Phoenix Park Tunnel

coylemj

Walker77 wrote: »

Had a look at the map in an earlier post. In your earlier post you say that anyone with access to the dart the tunnel offers the best advantage.

Yes, to access the mainline network from Dublin, for example to travel from Dun Laoghaire to Galway. Most people don't have a big problem changing platforms in a mainline station because you don't have to tackle lifts or escalators and it all happens under one roof. Switching from Dart to Luas to mainline would be a major hassle for most people.

Walker77 wrote: »

I assume then that someone wanting to get a train from Maynooth and Dunboyne to Heuston could change at drumcondra for heuston.

You'd be assuming incorrectly. Heuston station is at the end of a railway cul-de-sac, it was never intended to be a destination station for trains from elsewhere in the city. You need to stop thinking commuter and think 19th century railway networks where (as in London) most mainline tracks terminated at a station and you couldn't continue your journey anywhere by rail.

In London they fixed the problem by joining up the old mainline stations (Paddington, Waterloo etc.) with the tube. In the case of Dublin and Heuston station, the opening of the Dart was a boon for Dublin city commuters but rail travellers arriving from Cork, Galway and Westport suddenly found themselves dumped in a station a couple of miles from the city centre and had to lug their bags into buses to travel further.

Walker77 wrote: »

Would CIE be going down the road of shutting Connolly and Docklands on Sundays to reduce costs and divert all trains to Heuston. The luas most days from 4pm to 7pm is paked beyond capacity even with the increased capacity

Don't understand where you're coming from with that one.

Walker77

I will have to read more about it when more info comes available.

beauf

its a pity the roads around heuston arent more cycle friendly. youd cycle back to city center in no time

monument

foggy_lad wrote: »

http://www.politics.ie/forum/transport/172259-phoenix-park-tunnel-line.html#post4440625
More congestion = slower trains.

http://www.politics.ie/forum/transport/115653-phoenix-park-rail-tunnel.html#post2226561


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67238315&postcount=37


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51272978&postcount=4



http://forum.platform11.org/showpost.php?p=71966&postcount=2


Currently the time allowed for a Luas transfer Heuston/Connolly as per the IR website is over an hour. This must be to allow for walking along the platforms and waiting for a luas as well as the 15-20 minutes travel time.

we are led to believe that trains are to enter Heuston then reverse back out to a point past the SCR before waiting for points to be changed then travel into the tunnel(as long as there is a driver available with the appropriate training and clearance to use the tunnel) and exit it heading onto Cabra east where there will be more waiting as the line into Connolly is just about at capacity. then the train will travel quite slowly(if current dart and commuter services are any indication of speeds) onwards into Connolly where more waiting will occur while signals/points are changed to put the train on the appropriate platform.

In my opinion this if implemented at all it will be slower getting to Connolly or Docklands station than the current Luas/bus arrangements which are about 20 minutes, and in many cases because of the delays waiting time with signalling and points trains will take longer than an extra hour.

This is only my opinion but it is backed up by current operations on the line into Connolly and the extra time required at Heuston. I would go so far as to say that if implemented many services scheduled to use the tunnel would terminate in Heuston due to points and signal faults!

I've slightly upgraded your previous post to an official warning for trolling -- you can take it that this warning is for a mix of that post and the one I'm quoting here.

As per the article in the OP and a fact which has been pointed out by poster here: This is a post-resignalling plan:

"A modest investment of just €12m is needed to re-open the line... NTA chief executive Gerry Murphy said the capacity of Connolly Station would increase from 12 trains per hour in each direction to 20 when resignalling works were completed at Connolly in 2015."

Nothing you have said or linked to backs up the idea that after the resignalling and spending €12m on the link that it could possibly take over and hour to travel from Platform 10 to Connolly.

Suggesting an average speed of just 8km/h is trolling, nothing more.

- mod

January

The big thing I'm seeing is people saying that Platform 10 in Heuston is at least a 10 minute walk from the main station. You could reroute the busses to stop just at the roundabout outside Platform 10, where there is bus parking, (there seems to be an entrance/exit there according to google maps) and have them stop again outside the main station, problem solved for commuters who still want to get off at Heuston.

LXFlyer

That is exactly what I would suggest would happen.

n97 mini

So, what would the €12 million actually be spent on?

LXFlyer

Well a new crossover at Heuston and associated signalling would be at least €1.5m, presumably the rest would be spent on resignalling and relaying the track along the line to permit higher speeds.

To be honest I can't see how it could cost even that much.

ezra_pound

beauf wrote: »

its a pity the roads around heuston arent more cycle friendly. youd cycle back to city center in no time

As it so happens the council are planning on making the North quays car free, broadening the foot path and making it a nicer place for cycling and walking.

