IE Greater Dublin Network Review

murphaph

Following on from the DB review, isn't it high time IE embarked on a similar one? They continually spout on about the Loop Line bottleneck but that's not a good enough reason for the shoddy way they run their services.

They absolutely do not sweat the current assets and we shouldn't have to wait for the Interconnector to get increased frequencies, into which buses could feed.

I would like to see them (with a bit of track work) to terminate all Maynooth-Pearse services at Connolly P7, eliminating the need for them to cross over the DART tracks and allowing a more frequent service on both routes, obviously requiring all Maynooth line passengers to change at Connolly onto (more frequent) DARTs.

Added to this, I would immediately start running the Howth Branch and Greystones extension as a shuttle service (Howth-Howth Junction) and Greystones-Bray. The long single line stretch from Bray to Greystones causing problems with timetabling IIRC.

I would terminate all Rosslare services at Pearse and run Kildare Line services to Docklands (trackwork required). Northern Suburban to follow DART stopping pattern and act as DART services as far as Malahide, terminating however in Connolly or else running right through to the South Eastern Commuter corridor. I would terminate all Longford services in Docklands tbh.

The result would be a core high frequency DART from Malahide to Bray and a high frequency Howth shuttle feeding it, timed to allow cross platform changes of course! and with a high frequency Maynooth line service, dropping all passengers to P7 in Connolly allowing partial cross platform changes to and from northbound DARTS, all timed to deliver a quick change for passengers and no waiting.

By running trains more frequently, the loadings on them will reduce, allowing people to actually change. the notion of getting a seat on a commuter train of course should not exist.

We will need to get people used to making changes before the interconnector comes anyway, so why not start getting people to change now.

JHMEG

Off-peak the loop would be virtually empty according to that plan?

I don't understand why non-DART traffic is considered 2nd class, but since the DART is relatively quick by comparison to DMUs why not run all northern DART services into Connolly and southern services into Tara, thus avoiding the loop? Let DMUs continue to use the loop. More people who use the DART will have to change but that's their compromise for getting a quicker service. Less diesel passengers will have to change but again, that's as a consolation for having to use a generally slower service.

DWCommuter

The problem with IE is that they did their review many years ago and the result was the gold plated multi billion Dublin rail plan. A plan of this magnitude (while welcomed) was not matched by an incremental approach to deliver immediate and novel ideas that brought improvements to how the commuter system works. (like your ideas above)

IMO the failure here is a combination of politics both within and outside IE and of course the Union issues. (which we should never be complacent about.) One only has to look at the Greystones DART extension. A political decision and then an, 8K extra payment a driver, fiasco. We can only imagine the resulting chaos if the sound proposals above were to be even considered. However we do need an immediate review as its looking increasingly likely that DART extensions and the DART tunnel will be on an ever growing long finger. But the first step should be to get rid of CIE, leave the operating companies as stand alone entities (after name changes and an overhaul of management), place infrastructure and planning in the hands of the NTA (or competent equivilent) and then face down the public transport unions. The rail company should be just an operator of train services and nothing else. More importantly the traditions and cultures within it should be consigned to history.

Cookie_Monster

Good idea

murphaph wrote: »

Added to this, I would immediately start running the Howth Branch and Greystones extension as a shuttle service (Howth-Howth Junction) and Greystones-Bray. The long single line stretch from Bray to Greystones causing problems with timetabling IIRC.

This is a no brainer for me. Run a single 2 carriage unit back and forth all day. Increased capacity, frequency and availability. There is no need to run 8 carriages to Greystones.

You could in theory have, say a 15 min frequency on it then? 5 mins each way (that long enough?) 5 min dwell total.

Is the platform at Bray long enough to have an 8 carriage and a 2 together at the same time, or would some work be required to extend / place 3rd platform.

