Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

L1011

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

The trick of the report seems to be to show no benefit to the area, no benefit of the possible usership but introduce a stop that will slow the journey times between end destinations, excellent if you do not want reintroduction of the railway!

That you think there's a trick here is disturbing

Had the stop not been evaluated, the report would still have found the C/B to be unsustainable and people would be calling foul that it could have provided extra passengers and altered the outcome. Which it wouldn't have, as we can see.

serfboard

westtip wrote: »

"The Party" has a strong PR machine which has gone into overdrive since the report came out.

They wanted a review. They got a review. Now that they don't like it, they want another review.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Greaney

serfboard wrote: »

That anecdote would only prove what you think it proves if you had figures which showed what percentage of people used public transport to get to the club now.

The amount of children staying on after sixth class was usually a group of about 12, that rose to about 60 boys & girls. We attribute it absolutely to the fact that most of them were able to come straight from school to the gym independently.

Sam Russell wrote: »

If only someone would invent a means of transport suitable for young teens that did not require them to be driven by parents.

Maybe it would have two wheels, and be propelled by the rider using say pedals. It might have electric lights so it could be ridden after dark, and perhaps the rider might wear hi-viz clothing and a helmet for protection. Of course it would need a bell to warn others of its approach because it would be quick and silent. I'm sure someone might invent such a device.

I can tell you as a cycling advocate The WRC isn't suitable everyday cycling infrastructure. It's too long and bleak for children in winter. Childrens cycling radius is about 2 miles, so is most adults. Although the exception is adolescent boys with a crush, for that they'll cycle over lava.;)

westtip wrote: »

The difference is you are talking about your fantastic sounding sports facility for youngsters and well done, but you are clearly talking about a facility probably in Dublin near the Dart or a good bus corridor route. .

They both were in Galway.

One was in Tuam

serfboard wrote: »

The continuous talk about a stop in a non-hamlet like Ballyglunin shows what an absolute joke the Phase 2 talk is.

It's held up as the one highlight on the entire route as a cycle trail by the Quiet Man Green Way campaign!
I would point out, that the stations town is Abbeyknockmoy. Which has a segregated cycle path linking them. Both places have primary schools that are feeder schools for Tuam & Athenry.

westtip wrote: »

I wouldn't take too much heed of the 73% who responded support phase 2, the machinery of the political party that backs WOT will have got the vote out to skew those figures.

The Lady doth protest too much :rolleyes:. That was the Quiet Man Greenway's entire campaign.

ShaneC1600

L1011 wrote: »

That you think there's a trick here is disturbing

Had the stop not been evaluated, the report would still have found the C/B to be unsustainable and people would be calling foul that it could have provided extra passengers and altered the outcome. Which it wouldn't have, as we can see.

Why would it be disturbing you if I thought there was a trick to the result of the report? Very simple really. There are too many similar “mistakes” in the report all weighing against reactivating the line to be coincidental.
I didn’t say that this one instance would change the cost benefit, it is just one small indication showing the direction of the whole report.

ShaneC1600

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

There are too many similar “mistakes” in the report all weighing against reactivating the line to be coincidental.
.

So its a conspiracy now? :rolleyes:

L1011

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

Why would it be disturbing you if I thought there was a trick to the result of the report? Very simple really. There are too many similar “mistakes” in the report all weighing against reactivating the line to be coincidental.
I didn’t say that this one instance would change the cost benefit, it is just one small indication showing the direction of the whole report.

Its inclusion is not a mistake and I can guarantee that if it was left out there'd be objections too

You are imagining a conspiracy here because you don't like the results.

ShaneC1600

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So its a conspiracy now? :rolleyes:

I didn’t say that.

ShaneC1600

L1011 wrote: »

Its inclusion is not a mistake and I can guarantee that if it was left out there'd be objections too

You are imagining a conspiracy here because you don't like the results.

I am not saying it’s a conspiracy, the result is fine, it’s the way they got to it that I am bothered with. They really priced for a serious railway, all steel bridges removed and replaced with new, all OP crossings closed, all field crossings closed, 3 loops with one in oranmore, saddling all masonry arches regardless of the condition, Tuam bog issues overly priced and the list goes on.
It’s more like a railway wish list but I guess if your going to not build a railway you might as well not build a good one.

L1011

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

I am not saying it’s a conspiracy, the result is fine, it’s the way they got to it that I am bothered with. They really priced for a serious railway, all steel bridges removed and replaced with new, all OP crossings closed, all field crossings closed, 3 loops with one in oranmore, saddling all masonry arches regardless of the condition, Tuam bog issues overly priced and the list goes on.
It’s more like a railway wish list but I guess if your going to not build a railway you might as well not build a good one.

