drogheda second train station
 

Are there plans for a second train station at Drogheda, near the Termon Abbey estate, or not? It looks like it was a marketing ploy by the original developers or is it officially planned?

Well, if you bought a house in the expectation that a new station will open in a few months, I'm afraid you've been sold a lemon.

The Drogheda development plan can be found here:

http://www.louthcoco.ie/index.aspx?d...eid=3&secid=44

It contains the following:

Essentially, this is saying that the town council will cooperate with IE should IE want to build a north Drogheda station. On the plus side, there is land reserved for such a station, which I believe would be off the Termonfeckan Road where there is an old spur to the former cement factory.

There are a couple of problems with it. The track over the Boyne viaduct is single track, so there are a limited number of train paths over that line, As the new station would be on a spur, existing trains from Dundalk couldn't stop there, so trains serving the new station would be ones that currently terminate in Drogheda, but it would require increased traffic over the viaduct.

I expect it will eventually get built, but it is likely to be several years off. There is significant development expected on the northern envirns, so the council would do well to start levying developments on the north of the town towards the cost of the station.

As James has posted this is more a vision than a reality

In light of the decision not to bring the DART to Drogheda such a station would result in serve operational difficulties and low service frequency

thanks very much for coming back to me. very useful info, especially the development plans link.

A new piece has just been published to Meath on Track site.

Written by Ron Cox, he has kindly allowed it to be reproduced.

Bridging the gap: The Boyne Viaduct 1855
Conception, Design and Construction

To view, click here

Im Living in the Drogheda area, and as far as i know from my limited knoledge of the town, the spur to the cement plat runs south out of the main line, which would mean no train going north could stop in it and then continue. This understanding only comes from driving over the only remaining bit of track near the cement factory on my way to the station every morning. I also think this is the case due to a map of drogheda in a local barbers that shows the spur turning north-east out of the line and then south:confused:

A Drogheda north station would have to be slap bang in the middle of the main line, but with the end of the viaduct stretching out of the town it would have to be built in relation to further development on the north side of the town.


Also i have thought recently that it would be a good idea to replace the current span of the viaduct with a stronger structure capable of holding two tracks. Surely modern steel structures or some sort of strong carbons should be able to take the weight, and its not like the stone pillars cant take the weight. Im not an engineer but it looks like only the spans hold the viaduct back.

This is where you have to deal with ignorant local politicans who just don't get it, it has to be on the mainline

No problem fix the viaduct, problem is the entire structure is grade 1 listed

Has NIR ever been asked to extend the Portadown service cross border to provide connection to Dublin-Dundalk suburban, providing more Dublin-Belfast capacity and freeing up seats on existing Enterprise services? Alternatively the extension could be both ways, IE and Translink to Newry with handoff there or IE to Portadown if NIR felt they didn't have enough railcars to manage the extension beyond Portadown.

That might be one way to increase frequency on the route with an eventual aim to end IE railcars beyond Drogheda and use Mk3s to turn Dundalk railcar into more Enterprise services. Maybe the DDs could be bought in full by NIR as their Enterprise fleet and IE using refitted Mk3s as theirs. With seat booking perhaps Drogheda North and/or Dunleer could be opened as a halt but only for services north of Drogheda?

How much alteration would fixing the viaduct require?

I know a number of the arches have had iron girders in the floor replaced with reinforced concrete. I'm not sure if this has been done for all of them.

The original iron girders of the 1856 bridge were replaced by the current steel structure in the 1930s. As the steel bridge was built inside the iron one, it was no longer wide enough for trains to pass (although this had already been stopped over concerns over weight).

Presumably the current steel bridge will eventually need replacing again, and at that stage it could be rebuilt with one wide enough (and strong enough) for trains to pass.

I think there is some merit in the calls for a north Drogheda station, but why not test demand first? It would be easy and cheap to offer a bus service between the area concerned and Drogheda station. If it was run as a connecting service, it could cut down congestion in the car park. There are currently two Drogheda town bus services, but neither of them serve the railway station, and the bus station is a good ten minute walk away.

The fact that the metal portion of the viaduct is not the original must lessen the value of its status as a listed structure, and replication of the steel in the original position on the bridge supports would, as suggested, allow the bridge be again doubled ( or with a design cantelevered off the masonry structure, possibly trebbled).

What improvements to train paths etc would doubling allow?

This was discussed a good while ago with lots of graphics to beat the band but I cant find the thread. The latest plan is actually to locate the station on the mainline and not the spur.

I'm not going into the technical details but from a passenger point of view there are two key issues

Any station north of the Boyne is going to have limited service owing to the single track over the viaduct

If the station is off the mainline it can't be served by any commuter train to Dundalk making it impossible to travel Drogheda north to Dunleer/Dundalk directly which is important given the NSS grouping

The entire viaduct was built for two tracks, the original iron centre span is still in place. They built the new span inside the original they depend on each other.

I always heard that the original wrought iron was removed in the strenghtening works in 1920s.

