Route 139 Naas to Blanchardstown Launches 12th Mar

tnegun · 21-03-2018 11:45pm

The routing of this service doesn't seem to have been given much thought at all whoever routed it via Parson street in Maynooth has obviously never driven it.

devnull · 22-03-2018 12:06am

Dravokivich wrote: »

Section b indicates content requires approval. A lack of content doesn't mean something was not submit.

Of course it could be a hold up at the NTA end, but considering they had all of the timetable leaflets and maps done up well in advance it suggests they may well have done at least part of their bit and JJK have showed no effort or made no effort whatsoever as far as I can see publicly.

Seth Brundle · 22-03-2018 9:27am

L1011 wrote: »

Weight limit on Cope Bridge and the bus being rather heavier is on the front page of the Champion this week

I contacted Kildare Co Co about it and got this response yesterday...

Your case number xxxxx dated 20/03/2018 has been examined by the Roads Design Team in the Road Transport and Safety Department and the outcome is:
This matter is under examination by National Transport Authority (NTA).

Passing the buck :rolleyes:

n97 mini · 22-03-2018 2:06pm

L1011 wrote: »

Weight limit on Cope Bridge and the bus being rather heavier is on the front page of the Champion this week

I suspect the weight limit sign is to stop articulated lorries from using the backroads. The usual motivation for non-locals to use that route is to bypass the M50 toll.

Seth Brundle · 22-03-2018 3:07pm

n97 mini wrote: »

I suspect the weight limit sign is to stop articulated lorries from using the backroads. The usual motivation for non-locals to use that route is to bypass the M50 toll.

Nonetheless, the bridge has a 3.5tonne weight limit put in place by the council but they are happy to let something with a GVW of 19tonnes cross it.

dashcamdanny · 22-03-2018 3:12pm

Is it a railway bridge or canal bridge? Steel or stone?

Seth Brundle · 22-03-2018 3:47pm

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Is it a railway bridge or canal bridge? Steel or stone?

Both rail and canal.
Made from stone.
This is an old pic...

dashcamdanny · 22-03-2018 3:50pm

kbannon wrote: »

Both rail and canal.
Made from stone.
Hopefully this link works...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/R149,+Newtown,+Leixlip,+Co.+Kildare/@53.3734355,-6.4853196,3a,75y,200h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sIC3OCgfLFquDscoZS4L63A!2e0!4m6!1m3!3m2!1s0x486772108477f923:0xe5494d24a667fb58!2sUnnamed+Road,+Newtown,+Leixlip,+Co.+Kildare!3m1!1s0x486772108ff1cec7:0x6200481e6ade442

Surly this is an issue for Irish Rail then? I know they have big safety margins but putting a bus over a 3.5t limit is a bit much..

n97 mini · 22-03-2018 10:01pm

kbannon wrote: »

Nonetheless, the bridge has a 3.5tonne weight limit put in place by the council but they are happy to let something with a GVW of 19tonnes cross it.

The other two similar bridges crossing the same railway/canal combo, Pikes Bridge (opposite Carton House) and Broombridge don't have weight restrictions. I don't think there's a problem with the bridge, just the signs. Last thing I want to see is the bus re-routed as if it is I won't be able to use it if it is, but I also don't want to see a stream of HGVs going over it either.

If my theory is correct it would just be better to remove the signs from the bridge and at the same time introduce a HGV ban on the road going by Confey GAA.

L1011 · 22-03-2018 10:53pm

Post on the Kildare forum claims its been re-routed via Lucan Village. Which will make the service considerably slower as the dual Liffey crossing was not needed before.

n97 mini · 22-03-2018 11:05pm

L1011 wrote: »

Post on the Kildare forum claims its been re-routed via Lucan Village. Which will make the service considerably slower as the dual Liffey crossing was not needed before.

Exactly what I wasn't looking for. If true the Confey part of Leixlip has just lost a bus service, and the only bus service that runs after 9pm on Sundays.

bebeman · 23-03-2018 4:25pm

This is a NTA baby, not a good start is it, amateur effort would be the kindest way to describe it

AlekSmart · 23-03-2018 10:04pm

GM228 wrote: »

Article 15.7 of the contract for the 139 route states:-

Are you quoting from a generally available document,or a rolled-up parchment you found nailed to a tree along the route ?

GM228 · 24-03-2018 9:15pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

Are you quoting from a generally available document,or a rolled-up parchment you found nailed to a tree along the route ?

The contract was supplied with the Route 139 tender documents on eTenders.

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=116337&B=ETENDERS_SIMPLE&PS=1&PP=ctm/Supplier/publictenders

AlekSmart · 26-03-2018 7:44pm

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Surly this is an issue for Irish Rail then? I know they have big safety margins but putting a bus over a 3.5t limit is a bit much..

Looks like it's an issue fairly & squarely for the Kavanagh Group....the contract has a specific provision relating to this aspect...

Tenderers are responsible for carrying out an assessment of the Route to determine the suitability of their proposed vehicles to provide the Services.

Full marks to GM228 for the heads-up on the contract...It is a treasure trove of useful/less information,for sure

Seth Brundle · 26-03-2018 8:10pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

Looks like it's an issue fairly & squarely for the Kavanagh Group....the contract has a specific provision relating to this aspect...

GM228 mentioned that the NTA were supplying the busses and if they decided the route...???

GM228 wrote: »

The tender specifically stated buses would be supplied by the NTA, GA never had this option.

Was this mistake both JJK's and the NTA's?

AlekSmart · 26-03-2018 8:24pm

kbannon wrote: »

GM228 mentioned that the NTA were supplying the busses and if they decided the route...???

