Phoenix Park tunnel to be re-opened for passengers

Copyerselveson

I see from the Irish Railway Developments blog the NTA have announced their 2013-2018 Implementation plan which will re-open the Phoenix Park tunnel to passenger trains again.

The Phoenix Park tunnel, which despite some media reports has never been closed as such will now allow Kildare line trains to run direct into the City Centre for the first time.

Source: http://irishrailwaydevelopments.wordpress.com/

corktina

If the paths are available, that makes so much sense

JeffK88

Does this mean that platform 10 at heuston will be reopened in order to still allow passengers get off at heuston ?

Greenmachine

Significantly seven level crossings on the Maynooth line are earmarked for closure. This is very significant as these closures will remove speed restrictions and therefore speed up the journey time from Maynooth to the City Centre.

Does this mean public right of way will be extinguished on various routes. Anyone know which road it would apply to.

TheBandicoot

The crossing at O'Reilly's bridge on the Rathoath road is currently being replaced by a road bridge, no change to access.
The crossing on the Porterstown Road is to be closed and a footbridge provided with motorised right of way extinguished. However there is already a local campaign against this. - EDIT - according to their Facebook they have convinced Fingal CoCo not to go ahead with this as of yesterday - http://phoenixfm.ie/1451

Not sure about the other crossings.

LXFlyer

This is somewhat old news.

The NTA Integrated Implementation Plan 2013-2018 which was announced last August has now been formally approved by Government.

The press release announcing this is here:
http://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Release_-_Implementation_Plan_launch_04.20141.pdf

The plan itself is here:
http://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Integrated_Implementation_2013-2018.pdf

LXFlyer

Greenmachine wrote: »

Does this mean public right of way will be extinguished on various routes. Anyone know which road it would apply to.

TheBandicoot wrote: »

The crossing at O'Reilly's bridge on the Rathoath road is currently being replaced by a road bridge, no change to access.
The crossing on the Porterstown Road is to be closed and a footbridge provided with motorised right of way extinguished. However there is already a local campaign against this. - EDIT - according to their Facebook they have convinced Fingal CoCo not to go ahead with this as of yesterday - http://phoenixfm.ie/1451

Not sure about the other crossings.

From the report:

9.6 Level Crossing Programme


Since the end of the 1990s significant progress has been made in closing level crossings on the rail network. All level crossings represent a safety concern with the potential for serious incidents to occur. Good control systems and monitoring arrangements reduce and manage the level of risk, but it remains a core safety objective to remove level crossings to the maximum extent practicable. There are a number of level crossings on the rail system in the Greater Dublin Area that warrant assessment of their potential for closure.


In particular, level crossings remain on the DART line, which is the most heavily used section of the rail network. While it may not be feasible to close all of the crossings on this line, designs have been developed for a number of locations which would enable the removal of individual crossing points. Accordingly, it is intended to further progress these proposals as part of a programme of level crossing closures, seeking such closures wherever realistically feasible and where funding permits.


At a more specific level, there are a series of seven level crossings along the Maynooth rail line between Connolly and Maynooth. Four of these crossings are automated at Blakestown, Barberstown, Porterstown and Coolmine and controlled from the Central Traffic Control Centre. The remaining three at Clonsilla, Ashtown and Reilly’s crossing are manned wooden gates. As well as representing potential safety conflicts, these level crossings also are a source of journey time delay on this line.


It is proposed to close all seven level crossings on this line, thereby removing the safety conflicts that arise at these crossing points. Bridges over or under the rail line together with road diversions and road closures will be required to deliver the closure programme. A road diversion complete with a new bridge over the rail line is currently under construction at one of the crossings - Reilly’s Crossing. Planning and design work is being advanced on the remaining level crossings with a view to seeking statutory planning consent and progression to construction in line with available funding.

TheBandicoot

I am familiar with the plan and as a commuter on the Maynooth line I agree with it. I was just posing for information purposes- the plan is running into implementation issues with the local authorities.

LXFlyer

TheBandicoot wrote: »

I am familiar with the plan and as a commuter on the Maynooth line I agree with it. I was just posing for information purposes- the plan is running into implementation issues with the local authorities.

