Part of Dublin to Belfast rail line collapses

murphaph

Cheers, I obviously overdid it with the rocks but the basic principle is that the 'culvert' with rapids was new and had recently eroded out from a higher level (according to the scouts). Even in that Eiretrans pic it's clearly just a trickle (though the tide has possibly gone out further in this pic).

Eitherway, the scouts KNEW something was afoot and IE failed (we don't know who or why just yet, but the organisation as a whole failed) to do their job properly and people nearly died (or at the very least were nearly badly injured I should imagine).

Bluetonic

Lets just make it clear that at low tide there have always been strong rapids under the viaduct and a flow of water from the estuary to the sea, there is never a lagoon created.

Irish Rail were down taking photos of the bridge over the Delvin today. I walked the coast from Balbriggan to Ben Head today at low tide and the change in sand banks along the the 4 mile stretch is nothing short of unusual since this day last week, during which we had the extremely high tides. Lots more rocks are exposed and in other there are soft sand deposits, a big change from the norm. Just to note I know the area like the back of my hand.

The high tides last weekend certainty changed a lot of things.

lostexpectation

Bluetonic wrote: »

Lets just make it clear that at low tide there have always been strong rapids under the viaduct and a flow of water from the estuary to the sea, there is never a lagoon created.

Irish Rail were down taking photos of the bridge over the Delvin today. I walked the coast from Balbriggan to Ben Head today at low tide and the change in sand banks along the the 4 mile stretch is nothing short of unusual since this day last week, during which we had the extremely high tides. Lots more rocks are exposed and in other there are soft sand deposits, a big change from the norm. Just to note I know the area like the back of my hand.

The high tides last weekend certainty changed a lot of things.

so your still claiming this all happened last week , you and barry kenny

Bluetonic

lostexpectation wrote: »

so your still claiming this all happened last week , you and barry kenny

I'm firstly correcting the error from murphaph then stating as fact that the high tides last week caused a lot of movement of sand banks (erosion). Thats fact and any amount of hatred of Irish Rail can't change that.

Let me make this clear in case you have to comment again unnecessarily on my posts - I'm am not saying that the high tides of last weekend were solely responsible for any damage to the Malahide estuary bridge. The fact is no body knows and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

I hope thats clear enough for you.

murphaph

Bluetonic wrote: »

Lets just make it clear that at low tide there have always been strong rapids under the viaduct and a flow of water from the estuary to the sea, there is never a lagoon created.

Irish Rail were down taking photos of the bridge over the Delvin today. I walked the coast from Balbriggan to Ben Head today at low tide and the change in sand banks along the the 4 mile stretch is nothing short of unusual since this day last week, during which we had the extremely high tides. Lots more rocks are exposed and in other there are soft sand deposits, a big change from the norm. Just to note I know the area like the back of my hand.

The high tides last weekend certainty changed a lot of things.

But the scouts claimed that they'd already noticed significant changes to the weir in June. The fact remains Bluetonic that this was not a sudden collapse about which IE had no prior warning. They were warned at least 5 days before the collapse (as a PASSENGER train passed over remember!) that there was cause for concern.

I note this post by gswr over on IRN (sorry I'm long since banned from there for questioning IE a few years back, so can't reply to him there);

I think that it is all to easy to jump to conclusions. Sea scouts are hardly structural engineers! I find that Frank McDonald can be mischief-making at times. Let's leave it to the Railway Safety Aurhority and the accident investigators: they are the only ones with the information and the competence to come to a proper conclusion.

...which I find incredibly arrogant seeing as these lowly seascouts actually predicted the failure of the bridge whereas the 'professionals' in IE let trains full of passengers keep running over a fatally flawed bridge. I imagine the EXACT same statement was made by some engineer/manager in IE when the report came in from the seascouts, ie, "what would a bunch od scouts know about OUR railway bridges?". IE are a bunch of jokers and the railway which belongs to us (the irish people) should be taken off them.

Have you got some connection to IE/CIE Bluetonic?

Bluetonic

murphaph wrote: »

The fact remains that this was not a sudden collapse about which IE had no prior warning.