Captain Chaos

lxflyer wrote: »

Well a new crossover at Heuston and associated signalling would be at least €1.5m, presumably the rest would be spent on resignalling and relaying the track along the line to permit higher speeds.

To be honest I can't see how it could cost even that much.

It costs more to lay a single line of track 1km than it does for a 1km length of road, amazing as that may sound but there you go.

LXFlyer

Captain Chaos wrote: »

It costs more to lay a single line of track 1km than it does for a 1km length of road, amazing as that may sound but there you go.

I can only assume that they would take the time to resignal the line and relay it wherever necessary.

Grandeeod

strassenwo!f wrote: »

Jamie, I don't think that sums it up fully.

The Dart Underground project, which I broadly think would be a good idea, may be the way to go.

But if it was definitely the way to go, as you say, surely progress would have been made during the years when Irish governments were wallowing in cash?

Whether the Dart Underground project is the right way to go or not, it is highly questionable whether it is a good idea to now pounce on an idea which did not feature at all in any of the major state-sponsored public transport initiatives that have been seen this century.

A very significant issue therefore, with this proposed tunnel project, is an obvious admission of planning failure within the Department of Transport.

You are right.

The SRR rejected it on journey time grounds. But the little known DU/Interconnector study said this;

the 2003 ‘Dublin Interconnector Rail Study – Summary Report’ prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff. While this report rightly concludes that the Phoenix Park rail tunnel could never be an alternative to Interconnector (DART underground) proposal. It does however conclude that in the short-term, the use of the Phoenix Park tunnel would provide some ‘early benefits to users of the Kildare line’ and its use ‘should therefore be given serious consideration’”.

seanmacc

n97 mini wrote: »

So, what would the €12 million actually be spent on?

Lighting, signalling and upgrading the software and operations desks in the control room I'd imagine will suck up a chunk of the 12m for starters. Legal costs and possible planning permission will probably take another chunk.

If the Phoenix Park Tunnel was of any use to IE for passenger trains why is the suggestion only being taken seriously now? The tunnel is there donkeys years. I think the government is only really going to approve of this because its cheap and it looks like they're doing something. Even when the new signalling project is complete Connolly will still be a bottleneck that bringing more trains into Connolly will not solve.

theSHU

seanmacc wrote: »

Lighting, signalling and upgrading the software and operations desks in the control room I'd imagine will suck up a chunk of the 12m for starters. Legal costs and possible planning permission will probably take another chunk.

If the Phoenix Park Tunnel was of any use to IE for passenger trains why is the suggestion only being taken seriously now? The tunnel is there donkeys years. I think the government is only really going to approve of this because its cheap and it looks like they're doing something. Even when the new signalling project is complete Connolly will still be a bottleneck that bringing more trains into Connolly will not solve.

The PPT is only being mooted now because the Dublin Underground project is finished and the engineering boys in Irish Rail need a project.

Grandeeod

seanmacc wrote: »

Lighting, signalling and upgrading the software and operations desks in the control room I'd imagine will suck up a chunk of the 12m for starters. Legal costs and possible planning permission will probably take another chunk.

If the Phoenix Park Tunnel was of any use to IE for passenger trains why is the suggestion only being taken seriously now? The tunnel is there donkeys years. I think the government is only really going to approve of this because its cheap and it looks like they're doing something. Even when the new signalling project is complete Connolly will still be a bottleneck that bringing more trains into Connolly will not solve.

Brilliant! We'll do nothing then. Lets just sit around talking about it being a waste of time and money and lamenting DU. That will surely get us somewhere. I'd love to make a more detailed contribution, but the thread is currently full of misinformation, paranoia and I'm apparently someone else too!:rolleyes: (if anyone wants to know who I am, PM me and I'll tell you. No problem)

If the Phoenix Park Tunnel was of any use to IE for passenger trains why is the suggestion only being taken seriously now?

I think I'll wait until its calmed down and then explain why this is a good idea. However, if any naysayers are bothered they could google, inform themselves and make an educated contribution. So far the negative contribution has been driven by scaremongering and ignorance.

dd972

It's 03.16 on Monday morning, let's all go down there now !

dowlingm

I wonder how much a reprofiling of the east end of Glasnevin Junction to allow the PPT to access both approaches to Connolly would be? From what I recall there was a connecting track removed but am open to correction on that.

monument

ezra_pound wrote: »

As it so happens the council are planning on making the North quays car free, broadening the foot path and making it a nicer place for cycling and walking.

