Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

eastwest

Isambard wrote: »

but presumably the end result is no Greenway for the foreseeable future.

Yes, no anything between athenry and claremorris, except for a 'live horse, and you'll get grass' bit of can kicking with a 20 year horizon. Greenway alluded to on the rest, the bit between claremorris and collooney.
However only the sligo section is certain on the bit north of claremorris. West on track appear able to continue to block development on the mayo section north of claremorris.
To give credit where it's due, the wot lobby has successfully continued its policy of deflecting all investment away from that asset. In 20 years time, when it has disappeared into the undergrowth, it will be interesting to see what their real strategy was.

marno21

The rest of the article mentions Ryan wanting a rail link to Shannon Airport and a suburban rail line in Limerick along the Foynes line out to Adare. Meanwhile he wants the Cork Luas to initially be a BRT later upgraded to Luas.

Not a whole pile of consistency in the application of logic there I'm afraid.

Del.Monte

Yes, and Ernst & Young - sorry E.Y - are such a credible company to carry out such a report, I wouldn't trust them to make me a cup of tea.



https://www.wsj.com/articles/string-of-firms-that-imploded-have-something-in-common-ernst-young-audited-them-11602863319


Ernst & Young has been in accounting scandals - Bank of Credit and Commerce International (1991), Informix Corporation (1996), Sybase (1997), Cendant (1998), One.Tel (2001), AOL (2002), HealthSouth Corporation (2003), Chiquita Brands International (2004), Lehman Brothers (2010), Sino-Forest Corporation (2011) and Olympus Corporation (2011).

SEC barred the firm from accepting new clients for six months
In 2004, Ernst & Young was punished for forming highly profitable business with one of its audit clients, PeopleSoft. As a result, the firm was barred by the SEC from accepting any new publicly traded companies as audit clients for six months. ......

Del.Monte

Del.Monte wrote: »

Yes, and Ernst & Young - sorry E.Y - are such a credible company to carry out such a report, I wouldn't trust them to make me a cup of tea.



https://www.wsj.com/articles/string-of-firms-that-imploded-have-something-in-common-ernst-young-audited-them-11602863319


Ernst & Young has been in accounting scandals - Bank of Credit and Commerce International (1991), Informix Corporation (1996), Sybase (1997), Cendant (1998), One.Tel (2001), AOL (2002), HealthSouth Corporation (2003), Chiquita Brands International (2004), Lehman Brothers (2010), Sino-Forest Corporation (2011) and Olympus Corporation (2011).

SEC barred the firm from accepting new clients for six months
In 2004, Ernst & Young was punished for forming highly profitable business with one of its audit clients, PeopleSoft. As a result, the firm was barred by the SEC from accepting any new publicly traded companies as audit clients for six months. ......

Jaysus, you're really reaching now

CatInABox

Del.Monte wrote: »

Yes, and Ernst & Young - sorry E.Y - are such a credible company to carry out such a report, I wouldn't trust them to make me a cup of tea.

Do you have a similar problem with Jaspers, who also found that reopening the line was pointless?

eastwest

marno21 wrote: »

The rest of the article mentions Ryan wanting a rail link to Shannon Airport and a suburban rail line in Limerick along the Foynes line out to Adare. Meanwhile he wants the Cork Luas to initially be a BRT later upgraded to Luas.

Not a whole pile of consistency in the application of logic there I'm afraid.

As somebody said on twitter, he's talking about building a line for freight to serve heavy industry that may locate in ballina in a couple of decades because they'll go there for the power from the windfarms. It seems to have escaped him that power can be transmitted to where it's needed, you don't have to build factories beside power stations, or indeed windfarms. The fact that you need access to the national grid anyway for whenever the wind isn't blowing across your local windfarm appears equally lost on him, a worrying notion since he's supposd to be the minister for energy. Logic? Not much!

eastwest

eastwest wrote: »

As somebody said on twitter, he's talking about building a line for freight to serve heavy industry that may locate in ballina in a couple of decades because they'll go there for the power from the windfarms. It seems to have escaped him that power can be transmitted to where it's needed, you don't have to build factories beside power stations, or indeed windfarms. The fact that you need access to the national grid anyway for whenever the wind isn't blowing across your local windfarm appears equally lost on him, a worrying notion since he's supposd to be the minister for energy. Logic? Not much!

My reading of it is if the Northwest becomes a major energy hub the industry that supports that (engineering and maintenance, i guess potentially manufacture of turbines etc) could be based in the Northwest and would benefit from the rail line. It's not necessarily saying wind-energy will lead to non-related industry getting built there.

eastwest

CatInABox wrote: »

Do you have a similar problem with Jaspers, who also found that reopening the line was pointless?

