M3 railway bridge at Cannistown seems to be missing

IIMII

Work on the M3 is flying along, with most of the allignment taking shape all the way from Dunboyne to Navan, with overbridges etc installed for most of the route.

However, remarkably the famous bridge at Cannistown included by order of An Bord Pleanála to facilitate the reopening of the Navan line is missing.

The existing stone railway overbridge which took traffic over the railway allignment has been severed and replaced with an overbridge which now takes the same traffic over the M3, which runs beneath it at grade.

But there is no evidence of any contingency being made to facilitate the railway reopening. On the Navan side to the M3 you have the stone overbridge and on the Dublin side the severed embankment, and no sign of any type of bridging structure in between.

All very curious as the works there are quite advanced, and my understanding was that the bridge was to be built as part of the M3 project.

Hopefully I have this wrong. However, if you look at the overbridging of the line at Pace, something looks badly amiss at Cannistown.

paulm17781

I think RUI mentioned this a few years back. There have been a few people who suspect that there is no intention to reopen the line to Navan and the planned removal of this bridge was a part of it.

Sponge Bob

paulm17781 wrote: »

There have been a few people who suspect that there is no intention to reopen the line to Navan and the planned removal of this bridge was a part of it.

Photos ??

I suspect that Noel Dempsey will be eternally grateful that he can blame Dick Roche rather than admit the truth , namely that he knew all along

DWCommuter

Im one of the ex RUI people who followed this very closely. When the motorway was originally designed, no provision was made for the railway. But a submission from an unnamed saviour was upheld by ABP. The railway was to be provided for in the revised planning permission. Unless someone beats me to it, I'll have a look next time Im up. But I'd be surprised if it was ommitted. This site is essential to retaining the alignment to navan.

IIMII

I drove past the site again this evening to take a second look. I'll get pics tomorrow.

There is definitely no bridge in place, and the M3 which is at grade has a manhole cover at ground level at the point you would expect a bridge.

There is no bridge.

Victor

The M3 (including branches) and the railways interact a total of about 12 times.

IIMII

Victor wrote: »

The M3 (including branches) and the railways interact a total of about 12 times.

Yes, but this more serious than any of the other interactions.

This is the only point where the line cannot be shifted, or crossed by a normal road bridge.

In fact this is the only point where to install a bridge you will have to close and redesign the M3 itself.

AIR-AUSSIE

Some photos would be nice.

Perhaps a sub-contractor will be used to construct the required bridge?

What is the problem with the or lack of bridge? I'm a bit confused by how you describe it.

IIMII

Basically the M3 cuts across the railway alignment at a right 90 degree angle.

At the hearings it was argued that it would add to the cost of reopening the line and possibly damage the case for reopening it if a bridge was not built to facilitae the lines reopening.

One of the planning conditions was that a plans had to be drawn up for a bridge at this point, and that the bridge had to be built as part of the M3 project unless an alternative route was indicated.

No alternative route was indicated and the bridge by default was supposed to be built as part of the M3 project.

Here is a copy of the ABP decision of 2003. It is the very last section of the document, scroll to the bottom.

Sponge Bob

IIMII wrote: »

One of the planning conditions was that a plans had to be drawn up for a bridge at this point, and that the bridge had to be built as part of the M3 project unless an alternative route was indicated.

No alternative route was indicated and the bridge by default was supposed to be built as part of the M3 project.

Here is a copy of the ABP decision of 2003. It is the very last section of the document, scroll to the bottom.

This is substantially correct. The order was on page 10

Unless the railway authority indicates an alternative route for the Clonsilla to Navan Railway line, the roads authority shall:

1. Incorporate into the construction of the motorway embankment at Cannistown such parts of an underbridge structure as outlined in Drawings OH RAIL 005 & 006 Rev. DOl submitted by Meath County Council at the oral hearing as will allow for its possible completion for use as a underbridge for a doubletrack railway with e1ectrification vithout disruptingt raffic on the motorway.

2. Incorporate into the construction of the motorway at the Pace Interchange similar provision for an underbridge to facilitate a double-track railway with electrification

So Cannistown and Pace should have a similar structure unless the Railway Authority ( is that the RPA or CIE then ??) "INDICATED" otherwise . Not stated otherwise or asserted otherwise but indicated otherwise.

What a great way to kill the railway line, simply by indication .

The detailed submissions on that section of line are ( I believe) in this PDF linked on this page of the Bord Pleanala website

The evidence given to the Inspector is as follows

50. 14. Cross-examined by Alan Park on behalf of Bellinter Residents Association :
Mr. Park said the Bellinter Residents Association (BRA) were concerned that six out of
the nine sub-consultants appoined on the Dunshaughlin to Navan Section were all
345
working for Halcrow Barry and could have been constrained with a senior Halcrow Barry
person as the Project Manager and asked for his comments on this.

