[Article] Dempsey says Broadstone line to Luas, Docklands can stay open

monument · 07-02-2008 2:04am #1

Dempsey derails ambitious CIÉ plan and opts for new Luas line
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0206/1201903566627.html
Harry McGee, Political Staff

Minister for Transport Noel Dempsey last night informed CIÉ that it will have to drop ambitious plans for a heavy rail hub at Broadstone in Dublin in favour of a Luas line under the aegis of the Rail Procurement Agency (RPA), The Irish Times has established.

The key Broadstone depot - located a short distance from the quays in the northside of the city - has been the subject of what has been, in effect, a "turf war" between CIÉ and the RPA. Both agencies have wrangled over how it should be utilised in the future - at one stage CIÉ denied the other transport agency access to the site, prompting then minister Martin Cullen to make a personal intervention.

The site was earmarked for a Luas-type operation as far back as 1996 with plans to set up a new extension using the old Broadstone railway alignment, which is no longer in use.

But last summer, CIÉ submitted an alternative plan for Broadstone as a transport hub for heavy-duty rail. The blueprint was ambitious in scope.

Broadstone would become a new rail depot that would serve intercity trains from Galway along with commuter services from Maynooth, Navan and Kildare.

CIÉ said the expansion of Broadstone was vital to cater for significant expansion in rail services and huge increases in passenger numbers. It would also ease the pressure on Connolly Station.

But The Irish Times has learned that Mr Dempsey wrote to all the transport agencies yesterday informing them that he intends to allow the RPA to proceed with planning the Luas line along the agreed alignment using Broadstone.

In the letter, Mr Dempsey also mandated CIÉ to make an early application for planning permission to retain its dockland station on a permanent basis.

The dockland station was expected to be operational for 10 years but the upshot of Mr Dempsey's decision is that it will now be made permanent, and will become the station catering for commuter services from Maynooth, Navan and Kildare.

The Minister's decision was based on a study he commissioned from specialist consultants Booz Hamilton Allen (BHA) on the CIÉ plans.

Using traffic projection models, BHA concluded that a heavy-rail depot at Broadstone was not required and that a permanent dockland railway station would comfortably accommodate commuter rail services.

The CIÉ plans were predicated on projected population increases based on Central Statistics Office data.

However, BHA concluded that even with the largest projected increase in rail traffic, a heavy rail hub at Broadstone, was not required.
© 2008 The Irish Times

I'd normally be in favour of high quality tram lines.... but the tram line could take another path while building a tramway on the Broadstone aliment means less future scope commuter rail.

There's a high likelihood of when ever - or if ever - a Dublin transport authority is put in place it'll talk for ever and ever about decisions taken before its time - anybody willing to give odds that Broadstone and the Docklands will be among them?

Nostradamus · 07-02-2008 2:11am

But The Irish Times has learned that Mr Dempsey wrote to all the transport agencies yesterday informing them that he intends to allow the RPA to proceed with planning the Luas line along the agreed alignment using Broadstone.

In the letter, Mr Dempsey also mandated CIÉ to make an early application for planning permission to retain its dockland station on a permanent basis

Perfect compromise. There is nothing to fault in this decision. The CIE Broadstone "plan" was nothing more than a mangy old tom cat whizzing on a wall.

DWCommuter · 07-02-2008 2:38am

Read it again lads and you'll notice a much deeper implication.

"There may be trouble ahead."

Ham'nd'egger · 07-02-2008 2:52am

I really can't see this going down well at all in Heuston.

With LUAS running through Broadstone, while some space will be lost to hold onto some buses, it is more the potential loss of any property income from selling the Docklands site that will hit CIE far more. Much of the new rolling stock, station redevelopment, etc by Irish Rail over the last 20 years was funded from their own resources, with a period in the late 80's and early 1990's when Irish Rail managed to source new carriages (Mark 3 Push Pulls) and open stations on it's own bat. Even with State injections, CIE have to make up significant shortfalls at times. Then it sees LUAS lines being fully funded from State coffers, and in this case it is effectively paying for it de facto. I can't see the Minister paying up for shortfall in revenues

Much and all needed as the LUAS and Metro line is needed for Dublin, as much as people will feel they waste money or are inefficient and hate, you can see why they may be angry with such a move; it doesn't show a level playing field between the two companies.

