[article] Turf War Over Broadstone

Mark Gleeson · 07-05-2007, 23:26

They don't need Broadstone, there is no shortage of platforms in Connolly and Docklands to cope

This whole situation was invented by Dr Lynch CIE chairman for politcal reasons it appears after all its in Berties back yard. And of course its a turf war

James Shields · 08-05-2007, 06:43

Tune in for the next exciting episode, where IÉ refuse to allow the Luas red line extension to cross Spencer Dock on land they own. Meanwhile, the RPA propose route G for the city-centre link-up, which disrupts the few bus routes that route F missed...

Redsoxfan · 08-05-2007, 08:19

Would a Transport Authority eliminate these turf wars?

Mark Gleeson · 08-05-2007, 08:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by lostcarpark

Tune in for the next exciting episode, where IÉ refuse to allow the Luas red line extension to cross Spencer Dock on land they own. Meanwhile, the RPA propose route G for the city-centre link-up, which disrupts the few bus routes that route F missed...

That already happened, the CIE crew where troublesome at the inquiry

Mark · 08-05-2007, 09:20

Not to mention the on-going 'integrated ticketing/smart card" war..

philip · 08-05-2007, 15:31

I believe the alignment should be preserved for a future second tunnel heading south from Broadstone. This could take the form of Luas or heavy rail so I couldn't really care who gets their grubby mits on this stretch. The fact however is that it isn't needed for Navan services and that's a red herring by IE.

Colm Donoghue · 08-05-2007, 15:45

I think the fact IE own the land and the Dept of transport said they wouldn't rule out cpo'ing the land are telling.
What better way to get more money from one part of the govt to another and all the cut for lawyers too.

Particularly as a railway order would be the usual method of acquiring land for a railway and didn't the supreme court agree with the crusties in the Glen of the Downs about cpo's not being applicable to inter-govt land transfers. (semi-state to co. co.)

Mark Gleeson · 08-05-2007, 16:11

IE don't own the land, CIE do. Thats rather important.

If CIE refuse to play ball sure the minister can sack the board and do what he or she likes.

The CPO is issued under the transport Act. If IE tried to get a works order despite owing the land (yes I know I said CIE at the top) they would fail since its not in line with set down plans

Colm Moore · 10-05-2007, 02:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Gleeson

That already happened, the CIE crew where troublesome at the inquiry

Specificly they said they had agreement (although despite my protests it doesn't seem to have been made public).

Quote:

Originally Posted by dowlingm

Hmm... meanwhile the costs of rehabilitating Broadstone for heavy rail are tacked onto the cost of reopening to Navan, which doesn't need it.

Seems telling. Where is that coming from?

dowlingm · 10-05-2007, 19:16

out of nowhere but suspicion of CIE

When people were looking for Broadstone (pre docklands) it was impossible but nothing is impossible now apparently.

dermo88 · 12-05-2007, 16:57

Just found a link that might be relevant to Broadstone reopening.

http://www.darganproject.com

It looks nice, but its got touches of Father Dougal about it in terms of technical feasibility.

Still, I can't knock it. I like the idea. The problem is, thats all it is. An idea, and on the ground, it looks very difficult to implement.

Mark · 13-05-2007, 14:27

yeah ive looked at it - poor website sadly. Met him there a few weeks ago. His costs are very very low (ambitious) though.

13-05-2007, 14:27	#12
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Northern line Posts: 1,311	yeah ive looked at it - poor website sadly. Met him there a few weeks ago. His costs are very very low (ambitious) though. Last edited by Mark : 13-05-2007 at 14:37.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-05-2007, 23:26	#1
Mark Gleeson Technical Officer Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Coach C, Seat 33 Posts: 12,669	They don't need Broadstone, there is no shortage of platforms in Connolly and Docklands to cope This whole situation was invented by Dr Lynch CIE chairman for politcal reasons it appears after all its in Berties back yard. And of course its a turf war

08-05-2007, 06:43	#2
James Shields Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Drogheda, Ireland Posts: 1,275	Tune in for the next exciting episode, where IÉ refuse to allow the Luas red line extension to cross Spencer Dock on land they own. Meanwhile, the RPA propose route G for the city-centre link-up, which disrupts the few bus routes that route F missed...

08-05-2007, 08:19	#3
Redsoxfan New to the board Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 22	Would a Transport Authority eliminate these turf wars?

08-05-2007, 09:20	#5
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Northern line Posts: 1,311	Not to mention the on-going 'integrated ticketing/smart card" war..

08-05-2007, 15:31	#6
philip Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 632	I believe the alignment should be preserved for a future second tunnel heading south from Broadstone. This could take the form of Luas or heavy rail so I couldn't really care who gets their grubby mits on this stretch. The fact however is that it isn't needed for Navan services and that's a red herring by IE.

08-05-2007, 15:45	#7
Colm Donoghue Really Regular Poster Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 873	I think the fact IE own the land and the Dept of transport said they wouldn't rule out cpo'ing the land are telling. What better way to get more money from one part of the govt to another and all the cut for lawyers too. Particularly as a railway order would be the usual method of acquiring land for a railway and didn't the supreme court agree with the crusties in the Glen of the Downs about cpo's not being applicable to inter-govt land transfers. (semi-state to co. co.)

08-05-2007, 16:11	#8
Mark Gleeson Technical Officer Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Coach C, Seat 33 Posts: 12,669	IE don't own the land, CIE do. Thats rather important. If CIE refuse to play ball sure the minister can sack the board and do what he or she likes. The CPO is issued under the transport Act. If IE tried to get a works order despite owing the land (yes I know I said CIE at the top) they would fail since its not in line with set down plans

10-05-2007, 19:16	#10
dowlingm Really Really Regluar Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,371	out of nowhere but suspicion of CIE When people were looking for Broadstone (pre docklands) it was impossible but nothing is impossible now apparently.

12-05-2007, 16:57	#11
dermo88 Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 136	Just found a link that might be relevant to Broadstone reopening. http://www.darganproject.com It looks nice, but its got touches of Father Dougal about it in terms of technical feasibility. Still, I can't knock it. I like the idea. The problem is, thats all it is. An idea, and on the ground, it looks very difficult to implement.