Western Rail Corridor / Rail Trail Discussion

The main points

Jim Meade

On the case of the western rail corridor, at the request of, and subject to the terms of reference within the Department of Transport, we did commission a report that was undertaken by EY. It is a financial and economical appraisal on proposals to extend the western rail corridor, as outlined before, ultimately to Claremorris in two phases from Athenry to Tuam and then Tuam to Claremorris. The terms of reference specified in that appraisal were that we must ensure that any extension of the WRC meets all of the relevant appraisal procedures and value-for-money tests required under the public spending code.

The report was submitted to the Department in July 2020. It was subject to an independent review, commissioned by the Department, with the Joint Assistance to Support Projects in the European Regions, JASPERS. Neither report supported the extension of the WRC based on the terms of reference set out in it.

Dara Callery

My second question is on the EY report, which has been referred to a lot today. Who commissioned it? Was it Irish Rail or the Department of Transport? What was the final cost of the report?

As he knows, it will be discussed again and there are many concerns about that particular report, about how it arrived at its conclusions and about the data used, but that is for another day. I want to know who commissioned it and who paid for it, and what level of engagement there was between Irish Rail management and EY in the preparation of the report.

What is Irish Rail’s policy on greenways? Does it give up disused lines to them relatively easily or does it have a plan for lines that may not currently be used? To use the phrase Mr. Meade has just used, if a heavy user or an anchor tenant was to come looking for them, would they be available? What if someone comes looking for a greenway to be put on that line before the anchor tenant? Has Irish Rail not just given up an asset without giving it much consideration?

Jim Meade

[b[As regards the western rail corridor[/b], subject to the terms of reference detailed with the Department of Transport, we commissioned EY to undertake that study of the western rail corridor. EY then went about its business and it referred back to us if it needed detail. However, it was commissioned to do an independent report and it was allowed to do an independent report. That report was subsequently reviewed by Jasper Consulting and, as we know, neither the review nor the report supported the extension of the western rail corridor based on the terms of reference that were set out at the time.

We always support greenways, although there is a caveat on any greenway licence we currently have out there. I remind the Deputy we do not set the requirements for public transport. That is the remit of the Department. We operate the existing rail service and while we support greenways and come up with some of the ideas, and we also have the expertise in the industry, it is ultimately a decision for the Government and Department if they want to extend, expand or put in new rail services. The greenway is a win-win for both because it keeps the asset in State ownership and utilised, and if there is a decision at some point in the future that the asset needs to go back into a public transport mode, the licensing arrangement is such that it can do so.

Alan Dillon

On the western rail corridor EY report, what type of analysis or peer review was undertaken by Iarnród Éireann which commissioned this report? Following critical analysis, some major flaws and errors were identified in the report. I would like to get an understanding of what peer review was undertaken.

Jim Meade

We are part of the steering group for the all-Ireland rail review. The scope and terms of reference have not been fully defined and this is still a work in progress with the Department. We will have an input and one of my team will sit on the steering group.

The western rail corridor will have its place as part of the terms of reference and will be looked at again.

On the peer review, as with any report there were several iterations back and forth in the Department. We had a link person working on it so it was reviewed in house. I am aware there are a few deep data errors in the report that were not picked up in the final draft but I do not think they made any substantive difference to the outcome of the report.

I think that pretty much covers it. I must send a thank you note to both Dara & Alan for getting these clarifications from IE CEO Jim Meade

ezstreet5

westtip wrote: »

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

So nobody at DTTaS even looked at it. That sounds par for the course. They should have.

westtip

I wonder do some TDs have a plan to shoot themselves in the foot, well done Dara love this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR3NRRrjgO2HXhRkiamevJsB4N4NoV-ldUJgIHZNDmpBz8EbESnof7SImHk&v=YOX9RnpVyKQ&feature=youtu.be

eastwest

westtip wrote: »

I wonder do some TDs have a plan to shoot themselves in the foot, well done Dara love this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR3NRRrjgO2HXhRkiamevJsB4N4NoV-ldUJgIHZNDmpBz8EbESnof7SImHk&v=YOX9RnpVyKQ&feature=youtu.be