An item from Archiseek shows the original, made of relatively close-centred lattice. There is no sign of this in the current bridge, being quite open.

http://www.irish-architecture.com/bu...ay_bridge.html

Not necessarily, once a structure is listed you cannot do anything to it without planning permission. Now, that's just a pain for IE/OPW but it can be done. However, beware. It may be entirely reasonable for the planners to turn down (or for an tascie to appeal) a planning that would radically alter the bridge. Granted, its a railway bridge, it should do the job its supposed to do, but I have seen some crazy decisions in my time. It could even go as far as a direction that another bridge be built. Given the potential for such a calamity I'd be surprised if IE want to touch that with a 20 foot barge pole.

Done some investigation

The current bridge was built inside the original.The original bridge was then cut out

Now there would be few objections if the entire structure was replaced with a replica to modern engineering standards but you would be closed for several months to do that. Question is could it be done?

Currently there is no case to inflict that level of disruption on the public. Question is do the local planners realise the issues with providing a service north of the Boyne?

Well, under the 2000/2002 Acts the Planners nowadays have to give consideration to other , shall we say, ergonimic issues, and the existance of the NSS would most certanly be one of them.

But planning can be a case of the right hand now knowing what the left hand is doing.

Planners' usual requirement that any works to a listed structure must be "carried out with due care for the character of the structure and proper planning requirements", which can mean everything or nothing. The listed structure at dublin airport new terminus seems to be going, despite its listed status.

My offering for "What I Saw On My Holliers" was at the campsite of Maisons Laffitte, Paris. A masonry arched viaduct, to cater for quading for the TGV highpeed, was duplicated with an identical via immediately alongside. It was presumably constructed of concrete but was faced with stonework matching the original.

I see that the original viaduct almost doubled in cost during construction. Budget over-runs are nothing new!

Would there be anything wrong with the planning of a second Boyne crossing further east of Drogheda.

Which would destroy the view of the first one resulting in a refusal to build

To be honest I'm not sure. If there are compelling reasons for it then I'm of the opinion that the planners would take a reasonable line on this: its is a structure with a function and it must adapt as the nature of that function also adapts.

However, there would be an objection from AT (fair enough) and probably from other interested parties. It would be very interesting.

Further East, way past the port.

Then you have three problems

1) Very very long bridge
2) Shipping clearances
3) Existing station is left unserved

Fact is we will have to accept that sometime in the next 25-50 years it will have to be replaced and it won't be nice for commuters

The original bridge was replaced by building the new one inside the old one than removing the old one between 1930 and 1932. This was done using a moving gantry over the bridge, allowing trains to run underneath while construction took place.

I presume quite a few weekend closures were needed, though.

I have some photographs of the construction if anyone is interested.

Maybe sooner, if electric motive power becomes standard intercity. Cross beams probably would not give adequate clearance for overhead supply. New structure would seem most economic and less disruptive of service, existing being retained for future upgrading or third line.

Existing rail allignment and station location indicates position quite near existing viaduct. East would interfer least with view of existing from Drogheda side. Cable stayed bridge would least block view from west. Contrast old/new would make aesthetic statement.

http://www.roughanodonovan.com/Publi...R%20030303.PDF

Boyne bridge on M1 cost €35m, 350m long overall, 170m main span , six traffic lanes wide.

Maybe Transport 21+?

Drogheda Port shall not be there much longer I think - Bremore.


Ideally I would continue everything BUT intercitys (Enterprise) and freight through the current bridge.

If there was any kind of joined up thinking in this country the M1 viaduct could have had a train deck. I travel across one morning and evening - designed 1918, decades before the subway eventually ran in 1966! The M1 viaduct is 140m shorter and 20m closer to the ground so you never know what could have been accomplished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Edward_Viaduct

Off topic:

I went across that bridge (by subway) a few times a week for a year and never knew it was called Prince Edward!

One of the bridges from Angelsey into 'mainland' Wales has something similar - road upstairs, main train line downstairs. It was substantially rebuilt in the mid 70s after a fire. The road was only added in the rebuild. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannia_Bridge

/Off topic

packetswitch - pick 100 of your fellow subway riders and I bet maybe 1 or 2 could give it the right name - I wouldn't know except for wikipedia.

Isnt there a similar situation in Newcastle, England?

think this is the one you mean Thomas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Level_Bridge

The Brittania bridge is amazing, its a pitty the rail users and the people in their cars cant see those lions anymore. Or aprciate how much a nod the bridge was to eygptian architecture. One other thing that came to mind with replacing the viaduct would be supper strong plastics or silicon. But most likely it'd be carbon or steel yet again.

The height of the bridge only matters now because of the valley, theres no tall masted ships of the royal merchant navy sailing under it anymore, and the port isnt that important. That and with the world temp set to increase, its the only water front building likely to not need flood protection in Drogeda.

1. I can assure you that the rail users see the lions, on both ends in fact, as long as you know when to look out the window. They are cool.

2. (back on topic) If you were the Chief Consultant on the Drogheda Bridge Study Scheme what would your preferred option be?

An interesting question.

I think the original iron lattice bridge looked really elegant. I would build a new central span out of modern materials, and make it wide enough for two trains to pass, and strong enough to carry a pair of 201 led Enterprises. I think strengthening work might also be needed on the viaduct.

I think it should be possible to build new latticework outside the current structure in much the same way as the current bridge structure was built inside the original one.

Back off the topic, the whole not being able to see lions is sapossed to be through as the new structure of the bridge has left them out of view. Well according to some bbc documentry i saw a while back.:rolleyes: