Malahide/Portmarnock Rail Stations - What are they doing?

darkman2

Anyone know what the construction works in these stations are all about?

Cool Mo D

Think it's to install lifts.

Pity they couldn't slot a terminating platform in where the old ramp was in Malahide, just west of the through platforms.

CIE

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Pity they couldn't slot a terminating platform in where the old ramp was in Malahide, just west of the through platforms.

I've always wondered about that. Would be a great place to terminate the DARTs and keep the main line clear.

Never mind that there has never been a DART feeder bus to Portmarnock station, or even a pre-DART feeder because of the distance of the station from the strand and village. Why did the 102 never go by there, especially when first instituted?

Losty Dublin

CIE wrote: »

I've always wondered about that. Would be a great place to terminate the DARTs and keep the main line clear.

Planning permission was requested for a holding platform for waiting Dart's to sit at; residents objected and it was rejected.

CIE wrote: »

Never mind that there has never been a DART feeder bus to Portmarnock station, or even a pre-DART feeder because of the distance of the station from the strand and village. Why did the 102 never go by there, especially when first instituted?

The 102 was set up as a Dart feeder which terminates at Sutton way before the Malahide extension. The road at Portmarnock station is narrow and there isn't anywhere to turn a bus on it but we need to bear in mind that a lot of the houses here have sprouted up in the last few years in a time when Dublin Bus are stifled by the DoT from adapting routes around new estates. Yes, it would be good on paper but it's out of CIE's hands, sadly.

CIE

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Planning permission was requested for a holding platform for waiting Dart's to sit at; residents objected and it was rejected

Aha, NIMBYs. Funny how political pressure from them is responded to in a selective manner?

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The 102 was set up as a Dart feeder which terminates at Sutton way before the Malahide extension. The road at Portmarnock station is narrow and there isn't anywhere to turn a bus on it but we need to bear in mind that a lot of the houses here have sprouted up in the last few years in a time when Dublin Bus are stifled by the DoT from adapting routes around new estates. Yes, it would be good on paper but it's out of CIE's hands, sadly

Nowadays, there's plenty of room to turn a bus in the car park. Station Road is no less narrow than Portmarnock Road, except on the bridge over the railway. That is of course aside from the status quo vis-à-vis the DoT.

Grolschevik

CIE wrote: »

Aha, NIMBYs. Funny how political pressure from them is responded to in a selective manner?Nowadays, there's plenty of room to turn a bus in the car park. Station Road is no less narrow than Portmarnock Road, except on the bridge over the railway. That is of course aside from the status quo vis-à-vis the DoT.

The bridge on Station Road has been widened in the last couple of years, but the road as a whole is still narrower than Strand Road, with only one narrow footpath, as well.

In recent weeks I've seen a couple of private minibuses in the station carpark, one labelled "DART feeder bus" and the other "Lidl shuttle bus"...

Victor

CIE wrote: »

Never mind that there has never been a DART feeder bus to Portmarnock station, or even a pre-DART feeder because of the distance of the station from the strand and village. Why did the 102 never go by there, especially when first instituted?

Sutton always had a better train service than Portmarknock. Also, by Malahide, city-bound trains were invariably full in the morning, so bringing people to Portmarknock wouldn't have been much use.

CIE

Victor wrote: »

Sutton always had a better train service than Portmarnock. Also, by Malahide, city-bound trains were invariably full in the morning, so bringing people to Portmarnock wouldn't have been much use.

I was thinking more of service between the station and the Strand in particular. It would be counter-intuitive, based on the name of the station, to ride to Portmarnock strand by taking the DART to Sutton station and then riding the 102 or 32A all the way from there through Baldoyle village.

Davy

I think their might be a shuttle service operated by Barrett's. Its a small 16 seater. I saw it on the M50 the other day, ( i dont think its part of the route ) but it had 'portmarnock shuttle bus' printed on it, in what looked like fairly new signs and i cant think of anything else that it would be a shuttle for?

Cool Mo D

The DART service at Malahide is pretty bad anyway - I was disappointed but not surprised when the DART was clockfaced, but neither Howth or Malahide got a constant interval.