Or with the WDC report on rail freight, which found no need for additional capacity.

eastwest

Deleted User wrote: »

My reading of it is if the Northwest becomes a major energy hub the industry that supports that (engineering and maintenance, i guess potentially manufacture of turbines etc) could be based in the Northwest and would benefit from the rail line. It's not necessarily saying wind-energy will lead to non-related industry getting built there.

He said the same thing in the Dail in September, it was related to finding a replacement for the Asahi factory in Ballina. He was very much talking about heavy industry that required clean water and power, he was talking about a similar type plant to Asahi.
It's not going to happen, obviously. Heavy industry won't locate to mayo where there is no big pool of skilled labour and where even the minimum wage is still higher than anything paid to workers in China or Indonesia or Vietnam.
The notion that a major factory would locate in Ballina because it is beside a windfarm is so daft as to be unworthy of comment. Most people understand the concept of a national grid, that a plant doesn't just plug into a wind turbine and stop working when the wind dies down. They may well get their incinerator/'power plant' in Ballina some time in the distant future but there is no way that any cabinet will approve a plan to build a dedicated freight line to Foynes to carry imported waste to Ballina to fuel it. Remember that the midlands peat stations have closed down because it wasn't acceptable to import biomass/waste to fuel them.

eastwest

eastwest wrote: »

He said the same thing in the Dail in September, it was related to finding a replacement for the Asahi factory in Ballina. He was very much talking about heavy industry that required clean water and power, he was talking about a similar type plant to Asahi.
It's not going to happen, obviously. Heavy industry won't locate to mayo where there is no big pool of skilled labour and where even the minimum wage is still higher than anything paid to workers in China or Indonesia or Vietnam.
The notion that a major factory would locate in Ballina because it is beside a windfarm is so daft as to be unworthy of comment. Most people understand the concept of a national grid, that a plant doesn't just plug into a wind turbine and stop working when the wind dies down. They may well get their incinerator/'power plant' in Ballina some time in the distant future but there is no way that any cabinet will approve a plan to build a dedicated freight line to Foynes to carry imported waste to Ballina to fuel it. Remember that the midlands peat stations have closed down because it wasn't acceptable to import biomass/waste to fuel them.

The Northwest is an industrial black-spot alright, the question needs to be do we accept that is how it must be or do we try and develop infrastructure to allow the region grow. I don't think rail will ever be a key part of that btw, just think it's worth having a conversation about proper regional development in Ireland. Rail is probably gone for good from that part of Ireland.

If I could (and I appreciate this is off topic so I'll leave it) I'd make every effort to turn both Athlone and Sligo into cities of 100k or so, and if rail is needed to achieve that I'd try and provide it. Otherwise the east/west divide in Ireland is only going to get worse.

eastwest

Deleted User wrote: »

The Northwest is an industrial black-spot alright, the question needs to be do we accept that is how it must be or do we try and develop infrastructure to allow the region grow. I don't think rail will ever be a key part of that btw, just think it's worth having a conversation about proper regional development in Ireland. Rail is probably gone for good from that part of Ireland.

If I could (and I appreciate this is off topic so I'll leave it) I'd make every effort to turn both Athlone and Sligo into cities of 100k or so, and if rail is needed to achieve that I'd try and provide it. Otherwise the east/west divide in Ireland is only going to get worse.

You're dead right of course, development of sligo would lift Ballina, and the N17 is the piece of infrastructure most needed, as well as modernising the sligo-dublin line and the N4.
But the rail lobbyists can't get out if their trenches and see the logic of that. It's rail or nothing on the wrc; even if that means 'nothing,' they'll be very happy. Anything but what they call 'Dublin 4 types on bikes.'

westtip

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Sunday Business Post reports WRC reviews rule out reopening. I am not subscribed so cannot see full article.

https://www.businesspost.ie/transport/plans-revealed-for-new-and-upgraded-rail-lines-in-cork-limerick-and-waterford-ba79d6d7

Not sure if this one from the IT has been posted up here yet, funny how they sneak out all this bad news for West on Track over Christmas!

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/eamon-ryan-says-case-for-extending-western-rail-corridor-to-claremorris-is-weak-1.4446069?mode=amp&fbclid=IwAR0H4ffM0mBrDBYXErQkH8ynpGqVb7fEpGrTK967yfFP-ULQZM2X83jsPso

Del.Monte

westtip wrote: »

Not sure if this one from the IT has been posted up here yet, funny how they sneak out all this bad news for West on Track over Christmas!

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/eamon-ryan-says-case-for-extending-western-rail-corridor-to-claremorris-is-weak-1.4446069?mode=amp&fbclid=IwAR0H4ffM0mBrDBYXErQkH8ynpGqVb7fEpGrTK967yfFP-ULQZM2X83jsPso

It's almost a carbon copy of the other equally useless article which leave 'all' of us frustrated. Ryan & Co. are too busy virtue signalling on social issues to do anything about transport.

westtip

Del.Monte wrote: »

It's almost a carbon copy of the other equally useless article which leave 'all' of us frustrated. Ryan & Co. are too busy virtue signalling on social issues to do anything about transport.