They priced for a to-standards rebuild; nothing more.

Pricing for a goat track still wouldn't have actually turned the C/B around; anyway.

ShaneC1600

L1011 wrote: »

They priced for a to-standards rebuild; nothing more.

Pricing for a goat track still wouldn't have actually turned the C/B around; anyway.

A stop, to standard! So they could have picked 100mph standard and that would have been great too. Even for a 90mph standard, they technically they didn't need to remove all OP crossings if I remember right as that is only stipulated for speeds north of 100mph for "to standard".

And as for the smart goat track comment, maybe your on to something, maybe it was the population of goats in Tuam that they used instead of the actual population 🀔

westtip

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

I am not saying it’s a conspiracy, the result is fine, it’s the way they got to it that I am bothered with. They really priced for a serious railway, all steel bridges removed and replaced with new, all OP crossings closed, all field crossings closed, 3 loops with one in oranmore, saddling all masonry arches regardless of the condition, Tuam bog issues overly priced and the list goes on.
It’s more like a railway wish list but I guess if your going to not build a railway you might as well not build a good one.

Ah yes but why should the wesht accept anything but a world class railway, they would accept no less up in Dublin, just saying like...or should they have priced up for a less "serious" railway. Away with ye, they priced up for a safe standard modern railway, do it properly and it doesn't come in cheap, the problem is as they clearly pointed out there simply isn't justification for it and more to the point Jaspers said there will be no European slush fund money for it. Everyone committed to this report, greenway and railway supporters, we all sat and waited for it, in February 2018 when it was included in Ireland 2040 West on Track welcomed it, no doubt they participated in the consultation process, the greenway campaign did, we all put our views in and this is he result. Jaspers overlooked it and gave their views; it is clearly obvious what is going on here, the one political party committed to WRC wants the process delayed further until they are in Government, we all know what is going on. The report has been delivered will ye all have the good grace to accept its conclusions and move on.

Sam Russell

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

A stop, to standard! So they could have picked 100mph standard and that would have been great too. Even for a 90mph standard, they technically they didn't need to remove all OP crossings if I remember right as that is only stipulated for speeds north of 100mph for "to standard".

And as for the smart goat track comment, maybe your on to something, maybe it was the population of goats in Tuam that they used instead of the actual population ��

I thought it was sheep not goats that populated Tuam - is that not true?

Greaney

L1011 wrote: »

I've read the report and have not seen any glaring errors that would discredit its result. I suspect many of those who think its "easily ripped apart" have not read it; but have read the posts and articles of those who claim there are with little to no basis.

Accurate reports mean something.

I wasn't invested enough to join a thread on any forum to discuss our sugar industry, but I'm obviously appalled that we now don't produce any sugar on the island due to a bad report.

ShaneC1600

westtip wrote: »

Ah yes but why should the wesht accept anything but a world class railway, they would accept no less up in Dublin, just saying like...or should they have priced up for a less "serious" railway. Away with ye, they priced up for a safe standard modern railway, do it properly and it doesn't come in cheap, the problem is as they clearly pointed out there simply isn't justification for it and more to the point Jaspers said there will be no European slush fund money for it. Everyone committed to this report, greenway and railway supporters, we all sat and waited for it, in February 2018 when it was included in Ireland 2040 West on Track welcomed it, no doubt they participated in the consultation process, the greenway campaign did, we all put our views in and this is he result. Jaspers overlooked it and gave their views; it is clearly obvious what is going on here, the one political party committed to WRC wants the process delayed further until they are in Government, we all know what is going on. The report has been delivered will ye all have the good grace to accept its conclusions and move on.

Look thats fine, can I ask you do you think the report is up to standard? If the Galway Council Feasibility Study into a greenway comes back and says the corridor is not suitable as the population of Tuam at 1000 odd is too low and a greenway standard surface is prohibitively expensive or something using inaccurate information, im guessing people would not be happy?
Anyways my original point was that the report priced for 90mph but didn't give the benefits of the 90mph service.

In any event, onto the next report, greenway Feasibility Study, then network wide rail study and surely then a new political party's turn to start something.

ShaneC1600

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

In any event, onto the next report, greenway Feasibility Study, then network wide rail study and surely then a new political party's turn to start something.

Hey so long as the status quo is maintained and nobody gets to use it for a greenway, thats all that matters, not whether a railway ever gets built (hint, its not going to happen in our lifetimes)

galwaytt

Sam Russell wrote: »

If only someone would invent a means of transport suitable for young teens that did not require them to be driven by parents.

Maybe it would have two wheels, and be propelled by the rider using say pedals. It might have electric lights so it could be ridden after dark, and perhaps the rider might wear hi-viz clothing and a helmet for protection. Of course it would need a bell to warn others of its approach because it would be quick and silent. I'm sure someone might invent such a device.

Maybe, the local council might invest in a making disused railway lines into greenways to facilitate this new form of transport.

What a transformation that would be.

Meanwhile, parents will have to run a free taxi service for their kids.

Or, like mainland Europe, allow 14 year olds to ride mopeds.

westtip

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

In any event, onto the next report, greenway Feasibility Study, then network wide rail study and surely then a new political party's turn to start something.

you got it in one. Kick the can is the long game played by WOT until SF get into power and then they will deliver (err big problem is Europe won't put their hands in the till) so nothing will happen, so on we go. The plan has always been at all costs stop the greenway.

ShaneC1600

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hey so long as the status quo is maintained and nobody gets to use it for a greenway, thats all that matters, not whether a railway ever gets built (hint, its not going to happen in our lifetimes)

But its not a greenway, maybe they believe a railway linking the west is the best use of the line and if the report was up to any kind of standard maybe more would buy into a greenway.

Im surprised there aren't any other interested parties looking to lease the line. A series of wind turbines along the flats of Galway and Mayo powering the electric trains that we will never see in the west might make an interesting report 🀔

Sam Russell

galwaytt wrote: »

Or, like mainland Europe, allow 14 year olds to ride mopeds.

I would think that might happen with electric scooters soon.

Aside from that, if a new rail link was planned along the west coast serving Sligo to Limerick, via Galway, would it use any part of the Tuam to Athenry alignment?

I personally doubt it. If this new railway line was intended as an intercity line, it would need to visit the one city on the route, and might benefit going via airports on the way. If it is not intercity, what is it for that a school bus could not do?

It is like building a new motorway and insisting it uses a dual carriageway built 50 years ago that is not fit for use now because it is too narrow, but the locals like it as it was the first one built in the country, and local history is important.

I think Percy French might write a song about this if he were still around.

westtip

Sam Russell wrote: »

I
Aside from that, if a new rail link was planned along the west coast serving Sligo to Limerick, via Galway, would it use any part of the Tuam to Athenry alignment?

I personally doubt it. If this new railway line was intended as an intercity line, it would need to visit the one city on the route, and might benefit going via airports on the way. If it is not intercity, what is it for that a school bus could not do?

Exactly and despite all this solid truth Mayo county council still oppose a greenway on the route north of Claremorris. The Claremorris to Charlestown section could and should be used for Greenway but MCC resolutely oppose it, they have refused to write the idea into the latest draft county plan which is now open for submissions; thankfully Sligo apopted the greenway thinking for north of Charlestown to Collooney several years ago and are progressing to planning stage, but Mayo county council will just not accept the reality that the alignment they are stopping being used for a greenway is simply not relevant in this debate.

Link to the tender but no documents on it. They are supplied "upon expression of interest"

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/181458/0/0?returnUrl=ctm/Supplier/publictenders&b=ETENDERS_SIMPLE

westtip

Deleted User wrote: »

Link to the tender but no documents on it. They are supplied "upon expression of interest"

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/181458/0/0?returnUrl=ctm/Supplier/publictenders&b=ETENDERS_SIMPLE

difficult to stop a Tsunami

Greaney

The EY report looks like a disaster on closer inspection

https://fleet.ie/critical-analysis-of-ey-western-rail-review-reveals-major-flaws/?fbclid=IwAR30iQvTF2jMKE8mJEpJwIacXAoDdNqt__ZQN15ZRGXA9IMd5pzxdtVgqG4

Western Rail Corridor report has approx
324 numerical errors,
31 typos,
23 errors of fact.
Table 75 shows project would deliver €395.9m in cumulative benefits by Year 30, implying a positive Net Present Value and Benefit-to-Cost Ratio >1.0

You wouldn't accept that in a green way feasibility study if it had all those errors and concluded that a greenway was a bad idea...

serfboard

Greaney wrote: »

The EY report looks like a disaster on closer inspection

https://fleet.ie/critical-analysis-of-ey-western-rail-review-reveals-major-flaws/?fbclid=IwAR30iQvTF2jMKE8mJEpJwIacXAoDdNqt__ZQN15ZRGXA9IMd5pzxdtVgqG4

Western Rail Corridor report has approx
324 numerical errors,
31 typos,
23 errors of fact.
Table 75 shows project would deliver €395.9m in cumulative benefits by Year 30, implying a positive Net Present Value and Benefit-to-Cost Ratio >1.0

You wouldn't accept that in a green way feasibility study if it had all those errors and concluded that a greenway was a bad idea...

