Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Dart + (Coolmine LC closure issues)

  • 10-10-2020 2:31pm
    #1
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,111 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Sam Russell


    IE 222 wrote: »
    It's more like rail complaining about traffic.

    Most of the arguments, on here anyway, is for the railway not the road.

    The residents association group and Leo have both clearly stated they want the crossing to remain open and with reduced closures.

    It's clear that the best solution for everyone is a closed crossing with only a footbridge. It's up to the locals to accept that and push for it.

    The train always takes precedence at a LC. If there is a train every 5 mins, and the gate closes for 3 mins before the train clears the LC then it will be closed more than 50% of the time - that is the way it is. The train must be able to stop before the LC under all circumstances.

    What do the locals want?


«13456711

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭ IE 222


    D15er wrote: »
    Whatever is planned, there's a lot more work needed that then has to go for two public consultations and an EIS. There are going to be thousands of observations to wade through given you're dealing with protected structures and environmentally sensitive areas.

    There's no way they can stick to their timeline of a Railway Order in q2 2021.

    You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

    There is 3 protected structures along the line.

    The vast majority of work will take place within the existing railway boundary. There is only 4 large construction proposals, Ashtown, Coolmine, Blakestown and the depot, all of which will have relatively minor impacts on people for such a project, the rest is installing footbridge's, altering bridge arches and OHLE.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭ IE 222


    The train always takes precedence at a LC. If there is a train every 5 mins, and the gate closes for 3 mins before the train clears the LC then it will be closed more than 50% of the time - that is the way it is. The train must be able to stop before the LC under all circumstances.

    What do the locals want?

    Yes but once a crossing reopens it must remain open for a short period before it can close again. This can force a train to stop if it enters a section before this time frame has lapsed. The other issue is crossing collisions or failures which brings the whole service to a stop.

    Resident association wants it to remain open and with less closures and duration.

    https://www.riverwoodres.com/#


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,676 ✭✭✭✭ beauf


    IE 222 wrote: »
    It's more like rail complaining about traffic.

    Most of the arguments, on here anyway, is for the railway not the road.

    The residents association group and Leo have both clearly stated they want the crossing to remain open and with reduced closures.

    It's clear that the best solution for everyone is a closed crossing with only a footbridge. It's up to the locals to accept that and push for it.

    The problem is similar to other local issues. People look for compromise, they are basically ignored and basically dictated to that the "option" will be chosen for them. So they dig their heels in and refuse any compromise after that. Stalemate.

    There was no suggestion of leaving the crossing until recently. That seems to have appeared lately perhaps because of the above and the similarity of frequency between this and the Existing Dart, and also new developments like the closing of Clonsilla bridge and massive new Kellystown which will have no bridge. They seem to focusing all this traffic into a very small concentrated area already with traffic problems and mostly residential. You will have two massive bridges 500m apart.

    In general thats taking traffic that is dispersed over a wider area and concentrating into a very small area.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,676 ✭✭✭✭ beauf


    IE 222 wrote: »
    You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.

    ...all of which will have relatively minor impacts on people ....

    More like you've destroyed someone's kitchen and gone, "ah well can't be helped...."

    The impact seems debatable. Since they are closing bridges and creating a new one both due to low traffic volumes and high traffic volumes. Both can't be true at the same time. Which to quote the movies seems like pissing on people and telling them it's rain.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,676 ✭✭✭✭ beauf


    IE 222 wrote: »
    . .and Leo ....

    Can you link to (somewhere other than boards) to what Leo said.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭ IE 222


    beauf wrote: »
    Can you link to (somewhere other than boards) to what Leo said.

    Well it's a personally written letter what more do you need.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,676 ✭✭✭✭ beauf


    IE 222 wrote: »
    Well it's a personally written letter what more do you need.

    That's a no then.

    While not impossible I think its very uncharacteristic of Leo to be that visible on local issues. Very odd that two different posters have the same letter and with the same agenda. Not impossible either no.