In truth yes it is lazy Christmas journalism - just reprint the press release, but it is very frustrating when a report which was welecomed at the time by West on Track and by Sean Canney who was one of the main driving forces behind cannot just be accepted. There was an agreed process, do the report have it reviewed and accept what it says, now the report doesn't say what the rail advocates wanted to hear we have to be put through another excruciating process.

serfboard

westtip wrote: »

funny how they sneak out all this bad news for West on Track over Christmas!

I’m not sure that WOT really see this as bad news. Another review is coming, meaning no go-ahead for the Greenway - I think that they might be happy enough with that.

mayo.mick

How many reports is that now, that says the closed railway is not viable? How many more reports are needed? How much taxpayers money has now been spent in total, on all these reports? I think prime time investigates needs to have a look at this??

eastwest

mayo.mick wrote: »

How many reports is that now, that says the closed railway is not viable? How many more reports are needed? How much taxpayers money has now been spent in total, on all these reports? I think prime time investigates needs to have a look at this??

They don't actually need another report. The Western Development Commission already carried out an exercise where they engaged consultants to look at whether there was a need for a second freight line for Mayo, but they found no case for one. So the government and the Minister already have the information.
If you look at the Dail transcript for September 24th, it becomes clearer. Deputies Dara Calleary, Eamon O'Cuiv and Sean Canney comprised the west on track lobby in the chamber, and sinn fein had their own presence, as part of a set piece to read more of their nonsense into the record. It was clear that WOT had already met the minister, and he was under pressure to talk up the wrc, even though he knew at that stage that the two rail reports found against it. He came out with some really off the wall stuff, including a wish that another Asahi could be opened in Ballina and might need a line to Foynes!
They are constantly pressuring Ryan, and his not strong enough to tell them to eff off. So, despite already having a freight report, and despite two rail reports making a nonsense of the whole rail project, he throws them a sop of yet another report to keep them off his back. It's an extreme form of can-kicking.
That's all the west is going to get, reports. Nor greenway, definitely no railway, but he's giving western TDs what they want, more reports.

ezstreet5

Personally, I want to see the report released. A few filtered quotes from the Executive Summary won't change anyone's mind, nor mine. Other folk here were primed to cry Fudge! if the conclusions disagreed with their view (and I reserve the same right). One would think that a €500k report would be quite extensive, and perhaps even authoritative. So let's see it...the methodology, assumptions, cost calculations...the whole thing! The questions I will be asking are:

• Was proper consideration given to Tuam-Galway bus and private vehicle commuters, or was the M17/M6 route considered an outcompeting solution prohibiting mode-shift?
  
• To what degree was the Galway Outer City Bypass considered to be a realized project favoring vehicular transport?
  
• To what degree was BusConnects relied upon, including expanded bus lanes on the Dublin Road from Galway?
  
• Were regional population and job growth forecasts properly considered, including transit oriented development opportunities in Tuan, Athenry, and Galway?
  
• Was proper consideration given to the benefits of restoring Tuam Station as a multi-modal transit facility?
  
• Was proper consideration give to benefits to the elderly and disabled?
  
• Were environmental concerns properly considered, including the potential for electrification or battery-electric rolling stock?
  
• Are the cost estimates believable, and were they arrived at using industry-accepted methodology (or were they inflated to avoid the potential embarrassment of a cost overrun)?
  
• Does the report comment on the need for an expanded scope (i.e., whether including Claremorris to Collooney and perhaps beyond, a level of freight and/or excursion trains, or a side-by-side greenway would change the conclusion)?
  
• Does the overall level of effort, insight, and quality of the report warrant the €500k price tag?

These are the questions I will be asking as I read it. Hopefully soon.

Del.Monte

A report con the line could have been done by any half decent Irish University and the €450,000 saved used for something worthwhile other than funding some overpaid suits in EY.

Pete_Cavan

Del.Monte wrote: »

A report con the line could have been done by any half decent Irish University and the €450,000 saved used for something worthwhile other than funding some overpaid suits in EY.

And had any half decent Irish University done the report for €50k and inevitably found against reinstating the railway, you'd be saying the report isn't worth the paper it's printed on and they should have gotten a proper consultant to do it (or even two, as has been done).

ezstreet5

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

And had any half decent Irish University done the report for €50k and inevitably found against reinstating the railway, you'd be saying the report isn't worth the paper it's printed on and they should have gotten a proper consultant to do it (or even two, as has been done).