Where has he been for the last decade, golfing?
I would have thought that only people of impaired hearing or with reading difficulties were unaware at this stage that greenways protect public assets, and that licensing arrangements give priority to rail.
Or does that message still have to be got through to councilors in places like Mayo? Surely not?

westtip

eastwest wrote: »

Where has he been for the last decade, golfing?
I would have thought that only people of impaired hearing or with reading difficulties were unaware at this stage that greenways protect public assets, and that licensing arrangements give priority to rail.
Or does that message still have to be got through to councilors in places like Mayo? Surely not?

At least Dara has given them the information they needed. his commanding officer in Claremorris won't be too happy though.

serfboard

westtip wrote: »

At least Dara has given them the information they needed.

Won't make a difference to some of them though - cultists are impervious to facts.

Nice write up in the Sligo Weekender regarding the closed line from Athenry to Sligo.

Greaney

I had a back & forth on twitter with that dude, John Mulligan who claimed the subvention per journey on the WRC was €80 per journey. According to the EY report Pg 1 it was less than €3. Dunno if I'd trust his information...

ezstreet5

The Dublin Metro North project would carry more passengers in an hour than this proposed railway could in a year

Wha? Even the pessimistically flawed EY report forecasted 525k passengers per annum. Does this guy actually believe that over 10% of the entire population of the Republic will use Metrolink in one hour? But what can you expect from someone who denies the existence of the Western Rail Corridor altogether?

The Western Rail Corridor doesn't exist and is unlikely to ever do so.

Yah, right.

serfboard

Greaney wrote: »

I had a back & forth on twitter with that dude, John Mulligan who claimed the subvention per journey on the WRC was €80 per journey. According to the EY report Pg 1 it was less than €3. Dunno if I'd trust his information...

But sure according to you, the EY figures can’t be trusted ...

Pete_Cavan

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Wha? Even the pessimistically flawed EY report forecasted 525k passengers per annum. Does this guy actually believe that over 10% of the entire population of the Republic will use Metrolink in one hour? But what can you expect from someone who denies the existence of the Western Rail Corridor altogether? Yah, right.

The EY report wasn't pessimistically flawed when it came to passenger numbers, the opposite in fact. It was actually incredibly optimistic and factored in passengers from all over the place with nothing to do with reopening north of Athenry, as I pointed out before. Amazing how people dismiss all aspects of the report apart from the ridiculous passenger numbers which they take as gospel!

ezstreet5

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The EY report wasn't pessimistically flawed when it came to passenger numbers, the opposite in fact. It was actually incredibly optimistic and factored in passengers from all over the place with nothing to do with reopening north of Athenry, as I pointed out before. Amazing how people dismiss all aspects of the report apart from the ridiculous passenger numbers which they take as gospel!

What's amazing is that some guy wrote to a local newspaper claiming that Metrolink North will carry over 500k passengers per hour, and the publication did not give one second of thought to parroting that fib in a call-out box.

Having read the EY report, the passenger and revenue forecasts are pessimistic, based on 2012 conditions, flat-line growth rates, artificially low rail travel times, deflated fares, and arbitrary penalties...I could go on. Obviously, a lot of effort was expended by EY and others finagling with the Executive Summary to yield the decisively negative outcome that was desired. But when it came time to work backwards to support that conclusion, the analysis descended into gobbledygook. Those who espouse the report's conclusions must also embrace its mountain of errors.

Greaney

serfboard wrote: »

But sure according to you, the EY figures can’t be trusted ...

The point is, he did believe the EY figures. So by his calculations he had multiplied the EY figures by about 28 :rolleyes:

eastwest

ezstreet5 wrote: »

What's amazing is that some guy wrote to a local newspaper claiming that Metrolink North will carry over 500k passengers per hour, and the publication did not give one second of thought to parroting that fib in a call-out box.