If IE ran an off peak schedule of 5 DARTs and at least 1 Drogheda commuter, it would be possible to give a clockface 20 minute service to all stations north of Howth Junction, while having an every 12 minute clockface DART. It would mean that a Commuter train would arrive in Howth Junction at the same time as a Howth DART, but if the commuter train left first, it would have a fairly clear run to Connolly, and the Howth DART would be sitting for an extra 3 minutes, max in Howth Junction.
It would also mean that Greystones trains would be not quite half hourly, there would be either a 24 or 36 minute gap between trains.

dowlingm

Any idea how long ago IE applied for the bay at Malahide? I was looking it up in Fingal CC's database but no luck.

loyatemu

Cool Mo D wrote: »

It would also mean that Greystones trains would be not quite half hourly, there would be either a 24 or 36 minute gap between trains.

24 minute gap would be very tight @ Greystones - they struggle with the current 30 minute gap (it should be doable as the Bray-Greystones journey is supposed to be 9 mins, but thats IR for you...)

Eiretrains

I'm aware Malahide will be gaining a new footbridge, and that Donabate's is almost finished.
However Portmarnock already has a modern footbridge, so does anyone know what's exactly they're doing there? Last time I passed Portmarnock there was a huge amount of work going on the up side of the station. I'm assuming it might be a new booking office.

sdanseo

Portmarnock has lifts too, doesn't it?

Both it and Malahide need work on booking offices, footbridges, ticket barriers and general access. While I'm all for preserving old architecture, it's time to scrap the GNR footbridge - it's in a dangerously bad state.

Malahide Station needs redevelopment quite badly too - while it's an old building and must be preserved an extension should be added beside it to facilitate passengers. It would also be a great little spot for a multi-storey carpark - albeit a small one as it's not a huge space, it's perfectly situated in a dip so the visual intrusion of one would be negligible. 70 spaces could turn into 200+ easily enough.

oharach

dowlingm wrote: »

Any idea how long ago IE applied for the bay at Malahide? I was looking it up in Fingal CC's database but no luck.

In a similar vein, is there a certain time limit after which IE could apply again?

CIE

Cool Mo D wrote: »

The DART service at Malahide is pretty bad anyway

Define "bad". Not to mention, doesn't IE really regard DART as part of the Dublin commuter lines anyhow? Been that way since pre-DART days; DART is merely the old local trains. Malahide gets as many as 5 t.p.h. peak (single direction) and at least two to three off-peak. The more trains you run, the more wear and tear on both rolling stock and tracks, and the slower the average speed has to be.

Cool Mo D wrote: »

I was disappointed but not surprised when the DART was clockfaced, but neither Howth or Malahide got a constant interval.

If IE ran an off peak schedule of 5 DARTs and at least 1 Drogheda commuter, it would be possible to give a clockface 20 minute service to all stations north of Howth Junction, while having an every 12 minute clockface DART. It would mean that a Commuter train would arrive in Howth Junction at the same time as a Howth DART, but if the commuter train left first, it would have a fairly clear run to Connolly, and the Howth DART would be sitting for an extra 3 minutes, max in Howth Junction.
It would also mean that Greystones trains would be not quite half hourly, there would be either a 24 or 36 minute gap between trains.

How many trains can you really fill off-peak? and are people now so unintelligent as to require "clock-face" departures?

I had a look at my old DART timetable from 23/7/84. Even back at 2100 hours, trains were departing Howth every fifteen minutes ("clock-face" as well). Was that needed back then? and is it needed today? By comparison, there were a mere two departures from Malahide between 0700 and 0800 and three between 0800 and 0900 (Monday-Friday; six trains had already departed Howth between 0800 and 0900). If I were in Malahide, I'd much rather have the present-day timetable.

Cool Mo D

CIE wrote: »

Define "bad". Not to mention, doesn't IE really regard DART as part of the Dublin commuter lines anyhow? Been that way since pre-DART days; DART is merely the old local trains. Malahide gets as many as 5 t.p.h. peak (single direction) and at least two to three off-peak. The more trains you run, the more wear and tear on both rolling stock and tracks, and the slower the average speed has to be.How many trains can you really fill off-peak? and are people now so unintelligent as to require "clock-face" departures?