Let's wait to see the facts and matters which were considered, and those which were not.

Del.Monte

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

And had any half decent Irish University done the report for €50k and inevitably found against reinstating the railway, you'd be saying the report isn't worth the paper it's printed on and they should have gotten a proper consultant to do it (or even two, as has been done).

Untrue actually, I have a track record - sorry - of being against consultant's reports and not just on railways. This country is bedevilled by the lack of will by those at the top to get the finger out and get on with projects - far easier to commission another report and kick the can down the road. I don't know why Eamonn Ryan is so loathe to push big decisions as he may never get another chance.


As I've said on this forum previously, I have travelled the line in both directions quite a number of times and so don't need a tick in my Letts' Trackbashers Guide so I've no vested interest in what happens to it.

Pete_Cavan

Del.Monte wrote: »

Untrue actually, I have a track record - sorry - of being against consultant's reports and not just on railways. This country is bedevilled by the lack of will by those at the top to get the finger out and get on with projects - far easier to commission another report and kick the can down the road. I don't know why Eamonn Ryan is so loathe to push big decisions as he may never get another chance.

In that case you should accept the findings of these reports, rather than "getting the excuses in early" before they are even published.

It is clear that the cost of extending the WRC is going to far exceed the benefits of doing so. The only decision that can be made is that it is not going to happen for a very long time, possibly never. These reports only serve to give excuses to avoid coming out and saying that. The only reason not to do so is to satisfy a few politicians who have built careers on promising something they can't possibly deliver.

Ireland 2040 contained some vague wording about examining the possibility of extending WRC, that has been done and the updated version should confirm that WRC will not be funded before 2040. Anything else will just keep the reports merry-go-round spinning while the asset remains unused and deteriorates for decades. You will no doubt complain about the money spent on these reports while also supporting the reason the reports are being prepared (to artificially keep alive the notion that rail services might be reinstated).

Jamie2k9

Del.Monte wrote: »

Untrue actually, I have a track record - sorry - of being against consultant's reports and not just on railways. This country is bedevilled by the lack of will by those at the top to get the finger out and get on with projects - far easier to commission another report and kick the can down the road. I don't know why Eamonn Ryan is so loathe to push big decisions as he may never get another chance.


As I've said on this forum previously, I have travelled the line in both directions quite a number of times and so don't need a tick in my Letts' Trackbashers Guide so I've no vested interest in what happens to it.

This is bull. If I offered my expert services for free you still wouldn't like the outcome unless it got the go ahead.

Not event the fake submissions swayed the EY report

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Personally, I want to see the report released. A few filtered quotes from the Executive Summary won't change anyone's mind, nor mine. Other folk here were primed to cry Fudge! if the conclusions disagreed with their view (and I reserve the same right). One would think that a €500k report would be quite extensive, and perhaps even authoritative. So let's see it...the methodology, assumptions, cost calculations...the whole thing! The questions I will be asking are:

• Was proper consideration given to Tuam-Galway bus and private vehicle commuters, or was the M17/M6 route considered an outcompeting solution prohibiting mode-shift?
  
• To what degree was the Galway Outer City Bypass considered to be a realized project favoring vehicular transport?
  
• To what degree was BusConnects relied upon, including expanded bus lanes on the Dublin Road from Galway?
  
• Were regional population and job growth forecasts properly considered, including transit oriented development opportunities in Tuan, Athenry, and Galway?
  
• Was proper consideration given to the benefits of restoring Tuam Station as a multi-modal transit facility?
  
• Was proper consideration give to benefits to the elderly and disabled?
  
• Were environmental concerns properly considered, including the potential for electrification or battery-electric rolling stock?
  
• Are the cost estimates believable, and were they arrived at using industry-accepted methodology (or were they inflated to avoid the potential embarrassment of a cost overrun)?
  
• Does the report comment on the need for an expanded scope (i.e., whether including Claremorris to Collooney and perhaps beyond, a level of freight and/or excursion trains, or a side-by-side greenway would change the conclusion)?
  
• Does the overall level of effort, insight, and quality of the report warrant the €500k price tag?

These are the questions I will be asking as I read it. Hopefully soon.

Good points yes we all want to see the report and all versions that were submitted, the original brief by the way (attached) did clearly ask for an assement of freight, there has been no mention of what EY said on this, this is an extract from the brief given in the tender process:

Demand Projections (Passenger & Freight)
The appraisal must be underpinned by a robust demand analysis for both passenger and rail freight bearing in mind competing road network developments and the potential role of
alternative modes.
Two types of demand will need to be estimated:
(i) Diverted demand
This is demand on the new services that is expected to shift from other modes to rail.
(ii) Latent demand
This is new travel demand which is the result of a transformative enhancement to transport
access.

ezstreet5

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

In that case you should accept the findings of these reports, rather than "getting the excuses in early" before they are even published.

