175 Woodview

                                                                                                                                                       Castletown

                                                                                                                                                       Celbridge

                                                                                                                                                       Co. Kildare

                                                                                                                                                       24th November 2005

Mr. Martin Cullen, TD.,

Minister for Transport

Department of Transport

Kildare Street

Dublin 2

 

RE: KILDARE ROUTE PROJECT (KRP) - OBJECTION TO GRANTING OF RAILWAY ORDER

 

Dear Minister,

 

I wish to object to the granting of a railway order to Irish Rail for the above project on the grounds that the project is unnecessary and the desired increase in capacity can be achieved by a change in station design and installation of a proper signalling system. To launch such a project in the same week that the HSE PPARS debacle was made public shows breathtaking arrogance on the part of Irish Rail.

 

Irish Rail, in their publicity for this project, has stated that the upgrade is to allow for the running of additional services. I would contend that they have either understated the ability of the current network to cope with additional services and/or have not considered other, more cost effective options. To eliminate the first point (capacity of current network), let me relate my experience of travelling from Heuston Station, Dublin to Hazelhatch & Celbridge Station on 27th October 2005.

 

The 1800 service to Portlaoise was delayed, departing Heuston Station at 1807. The 1755 to Galway (also delayed) departed at 1811, i.e., only 4 minutes after the train before it. Between Heuston Station and Inchicore, there are three tracks. At the time that the 1755 approached Inchicore, there was an empty train on one of these three lines and a light engine (engine with no train) on another (the third was obviously occupied by the 1755). What this means is that the 1800 was still ahead of the 1755 at this stage and not that the 1755 had overtaken it (which would have eliminated the situation I am about to describe to you). With another train 4-5 minutes ahead of it, you would expect the 1755 to be delayed by red/orange signals as it headed on its journey, if you believed Irish Rail's claims about the lack of capacity on the Cork Line. For the record (and I am willing to stand over this in court), between Heuston and Hazelhatch, only 1 signal was orange when approached by the 1755, turning to green just before passing it and another was what is known as double orange. This means that despite the close proximity of trains, there was always at least one signal section ahead free between the two trains with only a five minute headway between them. This would suggest that Irish Rail do not need two additional tracks, just an updated signalling system that would guarantee the ability to operate this way 24/7 if required.

 

Irish Rail, if presented with this reality, would claim that this worked only because neither the 1800 to Portlaoise nor the 1755 to Galway were required to stop at any intermediate stations between Heuston and Hazelhatch and I don't disagree with this. However, the answer is not the extravagant 4 track proposal being presented here.

 

The KRP is proposing new stations at Park West, Fonthill, Kishoge and Adamstown, the extensive remodelling of Hazelhatch along with the closure of Cherry Orchard and Clondalkin. The latter two stations will be required to be demolished, solely to accommodate the third and fourth tracks. In the case of Clondalkin, Irish Rail have claimed that "this balanced judgement reflects the exceptional case category for the demolition of protected structures as contained in the Local Government (Planning & Development) Act 1999 as well as the provisions for works a part of a Railway Order under the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001." I disagree that this is a balanced judgement, as no consideration has been given to alternatives other than the complete 4 tracking of the line between Le Fanu Road and Hazelhatch being proposed here.

 

A similar mentality exists with regard to the 11 overbridges also proposed for demolition as well as the approach ramps to a limekiln in Stacumny (also a protected structure) and a private residence near Hazelhatch where I note from the EIS that "The removal of the property at Hazelhatch will have a profound negative impact to the owner. Compensation at full market value may be available to the affected property owner under the compulsory purchase code." Only “may” be available? If it is open season on property, can I sequestrate your house Minister? Or maybe Charlie McCreevy's (maybe not, I have been reliably informed by someone who has seen the relevant planning file that the latter is in breach of planning law, something that I am sure that you are aware of from your time as Minister for the Environment).

 

The proposals contained herein would obviate the need for any demolition by doing the following. I will deal with the existing and proposed structures as set out in the order that they are encountered, traveling from Le Fanu Road to Hazelhatch & Celbridge station.

 

Specific alternatives:

1.     Close Cherry Orchard station and leave it as is. The existing footbridge across the line can remain to serve the residents of the area. Irish Rail's proposal for a new footbridge 90m west of the existing structure is unnecessary in this scenario.