<snip SB>

Mr. Park asked how the railway line was going to cross the motorway at Cannistown and
when Mr. Guthrie replied that it would be on an embankment to cross over the motorway
there and that the side road realignment at Cannistown had also been designed to be
crossed by the railway, Mr. Park suggested this embankment would be 8 metres high and

Mr. Guthrie agreed it would be about that at the actual crossing and then tapering back to
ground level at a gradual angle. Mr. Park asked how the railway would cross the Kilcarn
Link road but Mr. Guthrie said that was in the Navan By-pass Section and he was not
familiar with the details there. When Mr. Park suggested that crossing would have a
bearing on the crossing at Ardsallagh, Mr. Guthrie said it would and while both were
integrated he was unaware of the precise details, but said he could find it out for Mr.
Park.

Mr. Park referred to meetings that took place with Iarnrod Eireann on 10 and 29
August 2000 where Iarnrod Eireann required that the dismantled railway corridors be
preserved both horizontally and vertically and said this meant the horizontal corridor had
not been preserved since Mr.Guthrie was saying now that the railway would go over the
motorway on a bridge that Iarnrod Eireann would have to build themselves and asked
why he could not say how this would cross the Kilcarn Link road. Mr. Guthrie said this
was at the interface between the two consultants and the design was split between them.
Mr. Park said he was the Project Manager and was drawing all the strings together but

Mr. Guthrie said that while he was familiar, he did not have all of the detail, and he said
they had preserved the existing corridor and had not done anything which prevented the
railway from being built along, or at least contiguous to, the existing dismantled corridor.

Mr. Park agreed but said that, if an embankment was being put there, where was there
space for the width of the footing for this which he suggested could be on top of the
houses along the road. Mr. Guthrie said that this would only be if the same centre lines
were used but that Iarnrod Eireann were looking at moving the railline slightly and he
said that it was really a matter for Iarnrod Eireann and that they had accepted the proposal
the consultants had made. When Mr. Park said the conditions in the August meetings had
not been fulfilled, Mr. Guthrie quoted from a further Iarnrod Eireann letter of 2 April
2001 in which it was confirmed that a consensus on the road scheme interface with the
railway had been reached and that Iarnrod Eireann would not be objecting to the scheme
at the Hearing.

Mr. Park asked if he knew why Iarnrod Eireann changed their conditions from the August
requirements but Mr. Guthrie said he could not speak for Iarnrod Eireann, a case had
been put on what was being provided in the location of the motorway and after discussing
this, Iarnrod Eireann said they were satisfied with the interface.

Mr. Park said their concern was to have the railway line to Dublin reinstated and they saw the solution of a
bridge over the motorway as an impediment as it would impose a major structural work
on Iarnrod Eireann as the motorway was cutting the railway and the solution was being
put back on Iarnrod Eireann. He said they had set out their conditions in August and
suddenly at one meeting everyone seemed to have changed their mind and the original
corridor was not now being preserved.

When Mr. Guthrie said they had preserved the
original corridor and, while there were places where it passed between houses that might
pose a problem, Iarnrod Eireann were happy not to object to the scheme in principle, Mr.
Park suggested that the building of a bridge over the motorway would be a substantial
and costly impediment and Mr. Guthrie accepted it would be a problem, but maintained it
was not an insurmountable engineering problem and said that, if they had built the
motorway on an embankment to cross over the railway, this would have created a visual
intrusion which could be a worse solution.

Mr. Park suggested the motorway gradients could be made steeper than that for a railway, so the rail embankment would be longer
which could make the motorway impact the lessor and pointed to the Cannistown road
being on an embankment which could have been availed of. Mr. Guthrie accepted that a
two-level solution was a possibility but pointed out that the existing Cannistown road was
on an embankment to cross the existing railway line and that all they were doing was to
extend the existing embankment to provide for the realigned Cannistown road which was
not the same as an embankment to carry the motorway over the rail line.
.

Looks as clear as mud that , ye find the rest of it or get Dempsey to earn his €300k a year

IIMII

Oh ****. Meath County Council have been claimimg that drawing for the bridge is on file and would be built.

It has never been mentioned that IÉ waived their right to the alignment

IIMII

Here is the Dunboyne bridge, and what was expected at Cannistown.



And Cannistown as it is.

markf909

IIMII wrote: »

Oh ****. Meath County Council have been claimimg that drawing for the bridge is on file and would be built.

It has never been mentioned that IÉ waived their right to the alignment

Tom finn was suspended by IE for suggesting aloud that the project (to Navan) "shouldn't be touch with a barge pole". Thats about the most honest assessment we'll get on the issue.

IIMII

No, he said that he wouldn't touch it with a barge pole based on build cost. But then again CIÉ doesn't like developing anything other than residential units these days, and with that market drying up even that may not be as appealing to them.

CIÉ and its subsidiaries don't see themselves as being a transport solution that should be proactive in sorting out gridlock in this city.

If they did, then never mind the Navan Dublin line, the Navan Drogheda Dublin line would be a progressive quick-fix which wouldn't cost the earth and give the the kuedos of having made an effort to develope the rail network in a fashion that is not developer led.