John R · 07-02-2008 9:50am

DWCommuter wrote: »

Read it again lads and you'll notice a much deeper implication.

"There may be trouble ahead."

I presume you are referring to the direction to make Docklands permenent, the only reason to retain the surface Docklands station is if the Interconnector is not going to happen.

Colm R · 07-02-2008 10:42am

Hamndegger wrote: »

Much and all needed as the LUAS and Metro line is needed for Dublin, as much as people will feel they waste money or are inefficient and hate, you can see why they may be angry with such a move; it doesn't show a level playing field between the two companies.

The thing is, it shouldn't be an issue of a level playing field. This kind of stuborn bickering between the two, where the DoT seem to be little more than moderators facilitating the fight, shows how cooperation between the two seems to be non existant.

Without co-operation, say goodbye to integration.

trellheim · 07-02-2008 10:58am

it's all Victor's fault for doing "Emperor's New Clothes"

:):):)

markf909 · 07-02-2008 10:59am

DWCommuter wrote: »

Read it again lads and you'll notice a much deeper implication.

Deeper than a tunnel from Heuston to the Docklands via the Green?

paulm17781 · 07-02-2008 11:56am

This doesn't look good at all! The fact CIE were planning to use Broadstone for Maynooth trains is really bad. Do they already know we're not getting the IC?

marmajam · 07-02-2008 12:11pm

DWCommuter wrote: »

Read it again lads and you'll notice a much deeper implication.

"There may be trouble ahead."

Conspiracies my asre. Youze are worse than tree huggers, an Taisce et al for seeing the end of the world in everything.
Look. Broadstone is in the middle of nowhere and nobody wants to terminate there. It makes more sense to have a Luas line passing thro' en route someday to Finglas.
Docklands? Better to keep it for none interconnector services. Why read convoluted deviousness into every twitch of a transport minister. Without any proof.
Anything is possible or impossible but as of present interconnector is central to everything.
P.S. bloke in pub told me boards.ie is controlled by sleeper aliens in al-Qaeda

KC61 · 07-02-2008 12:22pm

This has nothing to do with the Interconnector - what it has to do with is the extraordinary turf war that was acted out between CIE and the RPA.

The sudden desire to re-open Broadstone came out of the blue in an announcement by the current CIE chairman (not from IE). It was purely an attempt to stop the RPA gaining access to the alignment which he viewed as CIE property and not for the use of LUAS as outlined in T21.

Broadstone could never have been used for Kildare trains as it is to the west of the connection from Heuston - poor reporting there. What we are talking about is where the diesel services from Navan and Longford will go in the future, given that Pace and Maynooth will be served by DART.

It would have been an extraordinary waste of public money to build another terminus station when Docklands already exists. As it is people will be able to change at Liffey Junction to LUAS to travel to the south city, and to DART at the same station for Bray.

I certainly do not see any dilution in plans for the interconnector or electrification to Maynooth/Pace, Balbriggan and Hazelhatch (I assume that's what you're referring to DWCommuter). This is the government (rightly in this case) telling CIE to start working with the other agencies and to stop these petty turf wars.

IE is currently going to tender for a large amount of extra rolling stock to deliver this - I really think people are reading too much into it.

AlekSmart · 07-02-2008 12:25pm

Quote the Paper of Record.....

" The dockland station was expected to be operational for 10 years but the upshot of Mr Dempsey's decision is that it will now be made permanent, and will become the station catering for commuter services from Maynooth, Navan and Kildare.

Whats with the the......???? :eek:

marmajam · 07-02-2008 12:39pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

Quote the Paper of Record.....

" The dockland station was expected to be operational for 10 years but the upshot of Mr Dempsey's decision is that it will now be made permanent, and will become the station catering for commuter services from Maynooth, Navan and Kildare.

Whats with the the......???? :eek:

asre over tit journalism.
As usual. It's all too confusing for the little lambs.

paulm17781 · 07-02-2008 1:09pm

So despite the IC being designed to alleviate the Connolly bottle neck and allow Maynooth services to go into the city centre, you're not at all worried they they are already talking about a terminus for Maynooth trains? I wish I had your optimism.

Ham'nd'egger · 07-02-2008 1:31pm

Colm R wrote: »

The thing is, it shouldn't be an issue of a level playing field. This kind of stuborn bickering between the two, where the DoT seem to be little more than moderators facilitating the fight, shows how cooperation between the two seems to be non existant.