It is clear that the cost of extending the WRC is going to far exceed the benefits of doing so. The only decision that can be made is that it is not going to happen for a very long time, possibly never. These reports only serve to give excuses to avoid coming out and saying that. The only reason not to do so is to satisfy a few politicians who have built careers on promising something they can't possibly deliver.

Ireland 2040 contained some vague wording about examining the possibility of extending WRC, that has been done and the updated version should confirm that WRC will not be funded before 2040. Anything else will just keep the reports merry-go-round spinning while the asset remains unused and deteriorates for decades. You will no doubt complain about the money spent on these reports while also supporting the reason the reports are being prepared (to artificially keep alive the notion that rail services might be reinstated).

I'd hate to have to live in this cloud of cynicism; it must be awful. There are no published findings or costs to review or accept (or reject) so far. Maybe soon. We are waiting for those, and until we see them, nothing is "clear." When will rural Ireland finally understand that their "few local politicians" actually hold very little power? Perhaps we just need people to blame for our unhappiness?

And when will we realize that the sums of money for studies (and even projects) are comparatively small? Why are we being so stingy regarding projects in our region that might be marginally cost-effective? I'm sure the Exchequer is appreciative of Western folk's scrutiny and rejection of the spend!

And why the false panic that the permanent way and embankment are somehow "deteriorating" or disappearing? I doubt anyone has actually applied for adverse possession, and even if they did and were successful, is there not authority to CPO the land back (in those very rare cases)?

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

There are no published findings or costs to review or accept (or reject) so far. Maybe soon. We are waiting for those, and until we see them, nothing is "clear."

This is not some conjecture from some TD who claims to have seen the report given to him/her through the back door via a civil servant, its the Minister of Transport now publicly saying the case is very weak for the railway, to say nothing is clear, is simply ignoring the main player in this game, The Minister for Transport. Even the Western people has covered this story. To try and kid yourself that nothing is clear is just an act of self denial.

It is as clear as you can imagine at this stage, the reports don't say what the rail lobby longed to hear and the next phase, the new freight review is purely clutching at the last vestige of hope. That is abundantly clear!

ezstreet5

westtip wrote: »

This is not some conjecture from some TD who claims to have seen the report given to him/her through the back door via a civil servant, its the Minister of Transport now publicly saying the case is very weak for the railway, to say nothing is clear, is simply ignoring the main player in this game, The Minister for Transport. Even the Western people has covered this story. To try and kid yourself that nothing is clear is just an act of self denial.

It is as clear as you can imagine at this stage, the reports don't say what the rail lobby longed to hear and the next phase, the new freight review is purely clutching at the last vestige of hope. That is abundantly clear!

I'm a details kind of person, and am paid handsomely to be that. I don't know what else is on Minister Ryan's plate, or how much time he has spent reviewing this €500k report, so no, nothing is clear yet. Sorry, conclusion jumpers. Western People? Wha?

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

I'm a details kind of person, and am paid handsomely to be that. I don't know what else is on Minister Ryan's plate, or how much time he has spent reviewing this €500k report, so no, nothing is clear yet. Sorry, conclusion jumpers. Western People? Wha?

Well he has had it long enough to review, he claims he got it in June, apparently the report he got in June was the revised report from EY which was originally sent to the department in November 2019, and was sent back for further changes, the original report they sent to the department in 2019 will make for interesting reading, Anyway one would imagine the devil in the detail has been fine toothcombed in the department. Nobody is jumping to conclusionsm, we are just quoting the minister that is a now a very weak case. My comment about the Western people is simple, that publication is an avid supporter of West on Track and never publish the remotest bit of bad news about the railway, the fact they put the ministers comments on the front page would suggest they know the game is up, but enjoy reading the report when it comes through go through the detail, I am glad you get paid well for going through detail but a strange comment to make on a public forum.

ezstreet5

westtip wrote: »

Well he has had it long enough to review, he claims he got it in June, apparently the report he got in June was the revised report from EY which was originally sent to the department in November 2019, and was sent back for further changes, the original report they sent to the department in 2019 will make for interesting reading, Anyway one would imagine the devil in the detail has been fine toothcombed in the department. Nobody is jumping to conclusionsm, we are just quoting the minister that is a now a very weak case. My comment about the Western people is simple, that publication is an avid supporter of West on Track and never publish the remotest bit of bad news about the railway, the fact they put the ministers comments on the front page would suggest they know the game is up, but enjoy reading the report when it comes through go through the detail, I am glad you get paid well for going through detail but a strange comment to make on a public forum.

I don't care about drafts or revisions. I don't care about the publication "Western People."