Remember it was IÉ feigning an interest in reopening the direct line that resulted in no further passenger trains from Navan to Dublin via Drogheda after the 1996 All Ireland series, by delaring the Navan Drogheda line a freight only line.

It is not suspicious that an existing line is closed to passenger traffic and moves are made to block reopening another line which is allegedly transport policy. And in the mean time a road tolled twice over an incredibly short 20 mile space is proposed, design and passed in such a way as to prevent reopening of the former line whilst the existing operational line is kept closed to passenger traffic despite seeing 8 freight trains a day pass along it?

markf909

Remember it was IÉ feigning an interest in reopening the direct line that resulted in no further passenger trains from Navan to Dublin via Drogheda after the 1996 All Ireland series, by delaring the Navan Drogheda line a freight only line.

No, after the derailment in '97 in Roscommon, all lines that didn't carry passengers normally were forbidden from doing so.

I have no objection to the Navan line, it makes perfect sense. the line via Drogheda would be a great simple win in the short term with the possibility of commuter services at least.

My point was that with all the obfuscation and subterfuge surrounding this project (sewer lines, missing bridges etc) Tom finn is the only person who has given his honest assessment. And look where that got him.

IIMII

Aye, that's fair enough. But locally, the Drogheda line has been campaigned for going back to the 1970's.

When it was designated freight only there was no concern locally because the direct line was allegedly being resurrect.

I'm going to scan in and post the Scoping Study today or tomorrow

DWCommuter

I went up to cannistown today. Im in shock. The OP is right and the photo (taken from the new flyover) clearly shows that something is amiss up there. The motorway was meant to be on an embankment at this point and ABP put in a clause that the railway was to be served by going under the M3. We've covered all this before, but christ I cannot believe what I saw.

I think it might be worse, because in the black bull cross area, something else looks amiss. The remains of the original rail route were crossed at grade by the Trim road, off the N3. (originally the Trim road went under the line, but this was all changed after the railway closed and the N3 was upgraded.) However the building of the M3 requires that the trim road be realigned onto a new flyover. The embankment leading up to this new flyover is directly on top of the rail alignment. There is no opening for the railway. Realignment of the railway would also prove very difficult due to the new road layout. On the Navan side of this new Trim road embankment you can see the old railway embankment. I spent half an hour looking and could see absolutely no provision for the railway and I know that this particular site was not mentioned at any ABP hearings. I could be wrong. Perhaps someone else or even the OP can have a look.

Sponge Bob

DWCommuter wrote: »

The motorway was meant to be on an embankment at this point and ABP put in a clause that the railway was to be served by going under the M3. We've covered all this before, but christ I cannot believe what I saw.

The evidence given by Mr Guthrie to ABP under questioning by Mr Park was

Mr. Park asked how the railway line was going to cross the motorway at Cannistown and
when Mr. Guthrie replied that it would be on an embankment to cross over the motorway
there and that the side road realignment at Cannistown had also been designed to be
crossed by the railway

In order to do so ABP ordered the following .

Unless the railway authority indicates an alternative route for the Clonsilla to Navan Railway line, the roads authority shall:

1. Incorporate into the construction of the motorway embankment at Cannistown such parts of an underbridge structure as outlined in Drawings OH RAIL 005 & 006 Rev. DOl submitted by Meath County Council at the oral hearing as will allow for its possible completion for use as a underbridge for a doubletrack railway with e1ectrification vithout disruptingt raffic on the motorway.

So there appears to be a contradiction there. Over vs Under.

It strikes me that the wishes of ABP would be fulfilled if the piers for a dual track railway bridge were built now somewhere around that area and if the local road also crossed the M3 thereabouts without interfering with teh railway alignment

Making no structural provision for the raailway appears to be a breach of the ABP direction .

DWCommuter wrote: »

I think it might be worse, because in the black bull cross area, something else looks amiss. The remains of the original rail route were crossed at grade by the Trim road, off the N3. (originally the Trim road went under the line, but this was all changed after the railway closed and the N3 was upgraded.) However the building of the M3 requires that the trim road be realigned onto a new flyover.

The embankment leading up to this new flyover is directly on top of the rail alignment. There is no opening for the railway. Realignment of the railway would also prove very difficult due to the new road layout. On the Navan side of this new Trim road embankment you can see the old railway embankment. I spent half an hour looking and could see absolutely no provision for the railway and I know that this particular site was not mentioned at any ABP hearings. I could be wrong. Perhaps someone else or even the OP can have a look.

The evidence given on that section is in this PDF and was given by a Ms Joyce not Mr Guthrie.

One really wonders whether Tom Finn provided or signed off on any form of 'indication' to the road designers on behalf of Iarnrod Eireann prior to his untimely suspension early this year .

One should maybe pursue that correspondence trail between IE and Meath County Council Roads design/NRA by way of FoI request to all of the NRA , Meath County Council Road design and of course IE as quickly as possible and to demand all correspondence and minutes of meetings and emails and notes on telephone conversations on the subject of M3/ Navan Rail alignment from 2004 onwards .