Without co-operation, say goodbye to integration.

Colm, I agree with you; it ought not to happen and it is a crying shame to see.

Thing is, when it comes to a level playing field, CIE can rightly point at the two current LUAS lines and wonder when they would get handed a new €700 million+ system to work. CIE can rightly ask why they lose €60 million a year in Dublin alone on traffic snarls for the want of a few decent bus lanes they were promised 20 years ago; CIE ask why they can't run new routes and buy new buses only to be told the likes of Barton and Morton have objections to the route they have not bothered to open. CIE can ask why freight on rail isn't prioritized in spite of it being faster, safer, cleaner, greener and longer lasting than lugging it onto trucks and why is isn't allowed to properly ply for new freight markets into the future. And now, they are told that they are to forego land banks to another holding, with no evident sweetener.

Truth be known, the CIE board know well why, and woe betide the Transport Ministry when this comes to court as it will not be pretty for the State.

KC61 · 07-02-2008 1:33pm

No I don't as Maynooth services already virtually all go to Pearse. That is not going to change.

This is journalists taking the wrong end of the stick of a plan that was designed on the back of an envelope to try and scupper the RPA taking what was viewed as CIE territory.

Nothing more nothing less.

markf909 · 07-02-2008 1:37pm

Hamndegger wrote: »

Thing is, when it comes to a level playing field, CIE can rightly point at the two current LUAS lines and wonder when they would get handed a new €700 million+ system to work.

I think a turnkey system like this works best with a turnkey operation.

Honestly how good would the Luas be if it got the CIE union legacy and poor management from the off?

marmajam · 07-02-2008 1:44pm

paulm17781 wrote: »

So despite the IC being designed to alleviate the Connolly bottle neck and allow Maynooth services to go into the city centre, you're not at all worried they they are already talking about a terminus for Maynooth trains? I wish I had your optimism.

'Yure worst fears will come upon you'
Samuel 56:87
For sure.....

murphaph · 07-02-2008 1:52pm

I would hope that if the IC is a dead duck that some FoI requests from journalists would uncover the relevant correspondence between CIE<->DoT. I can't see the good news in them stating that Spencer Dock is to remain open. The ticking clock on Spencer Dock was the only thing keeping the IC alive IMO. I hope I'm wrong.

paulm17781 · 07-02-2008 1:56pm

marmajam wrote: »

'Yure worst fears will come upon you'
Samuel 56:87
For sure.....

What irony, using the bible to highlight superstition.

marmajam · 07-02-2008 2:13pm

paulm17781 wrote: »

What irony, using the bible to highlight superstition.

Yure mieowing up the wrong tree.
Check yure Samuel 56:87

paulm17781 · 07-02-2008 2:16pm

marmajam wrote: »

Yure mieowing up the wrong tree.
Check yure Samuel 56:87

I'm not sure what you're referring to but I can assure you I don't have a "Samuel". Either way he won't know much about the IC and the historic lack of investment in public transport in this city or how the need for it is frequently ignored despite various promises.

marmajam · 07-02-2008 2:18pm

paulm17781 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're referring to but I can assure you I don't have a "Samuel". Either way he won't know much about the IC and the historic lack of investment in public transport in this city or how the need for it is frequently ignored despite various promises.

Yure right.

KC61 · 07-02-2008 2:19pm

murphaph wrote: »

I would hope that if the IC is a dead duck that some FoI requests from journalists would uncover the relevant correspondence between CIE<->DoT. I can't see the good news in them stating that Spencer Dock is to remain open. The ticking clock on Spencer Dock was the only thing keeping the IC alive IMO. I hope I'm wrong.

I really do think that this is scaremongering.

The retention of the station at Docklands has no impact on the Interconnector, as the portholes are to the east. There will still be a requirement for diesel services from Navan and beyond Maynooth post-electrification. Hence the suggestion that Docklands be retained. Would you be drawing the same conclusion if Broadstone were to be reopened? What would be the sense in building another terminus station when one already exists? It makes no financial sense whatsoever.

With IE tendering for significant addtional rolling stock to cope with electrification I really think that it is clear that people are adding 2 and 2 together and making 5.

What we had was a solo run from the Chairman of CIE and he has been told that the government do not agree with it. Plain and simple.

marmajam · 07-02-2008 2:24pm

KC61 wrote: »

I really do think that this is scaremongering.