I had a look at my old DART timetable from 23/7/84. Even back at 2100 hours, trains were departing Howth every fifteen minutes ("clock-face" as well). Was that needed back then? and is it needed today? By comparison, there were a mere two departures from Malahide between 0700 and 0800 and three between 0800 and 0900 (Monday-Friday; six trains had already departed Howth between 0800 and 0900). If I were in Malahide, I'd much rather have the present-day timetable.

Your idea of the DART as "just the old local trains" illustrates exactly what is wrong with current DART services. DART was supposed to be a frequent reliable public transport option, and IE have eroded it's reputation over the last 25 years. The DART is still by far the most important train service in the country - it accounts about half of all irish rail passengers every hear.

The DART service to Malahide is bad, not because of number of trains, but because of the timetable. There might be a couple of off-peak trains an hour, but they usually arrive within the space of 15 minutes, leaving a 45 minute gap until the next train. An evenly spread clock-face service would eliminate this.

The point of the DART was to provide a frequent service, i.e. one that you can turn up at any time, and be confident you will step on a train without much waiting. Having to rely on a timetable is a serious hindrance to off peak use, because you cannot depend on stepping onto one whenever you like. Characterising clock face services as unnecessary because people can read a timetable is irish rail thinking at its most typically bad.

A train every 15 minutes is unambitious, but it would be a good start. Off peak services will never be full, on any public transport, but just the knowledge that you can take a late train home if you need is enough to get some people to use the train over their car, even if they are home by 6 every day.

CIE

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Your idea of the DART as "just the old local trains" illustrates exactly what is wrong with current DART services. DART was supposed to be a frequent reliable public transport option, and IE have eroded it's reputation over the last 25 years. The DART is still by far the most important train service in the country - it accounts about half of all irish rail passengers every hear.

The DART service to Malahide is bad, not because of number of trains, but because of the timetable. There might be a couple of off-peak trains an hour, but they usually arrive within the space of 15 minutes, leaving a 45 minute gap until the next train. An evenly spread clock-face service would eliminate this.

The point of the DART was to provide a frequent service, i.e. one that you can turn up at any time, and be confident you will step on a train without much waiting. Having to rely on a timetable is a serious hindrance to off peak use, because you cannot depend on stepping onto one whenever you like. Characterising clock face services as unnecessary because people can read a timetable is irish rail thinking at its most typically bad.

A train every 15 minutes is unambitious, but it would be a good start. Off peak services will never be full, on any public transport, but just the knowledge that you can take a late train home if you need is enough to get some people to use the train over their car, even if they are home by 6 every day.

Dublin's not populated enough to require such a heavy, slower service on a mere two to three lines. Speed and higher capacity are what sells the railway more than high frequency. And as I understand things, the point of the DART conversion of the Dublin suburban route was to reduce operating costs over the long run, because you could achieve higher frequencies with DMUs without building the infrastructure for electrification, but the long-term costs would be higher than with using EMUs.

Dublin needs more railway lines (and those as part of the general railway network instead of a completely separate off-gauge system, and certainly no more "light rail" lines), not more trains on the same old lines, never mind duplicate connectors.

Grolschevik

Eiretrains wrote: »

I'm aware Malahide will be gaining a new footbridge, and that Donabate's is almost finished.
However Portmarnock already has a modern footbridge, so does anyone know what's exactly they're doing there? Last time I passed Portmarnock there was a huge amount of work going on the up side of the station. I'm assuming it might be a new booking office.

It looks like they're putting in a new, wider ramp for the southbound platform.

markpb

CIE wrote: »

Speed and higher capacity are what sells the railway more than high frequency.

That's odd - when I lived along the Dart line, it was the random 25 minute gap between trains that made me give up on using it and return to Dublin Bus. It's not like the Dart offers a much faster service than DB so why wait 25 minutes for it?