Cookie_Monster

JHMEG wrote: »

I don't understand why non-DART traffic is considered 2nd class, but since the DART is relatively quick by comparison to DMUs why not run all northern DART services into Connolly and southern services into Tara, thus avoiding the loop? Let DMUs continue to use the loop..

2 changes to go from CGD to Killester (etc) and beyond is a bit much and would greatly impact passenger numbers who just wouldn't be bothered dealing with something like that.

you'd also need to provide a very frequent service to join Tara to Connolly

murphaph

JHMEG wrote: »

Off-peak the loop would be virtually empty according to that plan?

I don't understand why non-DART traffic is considered 2nd class, but since the DART is relatively quick by comparison to DMUs why not run all northern DART services into Connolly and southern services into Tara, thus avoiding the loop? Let DMUs continue to use the loop. More people who use the DART will have to change but that's their compromise for getting a quicker service. Less diesel passengers will have to change but again, that's as a consolation for having to use a generally slower service.

I don't consider it second class. I have never lived along the DART but I have lived along the Maynooth line actually! It is not about first or second class services, it is about a better service for almost all. Some will benefit more than others and a minority will "lose", but that's how networks operate.

The idea you raise above would not be sensible in any way, shape or form as you would be terminating a LOT of trains in city centre stations and then turning them back across the paths of other trains...a recipe for disaster tbh. We want to eliminate conflicting movements as much as possible, not add to them. For the record, if the Maynooth line was electrified I would probably want to terminate all Northern Line DARTs in Connolly P3/P4 and run the Maynooth-Bray DART as the core line as that would preemt the delivery of the Interconnector, but until Maynooth Line electrification it makes no sense to split an existing DART line as you have suggested above.

Edit: I just want to add that my commute here involves 1 SBahn and 2 U Bahns and it is no problem because the frequencies are high enough that I can hop off one train and onto another, literally! I can go S41->U4->U3 with no extra delay because the services are timed to connect. The U4 in Berlin was for a long time the only "shuttle" type service, with just a handful of stops, constantly running just 2 x 2car formations up and down all day...works fine and is well patronised.

loyatemu

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Good idea



This is a no brainer for me. Run a single 2 carriage unit back and forth all day. Increased capacity, frequency and availability. There is no need to run 8 carriages to Greystones.

You could in theory have, say a 15 min frequency on it then? 5 mins each way (that long enough?) 5 min dwell total.

Is the platform at Bray long enough to have an 8 carriage and a 2 together at the same time, or would some work be required to extend / place 3rd platform.

platform 3 at bray can take about 6 carriages. Bray - Greystones is about 9 mins so there's not much scope to increase the frequency beyond the current half-hourly on weekdays.

Although I had my doubts when they introduced the new timetable, the Greystones section actually doesn't seem to cause many problems. A shuttle would be simpler for IE to operate, but with the effect of making the already very slow journey to Greystones even longer.

Cool Mo D

The DART carries so many passengers that it should get priority, but in a more clever way then it does now.

I would say that what small improvements are needed is that an extra terminating platform should be provided at Malahide, just south of the existing road bridge at the station, where DARTs could terminate out of the way of commuter and Enterprise trains.

At peak times, 4 trains per hour should run clockface, to Howth and Malahide, synchronized so that they meet at Howth Junction 7.5 minutes apart. Off peak, the Howth branch would run as a shuttle, and late nights and Sundays, 3 DARTs plus the Howth shuttle.

Commuter train time need to be integrated with DARTs, so that during the day, a commuter train leaves Connolly/Malahide just before a DART, giving it maximum time to run at speed on the most congested part of the track. I would envision 2 trains per hour to Drogheda during the day, cut down to 1, evenings and Sundays, with extra during rush hour.

An hourly Enterprise should run, with every rush hour Enterprises running non-stop, to keep a constant journey time, even while the track into Connolly is at it's most congested. The loop platforms at Clongriffen should be fully installed and have DARTs wait here for a few minutes to allow suburban and Enterprise trains overtake.