The retention of the station at Docklands has no impact on the Interconnector, as the portholes are to the east. There will still be a requirement for diesel services from Navan and beyond Maynooth post-electrification. Hence the suggestion that Docklands be retained. Would you be drawing the same conclusion if Broadstone were to be reopened? What would be the sense in building another terminus station when one already exists? It makes no financial sense whatsoever.

With IE tendering for significant addtional rolling stock to cope with electrification I really think that it is clear that people are adding 2 and 2 together and making 5.

What we had was a solo run from the Chairman of CIE and he has been told that the government do not agree with it. Plain and simple.

Yure in the wrong forum KC61.
You need to go to the transport reality forum.
This is the paranoia and conspiracy forum.

Nostradamus · 07-02-2008 2:35pm

Last year, in that Dockland magazine the DDAA puts out it stated that the management of the National Convention Centre have been lobbying the DOT to retain Docklands Station and expand it. The rationale being that it would allow trains from all parts of the country to serve the new convention centre.

There is no evidence to suggest the Interconnector is not happening. CIE did a Thomas Davis with Broadstone. That's all.

murphaph · 07-02-2008 2:41pm

KC61 wrote: »

The retention of the station at Docklands has no impact on the Interconnector, as the portholes are to the east.

That's physical impact. I'm talking political impact.

KC61 wrote: »

There will still be a requirement for diesel services from Navan and beyond Maynooth post-electrification. Hence the suggestion that Docklands be retained. Would you be drawing the same conclusion if Broadstone were to be reopened? What would be the sense in building another terminus station when one already exists? It makes no financial sense whatsoever.

One already exists alright....Connolly! The point of the Interconnector is multi-fold but one point is to alleviate the bottleneck that is Connolly Station. If the IC is built then Navan/Kilcock diesel services could and should be able to terminate in Connolly shed using the free slots created by diverting all Balbriggan DARTs through the IC.

Maynooth/Pace<->Bray/Greystones DART will be able to stick to P6/P7 leaving P1/P2/P3/P4/P5 free for just Enterprise/Dundalk suburban/Navan suburban/Longford suburban. That's a dedicated platform for each service!

KC61 · 07-02-2008 2:55pm

murphaph wrote: »

That's physical impact. I'm talking political impact.

One already exists alright....Connolly! The point of the Interconnector is multi-fold but one point is to alleviate the bottleneck that is Connolly Station. If the IC is built then Navan/Kilcock diesel services could and should be able to terminate in Connolly shed using the free slots created by diverting all Balbriggan DARTs through the IC.

Maynooth/Pace<->Bray/Greystones DART will be able to stick to P6/P7 leaving P1/P2/P3/P4/P5 free for just Enterprise/Dundalk suburban/Navan suburban/Longford suburban. That's a dedicated platform for each service!

Indeed....but I'd then question why this Broadstone plan was needed in the first place? Instead, it has been sensibly knocked on the head and the existing station at Docklands retained without extra building costs of an unnecessary station. The option of both Connolly and Docklands is maintained and if services grow there is sufficient capacity to cater for it all.

I'd call that a win win situation. An existing station is being retained and a significant amount of additional unnecessary work avoided.

murphaph · 07-02-2008 3:16pm

KC61 wrote: »

Indeed....but I'd then question why this Broadstone plan was needed in the first place? Instead, it has been sensibly knocked on the head and the existing station at Docklands retained without extra building costs of an unnecessary station. The option of both Connolly and Docklands is maintained and if services grow there is sufficient capacity to cater for it all.

Ok. Imagine a world with no IC and Spencer Dock closing as scheduled in <10 years. Connolly is already exploding under the strain. CIE told stating to the minister that they would need additional slots in the city. They said "we'll keep Broadstone then" and the minister said "oh no you won't, keep Spencer Dock open instead". Plausible, even a little bit?

trellheim · 07-02-2008 3:39pm

The ticking clock on Spencer Dock

.. I like the onomatopoeia ..... where are we now ? 6 years left ?

KC61 has the truth of it ; there is a much bigger shadow war going on between RPA and CIE and since DTA will form from RPA this is set to continue

Notice how DCC have not released the traffic management city centre figures yet ... so no BX solution yet.

