How to make use of the PPT after the Interconnector

gjim

I'm trying to understand what you are proposing, Victor. I looks like you would have trains coming from the Kildare direction going both through the Interconnector and the PPT - in the latter case with east and west bound split across the Midlands and Maynooth lines before joining to enter the interconnector and looping back. Is this the case? The problem is that you get double the capacity/frequency where it is less useful (west of Inchicore) and half the capacity where it would be more useful (the central section of the Interconnector).

Another possibility I thought of would be to forget about linking with the Interconnector and simply continue the Midlands line straight down the docks along the present alignment (perhaps sinking it a bit around Alexander Rd. to grade separate it fully) and have a Heuston (or Hazelhatch) to Dublin port shuttle service. I suspect the engineering involved would be quite simple. Dublin port itself isn't busy enough to justify a terminal station but long term, if the centre of gravity of Dublin shifts eastward as expected, a grade separated heavy rail spine through the heart of the new CBD would arguably be strategic. As further land is reclaimed from the sea - the line would be extended.

Sponge Bob

The Green Party wants to use this tunnel as a part of a 'Bicycle M50' around Dublin City Centre if the interconnector is built

Victor

Link?

murphaph

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The Green Party wants to use this tunnel as a part of a 'Bicycle M50' around Dublin City Centre if the interconnector is built

This is insane stuff. A heavy rail tunnel in full working order being converted to a bike track. Go greens! I wonder has anyone told them that it is actually an esential piece of track, even post interconnector.

Sponge Bob

murphaph wrote: »

This is insane stuff. A heavy rail tunnel in full working order being converted to a bike track. Go greens! I wonder has anyone told them that it is actually an esential piece of track, even post interconnector.

They don't care, they are greens.

The specific name for their scheme was the Dublin Greenway project.

Here is a map



The Dublin Greenway project was largely the brainchild of the Dublin Cycling Campaign which was a lobby founded by and once headed by Minister Eamon Ryan .

Another image taken from Here , no doubt what bridge that is

Gudgeoon

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The Green Party wants to use this tunnel as a part of a 'Bicycle M50' around Dublin City Centre if the interconnector is built

As I understand it, this greenway project is a thesis for Bolton street dit, put forward by an architecture student. It proposes an overland cycletrack across phoenix park following the path of the tunnel and then proceeding alongside the railway line and canal.

The fact that the author of the proposal took it to the Dublin Cycling campaign and that a green TD once ran that organisation is pretty tenuous evidence that the green party...

Sponge Bob wrote:

...wants to use this tunnel as a part of a 'Bicycle M50'

I don't think anyone other than the author is currently promoting it.

As for the PPT it's like a solution looking for a problem. I doubt there is much demand for public transport along the cabra- drumcondra-summerhill corridor.

It would be nice to find a use for it but I can't think what it is.

Typewriter

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The Green Party wants to use this tunnel as a part of a 'Bicycle M50' around Dublin City Centre if the interconnector is built

Thats a fantastic idea! there's no point in connecting killdare to the docks via the ppt if its just a mater of transferring at huston.

A bicycle greenway would make more sense especially with the new velib bikes coming. It would be a super addition to the city for future generations.

Sponge Bob

If the interconnector is the same height as the PPT and the same width ( about 10 foot per track ) then I agree .

We shall be waiting till about 2025 for it so lets build the rest of the bicyle M50 first shall we ...in fact the Sammy B Bridge is a part of it I think ???

murphaph

green_jesus wrote: »

Thats a fantastic idea! there's no point in connecting killdare to the docks via the ppt if its just a mater of transferring at huston.

A bicycle greenway would make more sense especially with the new velib bikes coming. It would be a super addition to the city for future generations.

I hope that's tongue in cheek because if it isn't, how do you bring diesel locomotives to Inchicore for overhaul work? How do you tow new rolling stock from the docks to Inchicore (using diesel traction)? The PPT is incredibly useful for passenger transit too-it just isn't being used by the unimaginitive dimwits in IE. It could be in use today.

L1011

murphaph wrote: »

I hope that's tongue in cheek because if it isn't, how do you bring diesel locomotives to Inchicore for overhaul work? How do you tow new rolling stock from the docks to Inchicore (using diesel traction)? The PPT is incredibly useful for passenger transit too-it just isn't being used by the unimaginitive dimwits in IE. It could be in use today.

Overnight, or by using an electric pilot vehicle in the Interconnector. You can run diesels in long tunnels when the public aren't in the open in them.. Eurotunnel have diesel pilots for rescuing stuck trains as it is...

However, I definitely don't want to see the PPT being converted to a sodding cycle tunnel! Just saying how it could be done if it was out of action post Interconnector.

Typewriter

murphaph wrote: »

I hope that's tongue in cheek because if it isn't, how do you bring diesel locomotives to Inchicore for overhaul work? How do you tow new rolling stock from the docks to Inchicore (using diesel traction)? The PPT is incredibly useful for passenger transit too-it just isn't being used by the unimaginitive dimwits in IE. It could be in use today.