This also needs to happen on the line to Bray, where it would knock 15 minutes off the Rosslare route with good timing.
Running time on the DART also needs to be faster - it takes 70 minutes to go 37 km with 26 stations from Malahide to Bray - that is rubbish! DART journey times should drop to 45-50mins, which would give a big boost to diesel services on the route too.

A much better Maynooth service is needed - 3 trains per hour throughout the day. Journey times are shocking - 40 minutes to travel 26 km, and Intercity and longer distance commuter trains are no quicker, despite there only being a couple of Maynooth suburban trains an hour to get stuck behind. 30 minutes all stopping and 20 minutes non-stop should be the target.

Also, there's a perfectly good 3rd platform at Grand Canal Dock for suburban trains to stop at where they don't cross the DART. They should use it!

Before the interconnector, Kildare commuter trains should run into the Docklands, and whatever bit of trackwork that requires should be done. It's a waste to have that station sitting so underused. A station is would also be required along the loop between Heuston and where it meets the Maynooth line.
After the Interconnector, the loop should be electrified, and a DART run along it as a Heuston(Islandbridge) -> via the Interconnector -> Inchicore, where it would turn around and run back the same way.

Cookie_Monster

All very sensible suggestions, how exactly would you accomplish this though?
Dwell time could be marginally improved I suppose just by being a bit more strict.
But accel and decel curves can't really be improved without a new fleet which is cost prohibitive.
Some sections have stupidly low limits that could be resolved such as DL to Sandycove. But again its probably cost restrictive to upgrade at the moment.
Level crossing don't really affect the trains as they are geared in their favour already.

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Running time on the DART also needs to be faster - it takes 70 minutes to go 37 km with 26 stations from Malahide to Bray - that is rubbish! DART journey times should drop to 45-50mins, which would give a big boost to diesel services on the route too.

Cool Mo D

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

All very sensible suggestions, how exactly would you accomplish this though?
Dwell time could be marginally improved I suppose just by being a bit more strict.
But accel and decel curves can't really be improved without a new fleet which is cost prohibitive.
Some sections have stupidly low limits that could be resolved such as DL to Sandycove. But again its probably cost restrictive to upgrade at the moment.
Level crossing don't really affect the trains as they are geared in their favour already.

One big thing is the approach to Connolly and the driver change near Clontarf road. It takes aaaages! I'm not sure if that part is speed restricted, but I'd say that at least 5min of every DART journey is spent crawling into Connolly. And dwell times at stations are too long, and I suspect that IE aren't being very ambitious with the train speeds relative to what could be achieved.

GM071class

Some great idea's ther lads,

I hate to admit, but in many ways the Bottle-neck that is Connolly is a problem, in fact it's an operational nightmare!

The only way to increase frequency, and line speeds for that matter, is to totally review the signalling system. This wouldn't be cheap, but operational flexibility allows for more 'paths' for more trains.

The use of the wrong trains on the wrong line is a huge problem too.
Yesterday morning a 6-car 22k was being used on the Clonsilla - Connolly 09.05am.
We didn't get in for 09.30!!!
On COMMUTER routes, COMMUTER TRAINS should be used, Lots of standing room, and wide doors based nearer to the center of the carriage.

JHMEG

murphaph wrote: »

I don't consider it second class.

IE do. Many's the time I waited on a Maynooth train outside Connolly as a DART was late to arrive into Connolly. Sometimes 10 minutes late. I could never understand why the Maynooth train couldn't be platformed as it was on time and the DART was not.

My suggestion wasn't really serious, but I would like to see some out of the box thinking whereby situations such as that one above can't/won't happen.

JHMEG

Cool Mo D wrote: »

A much better Maynooth service is needed - 3 trains per hour throughout the day. Journey times are shocking - 40 minutes to travel 26 km, and Intercity and longer distance commuter trains are no quicker, despite there only being a couple of Maynooth suburban trains an hour to get stuck behind. 30 minutes all stopping and 20 minutes non-stop should be the target.