But still we are seeing a Bailey bridge to go in where BX will go and CIE/RPA in a nasty spat

and since Spencer dock needs to apply for retention there's going to be fun ahead.

KC61 · 07-02-2008 5:53pm

murphaph wrote: »

Ok. Imagine a world with no IC and Spencer Dock closing as scheduled in <10 years. Connolly is already exploding under the strain. CIE told stating to the minister that they would need additional slots in the city. They said "we'll keep Broadstone then" and the minister said "oh no you won't, keep Spencer Dock open instead". Plausible, even a little bit?

You really are dealing in "what if" territory here.

The reality is that the ONLY reason Broadstone raised its head was the political spat between CIE and the RPA. Nothing else. Remember where it came from. An interview with the Chairman of CIE last summer.

I would certainly not see any situation where Docklands station would be closed if the Interconnector did not happen. But until anyone suggests otherwise I really do think that all of this nonsense is that - pure conspiracy theory.

Broadstone opening/shutting was never anything to do with the interconnector.

murphaph · 07-02-2008 6:06pm

KC61 wrote: »

You really are dealing in "what if" territory here.

The reality is that the ONLY reason Broadstone raised its head was the political spat between CIE and the RPA. Nothing else. Remember where it came from. An interview with the Chairman of CIE last summer.

I would certainly not see any situation where Docklands station would be closed if the Interconnector did not happen. But until anyone suggests otherwise I really do think that all of this nonsense is that - pure conspiracy theory.

Broadstone opening/shutting was never anything to do with the interconnector.

Well, if and when it's built I'll hold my hands up and say I was paranoid but our history wrt political meddling in our transport system hasn't done much good. Generally involves stupid things like Greystones DART or cutting back (DART to Tallaght/Luas link up, Mary O'Rourke) etc. The "good stuff" is usually provided by the agencies themselves, in spite of government meddling.

marmajam · 07-02-2008 6:29pm

Facts mean nothing to the paranoid conspiracy theorist. Because they KNOW the whole thing is a trick. When the IC is 95% built they will still find some devious scam in it.
It's a psychological condition. A sort of emotional cowardice - if the prophecy of doom fails to transpire, weeelllll......they can recover some credit by announcing: ' Well done! I never thought you would do it.....'
But glory be to God, if they are right: 'I told you so!'
It's a sort of loser mentality. It remind me of those old paddys, working in US or UK, half decrepit themselves who would visit Ireland and never tire telling you how everything here was crap. A projection of their own insecurity.
Amen.

markf909 · 07-02-2008 7:48pm

marmajam wrote: »

Facts mean nothing to the paranoid conspiracy theorist. Because they KNOW the whole thing is a trick. When the IC is 95% built they will still find some devious scam in it.
It's a psychological condition. A sort of emotional cowardice - if the prophecy of doom fails to transpire, weeelllll......they can recover some credit by announcing: ' Well done! I never thought you would do it.....'
But glory be to God, if they are right: 'I told you so!'
It's a sort of loser mentality. It remind me of those old paddys, working in US or UK, half decrepit themselves who would visit Ireland and never tire telling you how everything here was crap. A projection of their own insecurity.
Amen.

I'd like to know what percentage of public transport projects promised since the original DRRTS study 33 years ago have been delivered on.

Marmajam, any cold, hard facts handy?

marmajam · 07-02-2008 8:01pm

markf909 wrote: »

I'd like to know what percentage of public transport projects promised since the original DRRTS study 33 years ago have been delivered on.

Marmajam, any cold, hard facts handy?

The normal facts or the conspiracy perception facts?

markf909 · 07-02-2008 8:05pm

marmajam wrote: »

The normal facts or the conspiracy perception facts?

Straight up normal ones, it has been 33 years since publication.

KC61 · 07-02-2008 8:34pm

murphaph wrote: »

Well, if and when it's built I'll hold my hands up and say I was paranoid but our history wrt political meddling in our transport system hasn't done much good. Generally involves stupid things like Greystones DART or cutting back (DART to Tallaght/Luas link up, Mary O'Rourke) etc. The "good stuff" is usually provided by the agencies themselves, in spite of government meddling.

I would totally agree with your comments regarding political meddling. It has damaged the development of proper public transport in Dublin for decades.