2.     Park West Station. Move slightly to the west and build as a two island platform station with a loop off the Down and Up running lines, fully protected by headshunts at each end, thereby enabling commuter trains to pull in and be locked in, preventing an overrun of the commuter train or a running into the loop of an intercity train (Appendix A). Such a layout would also allow mainline trains to stop (not provided for in Irish Rail's plan)

3.     Cloverhill Road Overbridge. Leave as is.

4.     Clondalkin Station. Close the station and sell the Up side of the station for conversion to a residence, thereby avoiding the demolition of a “designated heritage building”. The EIS even admits:

 "The demolition of Clondalkin station house, which is a designated heritage building, will result in a profound negative impact on the station itself and a significant negative impact on the architectural heritage of the attendant area."

 

Irish Rail's final solution to the problem of protected structures cramping the freedom of their engineers to waste taxpayers money can be left to one side. The additional land proposed for occupation by the KRP to be used to provide a footpath/cyclepath alongside the line from Clondalkin to the new station at Fonthill.

5.     Neilstown Road Overbridge to be left as is.

6.     Fonthill Station. Move slightly to the east (to avoid the possibility of the new station design being constrained by the width under the modern overbridge) and build as a two island platform station with a loop off the Down and Up running lines, fully protected by headshunts at each end, thereby enabling commuter trains to pull in and be locked in, preventing an overrun of the commuter train or a running into the loop of an intercity train (Appendix A)

7.     Lynch's Lane Overbridge to be left as is.

8.     Kishoge Station. Move to the east of Lynch’s Lane OB (to avoid the possibility of the new station design being constrained by the width under the modern overbridge or the original stone overbridge) and build as a two island platform station with a loop off the Down and Up running lines, fully protected by headshunts at each end, thereby enabling commuter trains to pull in and be locked in, preventing an overrun of the commuter train or a running into the loop of an intercity train (Appendix A)

9.     Hayden's Lane Overbridge to be left as is.

10.   Newcastle Road. I understand that this is separately scheduled for demolition, a project that is not part of the KRP.

11.   Finnstown Farm Overbridge to be left as is.

12.   Adamstown Station. Build as a two island platform station with a loop off the Down and Up running lines, fully protected by headshunts at each end, thereby enabling commuter trains to pull in and be locked in, preventing an overrun of the commuter train or a running into the loop of an intercity train (Appendix A)

13.   Stacumny Bridge to be left as it is. This will also avoid damage to the adjacent protected structure of the limekiln. The EIS notes that the limekiln is unusual in design, yet IR are proposing to demolish part of it. Irish Rail's “gesture” of stabilizing the rest of the structure can be done with the savings made by not four tracking the line. Just as local authorities can and do impose social conditions on developers in return for granting planning permission, I am specifically calling for the conservation of this unique structure to be carried out by IR as part of the alternative KRP attached herein.

14.   OB 23 (east of Hazelhatch) to be left as is.

15.   Hazelhatch to be closed and replaced on the west side of the Hazelhatch Road by a two island platform station with a loop off the Down and Up running lines, fully protected by headshunts at each end, thereby enabling commuter trains to pull in and be locked in, preventing an overrun of the commuter train or a running into the loop of an intercity train. The existing loop alongside the former cattle bank and associated land to be used for the Up side island platform and loop. A turnback siding and platform to be provided on the Down side, to the south of the Down island platform and loop.

16.   Irish Rail's “gesture” of restoring the disused station building at Hazelhatch (a protected structure) can be done with the savings made by not four tracking the line. Just as local authorities can and do impose social conditions on developers in return for granting planning permission, I am specifically calling for the restoration of this protected structure to be carried out by IR as part of the alternative KRP attached herein.

17.   Metal footbridge at Hazelhatch, proposed for refurbishment and retention, to be moved to the new station upon completion to span the mainline, connecting the two island platforms.

18.   Hazelhatch Road Overbridge (a protected structure) to be left as is.

 

I have included the necessary crossovers on the attached diagram at Hazelhatch. To facilitate the best possible options for turning back trains at any of the stations or allowing bypassing in the event of a train failure, facing and trailing crossovers at both ends of each of the new stations should be considered, providing for the maximum possible utilisation of the proposed track layout.