I had the pleasure of being on a timetabled 19-minute Leixlip to Connolly service. It only lasted a week... was as if IE realised they made a mistake.

murphaph

JHMEG wrote: »

IE do. Many's the time I waited on a Maynooth train outside Connolly as a DART was late to arrive into Connolly. Sometimes 10 minutes late. I could never understand why the Maynooth train couldn't be platformed as it was on time and the DART was not.

My suggestion wasn't really serious, but I would like to see some out of the box thinking whereby situations such as that one above can't/won't happen.

I know what you mean, I have been stuck there for ages too sometimes. My proposals would see the Maynooth line run directly into P7 where it would terminate and all passengers would disembark, never having to wait for a late running DART. These passengers would then either leave the station for the North Inner City/Docklands or change to DART by using the tunnel to P5.

Going home in the evening would be slightly easier, A Pearse-Maynooth passenger would board a DART at Pearse, disembark onto P6 at Connolly and simply walk across to a waiting Maynooth train on P7. No trains crossing each other's paths. The passengers own legs use the grade separated tunnel in Connoly to eliminate the conflicting movements, and therefore increase the reliability of the whole system. It's breathtakingly simple really.

loyatemu

I've missed my (southbound) Dart at Pearse a couple of times recently where it has been running over 5 mins early - so there is plenty of slack there, before you even look at the ludicrously slow southern section.

Dwell times are very slack as well - compare the Dart with the Luas.... if you even knocked 20 secs off the dwell time at each station that would be a saving of ~8 mins straight off.

JHMEG

murphaph wrote: »

I know what you mean, I have been stuck there for ages too sometimes. My proposals would see the Maynooth line run directly into P7 where it would terminate and all passengers would disembark, never having to wait for a late running DART.

I'm not sure of the track layout in Connolly but I was of the impression that no matter what the Maynooth train has to go onto/cross tracks used by the DART (which gets a higher priority).

In the scenario I mentioned it doesn't matter that the train from Maynooth is going on to Pearse. The track was clear, but for whatever reason the DART (which was probably up around Clontarf somewhere) had to be let pass.

DWCommuter

JHMEG wrote: »

I'm not sure of the track layout in Connolly but I was of the impression that no matter what the Maynooth train has to go onto/cross tracks used by the DART (which gets a higher priority).

In the scenario I mentioned it doesn't matter that the train from Maynooth is going on to Pearse. The track was clear, but for whatever reason the DART (which was probably up around Clontarf somewhere) had to be let pass.

It can run direct to 7 if it takes Newcomen curve, but won't be able to serve Drumcondra.

murphaph

JHMEG wrote: »

I'm not sure of the track layout in Connolly but I was of the impression that no matter what the Maynooth train has to go onto/cross tracks used by the DART (which gets a higher priority).

In the scenario I mentioned it doesn't matter that the train from Maynooth is going on to Pearse. The track was clear, but for whatever reason the DART (which was probably up around Clontarf somewhere) had to be let pass.

Some minor trackwork and signalling changes would be needed to facilitate my suggestion, but trackwork and signalling adjustments are bread and butter stuff for a (competent) railway operator. IE make a huge deal out of stuff that "just happens" elsewhere.

The rail network in Dublin currently is not a network at all, but rather a few point to point links that don't interact with each other apart from causing knock on delays. Eliminating conflicting movements would go a long way to making the railway more reliable. Most passengers in Maynooth of course would baulk at my simple suggestion without thinking about it. They would see it as a service deterioration, despite getting more frequent, faster journeys overall. The Irish mentality has a lot to do with what is wrong.

DWCommuter

murphaph wrote: »

The Irish mentality has a lot to do with what is wrong.

Followed by a hop, skip and a jump to their local TDs clinic.

