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