Phoenix Park tunnel

newacc2015

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

The vast majority of current commuters who drive won't change to a train.

I would support a lot more data on where a lot of traffic on the M50 goes as I suspect huge volumes are not headed for the core CBD in Dublin.

There is hardly any parking in the CBD. Sure there are office blocks with Dublin with thousands of workers and only a few dozen car spaces. When you can rent an office for €650 per sq per year, you aren't going to waste money on car spaces

antoinolachtnai

Deedsie wrote: »

Any evidence to back that claim up?

Census can tell you that sort of thing I think.

The PPT project delivers benefit to a small enough group of commuters. But you don't need a massive amount of shift to make a public transport project worthwhile especially when roads are so congested. Just taking a few percentage points of traffic off the road and onto the rail could make the difference between sluggish traffic and massive tailbacks.

kc56

Thrashssacre wrote: »

Have loadings improved since the first two weeks of opperation?

The 1728 to Newbridge is a full 4 car train
The Hazelhatch trains are about 50% loaded. Overall good loadings for a new service.

AngryLips

Just looking at the timetabling for this. I know it's meant purely as a commuter service but it's a little bit disappointing that it doesn't offer any connections to intercity cork services. I was hoping to be able to catch the train from Connolly Friday after work and connect to a Cork train somewhere past Heuston, is this possible? Doesn't look like it from the timetable.

kc56

AngryLips wrote: »

Just looking at the timetabling for this. I know it's meant purely as a commuter service but it's a little bit disappointing that it doesn't offer any connections to intercity cork services. I was hoping to be able to catch the train from Connolly Friday after work and connect to a Cork train somewhere past Heuston, is this possible? Doesn't look like it from the timetable.

One path: 1807 Connolly, change HazelHatch 1850, change Portlaoise 1948.
Probably quicker to take the Luas to Heuston

D.L.R.

kc56 wrote: »

One path: 1807 Connolly, change HazelHatch 1850, change Portlaoise 1948.
Probably quicker to take the Luas to Heuston

Are those times of day or years? :rolleyes:

whisky_galore

D Trent wrote: »

Probably posted here before but some great shots of the tunnel captured by Dublin urbex

http://www.thejournal.ie/phoenix-park-train-tunnel-photos-2667448-Dec2016/?utm_source=facebook_short

Cute photos, but this is trespassing on a running railway line.

FredFunk

So what next for this line.
What about a train from Grand Canal to Portlaoise, only stopping off at certain stops to make it viable?

kc56

FredFunk wrote: »

So what next for this line.
What about a train from Grand Canal to Portlaoise, only stopping off at certain stops to make it viable?

If only...

Next will be off peak services. Not much chance of more peak or extension to Portlaoise due to lack of available trains. That could change in 2019 when the refurbed 2700 come on stream.

LXFlyer

FredFunk wrote: »

So what next for this line.
What about a train from Grand Canal to Portlaoise, only stopping off at certain stops to make it viable?

Not likely at all - they will be facilitated by changing at Hazelhatch onto/off Heuston services. There is no scope for additional peak services to/from Grand Canal Dock over and above what has been implemented. The infrastructure could not handle it.

kc56 wrote: »

If only...

Next will be off peak services. Not much chance of more peak or extension to Portlaoise due to lack of available trains. That could change in 2019 when the refurbed 2700 come on stream.

You're likely to see hourly off-peak services through the tunnel on weekdays, and all day Saturday and Sunday.

But that is subject to the current driver mentoring dispute being resolved, and new drivers being trained up.

The 2700s are likely to facilitate longer trains on existing suburban services rather than a significant number of new services.

kc56

LXFlyer wrote: »

Not likely at all - they will be facilitated by changing at Hazelhatch onto/off Heuston services. There is no scope for additional peak services to/from Grand Canal Dock over and above what has been implemented. The infrastructure could not handle it.



You're likely to see hourly off-peak services through the tunnel on weekdays, and all day Saturday and Sunday.

But that is subject to the current driver mentoring dispute being resolved, and new drivers being trained up.

The 2700s are likely to facilitate longer trains on existing suburban services rather than a significant number of new services.

As a user of Portlaoise services, the change at Hazelhatch works quite well apart from a few occasions when trains were late and connections missed. What would be an improvement would be more connections to the Newbridge trains as Portlaoise mostly only connect with Hazelhatch services.
On one occasion the 1758 GDC-HH was 15mins late and missed the 1825 HN-PL resulting in a 40 min wait (at least there is a warm waiting room at HH). There was a service to Newbridge in between but no onward connections.