However reopening Broadstone to heavy rail was (as I have to repeatedly state) not part of long term planning, but rather was a back of the envelope reaction by the current Chairman of CIE to the RPA gaining some of "his" property. And no matter how much anyone tries to twist it into something else, that is what it was.

murphaph · 07-02-2008 8:44pm

marmajam wrote: »

Facts mean nothing to the paranoid conspiracy theorist. Because they KNOW the whole thing is a trick. When the IC is 95% built they will still find some devious scam in it.
It's a psychological condition. A sort of emotional cowardice - if the prophecy of doom fails to transpire, weeelllll......they can recover some credit by announcing: ' Well done! I never thought you would do it.....'
But glory be to God, if they are right: 'I told you so!'
It's a sort of loser mentality. It remind me of those old paddys, working in US or UK, half decrepit themselves who would visit Ireland and never tire telling you how everything here was crap. A projection of their own insecurity.
Amen.

See Markf's post. The government (of whatever colour) has failed repeatedly to deliver on transport projects in Dublin. The Interconnector would be just another to the pile my overly optimistic friend.;)

monument · 07-02-2008 8:51pm

KC61 wrote: »

I would totally agree with your comments regarding political meddling. It has damaged the development of proper public transport in Dublin for decades.

However reopening Broadstone to heavy rail was (as I have to repeatedly state) not part of long term planning, but rather was a back of the envelope reaction by the current Chairman of CIE to the RPA gaining some of "his" property. And no matter how much anyone tries to twist it into something else, that is what it was.

In all fairness, it's pretty logical that one would react to ones property being given away. The back of the envelope reaction, as you describe it, was a political way of reacting. Or more so, was a way of reacting that the political world might understand.

For Irish Rail to have just turned around and said we want the line and station for some unnamed point in the future, is something that would have been brushed aside by the government in favour a shiny Luas line in the short term.

Governments don't think in the long term so they'll have a bias towards the short term and shiny.

marmajam · 07-02-2008 9:07pm

Mostly they were right not to build that stuff. Yure analysis not correct. That's why you take this forum seriously. Hot air.

markf909 · 07-02-2008 9:09pm

marmajam wrote: »

Mostly they were right not to build that stuff. Yure analysis not correct. That's why you take this forum seriously. Hot air.

Where's me WUM smiley?

marmajam · 07-02-2008 9:27pm

markf909 wrote: »

Where's me WUM smiley?

Yiz have got very sleepy on this forum. It took ya a million yrs to get it.

KC61 · 07-02-2008 9:51pm

monument wrote: »

In all fairness, it's pretty logical that one would react to ones property being given away. The back of the envelope reaction, as you describe it, was a political way of reacting. Or more so, was a way of reacting that the political world might understand.

For Irish Rail to have just turned around and said we want the line and station for some unnamed point in the future, is something that would have been brushed aside by the government in favour a shiny Luas line in the short term.

Governments don't think in the long term so they'll have a bias towards the short term and shiny.

I stand over my comments because at no point prior to this did CIE even suggest reopening Broadstone to heavy rail - and had in fact pushed for Docklands instead. It never featured in any of the plans produced.

As soon as an alternative was suggested, then all of a sudden the Chairman decided that should be reopened. Hence my significant degree of cynicism towards this completely unnecessary station reopening suggestion.

monument · 07-02-2008 10:48pm

It is their property. Having another State body (the RPA) who could take that property is something they never have to deal with before. They had no need to act before.

popebenny16 · 08-02-2008 2:38am

marmajam wrote: »

Yiz have got very sleepy on this forum. It took ya a million yrs to get it.

not everyone, pal.

between you and that loonie who wants to flatten O'Connell Street and Parnell Square this place is getting a lot more interesting.

loyatemu · 08-02-2008 11:35am

monument wrote: »

It is their property. Having another State body (the RPA) who could take that property is something they never have to deal with before. They had no need to act before.

its our property - we own CIE. If the govt want to use the land for something else then so be it.