The fact remains that in the opinion of the SS there was concern. The other fact is the IR inspected and weren't concerned. They are the only facts we have at the moment. Where was is established as fact that is was not a sudden collapse? Do you not think it would be wise to not pass judgment before we have ALL the facts?

murphaph wrote: »

Have you got some connection to IE/CIE Bluetonic?

Absolutely none, I am neither pro nor anti Irish Rail.

It's plain to see from the onset here IR have been prejudged due to the prejudices of some of the posters.

BrianD

murphaph wrote: »

But the scouts claimed that they'd already noticed significant changes to the weir in June. The fact remains Bluetonic that this was not a sudden collapse about which IE had no prior warning. They were warned at least 5 days before the collapse (as a PASSENGER train passed over remember!) that there was cause for concern.

I note this post by gswr over on IRN (sorry I'm long since banned from there for questioning IE a few years back, so can't reply to him there);

...which I find incredibly arrogant seeing as these lowly seascouts actually predicted the failure of the bridge whereas the 'professionals' in IE let trains full of passengers keep running over a fatally flawed bridge. I imagine the EXACT same statement was made by some engineer/manager in IE when the report came in from the seascouts, ie, "what would a bunch od scouts know about OUR railway bridges?". IE are a bunch of jokers and the railway which belongs to us (the irish people) should be taken off them.

Have you got some connection to IE/CIE Bluetonic?

Hang on, the sea scouts did not predict the failure of the bridge! They merely reported changes at the bridge and weir. Were they concerned about the "changes" in how they might effect their activities or were they concerned about the bridge? Did they ring CIE assuming that they were responsible for the upkeep of weir and bridge i.e. fix the weir so we can use it etc.

The failure of the bridge seems to be at the pier, yet the scouts pictures just shows the water going through the weir. I am guessing that this was more water than usual hence the picture. If there was evidence of subsidence surely they would have close up pictures of this damage?

The scouts claim is a little fishy me thinks.

murphaph

It's not a prejudice when Irish Rail have consistently shown themselves to be an amateur operation at every possible opportunity.

It would be prejudiced of me if IE had never actually demonstrated that they are incompetent and it was just my (incorrect) opinion, but IE are in general, incompetent.

lostexpectation

i'll take more heed of the word of kayaker who been going under that very arch for years over yours, particularily somebody who notified irish rail he was so concerned

its a discussion board people! Lets discuss.


the question is was the inspection done when seabed scouring would be visible...

as railusers.ie have said time to get the ceo or director of operations out front of centre on the radio/tv isntead of a pr man

lostexpectation

BrianD wrote: »

The failure of the bridge seems to be at the pier, yet the scouts pictures just shows the water going through the weir. I am guessing that this was more water than usual hence the picture. If there was evidence of subsidence surely they would have close up pictures of this damage?

IR suggested that the fault was at the seabed, just like the sea scout, not the pier.

murphaph

BrianD wrote: »

Hang on, the sea scouts did not predict the failure of the bridge! They merely reported changes at the bridge and weir. Were they concerned about the "changes" in how they might effect their activities or were they concerned about the bridge? Did they ring CIE assuming that they were responsible for the upkeep of weir and bridge i.e. fix the weir so we can use it etc.

The failure of the bridge seems to be at the pier, yet the scouts pictures just shows the water going through the weir. I am guessing that this was more water than usual hence the picture. If there was evidence of subsidence surely they would have close up pictures of this damage?

The scouts claim is a little fishy me thinks.

Brian, it's not the scouts job to do a detailed inspection of the bridge. They merely reported major changes to water flow and damage to the weir under a HIGH RISK (60% risk, where 5% is considered best practice) bridge. IE should then have taken it more seriously quite obviously.

The spin from the start was that "we had no idea this would happen" but they DID have at least some information. This is IE's second bridge collapse in 6 years folks. That's a bad record for such a small network with such low speeds.

BrianD

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Edited: I wonder would the engineers consider putting a cycle path along side the replaced bridge.

I don't think commuters would be confident with just a patch up job on the original structure.

I don't think it will be anything other than a replacement of the span and remedial work on the other sections.

A new bridge would take years to build. They could do a patch job and then build a new bridge in parallel. I can't see that happening though.