The 2700s may also release some 22's back to intercity services which are becoming increasing busy at peak times.

AngryLips

LXFlyer wrote: »

You're likely to see hourly off-peak services through the tunnel on weekdays, and all day Saturday and Sunday.

Building some stations once this happens would be a good way to make better use of this line. Conyngham Road, Old Cabra Road/Stoneybatter and Fassaugh Ave/Cabra perhaps

LXFlyer

AngryLips wrote: »

Building some stations once this happens would be a good way to make better use of this line. Conyngham Road, Old Cabra Road/Stoneybatter and Fassaugh Ave/Cabra perhaps

Conyngham Road would be tricky (although not insurmountable) as there are clearance issues on both sides of the lines - it would require the building of a concourse over the tracks.


North of Cabra Road would be the most likely location for any intermediate station between Heuston and Drumcondra. Remember that this is heavy rail - not light rail. Adding multiple stations isn't going to work as its slows the journey down massively. You have to remember that any new heavy rail station adds three minutes to the overall journey which in turn makes the overall journey less attractive and potentially impacts on fleet requirements.

LXFlyer

kc56 wrote: »

As a user of Portlaoise services, the change at Hazelhatch works quite well apart from a few occasions when trains were late and connections missed. What would be an improvement would be more connections to the Newbridge trains as Portlaoise mostly only connect with Hazelhatch services.
On one occasion the 1758 GDC-HH was 15mins late and missed the 1825 HN-PL resulting in a 40 min wait (at least there is a warm waiting room at HH). There was a service to Newbridge in between but no onward connections.

The 2700s may also release some 22's back to intercity services which are becoming increasing busy at peak times.

There will have to be a timetable recast when all of the improvements take place (10 minute DART, additional off-peak Maynooth, Northern Line and PPT routes). That may allow some additional scope for more connections at Hazelhatch.

The 2700s will return to Limerick, releasing the 2800s to come back to Dublin. This could allow two six car sets to replace four car sets which could be combined elsewhere, and an extra four car set, with two maintenance spare sets. As you say, it could also release some ICRs back to Intercity use.

kc56

LXFlyer wrote: »

Conyngham Road would be tricky (although not insurmountable) as there are clearance issues on both sides of the lines - it would require the building of a concourse over the tracks.


North of Cabra Road would be the most likely location for any intermediate station between Heuston and Drumcondra. Remember that this is heavy rail - not light rail. Adding multiple stations isn't going to work as its slows the journey down massively. You have to remember that any new heavy rail station adds three minutes to the overall journey which in turn makes the overall journey less attractive and potentially impacts on fleet requirements.

While there's an obvious location north of Cabra road where there used to be sidings, a more logical location would be close to the Luas line to provide an interchange. But I suspect the bends, bridges and narrow cuttings would present multiple issues with that location.

LXFlyer

kc56 wrote: »

While there's an obvious location north of Cabra road where there used to be sidings, a more logical location would be close to the Luas line to provide an interchange. But I suspect the bends, bridges and narrow cuttings would present multiple issues with that location.

For the very valid reasons you outline, an interchange station with the LUAS Green Line is in my view a non-starter.

Cabra Road is the only likely station location between the River Liffey Bridge and Drumcondra.

MJohnston

A good place for a station would be on Cabra Road where there's a big new residential development in the old concrete factory site due.

You could presumably provide access routes via Fassaugh Avenue too on the north end, which would be about a 5-10 minute walk away from Cabra Luas stop, so you'd have a half decent interchange that way.

AngryLips

I think a Conyngham Road station could be built with platforms over the Liffey there perhaps and pedestrian connection to Heuston

LXFlyer

AngryLips wrote: »

I think a Conyngham Road station could be built with platforms over the Liffey there perhaps and pedestrian connection to Heuston

Any station would be the existing Platform 10 and a new Platform 11 opposite.

The issue is the clearance issues to access Conyngham Road - there are bulidings close to the railway on both sides of the line on the north side of the river.

AngryLips

I think there's enough space for a pedestrian walkway either on both sides or just one. If just on one side then a pedestrian bridge between platforms would be required

LXFlyer

AngryLips wrote: »

I think there's enough space for a pedestrian walkway either on both sides or just one. If just on one side then a pedestrian bridge between platforms would be required

I think that you will find that there isn’t enough space on either side. Go and have a look from Conyngham Road and that will become clear to you.

