase 3 bringing greater fleet utilization. Hey ho.

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

It goes both ways. I've quoted the following Leo Varadkar Dáil statement from 14th Feb 2018 many times:



We all know that the "last time" was the 2030 Rail Network Strategy Review (2011) prepared by AECOM/Goodbody. The actual scores reported were 61/100 for Phase 2 and 37/100 for Phase 3 and not 6/100.

So even if LV was wrong, the scores were well below what is required 80/100, so what has changed on that front? to make it remotely near the required figure disregarding what LV stated?