Up with this sort of thing

Folk interested in the history of the Shannon before 1850 may like to know of a talk …

The smart green technology of the 1830s: the Shannon steamers and the definition of Ireland

… to be delivered to the Thomond Archaeological and Historical Society on Monday 4 November 2013. It’s in Room T.1.17, TARA Building, Mary Immaculate College, Limerick, at 8pm.

A related topic …

Charles Wye Williams and the Anglo-Irish Trade

… will be discussed in one of the papers at the Eighth [British] Waterways History Conference on Saturday 26 October 2013 at the University of Birmingham. Leave a Comment below if you would like contact information for the conference.

Water levels in Athlone

At time of writing, the depth of water at Athlone Weir is 1.7m. “Staff gauge zero is 35.360m above Poolbeg datum”, which means the water level is 37.06m OD (Poolbeg). According to Bob Cullen’s 2002 article for Inland Waterways News [PDF], “The minimum navigation level in Lough Ree is 36.88m OD”, so if the level drops another 0.18m, about 7 inches, there may be a WI Marine Notice.

It seems that the dropping of the level of Lough Ree is intended to provide a buffer against flooding in the area from Athlone downstream to Meelick. According to Brian Hayes “A meeting between the ESB, Waterways Ireland and the Office of Public Works to review the interim operating regime is due to take place shortly.” [I have asked Waterways Ireland for a report on the meeting.]

But, if we are to believe the Dublin Evening Mail, the Shannon Commissioners took a rather more robust attitude to flooding downstream of Athlone: steamers [and PR] came first.

The modernisation of Sinn Féin

I have criticised Sinn Féin’s obsession with the cutting-edge transport technology of the eighteenth century, the canal, and particularly with the proposed reconstruction of the Clones Sheugh. I am therefore glad to report that the party has now moved on to more modern transport technology: that of the early nineteenth century, in the form of the railway.

In a written question on 15 October 2013, Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin [SF, Cavan-Monaghan, home to the Clones Sheugh] asked the unfortunate Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport

… if he intends to apply for funding under the Trans European Network–Transport (Ten-T) 2014-2020 for the development of a rail network linking [London*]Derry to Limerick, Shannon and Cork, or any part thereof, along a western arc corridor; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I presume that it took the minister’s civil servants some little time to answer; they would have had to recover from ROTFL [as the young folk say nowadays]. When they recovered, they penned this response to be delivered by the saintly Leo Varadkar [FG, Dublin West, who has enough problems on his hands without extending railways but who has the virtue of a lack of interest in sports]:

As I have indicated to the House previously, I have no plans to develop a so-called “Western Arc” rail line from Cork to Belfast as this would require both the re-opening of the remaining phases of the Western Rail Corridor and also the development of new rail lines to connect with the rail network in Northern Ireland. It should also be noted that the Northern Ireland Executive has no plans to provide such new rail lines. The Government’s policy in relation to the funding of capital projects to 2016, including the development of rail and road links, is set out in the “Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2012-16: Medium Term Exchequer Framework”. Due to the overall reduction in funding for transport infrastructure the priority to 2016 is to protect investment made to date and to maintain safety standards. The limited funding available over and above this priority will only be provided for projects which are affordable, meet overall transport objectives and deliver the best return in terms of economic recovery and job creation.

I would draw the Deputy’s attention to the Programme for Government and in particular the commitment that: “We will insist that major capital projects are subjected to proper cost-benefit analysis and evaluation, improving future productivity and growth prospects, and that the value-for-money obtained is significantly enhanced compared to the most recent period.”

The Irish Rail commissioned AECOM/Goodbody “2030 Rail Network Strategy Review” examined the potential for new and re-opened lines and it did not recommend the development of a rail link between Sligo and [London*]Derry or between Donegal and [London*]Derry. Likewise its predecessor, the “Strategic Rail Review” in 2003 did not recommend such rail links. The performance of Phase 1 of the Western Rail Corridor between Ennis to Athenry to date has been very disappointing even allowing for the recession. Given the pressure on the public finances there are no funds for new subsidies or to develop new rail links in any part of the country. Moreover CIE is in a precarious financial situation and is dependent on continued bank funding. For all the reasons outlined above, the Government has no plans to further extend the heavy rail network. In these circumstances the question of applying for Ten-T funding to develop a rail line between Cork and Belfast via Shannon, Limerick and [London*]Derry does not arise.