    That aside. It's very hard to argue that you can't get the frequency without closing it if you have that frequency and more on a different line that still has crossings. Personally I think it should be closed and there are many other reasons to do. The frequency aspect though on it's own is weak.

    They could easily trial it for a couple of weeks. Close it at peak and see where the traffic goes or does it disperse.

    They could change the lights at Dr Troy and improve the throughput there. Since most of the traffic flows in once direction in the morning and the opposite in the evening.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭ IE 222


    beauf wrote: »
    The problem is similar to other local issues. People look for compromise, they are basically ignored and basically dictated to that the "option" will be chosen for them. So they dig their heels in and refuse any compromise after that. Stalemate.

    There was no suggestion of leaving the crossing until recently. That seems to have appeared lately perhaps because of the above and the similarity of frequency between this and the Existing Dart, and also new developments like the closing of Clonsilla bridge and massive new Kellystown which will have no bridge. They seem to focusing all this traffic into a very small concentrated area already with traffic problems and mostly residential. You will have two massive bridges 500m apart.

    In general thats taking traffic that is dispersed over a wider area and concentrating into a very small area.

    Comprising means your gain something and in this case the locals seem to be ignoring the benefits of having a Dart service with increased capacity and frequency. The local argument seems to only be valuing traffic with the crossing v bridge and failing to include the actual reason for this in first place.

    Surely closing the crossing without a replacement puts a stop to any increased traffic concerns. Having a crossing with longer closures times and the extra traffic volumes you are predicting is a only going to be worse for the area. The other fact the locals fail to recognize is that the rail service itself is the best way of diverting road traffic. A good rail service will undoubtedly remove the traffic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭ IE 222


    beauf wrote: »
    More like you've destroyed someone's kitchen and gone, "ah well can't be helped...."

    The impact seems debatable. Since they are closing bridges and creating a new one both due to low traffic volumes and high traffic volumes. Both can't be true at the same time. Which to quote the movies seems like pissing on people and telling them it's rain.

    There is no bridges been closed. It's a level crossing. If it was a bridge already this wouldn't even be up for discussion.

    You do understand the benefits of a bridge over a level crossing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,676 ✭✭✭✭ beauf


    IE 222 wrote: »
    Comprising means your gain something and in this case the locals seem to be ignoring the benefits of having a Dart service with increased capacity and frequency. The local argument seems to only be valuing traffic with the crossing v bridge and failing to include the actual reason for this in first place.

    Surely closing the crossing without a replacement puts a stop to any increased traffic concerns. Having a crossing with longer closures times and the extra traffic volumes you are predicting is a only going to be worse for the area. The other fact the locals fail to recognize is that the rail service itself is the best way of diverting road traffic. A good rail service will undoubtedly remove the traffic.

    I have yet to see any local representative staying they don't want DART+ so that's a strawman right there..

    As is the argument valuing traffic. Since the reason for not wanting a bridge and no crossing, or even keeping the crossing. Is to not increase traffic. But at the minimum keep it the to existing levels. Which are bad enough.

    It's noteworthy that most of the people arguing for the bridge aren't using the train. If you think it will increase use of the train. Great. But I'd say Irish Rail have driven people back into their cars due to overcrowding on the line. For example reducing the number of carriages on the docklands at a time when demand exploded. Most of the people arguing for the bridge are also not mentioning the train. It's not on their agenda.

    I suspect those driving and those getting the train are mostly doing journeys not possible, or not viable using the train. We're all guessing since I'm not aware of any door to door journey statistics.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭ IE 222


    beauf wrote: »
    That's a no then.

    While not impossible I think its very uncharacteristic of Leo to be that visible on local issues. Very odd that two different posters have the same letter and with the same agenda. Not impossible either no.

    That aside. It's very hard to argue that you can't get the frequency without closing it if you have that frequency and more on a different line that still has crossings. Personally I think it should be closed and there are many other reasons to do. The frequency aspect though on it's own is weak.