Until after the local elections....

steamengine

According to an IE spokesman on the radio yesterday, the completion of the Dart resignalling programme will allow an increase from 12 to 20 movements an hour through Connolly. The possibility of the Cork train
terminating in Connolly was also mentioned.

LXFlyer

steamengine wrote: »

According to an IE spokesman on the radio yesterday, the completion of the Dart resignalling programme will allow an increase from 12 to 20 movements an hour through Connolly. The possibility of the Cork train
terminating in Connolly was also mentioned.

I cannot see the Cork services moving to Connolly - for one the current setup allows for an efficient hourly service and turnarounds, and secondly it would create too many conflicts at Connolly.

corktina

There is little justification to send the Cork train there whereas there is ample reason to send commuter trains there.

steamengine

corktina wrote: »

There is little justification to send the Cork train there whereas there is ample reason to send commuter trains there.

With the opening up of the PPT for regular pax traffic, would it not be logical for the terminal station to be in the centre of the capital's business district ?

Heuston in the Dublin vernacular is 'a bit of a foreigner !

corktina

it depends how the extra paths can be best utilised. Not all InterCity pasengers are headed for the business sector of the City whereas ,I imagine, a high proportion of Commuters are

steamengine

corktina wrote: »

it depends how the extra paths can be best utilised. Not all InterCity pasengers are headed for the business sector of the City whereas ,I imagine, a high proportion of Commuters are

I suspect they are city centre bound for one reason or the other - Air Coach setting down and picking up in the CC is a clue, and IE could do the same if they chose to do so. There's a lot of inertia to overcome though.

corktina

If that was the case, they would mostly be getting on the LUAS at Heuston, whereas I see many of them heading for taxis and elsewhere.

Ben D Bus

corktina wrote: »

If that was the case, they would mostly be getting on the LUAS at Heuston, whereas I see many of them heading for taxis and elsewhere.

If they arrived in Connolly they would have many more public transport options though.

dd972

Remember going through that as a kid, ( I was on a train of course and not a Cabra street urchin ! ), lights used to be out on the carriage as well something H & S wouldn't tolerate now.

cython

Ben D Bus wrote: »

Of course not. But they would be additional to the Belfast-Dublin and Dublin-Cork numbers.

If the numbers of "through" passengers are that small then you're probably as well to try to just try to coordinate arrivals and departures (if Cork trains were to travel to/from Connolly), rather than running a train up and down the entire way. Reduces the knock on impact of a delay on either section of the journey, as well as any potential logistical issues of running and therefore staffing a train for 11-12+ hours for one return journey. Since the train would have to turn in Connolly anyway, it's not like the dwell time would be short to begin with.

foggy_lad

If Heuston trains run through to Connolly or Pearse won't they still have to return to Heuston for cleaning and refuelling?

ClovenHoof

Copyerselveson wrote: »

I see from the Irish Railway Developments blog the NTA have announced their 2013-2018 Implementation plan which will re-open the Phoenix Park tunnel to passenger trains again.



Source: http://irishrailwaydevelopments.wordpress.com/

Bout time.

kingshankly

foggy_lad wrote: »

If Heuston trains run through to Connolly or Pearse won't they still have to return to Heuston for cleaning and refuelling?

Can be cleaned and fuelled in Connolly if required but probably will go back to heuston to be used for other services

thomasj

It's great to see that commuter services from heuston will finally go to Connolly but I hope that they remember that this resignalling promised much needed enhancements to maynooth and northern line services. It's badly needed for maynooth line services.

pclive

Would a station at Old Cabra Road be a good idea? could link in with the proposed BRT

n97 mini

How will this work for people who actually want to use Heuston, commuters as well as those wishing to connect with Intercity services?

I can't see Heuston being bypassed completely, but rather some sort of kludge.

kc56

n97 mini wrote: »

How will this work for people who actually want to use Heuston, commuters as well as those wishing to connect with Intercity services?

I can't see Heuston being bypassed completely, but rather some sort of kludge.

I expect that some services will go to GCD and others to Heuston. At present it take 3 units to run the Portlaoise service with extras at peak time; going to GCD will probably need 4 or 5 units if every Portlaoise service went there. Maybe it might operated from Hazelhatch and a change might be needed if coming from farther afield?