Phew.

But Mr Ó Caoláin cannot have expected any other answer, so I wonder why he wasted civil service time by asking his question. Perhaps he has been inspired by the shade of Arthur J Balfour and hopes to kill northern Home Rule with southern kindness?

* “[London]” inserted in the interests of parity of esteem and intelligibility to unionist readers.

 

 

 

 

WI budget

In 2014 the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht [.pdf: go to page 51] is to cut its current expenditure on North–South Co-operation by €2.1 million:

Savings, in excess of the agreed 3% per annum efficiency savings, for the North-South Implementation Bodies will require the approval of the North-South Ministerial Council.

The 85% of Waterways Ireland’s current budget that comes from the [Republic of] Ireland government is in there somewhere; the NI executive pays the other 15% and, in theory, the North–South Ministerial Council will have to give its blessing, but in practice the NI ministers can hardly force the RoI ministers to pay up.

There’s a list of 14 High Level Programme Activities [mustn’t hurt anyone’s feelings by leaving out their favourite fodder] of which No 13 is

Development of inland waterways within the context of the implementation of the Good Friday and St. Andrews Agreements.

Translation: Ulster Canal, even if there’s no money for it. But there is half a million for a

20-Year Strategy for Irish with a range of concrete measures, including supportive actions to roll out the language planning process on the ground, in line with the Gaeltacht Act 2012. These actions will include direct support to community organisations to enable them to prepare and implement practical and deliverable Irish language plans – not only in the Gaeltacht itself but also in selected towns and areas in other parts of the country.

Do they ever give up? They’d be better off supporting Ulster Scots, which has at least some chance of showing a growth in the number of speakers. But page 51 has a long list of imaginary measures to allow the department to claim that it will save €15 million in 2014: more efficient working, review, examining the scope for achieving further efficiencies … waffle.

On the capital expenditure side, RoI and NI each pays for works within its own jurisdiction. The RoI spending will be down from €4071000 in 2003 to €3858000 for 2014: a cut of just over 5%.

Maybe the money is being put aside to pay for the Clones Sheugh, although it’s not specifically mentioned in the document.

 

The Southern Star

The Southern Star is West Cork’s indispensable source of news and information. I don’t know whether its masthead still proclaims that it incorporates the Skibbereen Eagle, or whether, in the print edition, its news from Bandon is still headed “Bandon Brieflets”, but it is — as we would expect — keeping up with digital technology with a website, a FaceBook thingie and a napp.

It reports today on another “trial flight” by what it terms “A newly formed company, Harbour Flights”, which I wrote about here. The aircraft shown in the photo is EI-CFP [which is registered, incidentally, as a land aeroplane [.xls]], so Harbour Flights does not seem to have acquired a larger plane — or the use of one: the register shows that EI-CFP is owned by Kieran A O’Connor, not by Harbour Flights.

Being ignorant of aviation matters, I don’t know what constitutes a trial flight — or how it is to be distinguished from a promotional flight.

I note a slight contradiction in the Southern Star‘s report:

The company […] has taken five years to grow from its initial concept to become fully operational last July. […]

When it becomes fully operational, Mr Heaps estimated that the company could create up to 50 new Irish jobs […].

So is it, or is it not, “fully operational”? I am confused.

 

 

 

 

 

Waterways minister keen on waterways

An exchange from the Northern Ireland Assembly on 7 October 2013, thanks to theyworkforyou.com.

Pam Brown (DUP) asked the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure whether inland waterways could be developed to provide a major leisure and recreational activity resource.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin; Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure): Waterways Ireland is one of the all-Ireland bodies that my Department has responsibility for. You can see the value of the work that it does, particularly in rural areas. I am also working with some councils to improve some of the waterways within their control. I agree with the Member that inland waterways provide brilliant opportunities not just for tourism but for local leisure. They are the economic driver in some towns and villages.