Having read the EY report, the passenger and revenue forecasts are pessimistic, based on 2012 conditions, flat-line growth rates, artificially low rail travel times, deflated fares, and arbitrary penalties...I could go on. Obviously, a lot of effort was expended by EY and others finagling with the Executive Summary to yield the decisively negative outcome that was desired. But when it came time to work backwards to support that conclusion, the analysis descended into gobbledygook. Those who espouse the report's conclusions must also embrace its mountain of errors.

The EY report factored in the population of Athenry when analysing the potential route traffic for Claremorris-Athenry, despite Athenry being already served by the Dublin to Galway and Limerick to Galway services.
Critics of the report are quick to point out other lesser errors in the figures, but they ignore this glaring anomaly.
It's all a moot point anyway, the rail lobby lost all credibility when they over egged the Ennis-Athenry pudding and persuaded the last of the wild-spending governments to pay for it. That can never happen again.

Isambard

eastwest wrote: »

The EY report factored in the population of Athenry when analysing the potential route traffic for Claremorris-Athenry, despite Athenry being already served by the Dublin to Galway and Limerick to Galway services.
Critics of the report are quick to point out other lesser errors in the figures, but they ignore this glaring anomaly.
It's all a moot point anyway, the rail lobby lost all credibility when they over egged the Ennis-Athenry pudding and persuaded the last of the wild-spending governments to pay for it. That can never happen again.

they couldn't ignore the population of Athenry, some of whom might want to travel to Tuam or Claremorris and further north. A very small number no doubt, but the report would be criticised for not including this possible usage.

In other words, there are more destinations than just Galway City.

westtip

eastwest wrote: »

The EY report factored in the population of Athenry when analysing the potential route traffic for Claremorris-Athenry, despite Athenry being already served by the Dublin to Galway and Limerick to Galway services.
Critics of the report are quick to point out other lesser errors in the figures, but they ignore this glaring anomaly.
It's all a moot point anyway, the rail lobby lost all credibility when they over egged the Ennis-Athenry pudding and persuaded the last of the wild-spending governments to pay for it. That can never happen again.

EASTWEST thanks to people like you and me, They no longer have control of Sligo coco, they no longer have control of Galway coco, Even Mayo coco is seeing straws in the wind, they no longer have control of Irish Rail, and in truth they no longer have control of the Minister of Transport, oh....and apart from Mayo media they no longer have control of the Western Media (they lost the national media years ago). That is why supporters of west on track get so mad EASTWEST, remember what Gerry not up for discussion Murray said all those years ago...."The western rail corridor is not on the table and is not up for discussion".....How times change.

Pete_Cavan

Isambard wrote: »

they couldn't ignore the population of Athenry, some of whom might want to travel to Tuam or Claremorris and further north. A very small number no doubt, but the report would be criticised for not including this possible usage.

In other words, there are more destinations than just Galway City.

Again I'll refer you to Table 33: Scenario B (Phase 2) daily Rail demand, base year 2012 on page 109/110

It has 202 passengers Athenry - Galway, 96 of which abstracted from car which for some reason wont use existing rail services but would when the train comes from Tuam. It then has 106 abstracted from PT which presumably is from existing Athenry - Galway services. The table even shows no newly
generated rail demand for Athenry - Galway. Just like WRC Phase 1, they are counting in people already using the train, these people are already paying for their tickets so that shouldn't be counted again here.

For Athenry - Tuam, it has total rail daily demand of 145 passengers. I very much doubt that the demand for Athenry - Tuam is almost half of the north bound boardings recorded for Athenry - Galway in the 2019 heavy rail census. For every two people commuting Athenry - Galway by train, there is almost another person who would take the train daily Athenry - Tuam? I doubt it given the huge difference in employment, educational and leisure opportunities in Galway city v Tuam.

ezstreet5

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Again I'll refer you to Table 33: Scenario B (Phase 2) daily Rail demand, base year 2012 on page 109/110

It has 202 passengers Athenry - Galway, 96 of which abstracted from car which for some reason wont use existing rail services but would when the train comes from Tuam. It then has 106 abstracted from PT which presumably is from existing Athenry - Galway services. The table even shows no newly
generated rail demand for Athenry - Galway. Just like WRC Phase 1, they are counting in people already using the train, these people are already paying for their tickets so that shouldn't be counted again here.