    They could easily trial it for a couple of weeks. Close it at peak and see where the traffic goes or does it disperse.

    They could change the lights at Dr Troy and improve the throughput there. Since most of the traffic flows in once direction in the morning and the opposite in the evening.

    Well it's his job to raise local concerns. I don't understand where your going with this one. There's no conspiracy theory here.

    You can get the frequency just it's not the best way of doing it. The crossing is closed for 41mins between 8-9am currently. The increase frequency will see that rise to well over 45mins. As off peak services will be increased as well that 8-9am figure will likely become 7am-7pm which really knocks the idea of peak time openings on the head. There comes a point as to what's the point in having it operational at a cost when nobody can use it and anyone that is is complaining about it.

    Personally as a tax payer I'd rather leave it open and save us in the region of €10 million or use that money in an area like Kilcock that actually wants a rail service.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,676 ✭✭✭✭ beauf


    IE 222 wrote: »
    There is no bridges been closed. It's a level crossing. If it was a bridge already this wouldn't even be up for discussion.

    You do understand the benefits of a bridge over a level crossing.

    I understand it has pros and cons.

    The level crossing are all also at bridges. Coolmine, porterstown, Clonsilla. All being closed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,676 ✭✭✭✭ beauf


    IE 222 wrote: »
    Well it's his job to raise local concerns. I don't understand where your going with this one. There's no conspiracy theory here.

    You can get the frequency just it's not the best way of doing it. The crossing is closed for 41mins between 8-9am currently. The increase frequency will see that rise to well over 45mins. As off peak services will be increased as well that 8-9am figure will likely become 7am-7pm which really knocks the idea of peak time openings on the head. There comes a point as to what's the point in having it operational at a cost when nobody can use it and anyone that is is complaining about it.

    Personally as a tax payer I'd rather leave it open and save us in the region of €10 million or use that money in an area like Kilcock that actually wants a rail service.

    Just curious why Leo known for love of media keeping this one quiet. Usually when a politician does anything they have to tell the world about it..

    Seems like you admitting the frequency argument is weak. It can be achieved and at a lower cost by just keeping the crossing. I don't agree with it but it seems it's not without some substance.

    I'm not sure what throwing out another strawman about not wanting "a" rail service at all, achieves.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭ IE 222


    beauf wrote: »
    I have yet to see any local representative staying they don't want DART+ so that's a strawman right there..

    As is the argument valuing traffic. Since the reason for not wanting a bridge and no crossing, or even keeping the crossing. Is to not increase traffic. But at the minimum keep it the to existing levels. Which are bad enough.

    It's noteworthy that most of the people arguing for the bridge aren't using the train. If you think it will increase use of the train. Great. But I'd say Irish Rail have driven people back into their cars due to overcrowding on the line. For example reducing the number of carriages on the docklands at a time when demand exploded. Most of the people arguing for the bridge are also not mentioning the train. It's not on their agenda.

    I suspect those driving and those getting the train are mostly doing journeys not possible, or not viable using the train. We're all guessing since I'm not aware of any door to door journey statistics.

    Locals have openly supported electrification. What comes with this is what their opposing. The Dart upgrade resolves the capacity issues you have raised and will encourage more road users back to the train.

    Failing to address the issue won't maintain existing traffic levels. How can you argue that doing nothing will maintain existing traffic levels while arguing that the bridge will increase traffic levels. The Kellystown development will be happening regardless of the bridge. You can't choose to apply the effect Kellystown will have on a bridge but not on the crossing and also ignoring the fact the crossing is going to see an increase in closures. If the main goal of rejecting the bridge is too divert traffic any from the area then closing the crossing is the best way of achieving this.

    The money been spent here is to benefit the rail system and meeting local road users need should not be the priority.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭ IE 222


    beauf wrote: »
    I understand it has pros and cons.