Dublin's not populated enough to require such a heavy, slower service on a mere two to three lines.

Dublin needs ... certainly no more "light rail" lines

So first you say that Dublin isn't densly populated enough to require a heavy-rail service and then you say that we should build no more light rail lines. Which is it?

In any event, the Luas runs more frequently and more reliably than the Dart. It attracts more people off-peak than the Dart does. I suspect you may be slightly out of touch with what most public transport passengers actually want - they don't care that it's heavy rail, standard gauge, higher capacity or that the timetable is better on average (ignoring the gaps) than 20 years ago. I want to show up, wait a minimum amount of time and get to my destination.

CIE

markpb wrote: »

That's odd - when I lived along the Dart line, it was the random 25 minute gap between trains that made me give up on using it and return to Dublin Bus. It's not like the Dart offers a much faster service than DB so why wait 25 minutes for it?

The word "random" is perhaps the key there? That's a separate issue from number of trains per hour. I think I mentioned just why DART's service does not compete with DB (and lack of speed was one of them, something that was never corrected from its beginnings, making the "R" in the acronym as much of a misnomer as "Luas" is); and frankly, neither does Luas, since DB had to remove bus routes, and continues to do so (with Network "Direct"), in order to induce people to ride it.

markpb wrote: »

So first you say that Dublin isn't densely populated enough to require a heavy-rail service and then you say that we should build no more light rail lines. Which is it?

I did not say "densely"; I said absolutely nothing about population density. I also did not say that Dublin did not warrant a heavy-rail service; I said that they did not require a slow service with excessive frequency on a single line.

I was talking total population, and I was referring to a single line with two branches on its northern end. I did mention that Dublin needs more railway lines, did I not?

markpb wrote: »

In any event, the Luas runs more frequently and more reliably than the Dart. It attracts more people off-peak than the Dart does. I suspect you may be slightly out of touch with what most public transport passengers actually want - they don't care that it's heavy rail, standard gauge, higher capacity or that the timetable is better on average (ignoring the gaps) than 20 years ago. I want to show up, wait a minimum amount of time and get to my destination.

That's not going to last, because the burden on the exchequer will result in service reduction and fare increases just like what happened on the DART. Luas is immune for the present, but once the focus switches to the need for far better fare recovery, the measures taken will drive passengers off. The operation is already overly labour-intensive in order to maintain the frequency, and I already mentioned here the eternal deficit in average speed for the light rail.

goingnowhere

You Sir know nothing

The Luas has generated an operating profit since it opened, never posted a loss and never needed a penny in ongoing subvention its clear it is a stable transport product which has remained in the black even in the recession. Under an extremely unlikely case of a loss something like 50% of that is Veoila's problem.

The surplus is dumped to a long term fund to cover engineering renewals

Passenger numbers are actually rising on Luas currently (on Irish Rail as well)

CIE

goingnowhere wrote: »

You Sir know nothing

The Luas has generated an operating profit since it opened, never posted a loss and never needed a penny in ongoing subvention its clear it is a stable transport product which has remained in the black even in the recession. Under an extremely unlikely case of a loss something like 50% of that is Veoila's problem.

The surplus is dumped to a long term fund to cover engineering renewals

You really believe this, don't you?

Why, then, is there no push to re-convert the major bus lines in Dublin that started as trams back to trams? After all, Luas is leading the way, thanks to all these official claims.

Nobody knows the fare recovery ratio of Luas except its operators and the government. This has been covered before in other threads. Even worse, it's under foreign administration.

Passenger numbers are actually rising on Luas currently (on Irish Rail as well)

That would agree with my assessment that the railway network needs to be expanded. (All over the country as well, but most certainly in Dublin.) That means new lines of the general railway network's format serving new destinations, and no duplicates.

markpb

CIE wrote: »

Why, then, is there no push to re-convert the major bus lines in Dublin that started as trams back to trams? After all, Luas is leading the way, thanks to all these official claims.

Because building Luas lines is expensive and disruptive? Because politicians don't like undertaking projects that might not be complete while they're still minister for that area (or in government). Because building roads = Good PR and building public transport = bad PR in the majority of the press. They may cover their operating costs and produce a small surplus but not enough to pay for construction of new lines.