For Athenry - Tuam, it has total rail daily demand of 145 passengers. I very much doubt that the demand for Athenry - Tuam is almost half of the north bound boardings recorded for Athenry - Galway in the 2019 heavy rail census. For every two people commuting Athenry - Galway by train, there is almost another person who would take the train daily Athenry - Tuam? I doubt it given the huge difference in employment, educational and leisure opportunities in Galway city v Tuam.

Pete- I'm give you two thumbs up for reading to p. 109 of the EY report, and for attempting to comprehend what was done. You might read on a bit, as Tables 41 & 42 describe the "central scenario." While it would have been amazing (expected) for the report to provide the data to replicate the results, all we are given are summary tables. And when you multiply the rail demand by the corresponding fare categories, you can't arrive at EY's low revenue. So the results are indeed unreliable and should be rejected on that basis alone.

L1011

Not everyone travelling will be paying a fare.

Most will not be paying a single fare

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

Not everyone travelling will be paying a fare.

That fact is well baked into EY's fare schedule. For example, an Athenry-Galway one-way fare of €4.28. But oddly, if you travel on to Tuam, your one-way fare declines to €4.11? And what is completely missing from the EY report is the implied social benefit of free travel pass holders who are depressing the fare schedule in the first place. Do not these people not enjoy a "benefit" that is quantified outside of farebox revenue? If not, perhaps we should revoke those passes.

L1011

The actual current Athenry fare is 5.89. 4.28 would suggest some minor compensation for return ticket holders if anything, not an equivalisation procedure for all passengers

Revenue figures will not be passengers * fares when you are not accounting for student, period pass and free pass passengers.

You are trying to rubbish a figure by using rubbish calculations.

Your strawman attempt to distract from your rubbish figures doesn't work

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

The actual current Athenry fare is 5.89. 4.28 would suggest some minor compensation for return ticket holders if anything, not an equivalisation procedure for all passengers

Revenue figures will not be passengers * fares when you are not accounting for student, period pass and free pass passengers.

You are trying to rubbish a figure by using rubbish calculations.

Actually, I'm only trying replicate a calculation of passengers * fare = revenue. And one cannot even do that based on EY's report, which is a fatal flaw.

L1011

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Actually, I'm only trying replicate a calculation of passengers * fare = revenue. And one cannot even do that based on EY's report, which is a fatal flaw.

Except it's blatantly obvious that you are trying to replicate a calculation with most of the elements missing; and assuming your inherently wrong result has some validity - in your case to try claim the other figure is wrong.

This is nonsensical. Just like the reliance on typesetting errors to claim the report is fatally flawed

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

Except it's blatantly obvious that you are trying to replicate a calculation with most of the elements missing; and assuming your inherently wrong result has some validity - in your case to try claim the other figure is wrong.

This is nonsensical. Just like the reliance on typesetting errors to claim the report is fatally flawed

It's not that complicated. Let me break it down.

Table 29 of the EY report states that the one-way fare from Athenry-Galway = €4.28 (and that these were the fares used).

Table 42 of the EY report states that the "Total rail demand growth" for Athenry-Galway = 67,060 passengers. And that "Total revenue" = €266,322.

It should be clear that 67,060 * €4.28 ≠ €266,322. Can you see the mistake?

L1011

You are still under the wild misapprehension that every passenger will be paying the fare figure given, or that it's the only revenue (DSP income would be proportioned)

It clearly is massively complicated, but to you

I give up. You have determined in your head that the report is faulty and will do anything you can to insist so. It doesn't convince anyone.

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

You are still under the wild misapprehension that every passenger will be paying the fare figure given, or that it's the only revenue (DSP income would be proportioned)

It clearly is massively complicated, but to you

I give up. You have determined in your head that the report is faulty and will do anything you can to insist so. It doesn't convince anyone.

You are clearly in a bit of a twirl.