JHMEG

DWCommuter wrote: »

It can run direct to 7 if it takes Newcomen curve, but won't be able to serve Drumcondra.

I've been on it many times. I understood the gradient burns out engines tho?

Zebra3

Cool Mo D wrote: »

One big thing is the approach to Connolly and the driver change near Clontarf road. It takes aaaages!

I couldn't believe that waste of time wasn't done away with when CR opened back in '97. :mad:

Absolute joke.

murphaph

JHMEG wrote: »

I've been on it many times. I understood the gradient burns out engines tho?

I personally would add a set of points to the Maynooth Line just before it hits Connolly, so trains can use it (and serve Drumcondra) all the way directly into P7, leaving DARTs clear to use P5 and P6. This is all possible: it's political interference and lethargy on IE's part that prevent it.

Newcommen could be used if they built a basic station along the Midland Line (canal line) to serve the area around Drumcondra. The gradient is not as severe as some I see in Berlin. It would not "burn out engines" at all, but would have to be taken slowly, that's all.

murphaph

Zebra3 wrote: »

I couldn't believe that waste of time wasn't done away with when CR opened back in '97. :mad:

Absolute joke.

This is IE for you, running the railway for the benefit the benefit of the staff rather than the passengers. ALL driver changeovers in Berlin take place at stations and it takes a few seconds, no 5 minute chat about the football or "de gubberment"

JHMEG

murphaph wrote: »

Newcommen could be used if they built a basic station along the Midland Line (canal line) to serve the area around Drumcondra.

And also a station right beside the Croke Pk ticket area for match days. Ah well...

murphaph wrote: »

It would not "burn out engines" at all, but would have to be taken slowly, that's all.

I understand it has already burned out engines in DMUs. Can't remember which ones.

murphaph

JHMEG wrote: »

And also a station right beside the Croke Pk ticket area for match days. Ah well...


I understand it has already burned out engines in DMUs. Can't remember which ones.

Poor driving most likely. The DMUs all use a fluid clutch arrangement so I'd imagine talk of burnt out engines on a DMU is bullsh!t really.

Cookie_Monster

JHMEG wrote: »

And also a station right beside the Croke Pk ticket area for match days. Ah well...

Speaking of that and the reviews... how come neither stadium (Croker Pk and Lansdowne Rd) have a station as part of the structure of the building, ok they both have stations near them but I was amazed that during the rebuilding of Lansdowne that a station wasn't put in directly under it with the capacity of an extra track and platform to allow normal DART services to run while holding empty trains for the post match exit. Seems a big oversight to me. Croke Pk the same when it was rebuilt, could have easily used the almost redundant canal level line as a terminus

schemingbohemia

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Speaking of that and the reviews... how come neither stadium (Croker Pk and Lansdowne Rd) have a station as part of the structure of the building, ok they both have stations near them but I was amazed that during the rebuilding of Lansdowne that a station wasn't put in directly under it with the capacity of an extra track and platform to allow normal DART services to run while holding empty trains for the post match exit. Seems a big oversight to me. Croke Pk the same when it was rebuilt, could have easily used the almost redundant canal level line as a terminus

where exactly would they put the 'extra' station/platform under Landsdowne?
when the redevelopment was planned, this area was one of the most expensive in the country.
who would pay for it?
how many times a year will Landsdowne be full?

Cookie_Monster

schemingbohemia wrote: »

1 where exactly would they put the 'extra' station/platform under Landsdowne?
2 when the redevelopment was planned, this area was one of the most expensive in the country.
3 who would pay for it?
4 how many times a year will Landsdowne be full?

1 plenty of space to do it when rebuilding, the stadium does straddle the track anyway and with proper design it could have easily been accommodated. should have been in the planning permission. Was there even a consideration on how to clear the large crowds after events?