Nobody knows the fare recovery ratio of Luas except its operators and the government.

RPA say that they have produced an operating surplus every year. Who are you to disagree and call them liars?

CIE

markpb wrote: »

Because building Luas lines is expensive and disruptive? Because politicians don't like undertaking projects that might not be complete while they're still minister for that area (or in government). Because building roads = Good PR and building public transport = bad PR in the majority of the press. They may cover their operating costs and produce a small surplus but not enough to pay for construction of new lines

So building Luas was fraught with "bad PR"? Never heard about its construction causing a whirlwind of negative criticism.

RPA say that they have produced an operating surplus every year. Who are you to disagree and call them liars?

Who is anyone not to? Is anyone auditing them? The proof-of-payment system requires extremely strong enforcement to get anywhere close to 100 percent fare recovery. The anecdotes do not point to such strong enforcement.

markpb

CIE wrote: »

So building Luas was fraught with "bad PR"? Never heard about its construction causing a whirlwind of negative criticism.

I'm beginning to wonder if you're being serious. Before the initial two lines were built, the papers were full of articles about how expensive they would be, how they'd be white elephants and never used and how they'd take precious road space from motorists. Retired politicians were rolled out to show that they weren't suitable. Then construction began and press kept up the criticism, talking about how shops and businesses were going under, how basements were collapsing, how DB couldn't get to bus stos and how people were leaving the city centre never to return. Then it opened and people criticised the cost over-runs and speed (on the red line). Were you in Ireland between 1999 and 2005?

monument

CIE wrote: »

The proof-of-payment system requires extremely strong enforcement to get anywhere close to 100 percent fare recovery. The anecdotes do not point to such strong enforcement.

Wow, that's a straw man argument if there ever was one. You can reach an operating surplus every year without coming close to 100% fare recovery -- indeed reaching such a goal may sound good but it would cost more than its worth.

goingnowhere

CIE wrote: »

You really believe this, don't you?

Nobody knows the fare recovery ratio of Luas except its operators and the government. This has been covered before in other threads. Even worse, it's under foreign administration.That would agree with my assessment that the railway network needs to be expanded. (All over the country as well, but most certainly in Dublin.) That means new lines of the general railway network's format serving new destinations, and no duplicates.

For those who need to know the figures are available, what is not in any doubt is that no operating subsidy has ever being allocated to Luas. It does generate an operating surplus. The annual surplus is a 7 digit number

Veoila's contract is linked to the consumer price index so there take is down as a result. The fare evasion level deal punishes Veoila if the level goes beyond agreed levels. The very existence of firm and enforced contract conditions is why Luas has been so successful any failure results in serious pain to Veolia

CIE planned on bidding to the run the Luas and let us all be thankful they didn't get near it

Victor

markpb wrote: »

Because building Luas lines is expensive and disruptive? Because politicians don't like undertaking projects that might not be complete while they're still minister for that area (or in government). Because building roads = Good PR and building public transport = bad PR in the majority of the press. They may cover their operating costs and produce a small surplus but not enough to pay for construction of new lines.

RPA say that they have produced an operating surplus every year. Who are you to disagree and call them liars?

Two things (a) it would appear that Luas doesn't account for depreciation (b) there is the substantial cost of the RPA itself to account for. Both of these make their accounts more flattering than CIE's, which has its own fudges, e.g. the distribution of group activity profits to subsidiaries.

markpb

Victor wrote: »

Two things (a) it would appear that Luas doesn't account for depreciation (b) there is the substantial cost of the RPA itself to account for. Both of these make their accounts more flattering than CIE's, which has its own fudges, e.g. the distribution of group activity profits to subsidiaries.

I won't argue with your points, I know there are accounting differences between Luas and Dart which make Luas look better on paper. However, I did specifically say operational profit and not overall profit. Also, if you want to count the cost of running the RPA (but presumably only the operations department and not the bits working on MN, MW and BXD), then you also need to consider the cost of running both Irish Rail and CIE