Pam Brown (DUP): I thank the Minister for her answer. She has touched on my supplementary question. Does the Minister agree that the development of inland waterways, while a great source of leisure and recreational activities, can also act as a catalyst for urban and rural regeneration?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin): I agree. I made a statement to the House in July, I think, about some of the events that take place at inland waterways across the island. Those events include festivals and family fun days. Huge numbers attend those events, and they act as economic drivers. Not only are those responsible keen to make sure that they are further developed, but people from other areas visit those festivals in towns and villages to see how they can extract that product for their area. They see the potential and outcome of those events.

That’s good: nice cheap family fun days, not expensive and unnecessary waterway restorations.

Work begins at Sallins

New moorings: Waterways Ireland press statement here and marine notice here.

Edenderry ducks …

… in the Irish Times [article will become inaccessible at some stage].

Waterways Ireland and information

From Kevin Humphreys [Labour, Dublin South East] in a Dáil debate on the second stage of the Freedom of Information Bill 2013 on Thursday 3 October 2013 [with thanks to KildareStreet.com]:

There are several agencies which, because they are North-South bodies, must, I understand, be excluded from the provisions of the Bill before us today. However, oversight of these bodies is important. We should examine whether safefood, Tourism Ireland and Waterways Ireland, for example, might be brought within the scope of the legislation. My experience of dealing with Waterways Ireland on several occasions is that it is extremely difficult to extract information from it. Including it and other bodies with a North-South remit in the freedom of information regime would be useful for citizens, Members of this House and journalists.

Emphasis mine.

I must chase up my outstanding queries ….

 

Newry and Narrow Water

I wrote a few days ago about the proposed bridge across Carlingford Lough at Narrowwater (or Narrow Water). I was reminded of that today on reading a debate, held in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 30 September 2013, about a proposed Newry Southern Relief Road [thanks to theyworkforyou.com].

Apart from an admittedly minor mistake made by a Sinn Féin MLA about the Newry Canal (first summit-level canal, not “oldest inland waterway” in These Islands), the debate was remarkable for its demonstration of cross-party agreement: not so much on the desirability of public works (a desideratum of Irish politicians since the eighteenth century) as on the irrelevance of the Narrowwater bridge. Jim Wells [DUP] said:

There has also been some progress on the Narrow Water bridge project, although we do not know exactly where we stand. First, that bridge is far from certain, and, secondly, even if it were built, it would not relieve much of the traffic that we are dealing with. It would certainly not relieve the large number of juggernauts coming through from Warrenpoint harbour.

Sean Rogers [SDLP] said:

Narrow Water bridge is merely a tourist bridge, but the relief road would take heavy goods vehicles off the streets of Newry, reduce traffic congestion and attract even more shoppers to the city. Heavy goods vehicles would also have a direct route to Warrenpoint port, increasing trade in the port area.

And the other contributors to the debate did not mention it, which suggests to me that it is seen as irrelevant to the traffic problems of Warrenpoint and of Newry.

The Minister for Regional Development, Danny Kennedy [UUP], gave a lengthy response to the debate, including this point:

A more detailed technical investigation of the specific options for crossing the Newry canal was also recommended, given the sensitive nature of this important heritage feature. It is expected to require at least the provision of a bascule, or lifting bridge, to allow the passage of tall ships on the canal. The width of the Victoria lock already limits the size of ship that can enter the canal and it is expected that any bridge would maintain a navigation channel that matches the width of the sea lock. My Department will continue to consult with NIEA on how the impact of the proposal on the canal might be mitigated and an appropriate design developed.

And it seems that one of the areas being considered for the road is Fathom, which is where the Victoria Lock is. It is a short distance north (and upstream) of the border.

It must surely be unlikely that there will be two crossings of Carlingford or the Newry River [and canal] within a few miles of each other. But if one option, the Newry Southern Relief Road, helps to relieve Newry and Warrenpoint traffic and the other, the Narrowwater bridge, doesn’t do so, then the first option would seem to be the rational choice.

Although I wouldn’t bother providing for “tall ships”.