Except if you read that:

fleet.ie wrote:

The analysis was carried out by a group of experts ... for the rail advocacy group West-on-Track.

A group of "experts" who are so proud of their analysis that they aren't willing to put their names to it, write an analysis for a lobby group and surprise, surprise the analysis tallies with the result that the lobby group would want.

And this analysis is displayed on a website of an organisation based in Claremorris, which very coincidentally happens to be where said lobby group is also based.

All sounds totally above board :rolleyes:

Greaney

serfboard wrote: »

Except if you read that:
A group of "experts" who are so proud of their analysis that they aren't willing to put their names to it, write an analysis for a lobby group and surprise, surprise the analysis tallies with the result that the lobby group would want.

And this analysis is displayed on a website of an organisation based in Claremorris, which very coincidentally happens to be where said lobby group is also based.

All sounds totally above board :rolleyes:

I see you didn't read it then... If it's not true, it's slander, and if it's slander than they will have to stand up and be counted....

There's an annotated version so you can check their figures, some of it's not too hard to follow.

serfboard

Greaney wrote: »

I see you didn't read it then... If it's not true, it's slander, and if it's slander than they will have to stand up and be counted....

There's an annotated version so you can check their figures, some of it's not too hard to follow.

I've read a couple of bits of it. And some day, if I have loads of time on my hands and want a laugh I might read the rest.

To give you an example of the laughs that can be had:

West On Track/Fleet.ie wrote:

The analysis was required to quantify the air quality and GHG benefits and cost savings of an “environmentally friendly rail transport option,” including the potential electrification of the railway in the future.

Ah yeah - sure why not Maglev while we're at it?:rolleyes:

Ye wanted a report and ye got a report. Now that the report doesn't say what ye wanted it to say ye want another report.

God love you if you think that an analysis of the report by unnamed "experts" will result in a train on the line between Claremorris and Athenry in the next half-century.

Jesus that was painful reading lol

L1011

Greaney wrote: »

I see you didn't read it then... If it's not true, it's slander, and if it's slander than they will have to stand up and be counted....

There's an annotated version so you can check their figures, some of it's not too hard to follow.

There is no such offence as slander in Ireland.

ezstreet5

Greaney wrote: »

The EY report looks like a disaster on closer inspection

https://fleet.ie/critical-analysis-of-ey-western-rail-review-reveals-major-flaws/?fbclid=IwAR30iQvTF2jMKE8mJEpJwIacXAoDdNqt__ZQN15ZRGXA9IMd5pzxdtVgqG4

Western Rail Corridor report has approx
324 numerical errors,
31 typos,
23 errors of fact.
Table 75 shows project would deliver €395.9m in cumulative benefits by Year 30, implying a positive Net Present Value and Benefit-to-Cost Ratio >1.0

You wouldn't accept that in a green way feasibility study if it had all those errors and concluded that a greenway was a bad idea...

I concluded the same. The EY report bears the fingerprints of manipulation. Everything appears appropriate on the surface, until you read past the Executive Summary and begin trying to verify the results. Then the coffins start breaking through the kitchen floor like the final scenes in Poltergeist. Clearly the headstones (conclusions) were moved, but they didn't move the bodies (data). https://youtu.be/Lh_W6FLaMvA

Greaney

L1011 wrote: »

There is no such offence as slander in Ireland.

Semantics

Defamation

ShaneC1600

Greaney wrote: »

The EY report looks like a disaster on closer inspection

https://fleet.ie/critical-analysis-of-ey-western-rail-review-reveals-major-flaws/?fbclid=IwAR30iQvTF2jMKE8mJEpJwIacXAoDdNqt__ZQN15ZRGXA9IMd5pzxdtVgqG4

Western Rail Corridor report has approx
324 numerical errors,
31 typos,
23 errors of fact.
Table 75 shows project would deliver €395.9m in cumulative benefits by Year 30, implying a positive Net Present Value and Benefit-to-Cost Ratio >1.0

You wouldn't accept that in a green way feasibility study if it had all those errors and concluded that a greenway was a bad idea...