    The level crossing are all also at bridges. Coolmine, porterstown, Clonsilla. All being closed.

    The bridges cross over the canal, I don't see why this is an issue, there will be no impact on the canal. The bridges will remain in place and footbridge's will be used to cross the canal and railway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭ IE 222


    beauf wrote: »
    Just curious why Leo known for love of media keeping this one quiet. Usually when a politician does anything they have to tell the world about it..

    Seems like you admitting the frequency argument is weak. It can be achieved and at a lower cost by just keeping the crossing. I don't agree with it but it seems it's not without some substance.

    I'm not sure what throwing out another strawman about not wanting "a" rail service at all, achieves.

    He's not keeping it quiet. He's public released a letter he personally sent as a TD to IE. Its up to be media if they think it warrants been published or questioned. What does he need to do in your book.

    I'm not denying the frequency can't be achieved with keeping the crossing open but in doing so comes with unnecessary compromises for both road and rail. Likewise if your willing to close the crossing at peak times then why not completely. It would be cheaper again to just close it.

    What it means is that the goal of this project is about increasing frequency and capacity of the line for the benefit of the locals and not about adding shiny new trains to maintain the existing service which what they seem to only want from it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,676 ✭✭✭✭ beauf


    IE 222 wrote: »
    ... not about adding shiny new trains to maintain the existing service which what they seem to only want from it.

    What is with you and strawman?

    All you seem to what is to shut down the service entirely for some reason and make no changes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,676 ✭✭✭✭ beauf


    IE 222 wrote: »
    He's not keeping it quiet. ...

    Where he publish it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,676 ✭✭✭✭ beauf


    IE 222 wrote: »
    The bridges cross over the canal, I don't see why this is an issue, there will be no impact on the canal. The bridges will remain in place and footbridge's will be used to cross the canal and railway.

    You said no bridges will be closed. I just listed the ones closing.

    I have no idea why you are talking about the canal.

    If as you say, you don't understand the issues, you are probably not best placed to offer a solution.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,676 ✭✭✭✭ beauf


    IE 222 wrote: »
    Locals have openly supported electrification. What comes with this is what their opposing. The Dart upgrade resolves the capacity issues you have raised and will encourage more road users back to the train.

    Failing to address the issue won't maintain existing traffic levels. How can you argue that doing nothing will maintain existing traffic levels while arguing that the bridge will increase traffic levels. The Kellystown development will be happening regardless of the bridge. You can't choose to apply the effect Kellystown will have on a bridge but not on the crossing and also ignoring the fact the crossing is going to see an increase in closures. If the main goal of rejecting the bridge is too divert traffic any from the area then closing the crossing is the best way of achieving this.

    The money been spent here is to benefit the rail system and meeting local road users need should not be the priority.

    You've already said you can get the frequency without closing the crossing. Its not a perquisite.

    You could simply close the crossing and not build the bridge. So spend no money on this issue and get the rail benefits.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,676 ✭✭✭✭ beauf


    IE 222 wrote: »
    ...A good rail service will undoubtedly remove the traffic.

    Depends where the traffic is going.

    That seems quite a basic thing to need to understand. Which seems missing in these proposals.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭ IE 222


    What do you think the overall aim of the project is????

    Where can you show me that residents are supportive of and talk positively about an increase in services or where to do mention anything regarding about the additional capacity benefits it will bring for the area. The only positive they've welcomed is electrification.

    I don't know I didn't post it. Do you think it's a fake??? He is backing your side of the argument.

    What bridge is been closed that's going to effect the crossing of road traffic over the railway?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,676 ✭✭✭✭ beauf


    The giant posters saying YES to Dart+

    They have it on their Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/RiverwoodRes/

    You see them as you drive around. Was on pretty much everything I've seen.

    Closing the crossing is closing the bridge. If you think they can close the coolmine crossing but leave the bridge open please explain how?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭ IE 222


    beauf wrote: »
    You've already said you can get the frequency without closing the crossing. Its not a perquisite.