I do care about the methodology, assumptions, and underlying data. And I want to review those, and not just rely upon Minister Ryan's assessment.

Also, sorry for having a job in this field.

mayo.mick

ezstreet5 wrote: »

I'd hate to have to live in this cloud of cynicism; it must be awful. There are no published findings or costs to review or accept (or reject) so far. Maybe soon. We are waiting for those, and until we see them, nothing is "clear." When will rural Ireland finally understand that their "few local politicians" actually hold very little power? Perhaps we just need people to blame for our unhappiness?

And when will we realize that the sums of money for studies (and even projects) are comparatively small? Why are we being so stingy regarding projects in our region that might be marginally cost-effective? I'm sure the Exchequer is appreciative of Western folk's scrutiny and rejection of the spend!

And why the false panic that the permanent way and embankment are somehow "deteriorating" or disappearing? I doubt anyone has actually applied for adverse possession, and even if they did and were successful, is there not authority to CPO the land back (in those very rare cases)?

:rolleyes:



N17 crossing at Belaghy Charlestown, on the Mayo/Sligo border. You can just see the track on the road....

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.965745,-8.7952646,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJO_XZRcIVIRwfZBeZK3Ntw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

mayo.mick

ezstreet5 wrote: »

I'd hate to have to live in this cloud of cynicism; it must be awful. There are no published findings or costs to review or accept (or reject) so far. Maybe soon. We are waiting for those, and until we see them, nothing is "clear." When will rural Ireland finally understand that their "few local politicians" actually hold very little power? Perhaps we just need people to blame for our unhappiness?

And when will we realize that the sums of money for studies (and even projects) are comparatively small? Why are we being so stingy regarding projects in our region that might be marginally cost-effective? I'm sure the Exchequer is appreciative of Western folk's scrutiny and rejection of the spend!

And why the false panic that the permanent way and embankment are somehow "deteriorating" or disappearing? I doubt anyone has actually applied for adverse possession, and even if they did and were successful, is there not authority to CPO the land back (in those very rare cases)?

ezstreet5

mayo.mick wrote: »

Not that brown fence again! That represents perhaps a €5k settlement with the owner to refrain from initiating an adverse possession claim (which if successful, would be CPOd right back). The first represents no added cost other than refurbishing the line and a level crossing.

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Not that brown fence again! That represents perhaps a €5k settlement with the owner to refrain from initiating an adverse possession claim (which if successful, would be CPOd right back). The first represents no added cost other than refurbishing the line and a level crossing.

There are plenty more examples, the point is the greenway will give the chance to secure the alignment permanently now, tidy things up if you like for the politicians in 30 or 40 years time that actually may want to open the railway uip, and put it to good use between now and then. Lets not forget the bridge taken down at Ballyglunin, and various other infringements, you may not like seeing the brown fence again but it happens to be truth the whole way along the line, and BTW if memory serves me right over 350 railway crossings on the section Claremorris to Collooneym but true lets see the detail of the report, it will be interesting to see what it says about freight as well and if there is really any need to look at that issue again, it was afterall part of the 500k brief to look at freight, maybe it was redacted from the original report sent to Lord Ross and ER has not seen it. Who knows but we need to see all versions of the report from start to finish, just as we did on the greenway strategy, in which the plan for a greenway on the entire route was removed from the national greenway strategy once it had been seen by Lord Ross and his sidekick Canney. Hey ho on we go but more reason to be optimistic about 2021 than West on Track do

ezstreet5

westtip wrote: »

There are plenty more examples, the point is the greenway will give the chance to secure the alignment permanently now, tidy things up if you like for the politicians in 30 or 40 years time that actually may want to open the railway uip, and put it to good use between now and then. Lets not forget the bridge taken down at Ballyglunin, and various other infringements, you may not like seeing the brown fence again but it happens to be truth the whole way along the line, and BTW if memory serves me right over 350 railway crossings on the section Claremorris to Collooneym but true lets see the detail of the report, it will be interesting to see what it says about freight as well and if there is really any need to look at that issue again, it was afterall part of the 500k brief to look at freight, maybe it was redacted from the original report sent to Lord Ross and ER has not seen it. Who knows but we need to see all versions of the report from start to finish, just as we did on the greenway strategy, in which the plan for a greenway on the entire route was removed from the national greenway strategy once it had been seen by Lord Ross and his sidekick Canney. Hey ho on we go but more reason to be optimistic about 2021 than West on Track do

The rail versus trail dilemma is neither new nor limited to this line. Similar debates occur the world over. However, the concept of "railbanking" simply doesn't work. It's roots are in a bygone era predating walking and cycling advocacy. It can't be argued that spending €15 million on greenway that might ultimately be removed is good public policy. Nor would it even be politically possible to do that without causing massive discord in the community.