After the wait by both sides for this report, it is a pity this is the quality of report presented. I dont care what side of the fence you are on, or if you are able to bring yourself to read this analysis of the report or not, after reading the report yourself and not just CC's soundbites or the executive summary we should all be questioning the report. This cost a reported 500k of our money and the consultants couldn't even be bothered checking facts. Its poor form!

Sam Russell

ShaneC1600 wrote: »

After the wait by both sides for this report, it is a pity this is the quality of report presented. I dont care what side of the fence you are on, or if you are able to bring yourself to read this analysis of the report or not, after reading the report yourself and not just CC's soundbites or the executive summary we should all be questioning the report. This cost a reported 500k of our money and the consultants couldn't even be bothered checking facts. Its poor form!

If it has been sitting in the Transport Dept for over a year, did nobody in the Dept read it and check it for facts?

That would suggest quite a level of blame in the Dept and poor preparation by EY, or was it 'adjusted' in the Dept?

mayo.mick

This whole debacle surely has to be a contender, for the Guinness Book Of Records of the "Greatest/Longest Can Kicking Down The Road".

There's also great movie material here, could be a blockbuster by Stephen Spielberg's Great Grandson!

Greaney

Sam Russell wrote: »

If it has been sitting in the Transport Dept for over a year, did nobody in the Dept read it and check it for facts?

That would suggest quite a level of blame in the Dept and poor preparation by EY, or was it 'adjusted' in the Dept?

Gosh, there's a question. I don't know. I know that JASPERS did a review of the findings but even they stated they did not review how the figures had been arrived at..

1.4 in their 'report' states

''Our note addresses the main aspects of the project preparation and how well these are covered within the work that has been undertaken. We should highlight that our notes not a critique of the EY report but is instead a broad assessment of the maturity and feasibility of the project based on material that has been published to date.

So we can only conclude that the EY report was not technically peer reviewed. Reports are long and boring, often not designed for a layman to read, so it seems that unless the author is motivated... they can hide their sloppy math in a mountain of graphs & jargon.

ezstreet5

Sam Russell wrote: »

If it has been sitting in the Transport Dept for over a year, did nobody in the Dept read it and check it for facts?

That would suggest quite a level of blame in the Dept and poor preparation by EY, or was it 'adjusted' in the Dept?

Probably the project wasn't managed on the client side, and then when the report came back in favour of rail (or borderline), EY were told to change it. Some of the findings make no sense at all: €3.0 million per annum cost to the exchequer for lost road and fuel tax (because commuters are shifting to rail), yet emissions increase?

ezstreet5

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Probably the project wasn't managed on the client side, and then when the report came back in favour of rail (or borderline), EY were told to change it. Some of the findings make no sense at all: €3.0 million per annum cost to the exchequer for lost road and fuel tax (because commuters are shifting to rail), yet emissions increase?

No doubt you have submitted an FOI to get the earlier drafts?

ezstreet5

Deleted User wrote: »

No doubt you have submitted an FOI to get the earlier drafts?

Interesting idea.

Jamie2k9

The data errors on the EY report would not have changed the outcome according to IE CEO (2h15m).

Dara Calleary and the EY report really clutching at straws here (from 1h53m)
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/oireachtas-tv/video-archive/committees/

Jamie2k9

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

The data errors on the EY report would not have changed the outcome according to IE CEO (2h15m).

Dara Calleary and the EY report really clutching at straws here (from 1h53m)
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/oireachtas-tv/video-archive/committees/

Direct video link
https://media.heanet.ie/page/8bb735b6d90c438a963cf4af9514565f

Pete_Cavan

If you want inaccuracies in the EY report, look at Table 33: Scenario B (Phase 2) daily Rail demand, base year 2012 on page 109/110

It assumes 529 daily passengers Tuam - Galway, for reference the 2019 Heavy Rail Census shows 68 boardings at Ballinaloe north bound. It then has 202 passengers Athenry - Galway, 96 abstracted from car which for some reason wont use existing rail services but would then the train comes from Tuam, and 106 abstracted from PT which presumably is from existing Athenry - Galway services. It also lists passengers for journeys for which services already exist or journeys which wouldn't even be possible with the railway line opening between Athenry and Tuam only as stated in the scenario.

Of course there is nothing said about all the inaccuracies which strengthen the rail case, only those which weakens its case get waved around like the whole thing has been rigged.