The discounted fares were arrived at by EY. The passenger figures were arrived at by EY. The fact that the product does not equate to the revenue is not my fault, but EY's. You can claim other "wild misapprehensions" and "complications," but those are your own, and not a matter of record. I hope you can make the sums equal, at least in your own mind.

L1011

Greaney wrote: »

Have you just contradicted yourself AND decided to reinterpret what the person your discussing has said ala Cathy Newman?






If EZstreet is using the EY figures, then, as you say, they're the figures given that have factored in the passengers that don't pay (full) fare. The point I gather is.....

... they still don't add up!!

Erm, no and no

The EY figure is clearly and blatantly not an equivalent figure taking in to account all discounts and DSP.

And the sum that ezstreet is trying to do is clearly and blatantly not the one that would generate the revenue figure either.

This is a mad garden path that's been gone up here. You cannot make the revenue figure by multiplying these two figures no matter how hard to try to insist it should work

Greaney

L1011 wrote: »

Erm, no and no

The EY figure is clearly and blatantly not an equivalent figure taking in to account all discounts and DSP.

And the sum that ezstreet is trying to do is clearly and blatantly not the one that would generate the revenue figure either.

This is a mad garden path that's been gone up here. You cannot make the revenue figure by multiplying these two figures no matter how hard to try to insist it should work

You're not making sense.

L1011

Greaney wrote: »

You're not making sense.

How more simply can I put it

Multiplying what seems to be half a return fare by the number of passengers is never going to give you the revenue for a line

How on earth can people not understand that?

Greaney

L1011 wrote: »

How more simply can I put it

Multiplying what seems to be half a return fare by the number of passengers is never going to give you the revenue for a line

How on earth can people not understand that?

You should tell the lads who wrote the EY report that they did it all wrong

It's good it's getting thoroughly checked, none of it can be trusted

L1011

Greaney wrote: »

You should tell the lads who wrote the EY report that they did it all wrong

It's good it's getting thoroughly checked, none of it can be trusted

They won't have used that calculation. That is the wild misapprehension being introduced here.

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

Erm, no and no

The EY figure is clearly and blatantly not an equivalent figure taking in to account all discounts and DSP.

And the sum that ezstreet is trying to do is clearly and blatantly not the one that would generate the revenue figure either.

This is a mad garden path that's been gone up here. You cannot make the revenue figure by multiplying these two figures no matter how hard to try to insist it should work

This is really weird. You are stating that the one-way Athenry-Galway fare that EY used "is clearly and blatantly not the one that wound generate the revenue figure..." that EY used. Then WTF did they use, and where is it documented? Your conclusion is that it is not possible to make A * B = C, and it does not fly with rational men.

L1011

ezstreet5 wrote: »

This is really weird. You are stating that the one-way Athenry-Galway fare that EY used "is clearly and blatantly not the one that wound generate the revenue figure..." that EY used. Then WTF did they use, and where is it documented? Your conclusion is that it is not possible to make A * B = C does not fly with rational men.

They didn't use an A*B = C calculation because it is nowhere near that simple

This has been my point the entire time. But neither of you can comprehend it.

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

They didn't use an A*B = C calculation because it is nowhere near that simple

This has been my point the entire time. But neither of you can comprehend it.

If EY did not use, A * B = C, then what did they use? Where is it explained and documented? Or are we to simply to fall in to line because "EY is an established firm" and us peasants must accept their conclusions? No way!

L1011

ezstreet5 wrote: »

If EY did not use, A * B = C, then what did they use? Where is it explained and documented? Or are we to simply to fall in to line because "EY is an established firm" and us peasants must accept their conclusions? No way!

Go FOI it if you wish

But trying to claim errors because you do not know the calculation and have made up your own one does not convince anyone but the already faithful. And damages your argument greatly in the process.

Greaney

L1011 wrote: »

But neither of you can comprehend it.

I can. EY's modeling can't be checked, so they write anything they like.

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

Go FOI it if you wish

But trying to claim errors because you do not know the calculation and have made up your own one does not convince anyone but the already faithful. And damages your argument greatly in the process.