All speculation until IE produce a draft timetable.

LXFlyer

There will have to still be a stop at Heuston - using platform 10, and then bus connections from there along the quays.

AngryLips

If they start using that platform platform before the entrance to the tunnel could they not open an entrance to the station from Conyngham Road to allow easy access to the busses that run along that route? It would be closer than Heuston station proper.

LXFlyer

Possibly but you would need a new footbridge over the River Liffey to access the platform, which would not exactly be cheap.

kc56

lxflyer wrote: »

Possibly but you would need a new footbridge over the River Liffey to access the platform, which would not exactly be cheap.

And lifts/ramps

LXFlyer

kc56 wrote: »

And lifts/ramps

It would probably require lifts - I'm not sure that there would be enough space for a ramp at an acceptable gradient between Conyngham Road and the Liffey bridge.

AngryLips

kc56 wrote: »

And lifts/ramps

Are you sure that's necessary given that disability access is already available through the main station entrance?

LXFlyer

AngryLips wrote: »

Are you sure that's necessary given that disability access is already available through the main station entrance?

If you expect able bodied people to use buses on Conyngham Road, how do you expect disabled people to get from Platform 10 to either the LUAS or the bus at the front of Heuston Station?

I'm assuming that by building in access to/from Conyngham Road that the need for connecting buses at Platform 10 would be negated in your view.

AngryLips

Actually, I'm not that familiar with the set up here. I just assumed people getting off at that platformed currently walk to the station. They could just extend Heuston terminating DB services an extra stop down to this platform if there's a need to provide transport over that distance.

Realistically, it sounds like if they provide access to Conyngham Road from this platform with full disability access then it warrants being treated as its own station if it's that far from the main Heuston concourse.

LXFlyer

AngryLips wrote: »

Actually, I'm not that familiar with the set up here. I just assumed people getting off at that platformed currently walk to the station. They could just extend Heuston terminating DB services an extra stop down to this platform if there's a need to provide transport over that distance.

Realistically, it sounds like if they provide access to Conyngham Road from this platform with full disability access then it warrants being treated as its own station if it's that far from the main Heuston concourse.

Platform 10 is not currently in use. It was built to ensure that during the Heuston rebuild that there would always be five platforms in use. It is about 1km from the front of the main station. When it was in use, it was served by the 91 bus, thereby ensuring every train had a connection.

If you extend the 145 up there (as I originally suggested) why would you then also build a bridge and access to Conyngham Road? It would be a bit of a wasteful duplication.

n97 mini

How would one get from P10 to the main station currently? From Google Earth there doesn't seem to be any alternative to a 10 minute walk along the river.

Underground tunnel with travelators?

LXFlyer

As I posted above - when it was in operation, there were buses connecting into/out of every train.

Currently the platform is out of service.

n97 mini

It's hardly practical to get a bus from one part of the station to another, especially if you have to pay for it.

LXFlyer

n97 mini wrote: »

It's hardly practical to get a bus from one part of the station to another, especially if you have to pay for it.

The buses operated to/from the city centre (charging normal fares), but also offered a free transfer service to/from the main station.


Otherwise you could walk - it's about 750m.

n97 mini

I wasn't aware that it was used to transfer within the station, but I'm sure it was only as a temporary solution, and not ideal.

I think a long term solution would be a travelator. They work pretty well in similar scenarios elsewhere.

AngryLips

lxflyer wrote: »

If you extend the 145 up there (as I originally suggested) why would you then also build a bridge and access to Conyngham Road? It would be a bit of a wasteful duplication.

An entrance on Conyngham Road would have so many advantages for local access to the station, particularly in the scenario where there are through services to Connolly or beyond, that I really don't know how else to make this point without seeming arrogant or condescending. It was just a simple suggestion and makes a lot of sense where this platform were to come into use again. You're effectively increasing the catching of the station by reducing walking times from certain neighbourhoods adjacent with Heuston to the station itself. It's the same arguments in favour of re opening the Dart entrance of Connolly station. I just don't know why you would be against it.