Greaney

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If you want inaccuracies in the EY report, look at Table 33: Scenario B (Phase 2) daily Rail demand, base year 2012 on page 109/110

It assumes 529 daily passengers Tuam - Galway, for reference the 2019 Heavy Rail Census shows 68 boardings at Ballinaloe north bound. It then has 202 passengers Athenry - Galway, 96 abstracted from car which for some reason wont use existing rail services but would then the train comes from Tuam, and 106 abstracted from PT which presumably is from existing Athenry - Galway services. It also lists passengers for journeys for which services already exist or journeys which wouldn't even be possible with the railway line opening between Athenry and Tuam only as stated in the scenario.

Of course there is nothing said about all the inaccuracies which strengthen the rail case, only those which weakens its case get waved around like the whole thing has been rigged.

`

Yes they're outrageous too.

Thank you for reading the report.

Del.Monte

Deleted User wrote: »

Direct video link
https://media.heanet.ie/page/8bb735b6d90c438a963cf4af9514565f

Any thing involving Barry Kenny's railway expertise not to mention the other three time markers is not worth 2.19hrs of my time - any chance of a synopsis of what was said?

Del.Monte

Del.Monte wrote: »

Any thing involving Barry Kenny's railway expertise not to mention the other three time markers is not worth 2.19hrs of my time - any chance of a synopsis of what was said?

Alan Dillon got the CEO of IE to clarify that regardless of any errors in the EY report, the conclusion remained the same, that the WRC was not viable for extension.

ezstreet5

Deleted User wrote: »

Alan Dillon got the CEO of IE to clarify that regardless of any errors in the EY report, the conclusion remained the same, that the WRC was not viable for extension.

It would be unwise to defend the EY report. It can't stand. It's actually a gift to rail transport advocates.

ezstreet5

ezstreet5 wrote: »

It would be unwise to defend the EY report. It can't stand. It's actually a gift to rail transport advocates.

The Minister of Transport and the CEO of IE have accepted the conclusions. Personally I'm not too pushed about the lads in Claremorris.

I'm not sure I have too much to worry from the likes of WOT. They haven't really done much to advance the rail situation in Ireland and have actually done significant damage to the idea of reopening lines with the abysmal performance of the WRC. Those are the folks looking to spend hundreds of millions reopening a 19th meandering line which would be a colossal waste as it would have terrible patronage,frequency and speeds.

On the other hand, rail advocates who support and advocate for the double tracking of lines like Galway to Dublin, integrated ticketing systems, removal of at-grade crossings, higher speeds, greater frequency, implementation of request stops etc etc etc. Those I fully support as those are the ones who will grow rail in Ireland and drive significant increases in passenger numbers thereby increasing the likelihood of further expansion of services.

In terms of rail in Ireland I am looking towards the future to see how we can improve the service to increase the viability of it which will lead to additional improvements and expansion. The lads in Claremorris look to the past and couldn't give a toss about the wider network.

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Probably the project wasn't managed on the client side, and then when the report came back in favour of rail (or borderline), EY were told to change it. Some of the findings make no sense at all: €3.0 million per annum cost to the exchequer for lost road and fuel tax (because commuters are shifting to rail), yet emissions increase?

We may disagree on things but I am going to do you a favour, I did an FOI on the department I got hold of the original report submitted to the department in November 2019 there are no material differences and the conclusions were just the same. The only thing that changes from the November 2019 report to the June 2020 reprot is the date on the front cover. but go ahead and do an FOI if you want it will reveal nothing. They didn't release the november 2019 report until june report was published.

westtip

Deleted User wrote: »

Alan Dillon got the CEO of IE to clarify that regardless of any errors in the EY report, the conclusion remained the same, that the WRC was not viable for extension.

DC do you know the exact time in the meeting when he said that looking to rip it and like others don't want to watch the whole thing!

ezstreet5

westtip wrote: »

We may disagree on things but I am going to do you a favour, I did an FOI on the department I got hold of the original report submitted to the department in November 2019 there are no material differences and the conclusions were just the same. The only thing that changes from the November 2019 report to the June 2020 reprot is the date on the front cover. but go ahead and do an FOI if you want it will reveal nothing. They didn't release the november 2019 report until june report was published.

Are the data tables corrupted in the 2019 version in the same manner as the final?

westtip

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Are the data tables corrupted in the 2019 version in the same manner as the final?

The report is exactly the same apart from the front cover one says June 2020 the earlier one say November 2019.

marno21

Here's the transcript from yesterday. Much quicker than watching and easier to seek relevant paragraphs also.

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_transport_and_communications_networks/2021-02-16/