 

General Observations

1.   Le Fanu Road on the plan is at 7.3 km on the maps accompanying the EIS. 7.3 km from where? As this is a stand alone project, logic would suggest a start point of 0km, or the equivalent of whatever mileage from Heuston Station Le Fanu Road is.

2.   There will be a two track bottleneck between Le Fanu Road and Kylemore Road. This will reduce the four track arrangement to nothing more than a holding pen for trains. Unless, of course, an inefficiency is being setup in order to justify another project?

3.   I am sure that Irish Rail will cite insurance reasons as to why the old stations would need to be demolished if my plan for four track stations was adopted. I can only use this opportunity to refer to the ARROW safety problem, which I am aware of.

4.   Claims about restrictions in working hours for construction/demolition processes are facetious in light of problems during construction by/on behalf of Irish Rail at East Wall Road & Drogheda. Personal guarantees must be provided by each individual Board member of CIE/ Irish Rail, agreeing to personal financial penalties in the event of such working hours limits being breached. Any other restriction is unenforceable, even if there was an impetuous on the part of the relevant local authority to do so.

5.   No mention is made in the EIS of where records of demolished structures will be retained. It is common knowledge that certain individuals (myself included) are personae non grata in the eyes of CIE/Irish Rail and therefore any records so created must be vested with an organisation with an open access policy. Neither CIE/Irish Rail nor their accomplices in the Irish Railway Records Society have such a policy, regardless of what they might claim. I would compare my treatment at the hands of the aforementioned bodies as akin to an organised hate campaign.

6.   It was noted in the EIS that residents associations in Clondalkin raised concerns about the retention of listed structures. It is quite clear that Irish Rail is set on carrying out the personal agendas of its engineers and any objection will be ruled invalid. This consultation process is therefore a sham. I would compare this situation to the Kildare bypass, which we now know is causing the springs that feed Pollardstown Fen to dry up. A secondary negative effect of this is that Waterways Ireland are having to pump water from the Liffey at Leinster Aquaduct to keep water levels in the Grand Canal intact. The engineers got it wrong, just as they have in this case.

7.   It is my opinion that failure of the State to provide equal funding to opponents of the KRP is in breach of the Coughlan decision, which required the State to fund information campaigns of both sides of any argument and not just the State's argument.

8.   Irish Rail have claimed that this project will allow for trains running every 15 minutes. Clearly your civil servants responsible for monitoring Irish Rail are incompetent if they cannot see that you do not need four tracks for 4 commuter trains an hour along with a maximum of another 4 mainline trains. I refer to the incident on 27th October as backup for refuting this claim (subsequently repeated by Barry Kenny, IR's Press & PR manager). I also refer to a statement by Christy Stapleton of Irish Rail concerning the Maynooth Line doubling project, carried out about 4 years ago. In the Liffey Champion of 14th November, 1998, he was quoted as saying that there would be trains every 30 minutes at off peak times on the Maynooth Line. 7 years on, the residents of West Dublin and North Kildare are still waiting. Past experience suggests that Irish Rail does not deliver. They therefore do not need this project.

9.   The alternative proposed herein would obviate the need to demolish road overbridges, thereby avoiding the extensive delays to road traffic caused by the associated road closures. The day of the car is ending, Minister. Replacing bridges because they are too narrow to allow for greater use of an invention, the operation of which is likely to be severely restricted in the next 20 years due to fuel shortages/environmental concerns, is pointless and economically wasteful.

10. The current costing for this project is €380 million. No doubt that by the time the project commences, like the LUAS, this will have risen to €700m or €800m. Irish Rail have alluded to this eventuality by stating that they will not know the exact cost until the outcome of the public inquiry due to be held into the project, by which stage, the Rubicon will have been crossed and the taxpayer will be committed (by the civil service). As with working hours, personal guarantees must be provided by each individual Board member of CIE/ Irish Rail, agreeing to personal financial penalties in the event of this publicised figure of €380m being exceeded.

 

A better use for any savings would be the provision of a second road bridge over the Liffey in Celbridge, thereby eliminated the chronic traffic problems of that town.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Ewan Duffy