2 so, they spending hundreds of millions on a stadium, whats a couple of 100k on top of that to add proper facilities

3 IRFU and FAI, with some small input from CIE (too late now though)

4 enough between soccer & rugby international, league cups, concerts & misc uses for this to be needed, most major stadia in Europe have proper transport infrastructure in place to move vast quantities of people quickly, its about time we had the same

markpb

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Speaking of that and the reviews... how come neither stadium (Croker Pk and Lansdowne Rd) have a station as part of the structure of the building

The Health and Safety brigade recommend locating public transport stations a small walk from large venues to allow crowds to string out instead of arriving at the platform or stairs at the same time.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

where exactly would they put the 'extra' station/platform under Landsdowne?
when the redevelopment was planned, this area was one of the most expensive in the country.

You've answered your own question there. The underground station would go _under_ the stadium. The cost of the land is not an issue if it's underneath the stadium. It might also have been an opportunity to eliminate one of the level crossings which delays the Dart, causes traffic jams and blocks pedestrians and passengers trying to get to the ticket office.

murphaph

This is the Berlin Olympic Stadium S Bahn Station (there's also an U Bahn station):



The platforms without a roof are overspill and only used for major concerts or sporting events. There is no room at Landsdowne for this sort of setup but they should have integrated one extra track and platform to hold trains on match nights, the room was there and IE and the IRFU should have worked together to deliver a brand new station built into the stadium, could have been done.

Cookie_Monster

markpb wrote: »

The Health and Safety brigade recommend locating public transport stations a small walk from large venues to allow crowds to string out instead of arriving at the platform or stairs at the same time.

:eek::eek::eek:

:rolleyes: Only here, where in the case of Lansdowne it means shutting the entire DART line down while trains sit in the station and block it and blocking off a good few local routes.

Cool Mo D

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek:

:rolleyes: Only here, where in the case of Lansdowne it means shutting the entire DART line down while trains sit in the station and block it and blocking off a good few local routes.

I don't think they will be doing that anymore - the landsdowne redevelopment means that people leaving the stadium don't have to cross the tracks at the level crossing, so they can keep running trains. Not sure though.

JHMEG

I always reckoned it was cos the smart people in IE calculated people would want to go to the pub from the station, and not straight to the match. (And then they'd like to walk a few miles to walk off the drink on their way to Croker...)

Nobody wants stations at venues, even the customers. Except the non-IE Luas and the O2 of course.

Cookie_Monster

Cool Mo D wrote: »

I don't think they will be doing that anymore - the landsdowne redevelopment means that people leaving the stadium don't have to cross the tracks at the level crossing, so they can keep running trains. Not sure though.

nothing to do with letting people cross the tracks. The trains have to be in place about 15 mins before the end of the match so they sit in the station for about 25 mins all told blocking the "normal" scheduled DARTs which IE generally just cancel. The 2nd and 3rd trains aren't there quite as long but do sit blocking up the place for a good 10-15 mins sometimes too.

schemingbohemia

There isn't the space! The highest part of the stadium is actually higher than Croke Park, they've done amazingly well to build a stadium that size on such a small footprint.

And putting it under the stadium is/was a mad pipe dream totally impractical - where would it join the rest of the line? would you just knock down all the houses in havelock square? how would people evacuate the stadium over this magical extra train line? i'm really struggling to figure out where you think this extra platform/line would go?

the signalling capacity to have banks of darts waiting for after a match isn't there at the moment - comparing it to the O2 is unfair as that is a terminus where it's much easier to do that.

murphaph

The room was there, sure all along the West Stand there was burger vans etc. in that compound and the DART line was inside that again. I had a season ticket for the west stand, knew it quite well. Plenty of space existed to incorporate one extra track to hold DART units in, it just wasn't attempted.

schemingbohemia

murphaph wrote: »

The room was there, sure all along the West Stand there was burger vans etc. in that compound and the DART line was inside that again. I had a season ticket for the west stand, knew it quite well. Plenty of space existed to incorporate one extra track to hold DART units in, it just wasn't attempted.