LXFlyer

n97 mini wrote: »

I wasn't aware that it was used to transfer within the station, but I'm sure it was only as a temporary solution, and not ideal.

I think a long term solution would be a travelator. They work pretty well in similar scenarios elsewhere.

It is hardly "within the station" as such - you have to walk 750m along the road that leads to the car park and beyond past the old permanent way yard.


It's effectively a completely different station.


I hardly think that an underground travelator is practical - it would cost an astromical amount.


Realistically the 145 would have to be extended to the turning circle at Platform 10 to provide connections.

LXFlyer

AngryLips wrote: »

An entrance on Conyngham Road would have so many advantages for local access to the station, particularly in the scenario where there are through services to Connolly or beyond, that I really don't know how else to make this point without seeming arrogant or condescending. It was just a simple suggestion and makes a lot of sense where this platform were to come into use again. You're effectively increasing the catching of the station by reducing walking times from certain neighbourhoods adjacent with Heuston to the station itself. It's the same arguments in favour of re opening the Dart entrance of Connolly station. I just don't know why you would be against it.

I am being practical in an age when cost is the most important consideration in any project.

This suggestion would require building a new bridge and installing lifts - maybe sometime in the future when money is aplenty again, sure, but I just cannot see that time at the moment.

I'm not trying to belittle your suggestion - just pointing out the financial realities that we are currently facing.

Bear in mind that this is only a temporary solution until DART Underground is built.

AngryLips

So much of the problem with Heuston station is that it faces away from the population centres of Islandbridge and Kilmainham. If it's going to become part of Dublin's integrated suburban commuter network instead of a terminating point for mostly intercity services then it needs to be opened up to access from the areas around it. That's not going to happen if you have people walking right up to the main entrance just to walk back. It's not as much of an issue at the moment because it's a terminating station but once it becomes a through stop then this needs to be addressed. I know the plans for dart underground envision a station further towards the city centre and beneath James's Gate but if that's going to happen then someone really needs to look at an additional station beneath the motorway junction of where Kilmainham meets Islandbridge otherwise those people will get limited utility from this line.

dowlingm

Presumably there are no exit gates at P10 either. Since there is no flyunder/flyover at least some movements will require conflict separation with services heading into/out of Heuston, above and beyond existing stuff like freight to North Wall and locos shuttling to/from Connolly.

As for the signalling, DASH 2 is quite overdue now and really needs to just get done.

kc56

dowlingm wrote: »

Presumably there are no exit gates at P10 either. Since there is no flyunder/flyover at least some movements will require conflict separation with services heading into/out of Heuston, above and beyond existing stuff like freight to North Wall and locos shuttling to/from Connolly.

As for the signalling, DASH 2 is quite overdue now and really needs to just get done.

I don't think operations to/from P10 would be much different that from P6-7-8. The tracks from P6-7-8 and P10 merge just before the bridges so there's no new conflict in or out. Loco's and freight trains use the other 2 tracks heading to the PPT so their conflicts and merge points are a bit different.

flyingsnail

I am open to correction here but I thought that it was not possible for a train heading towards Connolly to call at platform 10

goingnowhere

flyingsnail wrote: »

I am open to correction here but I thought that it was not possible for a train heading towards Connolly to call at platform 10

Correct, currently not possible for a passenger train in service

corktina

so we need Platform 11 then? There's a turn up :-)

kc56

flyingsnail wrote: »

I am open to correction here but I thought that it was not possible for a train heading towards Connolly to call at platform 10

That's true. Part of the 12M Euro cost is to install an additional cross-over to allow up services from P10 to reach Connolly.

LXFlyer

There will have to be a crossover installed north of the Liffey Bridge to allow trains in the "up" direction serve Platform 10.

The issue of potential conflicts at Heuston is minimal due to the bi-directional three tracking to Inchicore and the relatively lower frequency of services compared to Connolly.

I think that the chances of any entrance/exit on Conyngham Road are exceptionally minimal. Added to the issues mentioned above, there would be serious clearance issues as there is a ramp into an office car park on one side of the line and apartments on the other, both of which are too close to allow any ramp/walkway to be installed.