Only then will you see what has been planned and what the contractors have been told to do .

IIMII

Sponge Bob wrote: »

So there appears to be a contradiction there. Over vs Under.

No, I don't think so though I'm not 100% sure. My read is that you have one part which details NRA's preference in the plans as presented, then you have references to an overbridge from a rail perspective and an underbidge from the M3's perspective.

What seems to have happened is that IÉ said they wanted the alignment protected by a rail overbridge (horizontal and vertical protection), the then dropped their objections. The residents took over the batton and objected citing IÉ's original concerns. The NRA response was that an embankment was sufficient and a rail underbridge (rail over road) would do. An Bord Pleanála did not go for this and protected the alignment provided IÉ did not abdicate their right to an over bridge protecting their right to the vertical and horizontal alignment by indicating an alternative route.

There is no bridge, so it would seem a slam dunk win with the route despite them having dropped the ball (or been bullied off the ball) was conceeded despite locals fighting and winning a protection of the alignment at this point.

The mystery is how or when did they abdicate the right because bridge plans were drawn up so they even had that when they walked away from Navan.

Note that IÉ didn't appear before the enquiry - that is how the NRA were able to say that they couldn't speak on IÉ's behalf, and they couldn't give specific info as the railway was a matter for IÉ, not for them.

DWCommuter wrote: »

However the building of the M3 requires that the trim road be realigned onto a new flyover. The embankment leading up to this new flyover is directly on top of the rail alignment. There is no opening for the railway. Realignment of the railway would also prove very difficult due to the new road layout. On the Navan side of this new Trim road embankment you can see the old railway embankment. I spent half an hour looking and could see absolutely no provision for the railway

No you are right. There is a gap from the west pier to the earthen bank which could fuction as a 'gap', but there is no bridge there. However, again this is a problem but not as big a problem as the Cannistown one where the M3 rather than a regional road would be closed. And at that point the railway passes at grade so no embankment is needed (same level as and parrallel to the M3)

markf909

So are ABP rulings simply guidelines?

Can they be enforced?

Who enforces them?

I think this will have to be brought to the attention of the planning enforcement bodies very quickly unless IE have waived their right to the alignment.
Finding that out could be hard as IE are not subject to the FOI.

IIMII

markf909 wrote: »

So are ABP rulings simply guidelines?

Can they be enforced?

Who enforces them?

I don't know but An Taisce might be a good place to start

paulm17781

IIMII wrote: »

I don't know but An Taisce might be a good place to start

If you want to hold up or shelve a project.

IIMII

paulm17781 wrote: »

If you want to hold up or shelve a project.

Who else then? I haven't a clue about that end of things. Anyway, the M3 is built bar the tarmac. The least motorway like section is the bit around pace because they built the parrallel N3 section. But the rest is done to Navan as I say bar the tarmac

That bridge should be built though

IIMII

paulm17781 wrote: »

If you want to hold up or shelve a project.

Just to mention, Cannistown is sited west of Navan, and after the Navan south M3 junction at Blundlestown (Tara na Rí pub).

If building this bridge delays the M3 project, it would not delay it getting to Navan.

Putting in the bridge now would delay only the bypass section west of Navan.

Getting the M3 to Navan would not be delayed, nor would the M3 to Kells

IIMII

Bridge from where pics taken



An Bord Pleanála ruling

DWCommuter

Its very confusing and it looks like ABP got mixed up in the terms under and over. An underbridge carries a railway OVER a roadway. So it contradicts their reasons in relation to negating the necessity for the railway to "cross over" the motorway. Unless they meant a level crossing which would be out of the question anyway. I was alway under the illusion that the M3 was up on an embankment at cannistown and a reopened railway would go under it. I guess there's still a chance that a railway bridge will be built, but the additional cost of the changed gradient of the railway alignment will certainly add cost and further difficulties.

I always said that MCC never had any interest in reopening this railway. First sewer mains and now this. Gangsters, the lot of 'em.

As for Black Bull, I saw the "gap" referred to by the OP. Its nowhere near big enough for a double track rail line, but I'll have another look, before I commit myself to a definitive conclusion. Best course after that (and assuming its a con job) is to highlight it all in the media and let them do the digging.

IIMII

It's a space on the left of the pier over to the earthen part of the ramp. There is no pier on the arthen part so it is not purpose built. However, it could be adapted for the railway (possibly) but you can be sure it is unlikely it is purposely designed for the line. Either way, if a railway goes in, the Trim road embankment get excavated

Re the ABP ruling, the reason states that the bridge is to be included to prevent the need for the railway crossing over the motorway

DWCommuter

IIMII wrote: »

It's a space on the left of the pier over to the earthen part of the ramp. There is no pier on the arthen part so it is not purpose built. However, it could be adapted for the railway (possibly) but you can be sure it is unlikely it is purposely designed for the line. Either way, if a railway goes in, the Trim road embankment get excavated

Re the ABP ruling, the reason states that the bridge is to be included to prevent the need for the railway crossing over the motorway

At this stage it is safe to assume that if the railway was to be built, there would be considerable disruption to traffic on the motorway at particular points and additional costs on the railway project itself.