How many Dart Units do you think could have been fitted in that space that is now being used for escalators and stairs into the west stand? 1 8-car unit I would say at a stretch, and how exactly does that really help?

And how would people actually access that new platform safely?

Pie in the sky! While there are many many areas of improvement that could be addressed in a network review this one isn't one of them and never was a possibility.

markpb

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Pie in the sky! While there are many many areas of improvement that could be addressed in a network review this one isn't one of them and never was a possibility.

And now that the stadium has been built, any attempt to improve it's public transport facilities in the future will remain pie in the Sky.

schemingbohemia

markpb wrote: »

And now that the stadium has been built, any attempt to improve it's public transport facilities in the future will remain pie in the Sky.

you're talking like there was the option - there wasn't. the signalling isn't there at the moment anyway. when the DART underground is finished there'll be trains at much greater frequency to service the stadium without needing unneccessary infrastructure works.

i'm not saying things can't be improved but i think landsdowne is fairly well connected with rail and bus as it is and there are more important areas.

BluntGuy

+1 to this thread.

The Interconnector project is of course necessary to realising the full potential of the rail network, but if IE are still operating in their current backwards fashion by the time IC is delivered, it won't even have half the benefit it should.

I want to see a flat fare on Dublin Bus, DART and Luas/Metro by the time IC is up and running.

KC61

BluntGuy wrote: »

I want to see a flat fare on Dublin Bus, DART and Luas/Metro by the time IC is up and running.

I think you'll be waiting!!

KC61

There was a fundamental mistake made by Iarnrod Eireann in November/December 2009. Quite correctly they decided to introduce a clockface DART service, however they decided completely bizarrely that in doing so, that they wanted to retain the existing departure times as far as possible on the Northern and Maynooth lines.

This of course could only mean one thing - longer journey times as schedulers battled to fit in the commuter services around the rescheduled DART services.

What should have happened was a total recast of the entire timetable, with clockface schedules on all suburban routes - it is perfectly possible to deliver this with the current setup. A totally crazy decision displaying a crass ignorance of commuters.

For anyone to think that it was preferable to maintain existing departure times over longer journey times and a totally disjointed timetable is frankly ludicrous. However that is seemingly what the regional management responsible for the service do think!

KC61

Under the current city centre resignalling process, currently being implemented the third platform at Grand Canal Dock will become the principal northbound platform, with the existing northbound platform becoming a turnback platform for commuter services, doing away with the need to block both lines when trains terminate at Pearse.

Currently the third platform at GCD is not signalled for use by through trains nor is it signed into use by passengers.

murphaph

I really think that if the DART was running at metro frequencies on it's core Malahide-Bray stretch that a lot of the other problems would disappear as passengers would be able to use the DART to reach Pearse for South Eastern services or Connolly for Maynooth and Northern and Western Suburban services. I think they probably know they could achieve a much better overall journey time and reliability, but are afraid of upsetting the apple cart (telling Maynooth and Northern Line passengers that all their trains will terminate in Connolly and that the must change to DARTs on P5 to continue southbound.

No more Maynooth and Northern line services blocking paths in Connolly and Pearse etc. No other railway operator in Europe would treat Pearse as a terminal station for southbound trains. It was never built to be one. IE don't use assets that they have (Phoenix Park Tunnel) and the assets that they do have are used incorrectly (Pearse and Connolly through platforms being used as terminal platforms). DB woule NEVER have trains sitting at P5 in Connolly the way IE do. P5 and P6 should be seeing a Malahide-Bray DART every 5-7 mins FFS.

loyatemu

slight problem - Pearse no longer has any south-facing bay platforms (poor forward planning by IE - true, but also a reality now).

JHMEG

murphaph wrote: »

telling Maynooth and Northern Line passengers that all their trains will terminate in Connolly and that the must change to DARTs on P5 to continue southbound.