Valid point but if the ppt was used as a greenway im sure that IE would just get a few light electric or dual-mode (electric and diesel) shunter locomotives such as these fellas...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tem_346.jpg

EDIT: New rolling stock will probably be delivered to Waterford rather that Dublin in the future.

Chris_533976

This idea is absolutely ridiculous, and poorly thought out. Lets not forget that the current biking project has no stands at Heuston or Connolly.

Actually looking at the list of locations for bike stands ( http://www.aaireland.ie/download/bikescheme.pdf ), how many of them are ANYWHERE NEAR this cycling ring road?

Sounds like a back of the envelope job this does.

DWCommuter

Gudgeoon wrote: »

I doubt there is much demand for public transport along the cabra- drumcondra-summerhill corridor.

It's wild, unsubstanciated points like this, that have us in the mess we're in.

Gudgeoon

DWCommuter wrote: »

It's wild, unsubstanciated points like this, that have us in the mess we're in.

I'm expressing a doubt rather than making a claim. I don't need to substantiate a doubt.

I know that some feasibility study has been carried out by Irish Rail in relation to PPT but I don't know if any has been published.

One reason that Irish Rail may be reluctant to open services through the PPT is that it could take away from the case for the interconnector. Fine Gael previously used the PPT as a way of trying to undermine the interconnector (Olivia Mitchell was the spokesperson at the time).

gjim

There's definitely a demand for a rail service along the route and great potential for densification if they ever start building again in Dublin. The problem is that most of the people along the route want to get in and out of town; there isn't going to be the same demand from the people of Cabra to get to Inchicore or Sheriff St. - the obvious destinations connected by this route. The outer suburbans work because buses, cycling or walking do not compete at such distances; Phibsboro and Cabra are practically city centre.

Here's another idea since they're being tossed around - forget about Irish rail and hand the infrastructure over to the RPA and get them to use the Midlands alignment on the North side and then follow the canal on the South side to create a light rail circle line through the PPT. Obviously the heavy rail track would be left in position so that IR could use the alignment for operational movements but it seems like IR have zero interest in building a passenger service around the PPT, so why not give RPA a shot.

murphaph

gjim wrote: »

There's definitely a demand for a rail service along the route and great potential for densification if they ever start building again in Dublin. The problem is that most of the people along the route want to get in and out of town; there isn't going to be the same demand from the people of Cabra to get to Inchicore or Sheriff St. - the obvious destinations connected by this route. The outer suburbans work because buses, cycling or walking do not compete at such distances; Phibsboro and Cabra are practically city centre.

Here's another idea since they're being tossed around - forget about Irish rail and hand the infrastructure over to the RPA and get them to use the Midlands alignment on the North side and then follow the canal on the South side to create a light rail circle line through the PPT. Obviously the heavy rail track would be left in position so that IR could use the alignment for operational movements but it seems like IR have zero interest in building a passenger service around the PPT, so why not give RPA a shot.

I'd rather see IE forced to use it. In fact I'd rather see IE completely overhauled and run by the RPA if they can do a better job. In the end it's the government (and sneaky civil servants in the DoT who only serve themselves) who are to blame for letting the likes of CIE exist in their current guise.

Aard

Would it be possible to create a circuitous Metro or Dart line following this route: ?

The southern section could be created by draining the Grand Canal, then cut and cover, then refilling the canal. If this were feasable, the only problems would be connecting it to the existing northern section at both Liffey crossings.

murphaph

Aard wrote: »

Would it be possible to create a circuitous Metro or Dart line following this route: ?

The southern section could be created by draining the Grand Canal, then cut and cover, then refilling the canal. If this were feasable, the only problems would be connecting it to the existing northern section at both Liffey crossings.

It would be entirely possible to create a circle line using the PPT and interconnector (southern ring slightly further north than the canal) if the will was there. I would rather see the Red line Luas continued along the canal from where it currently turns left at Rialto into te hospital all the way to the end of the canal and across the river (over Macken Street Bridge), connecting with the red line extension/Spencer Dock Interconnector station. There's generally enough room along the canal to run the Luas without draining it but I would fly the Luas over the junctions rather than have at grade crossings. This would make the Red Line really more metro like than it is prsently (it is quite metro-like in the suburbs and along the canal, it gets crippled from James's on). The remaining bit of red line between James's and the Point could run as a shuttle.

Winters

One possible use for the PPT post DART underground would be bringing some outer commuter/regional services from the Kildare line (Athlone, Portlaoise and Carlow) into Connolly or Docklands via the Phoenix Park Tunnel with stations at Cabra etc.

Closing it to non heavy rail traffic like LRT or even using it as a cycle track will not happen and would be extremely poor use of a very valuable yet highly under utilised piece of rail infrastructure. I don't see that the demographics and travel patterns of Dublin really lend itself to an inner city circle line like the one proposed. Metro West, albeit it further out, connects the lines for better value and by serving higher population centres.

In PFC the Lucan line was originally conceived to run along either the SCR or the canal but due to many technical reasons such as gradients at canal crossings and the large amount of interaction with traffic that would be needed the current preferred route is more viable.