A final report should include proper data (in a technical appendix) and references to substantiate and replicate the results. One should not have to FOI (whatever documents) to substantiate the facts.

Your current position seems to be that the EY report is substantially accurate and based on secret calculations that no layman could possibly understand, so lets just accept that and move on. Lovely.

L1011

ezstreet5 wrote: »

Your current position seems to be that the EY report is substantially accurate and based on secret calculations that no layman could possibly understand, so lets just accept that and move on. Lovely.

As compared to your position of making wild assumptions and claiming errors when your personal assumptions were wrong.

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

As compared to your position of making wild assumptions and claiming errors when your personal assumptions were wrong.

No examples. Baseless. Time for bed.

L1011

ezstreet5 wrote: »

No examples. Baseless. Time for bed.

The example is your simplistic made up sum which is the crux of the back and forth for the last two pages!

Greaney

L1011 wrote: »

As compared to your position of making wild assumptions and claiming errors when your personal assumptions were wrong.

All the public have to go on is the EY report.
All the Gov have to go on is the EY report, they paid €500k for it!

That report needs to stand up to scrutiny.

It doesn't

Simple as

ezstreet5

L1011 wrote: »

The example is your simplistic made up sum which is the crux of the back and forth for the last two pages!

You win. 1 + 1 = 3.

I'm beginning to understand how the WOT estimate for phase 1 of the WRC was out by 32 million

Captain Lugger

ezstreet5 wrote: »

If EY did not use, A * B = C, then what did they use? Where is it explained and documented? Or are we to simply to fall in to line because "EY is an established firm" and us peasants must accept their conclusions? No way!

The peasants can either live in the GDA or maintain their locality as a reservation. Only a “sustainable” approach if the status quo of depopulated rural sprawl and car dependency is to be maintained.

Isambard

Captain Lugger wrote: »

The peasants can either live in the GDA or maintain their locality as a reservation. Only a “sustainable” approach if the status quo of depopulated rural sprawl and car dependency is to be maintained.

I think there's a typo there, did you mean GDR?

Greaney

Isambard wrote: »

I think there's a typo there, did you mean GDR?

Greater Dublin Area

eastwest

Greaney wrote: »

I can. EY's modeling can't be checked, so they write anything they like.

And JASPERS? Are they wrong too? And was the WDC report on rail freight wrong too?
Or was it just the McCAnn Report, the one that gave false hope to the rail enthusiasts?

westtip

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm beginning to understand how the WOT estimate for phase 1 of the WRC was out by 32 million

#

Was that written by armchair WOT economist the ex Roscommon county manager unelected persona but a civil servant who openly sided with a lobby group?

Captain Lugger

Captain Lugger wrote: »

The peasants can either live in the GDA or maintain their locality as a reservation. Only a “sustainable” approach if the status quo of depopulated rural sprawl and car dependency is to be maintained.

What do you mean by this?
Are you anti sprawl?

A long term policy to encourage rail use would be to ban one off housing and development not adjacent to rail lines. It would go down like a lead balloon locally.

Sam Russell

I am confused by this continuous wrangling over the EY report. If it contains errors of detail, they should be corrected. If those errors leak into the substance of the report to give a completely erroneous outcome, the Gov should look for its money back.

However, the only asset that the Tuam Athenry rail has is the alignment and land asset. Now that is only an asset for a rail line if it can be used to generate passengers. With the complete lack of any trip generators along the route, it would appear that there is nearly no chance of that route being a successful public transport route that can provide any form of useful service.

Now to change the question, if a Western Rail Corridor was being planned as would a new motorway with a completely new alignment, what route would be chosen? Would it follow the N17, or some other route? Where are the trip generators that will provide the passengers? Would light rail or even BRT solutions be better, or just stick with buses?

I doubt that such a new rail connection between Sligo to Limerick via Galway would go anywhere near Athenry on a completely new alignment.

[Unfortunately, the M17 route experience does not fill one with confidence as regards route selection.]