Im convinced that there is no real intention of reopening that line. Me and my banjo are safe.:D (a joke some will get) Realistically the only way to clear this under over issue is to see MCCs drawings. Im beginning to wonder if ABP screwed up the wording. The correct and proper way to preserve the alignment at cannistown was to leave it at grade. Therefore the M3 should be going over it. Thats what we all thought was happening.

This needs some media attention.

Victor

DWCommuter wrote: »

An underbridge carries a railway OVER a roadway.

They are talking in the context of the motorway.

IIMII

It seems confusing but it's clear if you read it carefully.

What is says is 'Incorporate into the motorway embankment (not railway embankment) such parts of an (motorway) underbridge structure' at Cannistown and Dunboyne.

A motorway underbridge means the motorway goes over something, and a railway overbridge means that the railway goes under something.

Motorway underbridge = railway overbridge, in this case.

Bit like being able to say the glass is half empty and the glass is half full. Depends which perspective you are looking at it from, but it's the same thing and you'd be correct in describing it in either way

They got it right at Dunboyne so why not Cannistown? And the report states the purpose is to prevent having to run the railway over the motorway. According to MCC in 2006, the drawing they had on file was for a bridge for the railway to travel underneath the M3.

God knows how they have gotten around this one. Could it really be so simple that the NRA didn't bother fulfilling the ABP conditions? Or could they have worked from the wrong plans? Or could IÉ have just given away their rights to the alignment and carried on the pretence that they were actively working on reopening the line using the alignment at this point?

You know, this really does undermine all this Transport 21 waffle, that the Department of Transport which is responsible for both road and rail projects has let this happen.

The best case scenario is that this is an error. But even that would make this a case of serious wastage of transport budgets.

This area at Cannistown should only be a building site once, and once the M3 is open it should not need to closed again particularly as the bridge is planning condition and part of government transport policy.

If the Navan line is indeed progressing for a 2015 delivery then there will be serious costs associated in CPOing houses to create a 30 foot embankment for up to a couple of kilometers on either side of the M3, never mind the hassle of having to close the M3 at that point to install the new bridge. Crazy, pure crazy.

lostexpectation

so is the railway blocked or not

IIMII

Well, there are various degrees of blocked, and it is more likely that the project will be blocked for cost rather than engineering reasons because of this.

Ask if is this an insurmountable engineering problem, the answer is no.

Ask if a fix will be expensive, causing closure of the M3 for a time, resulting in additional CPO's, and the construction of massive embankments, and possibly help kill off the project because of cost, I'd say yes.

Either way, whatever about the challenges that existed previously I think think this is the final nail in the coffin of the Navan rail project. This can only be viewed as a cynical act on the part of either IÉ or the NRA, or possibly both in cooperation with the Department of Transport.

Its funny how the bridge needed to bring the railway to the Park and Ride at Pace (after the second M3 toll plaza on the way to Dublin) is being built, but that the bridge needed it to bring it beyond the toll plaza (and into competition with the tolling company) has mysteriously vanished.

I think the message is Dunboyne is being built, but not beyond Dunboyne or indeed to Navan. DWCommuter point re the absense of a bridge just north of Pace on the Trim road enhances that arguement.

Remember the only reason we talk about a direct link to central Meath is beacuse there was previously the direct railway line to Navan. What made building a modern line into Meath possible was the remaining path of the old line as the cuttings, embankments, bridges and viaduct remain.

Bit by bit, since 1998 the reopening project has seen cost after cost added to the project, from €millions worth of sewerage pipe for Kilometres along the alignment from Dunshaughlin to Bellinter, 14 interactions with the M3 as Victor pointed out above, an attempt to build on the alignment at Navan on the Trim road and the odd house.

Since 1998, each little blockage and now these major blockages are underming the reopening drip by drip, and in doing so the credibility that the line was every really government policy.

Ham'nd'egger

IIMII, if you can clarify this for me

Last night I looked at some PDF plans from Irish Rails page on the Dunboyne/Pace line and there is a bridge at the Pace station around the M 3 turn off for the line to go forward beyond the station; it proceeds for 500 metres. Am I to assume that this is not present in Pace first off and secondly, if this amendment was made to the plans of the M 3, how can the developer not have allowed for the Cannistown site? Is this pig headed ignorance of the line and BP's orders or do you feel that Irish Rail have acceded to not ever re-opening the line? My understanding is that there is no Railway Abandonment Order on the line so there is (in theory) a conflict in culling the lines route without same.

IIMII

Hamndegger wrote: »

Last night I looked at some PDF plans from Irish Rails page on the Dunboyne/Pace line and there is a bridge at the Pace station around the M 3 turn off for the line to go forward beyond the station; it proceeds for 500 metres. Am I to assume that this is not present in Pace first off

The Pace bridge is going in - see below. The railway goes beneath the road through this partially completed tunnel

Hamndegger wrote: »

how can the developer not have allowed for the Cannistown site?