The best (and least expensive) method for preserving the right of way is to run an inspection car or speedswing along the the line once per year, perform minimal maintenance and clearing, and aggressively prosecute encroachment. It doesn't get you a temporary greenway, but that's what's done. My point is that CIE have the authority to acquire land (or reacquire it) if needed. It's not the end of the world is someone successfully squats the line.

As for the Ballyglunin bridge, don't get me started! We saw the same foolish mindset and backwards politics win out. "Don't spend the money here, it's a waste!" And now there is no bridge for either option. Brilliant!

eastwest

Del.Monte wrote: »

A report con the line could have been done by any half decent Irish University and the €450,000 saved used for something worthwhile other than funding some overpaid suits in EY.

Or they could have used any of the other reports, but this wasn't about that, of about value for money either.
This was part of Sean Canney's price for supporting a minority government, nothing to do with reality.

ezstreet5

eastwest wrote: »

Or they could have used any of the other reports, but this wasn't about that, of about value for money either.
This was part of Sean Canney's price for supporting a minority government, nothing to do with reality.

It's a heavy yoke borne by the Irish, where everything disagreeable must be assigned to a politician.

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

As for the Ballyglunin bridge, don't get me started! We saw the same foolish mindset and backwards politics win out. "Don't spend the money here, it's a waste!" And now there is no bridge for either option. Brilliant!

Shed no tears a pedestrian crossing will suffice.

ezstreet5

westtip wrote: »

Shed no tears a pedestrian crossing will suffice.

Folk were actively campaigning against reinstating that bridge, which would have been usable for either option. Those same folk also claiming that they want to preserve the line. There's a serious disconnect in their mindset.

eastwest

ezstreet5 wrote: »

It can't be argued that spending €15 million on greenway that might ultimately be removed is good public policy. Nor would it even be politically possible to do that without causing massive discord in the community.

The best (and least expensive) method for preserving the right of way is to run an inspection car or speedswing along the the line once per year,

Strictly speaking, not true. Which surprises me, given your undoubted ability to analyse figures and draw clear conclusions, but you missed a salient piece of data on this one.
When the cost-benefit analysis was carried out in Sligo for the greenway from Bellaghy/Charlestown to Collooney, it found that the payback to the exchequer in general would be around four years if the greenway was built on the track bed, or about twice that if it was built alongside the closed railway. I'm open to correction on the exact timescale, but it was of that order.
Now, if the same yardstick was to be used for the remainder of the closed line from Charlestown to Athenry, then unless the timeline for the return of rail travel to this route was less than the most optimistic scenario of twenty or thirty years, there is a potential return on the investment of four or five hundred percent, depending on when the work starts and finishes.

ezstreet5

eastwest wrote: »

Strictly speaking, not true. Which surprises me, given your undoubted ability to analyse figures and draw clear conclusions, but you missed a salient piece of data on this one.
When the cost-benefit analysis was carried out in Sligo for the greenway from Bellaghy/Charlestown to Collooney, it found that the payback to the exchequer in general would be around four years if the greenway was built on the track bed, or about twice that if it was built alongside the closed railway. I'm open to correction on the exact timescale, but it was of that order.
Now, if the same yardstick was to be used for the remainder of the closed line from Charlestown to Athenry, then unless the timeline for the return of rail travel to this route was less than the most optimistic scenario of twenty or thirty years, there is a potential return on the investment of four or five hundred percent, depending on when the work starts and finishes.

We've been over that payback period calculation before, and it is not credible. The Sligo Greenway Feasibility Study was based on the 2016 Meehan Tully report, which was based on the 2011 Fitzpatrick Associates report of the Great Western Greenway. Table 3.4 of the original report states:

• 43% of greenway users will be "local users" who will be induced to spend €27.31 in the local area each day they use the greenway.
• 37% of greenway users will be "domestic visitors," who will stay in the local area for 4.8 days (on average) and spend €49.85 per person, per day due to the greenway.
• And 20% of greenway users will be "overseas visitors" who will stay in the local area for 6.8 days (on average) and spend €50.71 per person, per day due to the greenway.

And to make matters even worse, the inflated numbers were applied as a direct offset to the build cost of the greenway, which isn't how payback period is calculated at all. For example, if I travel to Athlone to use the greenway, and buy a pint afterwards, the payback to the exchequer is not €4.30. It's about €0.60. But repeat bad data enough times and people will believe it.

eastwest

ezstreet5 wrote: »

We've been over that payback period calculation before, and it is not credible. The Sligo Greenway Feasibility Study was based on the 2016 Meehan Tully report, which was based on the 2011 Fitzpatrick Associates report of the Great Western Greenway. Table 3.4 of the original report states:

• 43% of greenway users will be "local users" who will be induced to spend €27.31 in the local area each day they use the greenway.
• 37% of greenway users will be "domestic visitors," who will stay in the local area for 4.8 days (on average) and spend €49.85 per person, per day due to the greenway.
• And 20% of greenway users will be "overseas visitors" who will stay in the local area for 6.8 days (on average) and spend €50.71 per person, per day due to the greenway.