BrianD

murphaph wrote: »

Brian, it's not the scouts job to do a detailed inspection of the bridge. They merely reported major changes to water flow and damage to the weir under a HIGH RISK (60% risk, where 5% is considered best practice) bridge. IE should then have taken it more seriously quite obviously.

The spin from the start was that "we had no idea this would happen" but they DID have at least some information.

Coincidental. But the notion that the sea scouts predicted the bridge collapse doesn't stack up or that IR had advance notice as a result. Did IR not do a survey after the fact? TBH I would need to see a record of the call to believe it. Good PR for Malahide sea scouts though.

This is IE's second bridge collapse in 6 years folks. That's a bad record for such a small network with such low speeds.

Untrue, the Cahir viaduct was not a collapse. The derailed train destroyed the bridge deck and fell through. Big difference.

murphaph

BrianD wrote: »

Coincidental. But the notion that the sea scouts predicted the bridge collapse doesn't stack up or that IR had advance notice as a result. Did IR not do a survey after the fact? TBH I would need to see a record of the call to believe it. Good PR for Malahide sea scouts though..

So just to clarify, you doubt the seascouts ever contacted IE?

BrianD wrote: »

Untrue, the Cahir viaduct was not a collapse. The derailed train destroyed the bridge deck and fell through. Big difference.

The bridge failed. IE were resoundly condemned by the inspectorate. You're playing semantics here-a bridge gave way (under a derailed wagon which had not been maintained properly either) and IE were ultimately found completely responsible. Now another HIGH RISK bridge has collapsed. It doesn't bode well as so much of the network is victorian, can IE be trusted to maintain it?

lostexpectation

BrianD wrote: »

Coincidental. But the notion that the sea scouts predicted the bridge collapse doesn't stack up or that IR had advance notice as a result. Did IR not do a survey after the fact? TBH I would need to see a record of the call to believe it. Good PR for Malahide sea scouts though.

so they had private conversation with IR for PR purposes?

Bluetonic

murphaph wrote: »

It's not a prejudice when Irish Rail have consistently shown themselves to be an amateur operation at every possible opportunity.

It would be prejudiced of me if IE had never actually demonstrated that they are incompetent and it was just my (incorrect) opinion, but IE are in general, incompetent.

It's prejudice plain and simple and gives your point of view and opinions less credence.

murphaph

Bluetonic wrote: »

It's prejudice plain and simple and gives your point of view and opinions less credence.

in your opinion

do you consider IE in general run a good railway in comparison with other western european operators?

Bluetonic

murphaph wrote: »

do you consider IE in general run a good railway in comparison with other western european operators?

Western European rail operators is something which I don't have a good knowledge of, so for me to compare to IR without a full understanding would be quiet foolish.

murphaph

Bluetonic wrote: »

Western European rail operators is something which I don't have a good knowledge of, so for me to compare to IR without a full understanding would be quiet foolish.

Ok, forget about the comparion. Do you believe IE to be competent, in general?

IE can't even announce stations much of the time. This is schoolboy stuff.

Bluetonic

murphaph wrote: »

Ok, forget about the comparion. Do you believe IE to be competent, in general?

I can only speak in relation to the service on the northern line as it's the only one I've ever used with for any prolonged period of time. They appear to be competent in that the service they provide runs to the timetable (and is frequent), and when not it's well announced. I've always felt safe on the trains, and from living at the edge of the short hop zone I feel the fares are good value for money. I understand it's a commuter service and that I shouldn't have an expectation of a seat for such a trip. For the customer side of things perhaps they aren't as competent as they should be, some stations lack facilities, some trains can be dirty and some staff can at times be obnoxious.

I think thats a fair enough assessment of the northern line, it seems to have improved year on year over the last 15 years or so. Perhaps things are better or worse on other lines, I wouldn't know myself.

DWCommuter

In fairness to Murphaph, his opinion is based on the little problems (and some big ones) all over the network. When all are added up IE can be rightly viewed as an extremely poor rail operator. If you have experience of other European operators, then your views on IE will be even more sinister.:eek:

Now back OT. There is absolutely no doubt that traffic on northbound routes out of the city in the evening peak is laboriously slow due to the affected rail services. It has been getting steadily worse on Dorset st/Drumcondra road and Church st/Phisboro road, since Monday.