I reckon it is impossible that it could have been overlooked, though Cannistown is a borderline area between two different sections on the M3.

Hamndegger wrote: »

do you feel that Irish Rail have acceded to not ever re-opening the line?

I reckon when all this comes out in the wash, Iarnród Éireann will have been found to have been leading us on a merry dance for years knowing they had abdicated their rights privately - that is speculation for the moment though

Hamndegger wrote: »

My understanding is that there is no Railway Abandonment Order on the line so there is (in theory) a conflict in culling the lines route without same.

I'm not sure about that, but the land was sold off and there have been numerous developments recently on the line so God knows how that would play out.

Ham'nd'egger

Thanks for the clarification, IIMII.

I am aware that there has been much property sold en route but generally this would be passed on with the understanding that it can be bought back for railway use in the future. There is some development on the alignment but for the most part, it is fairly flat land with river bridges over the Boyne and Tolka being the major engineering challenges; but in general some minor diversions would be made with reasonable ease. Interesting to note that in Faber-Maunsell study of the line, it went for the old line with some slight deviations. It also suggested a figure circa €96 million for property/land purchasing on the track bed should it be re-opened; does this report allow for M 3 costs?

So now, can we assume one of four options?

1. The M3 consortium know about one Bord Pleanala stipulation about the rail line needing bridging in places but they do not know about other places.
2. The M3 consortium know about it and are willing to retro-fit a crossing point for the line (Most likely above the M 3).
3. Irish Rail/RPA are not willing to or do not plan to ever re-open the line and have not publicly stated this.
4. The M 3 consortium are plain ignoring the order of same for whatever reason.

IIMII

Hamndegger wrote: »

I am aware that there has been much property sold en route but generally this would be passed on with the understanding that it can be bought back for railway use in the future.

This is unclear. There have been claims by ex-CIÉ employees that buy-back clauses were inserted in the terms of sale. Apparently when 1000m of the Navan-Kells line was reopened for Tara Mines, these were used according to a CIÉ rep involved in that. Nothing concrete to go one and no idea where to check to be honest.

Hamndegger wrote: »

river bridges over the Boyne and Tolka being the major engineering challenges

The Tolka passes beneath the railway 3 times. All three crossings including the one at Pace are likely to retained. The Boyne bridge at Bective is in mint condition and has been kept clear of ivy and maintained by it's owners. If the Milltown viaduct was retained, I'd say this will too

Hamndegger wrote: »

Interesting to note that in Faber-Maunsell study of the line, it went for the old line with some slight deviations. It also suggested a figure circa €96 million for property/land purchasing on the track bed should it be re-opened; does this report allow for M 3 costs?

FM didn't account for the M3. All of the reports going back to the 1998 IÉ report use the alignment from the viaduct through Cannistown to Navan, including the recently completed Scoping Study and the in progress Comparative Cost Analyses on the the routes to the west of Dunshaughlin

Hamndegger wrote: »

So now, can we assume one of four options?


3. Irish Rail/RPA are not willing to or do not plan to ever re-open the line and have not publicly stated this.

The likely scenario is 3, and that the ball was IÉ's to drop, and they dropped it. I can't see the NRA bulldozing the railway without covering their back-sides

Ham'nd'egger

Thus far, there hasn't been any issues with land as far as Pace insofar as anything that has not come to light publicly so I'd suspect that further on the route would be as such. I know that the Navan line was used for storage some years after it closed so it's disposal was not immediate. The Harcourt Street line was subject to a similar arrangement and kept fairly clear from heavy development on it's trackbed. I would know where one could check CIE records about same if it is any use to you. I knew the Bective bridge is intact; I was thinking of engineering bridges if in the event of diversion of the line needing as such.

On my 4 options, I'd be less inclined to go for 3 simply as for the M 3 to build a bridge gives rail an option with little to no cost to Irish Rail though how well informed they kept themselves is another question. Given that the M 3 has been besieged with planning and other problems throughout it's development, I can't help but think they are ploughing away and to Hell with the consequences. To the best of your knowledge, has Irish Rail or the RPA been contacted by any lobby group/State Body/County Council/Environmental Group with regards to the alignment being surrendered or otherwise? Meath County Council refer to passenger rail a lot in the Navan development plans and even talk of two rail stations in the town so they ought to be interested in this.

IIMII

Hamndegger wrote: »

I would know where one could check CIE records about same if it is any use to you.

That would be very handy

Hamndegger wrote: »

Given that the M 3 has been besieged with planning and other problems throughout it's development, I can't help but think they are ploughing away and to Hell with the consequences.

That is what I thought originally. I've often stopped the car to look at works on what I suppose you might describe the 'non-controversial' sections even as far south as Pace and the contractors don't react happily to observers even taking a passing interest in the works. There seems to be a siege mentality even amongst the contrators, something that didn't exist on the N2 project

Hamndegger wrote: »

To the best of your knowledge, has Irish Rail or the RPA been contacted by any lobby group/State Body/County Council/Environmental Group with regards to the alignment being surrendered or otherwise?