I would have an issue in forcing a trainload of people off the Maynooth train through that awful tunnel to get to P5 in Connolly. It's already bad enough and to subject anyone who isn't young and fit to that every day wouldn't be funny. In other countries there would be travelators and escalators. (There is one escalator in Connolly that rarely works, and when it is working it seems most of the time to be set to go down instead of up)

In addition the time added to the journey to Tara and Pearse could be up to 15 mins between changing platforms and then waiting for a DART on P5. Some people would look for an alternative rather than having to put up with that.

On the reverse journey for trains that originate in Connolly there is already somewhat of a panic with people trying to get on to maybe get a seat, or at least find somewhere to stand where they can read a book/move their arms. Trains that originate in Pearse do not suffer as badly as they load up over the 3 city centre stations, instead of taking a full load at one.

As a user of the Maynooth service I would not opt for increased frequency in exchange for inconvenience or increased discomfort.

murphaph

loyatemu wrote: »

slight problem - Pearse no longer has any south-facing bay platforms (poor forward planning by IE - true, but also a reality now).

Fair point, I forgot just how chronically stupid IE are. They should reinstate a bay platform on the up line at Pearse. It should never have been removed. A big building like that with only 2 through platforms, and those platforms being used as terminal platforms at that...you couldn't make this stuff up.

If they are unable/unwilling to reinstate then they should amalgamate Rosslare services with Dundalk ones and run right through. This is not a great distance (regional trains passing through Berlin would cover greater distances tbh). Longford services should terminate in the Docklands. So some people in Longford will be p!ssed off: but seriously, when you buy a house in Longford it is unreasonable to expect a handy commute into Dublin surely! Going as far as Docklands is good enough.

God, the more I think about how they run the railway the more annoyed I am.

KC61

As I have said above - it is perfectly possible to operate a co-ordinated clockface Dublin commuter and DART service with the existing resources.

Irish Rail chose not to.

Like JHMEG says there is no need to curtail anything at Connolly or Pearse.

When Grand Canal Dock is remodelled as part of the city centre resignalling project, the conflicts at Pearse will be eliminated.

dowlingm

How far along is DASH 2 resignalling project and how much will it help?

KC61

Work is underway with the northern line and Howth branch resignalling.

DASH 2 will increase the capacity of the loop line and remodel Pearse/Grand Canal Dock allowing for turnback of Maynooth/Northern line commuter services at Grand Canal Dock without affecting northbound DARTs, unlike at present where they clash with them when crossing over to the Boston sidings.

The project also involves the resignalling of the Maynooth line between Clonsilla and Connolly.

Cool Mo D

murphaph wrote: »

Fair point, I forgot just how chronically stupid IE are. They should reinstate a bay platform on the up line at Pearse. It should never have been removed. A big building like that with only 2 through platforms, and those platforms being used as terminal platforms at that...you couldn't make this stuff up.

If they are unable/unwilling to reinstate then they should amalgamate Rosslare services with Dundalk ones and run right through. This is not a great distance (regional trains passing through Berlin would cover greater distances tbh). Longford services should terminate in the Docklands. So some people in Longford will be p!ssed off: but seriously, when you buy a house in Longford it is unreasonable to expect a handy commute into Dublin surely! Going as far as Docklands is good enough.

God, the more I think about how they run the railway the more annoyed I am.

There's not really a need for a bay platform at Pearse - Rosslare trains can terminate at Connolly platform 5, out of the way of DART and Maynooth services. They have to cross other paths, but they would at Pearse too. There is no need to limit trains passing over the loop line bridge - it should be able to handle 20-30 trains an hour with proper signalling, and all trains stop at Tara, Connolly and Pearse, so there's no issue with slow trains holding up faster ones. The flat junction at Connolly is being blamed for slow trains, but there are flat junctions in use all over the UK which handle way more traffic. With good timetabling, there need never be an issue with trains coming into Connolly.