    You could simply close the crossing and not build the bridge. So spend no money on this issue and get the rail benefits.

    How do maintain current traffic levels with a crossing closed for longer and a large new development in Kellystown????

    Keeping the crossing is doable but not ideal for a whole host of reasons I've already outlined.

    Well that's what myself and many others have been advocating for on here. The way I see it is that the locals objections to a bridge are a free pass and should be jumped on. Any inconvenience or traffic issues afterwards would be self inflicted as result of their objections. Close the crossing and put the footbridge in and it's a win win for everyone.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭ IE 222


    beauf wrote: »
    The giant posters saying YES to Dart+

    They have it on their Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/RiverwoodRes/

    You see them as you drive around. Was on pretty much everything I've seen.

    Closing the crossing is closing the bridge. If you think they can close the coolmine crossing but leave the bridge open please explain how?

    Ok and if you took the time to read through their webpage you'll see they are opposing the fundamental part of the project which reducing the number of crossing closures and the duration whilst also refusing a bridge to bypass this. How do you purpose services can be increased if they are restricted.

    It's not closing the bridge. The bridge will remain but just becomes redundant. I still don't understand how the bridge over the canal has a part to play in this and why you insist on using this as reason to argue against the options. Maybe can you explain what exactly do you need the bridge for if the crossing is closed????


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,676 ✭✭✭✭ beauf


    Well you've already said you don't need to close it to achieve the frequency. So they aren't opposing anything fundamental to the project.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,676 ✭✭✭✭ beauf


    Will if they are not closing the bridge, then they don't need to replace it...:)

    I don't need the existing bridge or the new one. Happy not to have either. Don't need them, don't want them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭ IE 222


    beauf wrote: »
    Well you've already said you don't need to close it to achieve the frequency. So they aren't opposing anything fundamental to the project.

    Well the risk of gate collisions remains and the potential of delaying trains is not fully eliminated. The up keeping costs of crossing remains and speeds and signalling need to take account of the crossing.

    No doubt it will be worse for the locals than rail users but it's easily avoidable and removes any future tensions or requirements to revisit it at a later date. If the locals feel the crossing can close for longer periods or completely at peak then there is no reason to keep it open at all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 917 ✭✭✭ gjim


    beauf wrote: »
    I understand it has pros and cons.
    What are the pros of a level crossing exactly?

    They are far less safe and act as a point of contention between rail and road traffic - both of which suffer in terms of constrained capacity. It's not just that road vehicles and trains have to "share" access to the crossing - the practical capacity is much worse than half of that when there's grade separation given the the "dead time" created by the fact that the barriers have to be lowered in advance of trains arriving.

    In other words, replacing a level crossing with a bridge more than doubles the total capacity of the crossing road and the rail line.

    You are also relying on a non-trivial electro-mechanical system to ensure safety for both trains and cars which carries costs for regular servicing and maintenance. A bridge is more or less fool-proof safe by providing complete physical separation.

    I really can't think of any situation where a level crossing has any "pros" - they are a dangerous, inefficient, historic relic and outside of heritage have no redeeming features as part of a rail system.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,207 Mod ✭✭✭✭ CatInABox


    I think some people don't know what the current service level is, and what it's going to be once the project is complete.

    There's currently 12 trains per hour going through Coolmine crossing at the peak hour, with a closure of about 40 mins per hour. Once the project is complete, there'll be 30 trains going through Coolmine crossing. Even if IR reduce the closure time by 50% (this isn't going to happen, just FYI, impossible to do this safely), any reduction will be completely eaten up by the more than doubling of the number of trains.

    Maybe off peak it'll be a little better, but if they're running a ten minute Dart service on that line (which they almost certainly will), that's at least 12 trains passing Coolmine crossing every hour. Add Sligo services on top of that.


Advertisement