Well, the 1998 report recognised that the old route was a preferred option, and that carried through to the 2008 Scoping study where all of the 'preferred routes' used that section.

All of the deviations seriously considered related to Dunshaughlin, Kilmessan and where the M3 encroaches onto the aligment south of Dunshaughlin at Rathbeggan.

The only 'if-y' comment I remember was from Iarnród Éireann's Barry Kenny on radio where he said that they didn't own the land anymore so developments on the route weren't a matter for IÉ

Hamndegger wrote: »

Meath County Council refer to passenger rail a lot in the Navan development plans and even talk of two rail stations in the town so they ought to be interested in this.

I think that LUTS (Land Use and Transportation Study) even had three stations for Navan.

The problem with Meath County Council is that they already have dirty hands from the Dunshaughlin Sewerage Scheme in 2005 - €25m spent laying a sewerage pipe and manholes along the route of the railway, which effectively blocks the railway for that stretch and will cost a song to fix.

Mind you they have just spent a couple of €million on the Dunshaughlin bus lane project at great inconvienience to locals and N3 commuters for over a year, only to rip it up a year later to put in new water pipes. It is possible that the sewerage pipes, the missing bridge and the Dunshaughlin bus lanes are all part of the Meath malaise that seems to creep into every major project up here.

Whatever about courting controversy on the N3 and in the N2 ending a fine motorway on a badly designed roundabout that cars crash into and trucks overturn on ever other week, generally the NRA seem to do things properly.

If you read through spongebobs contribution above where he pasted an exerpt from the M3 hearings, there is a part where it is explained that Iarnród Éireann raised objections to the absense of a bridge on the basis that the alignment would be compromised but then subsequently withdrew their objection. The only reason there is a bridge at all is because the residents took Iarnród Éireann's dropped objection and secured the bridges themselves.

The problem is if IÉ walked away from the alignment during the hearings, isn't it possible that they might have 'indicated' in a private memo to the NRA that they no longer required the alignment?

MCC planning office have been saying the bridge is going in all along. So if it is isn't, either the NRA is breaking the rules or IÉ gave away the bridge

T-max

I wonder having read this thread, if anyone knows an engineer responsible for this Section from Siac Ferrovial ? They might just be able to clarify what is proposed.

loyatemu

ask the NRA - they're generally quite good at responding to queries.

spacetweek

loyatemu wrote: »

ask the NRA - they're generally quite good at responding to queries.

There's been quite enough speculation on here. This matter can be resolved easily enough by asking the right people. Let's not fill in the blanks lest we lose the run of ourselves.

IIMII

The absence of an embankment carrying the M3 over the disused railway line is fact.

It's the reason for the absense that is the cause of speculation.

I don't think any reason given by the NRA or IÉ will adaquately explain why ABP/MCC bridge plan wasn't implemented. The former argued against the bridge, the latter walked away from it.

I'll bet my bottom dollar that we'll all be treated to PR along the lines of "plans for reopening Phase 2 of the Navan rail link from Dunboyne to Navan are progressing in line with Transport 21 timeframes. The M3 has been designed to facilitate reopening the line."

In cases like this, you don't listen to what they are saying, you look at what they are doing.

Still it would be good to hear an official explanation.

Sponge Bob

IIMII wrote: »

Still it would be good to hear an official explanation.

The official explanation is that the Fir Bolgs never actually went away but got jobs in CIE instead or joined FF in Meath . :cool: .

Then the Tuatha De Danann swept across the plains of Meath .

The following is what ensued according to my own recent FoI request on the Navan Line from the Dept of Transport
!!!

IIMII

The jungle drums say that IÉ say that construction of an embankment to facilitate the railway is the NRA's responsibility and that the NRA know this.. As clear as mud.

Just on an aside, it was mentioned above that the Tolka crossess beneath the line 3 times. It's actually 6 times. In 2 of those instances, the Tolka is little more than a stream. Of the remaining 4, I think 2 bridges are being retained and a third (a girder bridge at Pace station carpark) is being removed. The sixth is just north of the start of the Trim Road bridge and what will happen there (if anything) is anyones guess.

DWCommuter

The cannistown conumdrum continues.

All bodies involved are so far ignoring my requests for information. I have sought clarification on whether ABP stipulated that the M3 should go over the railway alignment on an embankment with a "box" built in to allow the railway alignment stay intact. This is the accepted understanding of what was meant to happen as the ABP ruling refers to a similar structure at Pace. This is under construction. (The OP has a photo of it on the thread)Furthermore, I had an engineering colleague of mine look at the site yesterday. The realigned local road now obstructs the course of the railway. Part of the original embankment (south of the M3) has been bulldozed from the periphery of Bective RFC. (it was on a falling gradient as it headed towards the site of the M3 works.) The only way the railway can cross the M3 now is by increasing the gradient on the approach from Dublin over a distance of approx. 3km and building a viaduct similar to the luas structure in Cherrywood to cross the local road, the site of the current M3 compound and the motorway itself. It would be the biggest railway (luas excluded) structure built in Ireland since the 19th century. This is not speculation. This is fact. Any knowledgeable person visiting the site will atest to this.