Err... I don't think so! No firm plans on that... There's a few options, and it's up in the air for now.

Grandeeod

dowlingm wrote: »

I wonder how much a reprofiling of the east end of Glasnevin Junction to allow the PPT to access both approaches to Connolly would be? From what I recall there was a connecting track removed but am open to correction on that.

Open to correction, but that would be a scissors crossing and not permitted. Originally the existing junction was the opposite way round.

LivelineDipso

Grandeeod wrote: »

Open to correction, but that would be a scissors crossing and not permitted. Originally the existing junction was the opposite way round.

Why not? You see them all over the world.

Grandeeod

LivelineDipso wrote: »

Why not? You see them all over the world.

I agree, but only expressing doubt because I seem to remember reading that a scissors crossing at Glasnevin junction wouldn't be permitted.

eejoynt

dowlingm wrote: »

I wonder how much a reprofiling of the east end of Glasnevin Junction to allow the PPT to access both approaches to Connolly would be? From what I recall there was a connecting track removed but am open to correction on that.

Quite a lot. The original tunnel line made a facing connection with the midland line to access the port
In 1906 or thereabouts the gswr opened the Drumcondra link line but the midland connection was left intact,

In the mid thirties this connection was reversed in order to allow midland trains to access the gswr line and with it an easier approach to Connolly than by Newcomen. This is the situation which pertains

Infini

Grandeeod wrote: »

I agree, but only expressing doubt because I seem to remember reading that a scissors crossing at Glasnevin junction wouldn't be permitted.

It Probably could be done if they had the money. Simple fact is if they did put a scissor crossing in they could run those services into Docklands then thus keeping pressure off of Connolly. Theres plenty of room there to be sure to make it happen and it can be done in other parts of the world so theres no reason It cant be done here.

Station Could also be built at the old quarry in Cabra too if they wanted to and of course they could add an extra platform at Heuston Opposite Platform 10 (which might need some work from this picture)

LXFlyer

Infini2 wrote: »

It Probably could be done if they had the money. Simple fact is if they did put a scissor crossing in they could run those services into Docklands then thus keeping pressure off of Connolly. Theres plenty of room there to be sure to make it happen and it can be done in other parts of the world so theres no reason It cant be done here.

Station Could also be built at the old quarry in Cabra too if they wanted to and of course they could add an extra platform at Heuston Opposite Platform 10 (which might need some work from this picture)

Adding an extra platform at Heuston would require lifts and a footbridge - I'd imagine it could work with a single platform but with an additional crossover obviously.

Fsehnagorg

So the Dublin's Interconnector and Airport Metro link is now reduced to this.

Captain Chaos

A mistake they made when they built Docklands station was the track layout. They could have made it so trains coming from Drumcondra could run down the slip into Northwall yard and cross over into the station. This at the time was a big oversight imo.

kc56

Captain Chaos wrote: »

A mistake they made when they built Docklands station was the track layout. They could have made it so trains coming from Drumcondra could run down the slip into Northwall yard and cross over into the station. This at the time was a big oversight imo.

If Kildare route trains went to Docklands, then no-one would use them!

The business case for using PPT is to serve Drumcondra, Connolly (connect with DART), Tara St, Pearse and Grand Canal dock - placed passengers might actually want to go to.

I don't understand the obsession with Docklands and the fact that the track layout does not allow trains from Heuston to serve Docklands. Point is, that the is not good reason to use that station. And post DASH2, the Loop line will have 50% increase in capacity.

LXFlyer

Fsehnagorg wrote: »

So the Dublin's Interconnector and Airport Metro link is now reduced to this.

I wouldn't say that - this is a very low cost project that can be delivered reasonably quickly while the other projects can still proceed when they can be afforded.

Why not make use of existing infrastructure?

n97 mini

kc56 wrote: »

Point is, that the is not good reason to use that station.

Why are there any trains serving it at all then?

Commuters working down that end of the IFSC and across the river, the Convention Centre, the O2, etc.

Don't say "Connolly then Luas". For those places direct to Docklands is quicker, cheaper, less changes (i.e. none) etc.

LXFlyer

n97 mini wrote: »

Why are there any trains serving it at all then?

Commuters working down that end of the IFSC and across the river, the Convention Centre, the O2, etc.

Don't say "Connolly then Luas". For those places direct to Docklands is quicker, cheaper, less changes (i.e. none) etc.

It is there because Connolly did not have the capacity to handle the extra peak hour trains that the M3 line generated.

That's the sole reason.

People working across the river staying on a train to Pearse or Grand Canal Dom would be preferable.

Frankly the entire IFSC is within walking distance of Connolly.