And to make matters even worse, the inflated numbers were applied as a direct offset to the build cost of the greenway, which isn't how payback period is calculated at all. For example, if I travel to Athlone to use the greenway, and buy a pint afterwards, the payback to the exchequer is not €4.30. It's about €0.60. But repeat bad data enough times and people will believe it.

Still, it was based on real information, even if it was optimistic.
Unlike, say, the McCann Report that helped persuade Bertie Ahern's free-spending government to chuck barrow-fulls of money at the first phase of the WRC. I mean, 500,000 passengers a year by year five? ;-) When it in fact it barely made it to 186,000 by year ten.
Still, back of an envelope often does make it past cabinet scrutiny, but I'd guess that 'once bitten, twice shy' is more likely to apply on any railway being built anywhere in the state from now on, particularly one with the unfortunate WRC badge on it.

Pete_Cavan

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Folk were actively campaigning against reinstating that bridge, which would have been usable for either option. Those same folk also claiming that they want to preserve the line. There's a serious disconnect in their mindset.

There is a huge difference between a bridge to carry some cyclists and a bridge to carry a train. If a greenway was being being built, a lightweight structure would suffice. Sizing the bridge to carry a train would be a huge cost increase and completely change the economics of the project. If the train service is being reinstated a suitable bridge can be built then, such a bridge would be required anyway if a greenway has not been already built. Building a bridge to carry a train before the actual project to provide the train service would be a colossal waste of money.

ezstreet5

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

There is a huge difference between a bridge to carry some cyclists and a bridge to carry a train. If a greenway was being being built, a lightweight structure would suffice. Sizing the bridge to carry a train would be a huge cost increase and completely change the economics of the project. If the train service is being reinstated a suitable bridge can be built then, such a bridge would be required anyway if a greenway has not been already built. Building a bridge to carry a train before the actual project to provide the train service would be a colossal waste of money.

Nah, it's always best practice to future proof the line for all potential uses as part of a roads project like this one. That's why the Tuam bypass includes a bridge over the line. For Ballyglunin, the cost difference is probably not huge in the context of the overall €8 million project. But by choosing the "do nothing" option now, we've guaranteed ourselves a costlier future bridge project, whatever the design.

L1011

ezstreet5 wrote: »

For example, if I travel to Athlone to use the greenway, and buy a pint afterwards, the payback to the exchequer is not €4.30. It's about €0.60. But repeat bad data enough times and people will believe it.

On a €4.30 pint of 4.2% stout, there is:

* 75c of VAT
* 54c of excise duty
* Multiple indirect benefit paths to the exchequer (PRSI/PAYE paid by the pub etc etc)


What was that about bad data?

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

On a €4.30 pint of 4.2% stout, there is:

* 75c of VAT
* 54c of excise duty
* Multiple indirect benefit paths to the exchequer (PRSI/PAYE paid by the pub etc etc)


What was that about bad data?

Oh good lord, it was just an analogy.

L1011

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Oh good lord, it was just an analogy.

You were complaining of inflated numbers and bad data in an attempt to rubbish a report, you cannot then wave away a deflated number / bad datum as "an analogy"

ezstreet5

The point is that the payback to the exchequer is not €4.30 for a greenway induced pint bought.

Pete_Cavan

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Nah, it's always best practice to future proof the line for all potential uses as part of a roads project like this one. That's why the Tuam bypass includes a bridge over the line. For Ballyglunin, the cost difference is probably not huge in the context of the overall €8 million project. But by choosing the "do nothing" option now, we've guaranteed ourselves a costlier future bridge project, whatever the design.

Nah, spending millions to build a rail bridge at Ballyglunin would be a waste of money given trains wont be crossing there for at least a couple of decades. If the train service is to be reinstated, it can be built at that stage, there is no advantage to doing it before then. It is just spending money on something which may never be needed for no benefit, only opportunity costs. There is nothing to support that doing nothing now guarantees a costlier future bridge, improvd building methods in future may actually mean the bridge could become cheaper to built, while it would get its full lifespan in use instead of lying idle for years in the hope that it might some day get used.

If a greenway is being built, a much cheaper bridge can be provided. It would likely see many years of use, maybe even its entire design life, before trains return. The cost of removing it later if rail is being reinstated would be negligible while the cost of the new rail bridge would remain the same as if no bridge existed at all.

ezstreet5

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Nah, spending millions to build a rail bridge at Ballyglunin...

How many millions of euros do you believe our bridge costs?