So far I have no doubt that someone somewhere is taking the piss out of campaigners for this railway. The costs involved are already prohibitive and this blatant compromise of the alignment in an era of so called comittment to reopening the railway is nothing short of scandalous. However, Im still atempting to see the apparent drawings on file with MCC. The only speculation at the moment is the exact plan for getting across the M3 in cannistown. But what is fact is that the reopening of the Navan line along the original route (preferred route by all accounts) has been bulldozed into a high cost and major engineering arena.

Im going to keep at it. because I believe that Dempsey, IE and MCC have been leading people up the garden path and they can't hide forever. When I discovered the sewer main a few years back, alarm bells rang, but this latest escapade is the icing on the cake.

Sponge Bob

DWCommuter wrote: »

Im going to keep at it. because I believe that Dempsey, IE and MCC have been leading people up the garden path and they can't hide forever. When I discovered the sewer main a few years back, alarm bells rang, but this latest escapade is the icing on the cake.

Just so you know what you are dealing with . Noel Dempsey Promised Navan the COMPLETE line by MARCH 2004 . He fooled the whole of Meath 9 years ago when he said as follows below, why should he bother stopping the lies now ??? eh ???

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054948917

Government Set To Approve New Rail Service
By Anne Casey, Meath Chronicle, Sat, 6th March 1999

The proposed new rail service to Navan and Dublin took a step closer to reality this week as the government looked set to approve a massive overhaul of the suburban rail system.

The Minister for the Environment, Noel Dempsey, has predicted that a rail link with Navan should be in place in less than five years, and insisted that any passenger railway coming into the county could not be allowed to stop short of Navan.

The Cabinet is believed to be ready to approve a confidential report on suburban rail, which provides for a new inland rail link to Navan, serving Clonsilla and Dunboyne.

Proposals are also being discussed regarding the possibility of taking a route through Blanchardstown and Dunshaughlin to Ratoath and Ashbourne.

According to Minister Dempsey, bringing the rail service to Navan is at the top of the agenda. He pointed out that the Strategic Planning Initiative signalled that Navan was to become a dormitory town of Dublin and said that any housing initiatives would have to be linked with public transport developments.

The proposals have been warmly welcomed throughout the county , with Minister Mary Wallace, pledging to keep pressure on to ensure that government and EU funding is made available for the project.

The Fine Gael leader, John Bruton, welcomed the proposals, pointing out that he had been pursuing this project with his colleague Mary Sylver, for a long time. He warned, however, that it was essential adequate parking and platform space be provided and that there be enough rolling stock provided to ensure a proper service.

He also stressed the importance of having regular services for people coming from Dublin to Meath to work as well as for those commuting to Dublin.

The chairman of Navan Urban Council, Colr. Jim Holloway, outlined the necessity for a rail link by pointing out it was unacceptable that the people of Meath, and Navan in particular, should have to endure the hazards of traffic congestion on the main roads network.

"Sustainable development in the county and a good quality environment demands that this rail network be in place," he said.

Navan Urban Councillor Tommy Reilly said that he would be putting on pressure to ensure that the rail line didn't stop at Dunboyne, but would be continued to Navan. He pointed out that the population of the town was rising and roads in the area weren't able to cope.

IIMII

Word is that bridge plan is being redrawn up at this very moment for Cannistown to comply with ABP

Sponge Bob

IIMII wrote: »

Word is that bridge plan is being redrawn up at this very moment for Cannistown to comply with ABP

Who is redrawing it and who intended not to comply with the ABP ruling .

More importantly who will enforce this ABP ruling ??

Who undrew it ???

lord lucan

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Who is redrawing it and who intended not to comply with the ABP ruling .

More importantly who will enforce this ABP ruling ??

Who undrew it ???

whoever it was obviously read this thread and realised they'd been rumbled:D

Victor

I think the townland is Kennastown with the familiar name of Cannistown.

http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=53.616064,-6.670659&spn=0.000668,0.010943&z=17

http://maps.epa.ie/InternetMapViewer/mapviewer.aspx - you need to zoom in - its few km south of Navan. You can see the the archaelogical trenching.

Bird's eye view (be careful when moving about, its right at the edge of bird's eye area and can revert to a nothingness). The alignment is obvious if you go a little bit north or south - behind the houses. http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=sy2gtngf9pjp&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=27943303&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1

IIMII

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Who is redrawing it and who intended not to comply with the ABP ruling?

Eurolink is redrawing it. I haven't been able to find out the why of it

Victor wrote: »

I think the townland is Kennastown with the familiar name of Cannistown.

http://maps.google.com/maps?t=h&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=53.616064,-6.670659&spn=0.000668,0.010943&z=17

That's it. The kink in the roadway is the old stone railway bridge in the pic