I actually don't think Luas lines BX and F will be built - too much money and disruption for relatively little benefit, but that doesn't mean Irish Rail should be allowed waste money up there either.

trellheim · 08-02-2008 12:41pm

The necessary revisions have arisen for a range of reasons including changes to the scope of projects arising from public consultation, planning issues, procurement issues and archaeological difficulties and are set out below for individual projects. · Portlaoise Train depot will be completed in the first half of this year, rather than end 2007; the short delay arose because the planning approval process took longer than anticipated.· Cork Commuter Rail Service to Midleton: The construction timetable is yet to be finalised with the contractors, but Iarnród Éireann is optimistic that passenger services will start in early 2009.· Linking of the existing Luas lines: Dublin City Council is in the process of completing traffic modelling work as part of its examination of revised traffic management arrangements in the city centre, which will be required for the delivery of the Luas city centre link (line BX) and the further extension to Liffey Junction (line D). Following completion of further detailed design work and subject to a satisfactory outcome to the city centre traffic management planning work, the RPA plans to submit a Railway Order application for Luas Line BX to An Bord Pleanála this year. · The Tallaght to Citywest Luas project involves a longer alignment than originally planned and the timescale for completion has, therefore, been revised to 2010. · The revised completion date for the Connolly to Docklands Luas is 2009, rather than late 2008 as originally scheduled mainly because the RPA devoted a substantial period to addressing and resolving the concerns of businesses in the IFSC about the impact of construction on their operations.· Metro West: The projected completion date for the entire project remains 2014. The project has been identified as a PPP and the RPA, when announcing the emerging preferred route alignment, indicated that the possibility of phasing implementation would be discussed with prospective PPP bidders.. There were delays in the start of the Limerick Southern Ring Road due to tendering issues, which meant that the contract award process did not progress as quickly as was originally hoped. Completion is now scheduled for 2010. Although Construction on both the M3 and the N25 Waterford City Bypass were delayed because of archaeological issues at Tara and Woodstown respectively, the completion date for both projects remains 2010. · Dublin City Centre rail resignalling project was expanded to include the Maynooth line, resulting in a longer construction period and a 2011 completion date.· Due to a slight delay in the submission of the Railway Order application, Phase 1 of the Navan Line will now be completed in 2010.· Metro North: The scheduled completion date is now 2013 to take account of scope changes made arising from public consultations.

Ham'nd'egger · 08-02-2008 12:56pm

loyatemu wrote: »

its our property - we own CIE. If the govt want to use the land for something else then so be it.

I actually don't think Luas lines BX and F will be built - too much money and disruption for relatively little benefit, but that doesn't mean Irish Rail should be allowed waste money up there either.

It isn't "our" property as such, Loyal; it is that of the company. The CIE companies are private concerns that are owned by the sitting Minister but managed by their own board. CIE was a private undertaking until about 1948, and with it came the many sites, stations, gatekeeper houses, good sheds etc that the many railway companies owned in their 100 or so years of private undertaking. As these assets would have been inherited by CIE, they as a company own them outright and would be entitled to procure money for the release of same or to charge some rent for it's use. If it was the Office of Public Works who held the land, it would be an entirely different story as to the Minister directing alternate use for the land.

loyatemu · 08-02-2008 2:43pm

Hamndegger wrote: »

It isn't "our" property as such, Loyal; it is that of the company. The CIE companies are private concerns that are owned by the sitting Minister but managed by their own board. CIE was a private undertaking until about 1948, and with it came the many sites, stations, gatekeeper houses, good sheds etc that the many railway companies owned in their 100 or so years of private undertaking. As these assets would have been inherited by CIE, they as a company own them outright and would be entitled to procure money for the release of same or to charge some rent for it's use. If it was the Office of Public Works who held the land, it would be an entirely different story as to the Minister directing alternate use for the land.

swings and roundabouts - if the minister owns the companies then they are publicly owned.

monument · 08-02-2008 3:06pm

My point wasn't really their ownership of the land per say, more so that they are holding it / controlled it / whatever, and having another body take it away from them for public trasnport use is something they never have to deal with before.

So, again, they had no need to act before.

bk · 08-02-2008 3:35pm

If anything I think this may actually make the IC more likely.

Here is my theory. CIE would love to sell the Docklands station land to their developer buddys for lots of money. If the IC doesn't get built and they can't use Broadstone, then they have to continue using the Docklands station indefinietly.

However if the hurry up and build the IC, then they can take the pressure off Connolly, redirect all the Docklands Diesel services into Connolly and then sell the docklands station land to their developer buddys.

I've always seen Broadstone as a detracting from the IC and making it less likely to happen. Perhaps now we will see CIE focus on the IC and make some real progress.

[Article] Dempsey says Broadstone line to Luas, Docklands can stay open

Comments