Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Navan Rail Line

12425262729

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,546 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


    Screenshot 2025-11-17 at 21.21.43.png

    The 2021 AECOM report and the numbers have considerable allowances



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,855 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    5 stations?

    I wonder could somebody list them for me, thanks.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72 ✭✭thosewhoknow


    I would’ve thought there was only 4 — Dunshaughlin, Kilmessan, Navan Central, and Navan North.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 120 ✭✭citizen6


    Feeder bus to M3 Parkway might be ok for people living in Navan within walking distance of a bus stop on the route. But a lot of the potential users of Navan rail line would have to drive to Navan and park, and then get the feeder bus, and then the train, with possibly another change in Dublin city centre to get to their ultimate destination. It's too much.

    There would be significant numbers using a Navan North P+R train station.

    Also significant numbers of new homes could be built if the train line was open, in Navan and along the route. This should resolve any concerns about the CBA.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,078 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    The figure of €3 bn sounds suspiciously like another P95 estimate: basically, the worst-case path where everything that can go wrong does go wrong. The government has definitely started to use these figures in project communications, probably to avoid accusations of cost overruns when the project is actually completed, but it has the unfortunate side effect of making the cost of any future infrastructure plan look like an enormous, unjustifiable cost.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    I thought there was going to be one at Tara. I’m willing to be corrected.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,555 ✭✭✭orangerhyme


    I don't think it's worth doing for €1Bn.

    There's about 10 other projects that are more important.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    The country is awash with money and most of the projects your thinking of haven’t even started planning. They are just lines on a map in the AISRR.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,555 ✭✭✭orangerhyme


    We should still be prudent with money but more importantly we've a limited pool of skilled labour.

    Dart+ and Metrokink will take a lot of skilled labour.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,765 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Well such people could also just drive to M3 Parkway, hundreds of people already do that every day.

    Given how underutilised the motorway is, it really wouldn’t make much difference if these people drove to Navan North or M3 Parkway, hell it might even be faster to drive to Parkway. As in you would likely cover the distance between Navan North and M3 Parkway faster on the Motorway, then by a commuter train from Navan North which has to stop a couple of times.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,078 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    It's possible to sleep on a bus or a train, something that’s frowned upon while driving ;)

    Versus a train, I think the time would be comparable if the line allows the trains to hit their 140 km/h top speed between stations. Google says 22 minutes to drive during off-peak times, up to 35 minutes during the morning rush. I’d predict 30 by train at a reasonable average speed of 80 km/h including stops. A coach would be a little slower than driving (buses are limited to 100 km/h on motorways). Both the rail and bus options also skip the €3.40 in tolls every day (one each way) that drivers would incur to reach M3 Parkway from Navan - that toll is the primary reason this motorway is so quiet.

    Daily commuters care more about the predictability of journey times rather than how long that time is: this is where rail wins over coaches, which can’t avoid being stuck in other road traffic. Even if the train took 30 minutes versus the 22 (best case by car), the fact that it was always 30 minutes would tip the balance in favour of rail.

    I do think rail would be a better option, but the high cost is a major factor against it, especially as M3 itself cost close to a billion euro and was clearly built to an unneeded scale: the State had to subsidise the concession by a further €17 million after opening as toll revenues didn’t live up to projections (that is no longer the case since 2021).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,451 ✭✭✭Citizen  Six


    A significant number of homes are already being built along the route.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,052 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    eah, but each station site could take a good few hundred or so homes in a 2/3 miles radius



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,623 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    i see Sean Canny is saying the WRC can proceed quickly as planning is not needed. Leaving aside the rights or wrongs of the Navan Route and new stations.

    Could the state if the money and Upgrade design was in place just go straight to tender for relaying the old line and restoring Navan Train station without a RO?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,333 ✭✭✭Glaceon


    Probably not, the land was sold off so they’re more or less starting from scratch.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 863 ✭✭✭GeneHunt


    Thomas Byrne TD posted this post earlier this week.

    Screenshot 2025-11-29 131049.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 863 ✭✭✭GeneHunt


    I mapped (roughly) the two proposed routes from the 2021 Report onto the Open Street Map, to easily view these routes, use this website Open Railway Map and select a map style: Infractructure.

    However I had to re-route a little of the Option B route from the route on the Report, this was outside Dunshaughlin to avoid a new estate currently been built, called Grange Park on the Ratoath Road (R125). Eventhough some concideration for this rail line was concidered over the years i.e. the underpass under the M3 at Bective, no space was kept clear for the Option B route around Dunshaughlin.

    Also from that report, the route and station in Kilmessan is routed south west of Kilmessan to avoid the hotel and the housing estate which was built on the old line.