Infini

Bluetonic wrote: »

For the customer side of things perhaps they aren't as competent as they should be, some stations lack facilities, some trains can be dirty and some staff can at times be obnoxious.

It can work the other way too. Some people can think theyre the centre of attention too and think they can demand everything and anything. He'll I've seen one person demanding to be let use the toilet even tho they were closed and the last train's had left and refusing to listen to the staff member telling em there was one in the pub 30 seconds walk down the road!!

lostexpectation

from a kayak
http://www.railusers.ie/forum/showpost.php?p=48798&postcount=14

tigger1962 wrote:

that rapid never existed at that level of tide, the level used be at the rocks at each side of the current rapid and there would only be a trickle of water, not enough to paddle unless the tide was at a good level. That photo shows a nice fast and looks deep too..

not too far off murphaph :P

DWCommuter

Hungerford wrote: »

My thoughts exactly - the chances of Iarnrod Eireann coming out of this investigation in a positive light are now about the same as me winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

The scouts' pictures in particular could play a crucial role in the RAIU investigation. If they did warn IE that the bridge was on the verge of collapse and IE ignored them, it could ultimately spell the end of IE.

Not a chance. IE are better than the mafia!

BrianD

lostexpectation wrote: »

so they had private conversation with IR for PR purposes?

Eh, I read about it in the paper so I presume they had it with the Irish Times. I don't doubt that they contacted the IR but what issues did they raise?

Murphahp wrote:

The bridge failed. IE were resoundly condemned by the inspectorate. You're playing semantics here-a bridge gave way (under a derailed wagon which had not been maintained properly either) and IE were ultimately found completely responsible. Now another HIGH RISK bridge has collapsed. It doesn't bode well as so much of the network is victorian, can IE be trusted to maintain it?

The bridge didn't collapse, the deck gave way as a result of a derailment. If there was no derailment the bridge would still be in use today. The circumstances are not similar. I would speculate that if a train derailed at Malahide there would also be serious damage to the viaduct.

ronbyrne2005

Does anyone know if the shuttle between donabate and malahide in the morning takes people from malahide back to donabate? Person i know works in Donabate.
Cheers

KC61

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Does anyone know if the shuttle between donabate and malahide in the morning takes people from malahide back to donabate? Person i know works in Donabate.
Cheers

Not sure at the moment, as it appears to be one way only, but it will do from Monday morning next. See towards the bottom of the link below.

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/News-Centre/Travel-News/Service-Arrangements/

murphaph

lostexpectation wrote: »

from a kayak
http://www.railusers.ie/forum/showpost.php?p=48798&postcount=14



not too far off murphaph :P

Thanks! I speculate that the weir was originally built pretty much on the level. That kayaker seems to agree with my (crappy) photoshopped image. The rapid water channel used not exist when the tide was so far out, indicating serious erosion in the space of a couple of months. It did happen quickly but not overnight or anything like it. IE had forewarning and didn't appreciate the seriousness of the situation. Perhaps their engineers aren't familiar enough with coastal erosion and its effects on bridge structures? In which case, IE are entirely responsible for not having the right staff for the (rather important) job.

I guarantee you all that IE will be found at least partially liable for this but everyone will have forgotten about it by the time the inquiry is published and the usual head in IE will carry on as before, quietly ruining our railways.

lostexpectation

BrianD wrote: »

Eh, I read about it in the paper so I presume they had it with the Irish Times. I don't doubt that they contacted the IR but what issues did they raise?

this wasn't some lame hindsight coincidence 'i told my mate this would happen,' I swear I did' thing, they saw something wrong and got in touch with irish rail they took photos too. they were talking about the flow of the water so obviously not the piers.

Hungerford

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Does anyone know if the shuttle between donabate and malahide in the morning takes people from malahide back to donabate? Person i know works in Donabate.
Cheers

It does. It connects with the trains running between Donabate and Drogheda/Dundalk. The new revised emergency timetable is a big improvement on previous ones.