Was this mistake both JJK's and the NTA's?

No,that was for the other Go-Ahead contract.

The NTA decide the route,you as the operator,then see if yer oul bussez will fit along it...sure'n what could be simpler ?.....Ya

This one was always an operator supplied gig...as is the other (Bernard) Kavanagh route,the 817.

Seth Brundle · 26-03-2018 8:31pm

Thanks.
Obviously then nobody from JJK's drove the route beforehand and spotted the weight limit signs. I presume no bus will legally* make it over the bridge however so the new route (or should that be new new route?) will probably be the permanent route.

* I say legally because I've seen many mini-busses and coaches bring teams to Confey GAA club and my daughter claims to have been on busses including double deckers that crossed the bridge on school trips.

GM228 · 26-03-2018 8:46pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

kbannon wrote: »

GM228 mentioned that the NTA were supplying the busses and if they decided the route...???

Was this mistake both JJK's and the NTA's?

No,that was for the other Go-Ahead contract.

The NTA decide the route,you as the operator,then see if yer oul bussez will fit along it...sure'n what could be simpler ?.....Ya

This one was always an operator supplied gig...as is the other (Bernard) Kavanagh route,the 817.

I would blame both the NTA and JJ, but mainly the NTA as they set the route and bus requirements. The bus they required was for a minimum of 35 people, it would be impossible to supply such a bus subject to the 3.5t limit.

AlekSmart · 26-03-2018 8:52pm

GM228 wrote: »

I would blame both the NTA and JJ, but mainly the NTA as they set the route and bus requirements and the bus the required was for a minimum 35 people, it would be impossible to supply such a bus subject to the 3.5t limit.

Now Now !!

This is Ireland,and we'll have none of this "Blame" stuff....;)

If we can manage to square away the College Green....erm...."situation" then a teeney weeney 3.5 Tonne Bridge limit issue,on a pre-planned 12 Tonne Bus Route is nothing much....eh ?

There may well be an explaination in the offing....but an FoI request may be required to view it.

Par for our course,really

n97 mini · 28-03-2018 2:14pm

From tomorrow the 139 is back on its original route.

AlekSmart · 28-03-2018 3:08pm

n97 mini wrote: »

From tomorrow the 139 is back on its original route.

WHAAAT...?.....How ?....Who...?.....Surely not possible

......a new bridge erected in..two weeks ?....Incredible :eek: ! ....were the Army Engineeering Corps involved ?

I take back everything negative I have ever said about the N.T.A.

GM228 · 28-03-2018 3:23pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

WHAAAT...?.....How ?....Who...?.....Surely not possible ......a new bridge erected in..two weeks ?....Incredible :eek: ! ....were the Army Engineeering Corps involved ?

I take back everything negative I have ever said about the N.T.A.

I would guess the weight limit has simply been removed rather than any structural adjustments.

The limit was probably a mere traffic management measure rather than for structural reasons.

Seth Brundle · 28-03-2018 4:00pm

So does that mean trucks travelling over Cope bridge and down Captains Hill to avoid the M50?

AlekSmart · 28-03-2018 4:08pm

kbannon wrote: »

So does that mean trucks travelling over Cope bridge and down Captains Hill to avoid the M50?

Oh Oh...complications ?

Hmmm,the truck issue might just require a tweak of a bye-law or somesuch....not a problem....surely ?.........yea ?.....:cool:

dashcamdanny · 28-03-2018 4:13pm

That old bridge does not look like it could take a daily battering from 40 tonne plus trucks all day. But who knows.. Let find out.

Seth Brundle · 28-03-2018 4:26pm

dashcamdanny wrote: »

That old bridge does not look like it could take a daily battering from 40 tonne plus trucks all day. But who knows.. Let find out.

If the bridge gets damaged then in all likleihood they will build a new one - possibly one that suits the road layout Kildare and Fingal were wanting joining the N4 and N3?

n97 mini · 28-03-2018 5:34pm

The weight limit (as previously stated) is purely for traffic management purposes, i.e. to stop HGVs taking short cuts. It was the wrong tool for the job.

The exemption is for buses only. Though like the bus stops themselves I doubt there'll be any changes in signage whatsoever to indicate this. At least that'd be consistent!

The same tool was used in Castletown to achieve the same end, and there isn't even a bridge on the route!

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3651504,-6.5060986,3a,75y,141.62h,79.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV4SLf9dIN0IDvGF_Ulg60Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

n97 mini · 28-03-2018 5:39pm

dashcamdanny wrote: »

That old bridge does not look like it could take a daily battering from 40 tonne plus trucks all day. But who knows.. Let find out.

The bridge is pretty much the same as every other bridge along the Royal Canal/Sligo rail line, the most infamous one being Broombridge. No weight issues.

n97 mini · 28-03-2018 5:46pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

WHAAAT...?.....How ?....Who...?.....Surely not possible ......a new bridge erected in..two weeks ?....Incredible :eek: ! ....were the Army Engineeering Corps involved ?

I take back everything negative I have ever said about the N.T.A.

Local government and democracy in action I guess. A lot of local people (myself included), and councillors questioned the NTA on the validity of the re-route. One of the councillors announced earlier that the NTA had instructed JJK to go back to the original route from first bus tomorrow.

Ironically it was a different councillor (from Celbridge no less) that seemed instrumental in screaming "won't someone think of the children!" to the NTA in the first place. I'll vote for everyone except him in the next elections.

Route 139 Naas to Blanchardstown Launches 12th Mar

Comments