    Now I know these routes are probably in the bin now again, as a fresh look is now under way again. If this project does go ahead, and track does gets laid. I think the Option A is probably the better option. My view is purely down to minimise delays and after seeing the delays to the construction of the M3, (Hill of Tara etc) and also, I’ve seen delays, because of archaeological finds on developments around Dunshaughlin.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 304 ✭✭Ronald Binge Redux


    Rest assured some excuse will be found to delay it further.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,220 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,623 ✭✭✭roadmaster


    Was there not a Consultant report around the time of covid that most of the orginal route was still in CIE ownership?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,057 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    The Navan line? I've never heard of any of it still being in CIE ownership.

    Even if it was, large sections of it have been built upon or subsumed into farmland so the occupier would have a pretty solid adverse possession claim.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,078 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    You shouldn’t have added Option B at all, as it was rejected and never proposed. The OpenRailwayMap site, like OpenStreetMap is supposed to be a reliable source of what exists or will exist, not a repository for might-have-beens and user ideas. I say this because it only takes someone to find the site, see the dotted line you drew, then start a campaign against the project on the assumption that it's something official.



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 11,153 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Both options examined previously went via Dunshaughlin, the only real difference was whether the line went to the east or west of Dunshaughlin. Any other routing is extremely unrealistic.

    The land is not in CIE ownership, and realistically it hasn't been since it was declared abandoned. However, the original route is currently in the Meath Development Plan, zoned as R1 Rail Corridor. It's been in the plan for years at this point.

    No idea if this has made a difference in reality, but it will definitely make a difference to any CPOs, etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72 ✭✭thosewhoknow


    Have they weighed the benefits of altering the alignment at Kilmessan? Although using the old alignment would remove ~15 housing units and part of a hotel, it has the perk of all the roads it crosses already being grade separated from the line. The proposed alignment requires 3 new level crossings or, if they want grade separation (which they should), sizeable land works.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 863 ✭✭✭GeneHunt




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72 ✭✭thosewhoknow


    The proposed route can also be found above. I didn’t realise how much it deviates from the original route compared to the Clonsilla-M3 Parkway line. It seems a bit of waste to me — the L2202, L2205, L2209 and L8010 overbridges are all still extant (and have room for 2 tracks) but yet none of them are used by the proposed alignment. Would CPOing a house or two really be more expensive than engineering diversions/building new bridges from scratch?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 74,588 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Many bridges would need new decks for headroom for wiring anyway



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 261 ✭✭OisinCooke


    Is this the actual emerging preferred route?? Brilliant if so, to finally have it.

    Couple of things: Firstly, is the line definitely double track the whole way to Navan…? The line looks a bit narrow in some places - specifically on the M3 crossings - to be double track which would be incredibly remiss of them. Can anyone clarify that.

    In terms of grade separation, it’s nice to see that most of the map contains groundwork stretching into most of the roads that cross the line, suggesting that the line might be fully grade separated. There are a few places where I’m not sure though.

    IMG_1921.jpeg

    Specifically, after it crosses the M3 on what appears to be an overbridge (…?) it then crosses the Navan link road on what again appears to be an overbridge, but correct me if I’m wrong. Does it then cross that smaller road at a level crossing? I suppose if there’s only one or two LCs where necessary than that’s not the worst thing. Otherwise would I be right in saying it’s fully grade separated?

    IMG_1922.jpeg

    In terms of the station, where is it likely to be here? North of the Trim Road seems like not a large enough space for a station so I suspect it’ll be south of it. It’s not too clear though, the line doesn’t look to be wide enough for two tracks, two platform, a building, and a car park…


    IMG_1923.jpeg

    I’m really glad they’re keeping the Navan North terminus station, I somehow never really believed they would build that, but very very glad they are.

    I’m confused as to what’s going on here though. The bridge in the image is the beginning of the Kingscourt greenway. Is the station to be north or south of the bridge? It looks like south, due to the access road, but I presume the north stretch is a headshunt/unit storage area? It looks like they’re certainly trying to put track there anyway, because it seems they’re slewing the greenway for a short while. Any ideas?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,078 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    I suspect that the "bridge" over M3 Navan Link Road is indicative only, as the state already owns that land and can take as much of it as is needed. Even so, it appears to be wide enough to accommodate two tracks. Compare with the width of the motorway lanes beneath it.

    Regarding the minor road crossing, the M3 Link Road is in a very deep cutting here, as you can see by comparing the height of the car (around 1.8 m) to the overbridge, here:

    image.png

    With that much clearance, the railway could be built in a shallower cutting on approach, cross the M3 at a lower height (while easily maintaining the necessary clearance for a motorway), and then the minor road could be rebuilt to go over the railway. Or an automated level crossing could be built if the road is quiet enough, and it looks as if it is.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    I’d be surprised if any new level crossings will be constructed as part of this. Shouldn’t even be considered.



Advertisement