An overhead concourse above the rail lines would be required to access Conyngham Road and that won’t come cheaply. But it’s not insurmountable.

trellheim

We have looked at this several times.

The distances at Coynyngham road don't work - you'd have a massive walk to those platforms. You could perhaps resignal and put in crossovers so that northbounds can stop at the single platform as well as southbounds but still and all i dont think it'll benefit.


There is room to put an interchange station underneath the LUAS Line. There has been some talk of it being on a curve. To be honest though I dont see it , you could put up to 300m straight line platforms, and a 9-car ICR would be less than that

This would allow Newbridge/Sandyford with 1 interchange and would be a strong attraction to people wanting to get off the M7/M50 hamsterwheel

LXFlyer

The only straight section at that location is between the overbridges carrying the LUAS line, the Royal Canal and the tow path, and the railway line from Glasnevin Junction.

That certainly is not long enough to fit platforms for anything near that length and probably not even a four car train. The bridges are far too close together.

West of the LUAS line and east of the Sligo line the PPT line is on curves which the CRR would preclude from being suitable for a station.

Add to that the complete lack of suitable access routes to any roads would make the local use of the station less practical too.

That location is simply not suitable for a station in my opinion.

The Cabra Road location is far more suitable from a whole variety of perspectives.

L1011

MJohnston wrote: »

A good place for a station would be on Cabra Road where there's a big new residential development in the old concrete factory site due.

You could presumably provide access routes via Fassaugh Avenue too on the north end, which would be about a 5-10 minute walk away from Cabra Luas stop, so you'd have a half decent interchange that way.

The planning app for that mentions a potential station but that CIE won't commit to it; seeing as half the land is being bought off CIE that suggests they aren't that willing. Would probably have to be NTA ordered/controlled to happen.

LXFlyer

L1011 wrote: »

The planning app for that mentions a potential station but that CIE won't commit to it; seeing as half the land is being bought off CIE that suggests they aren't that willing. Would probably have to be NTA ordered/controlled to happen.

Nothing to do with CIE as such.The NTA would have to fund it - they call the shots on this sort of thing nowadays.

There was no point in considering building another station until the line gets a full all day service - remember too that the line was reopened when there was a very small capital expenditure envelope available.

Regardless of the sale of the land, the permanent way at that location would be big enough for platforms on both tracks, and perhaps ramp access from Cabra Road. It would be a simple station that doesn’t require a massive footprint.

Winters

Irregardless of the future of the PPT a station at Glasnevin would be next in my opinion.

loyatemu

trellheim wrote: »

There is room to put an interchange station underneath the LUAS Line. There has been some talk of it being on a curve. To be honest though I dont see it , you could put up to 300m straight line platforms, and a 9-car ICR would be less than that

I thought the same, but looking closer the train line is effectively in 2 parallel tunnels under the Luas line and canal, so you couldn't build anything there as it is:



south of the tunnels the line is on a curve, north of the tunnels there's a short straight section then 2 more tunnels under the Maynooth line, then another curve. To put in a station would require massive engineering works, to facilitate a fairly limited set of journeys.

FredFunk

kc56 wrote: »

As a user of Portlaoise services, the change at Hazelhatch works quite well apart from a few occasions when trains were late and connections missed. What would be an improvement would be more connections to the Newbridge trains as Portlaoise mostly only connect with Hazelhatch services.
On one occasion the 1758 GDC-HH was 15mins late and missed the 1825 HN-PL resulting in a 40 min wait (at least there is a warm waiting room at HH). There was a service to Newbridge in between but no onward connections.

The 2700s may also release some 22's back to intercity services which are becoming increasing busy at peak times.

But is it way slower than getting an intercity train to Heuston and travelling on from there. If we want a viable option, then we need to cut out stations on the line for some of the trains.

trellheim

south of the tunnels the line is on a curve, north of the tunnels there's a short straight section then 2 more tunnels under the Maynooth line, then another curve. To put in a station would require massive engineering works, to facilitate a fairly limited set of journeys.

Some good points there. I do think unlocking PPT line trains connection to Sandyford is huge.

loyatemu

trellheim wrote: »

Some good points there. I do think unlocking PPT line trains connection to Sandyford is huge.

would it be much quicker than going to Heuston and changing at Abbey though?