We have updated our Privacy Notice, you can read the updated document here
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Dart + (Coolmine LC closure issues)

245678

Comments

  • #2


    beauf wrote: »
    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.

    I don't think you really know what you're talking about or want.

    There is no current bridge over the railway and that's why they are proposing to construct one.

    I'm not sure if it's a Coolmine thing or if people are so easily misled but the second part of that comment along with many others you've posted is worrying.


  • #2


    gjim wrote: »
    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.

    The 'pro' is that it's already in place.

    The 'con' of the alternatives is the cost, time, planning difficulties, visual and other impacts on the local area, environmental damage and conflict with other planned developments.

    Now, it may be that on balance closing the LC is the best option but there are plenty of pros and cons on each side.


  • #2


    D15er wrote: »
    The 'pro' is that it's already in place.

    It's in place because it's there since the area was a (semi-)rural area with a handful of trains using the line (Clonsilla-Maynooth was only double tracked in 2001) and with very little vehicular traffic.

    That pro is long since gone. It's no longer fit for purpose.


  • #2


    CatInABox wrote: »
    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.

    How does that compare to merrion?


  • #2


    IE 222 wrote: »
    I don't think you really know what you're talking about or want.

    There is no current bridge over the railway and that's why they are proposing to construct one.

    I'm not sure if it's a Coolmine thing or if people are so easily misled but the second part of that comment along with many others you've posted is worrying.

    There is Dr Troy bridge it's a massive thing hard to miss. You're not aware of giant bridge 500m away from where you want to build a new one. There's another bridge over the railway not far away on Castleknock road.

    A "Coolmine thing" what does that mean lol?


  • #2


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    It's in place because it's there since the area was a (semi-)rural area with a handful of trains using the line (Clonsilla-Maynooth was only double tracked in 2001) and with very little vehicular traffic.

    That pro is long since gone. It's no longer fit for purpose.

    I could be wrong but I think its there since the railway was built. Long before the estates. I'd be curious of the dates. I'm remember when much of this was still fields at least on the eastern side.

    But certainly it's not fit for purpose. I'd argue the roads all around it aren't either. Not for the traffic using them.


  • #2


    gjim wrote: »
    What are the pros of a level crossing exactly?..

    Originally the context of this was the pros of a bridge Vs a crossing.

    Which is a very different discussion.


  • #2


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    It's in place because it's there since the area was a (semi-)rural area with a handful of trains using the line (Clonsilla-Maynooth was only double tracked in 2001) and with very little vehicular traffic.

    That pro is long since gone. It's no longer fit for purpose.

    I know all that.

    But people are massively underestimating the scale of getting this thing up and running. It looks like IE are too. If there's a way to get a stretch of track up and running without enormous hassle, it's worth exploring.


  • #2


    They closed the phoenix park main road when they dug it up and traffic just went a different way.


  • #2


    beauf wrote: »
    There is Dr Troy bridge it's a massive thing hard to miss. You're not aware of giant bridge 500m away from where you want to build a new one. There's another bridge over the railway not far away on Castleknock road.

    A "Coolmine thing" what does that mean lol?

    And whose been telling you that either of them bridges are to be closed ????


  • #2


    You literally said...
    IE 222 wrote: »
    ...
    There is no current bridge over the railway and that's why they are proposing to construct one.
    ..

    I'm just pointing out there are currently bridges over the railway.


  • #2


    D15er wrote: »
    I know all that.

    But people are massively underestimating the scale of getting this thing up and running. It looks like IE are too. If there's a way to get a stretch of track up and running without enormous hassle, it's worth exploring.

    Do you think IE go out of their way to make it as difficult as possible. It rather simple and easier for IE to just offer option 7 and close the crossing with a footbridge.


  • #2


    beauf wrote: »
    How does that compare to merrion?

    Merrion is a disaster. At peak hours, the evening traffic is backed up all the way back to the Sean More Road. Morning traffic is beyond Booterstown.

    Locals opposed the solution because it impacted their parking. Those trapped in the traffic jams were never asked.


  • #2


    beauf wrote: »
    You literally said...



    I'm just pointing out there are currently bridges over the railway.

    Yeah I was responding to this comment that you made before hand. Can you clarify where you gained such information.

    Maybe I should apply your movie comment here as well


    Quote: beauf
    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.


  • #2


    Merrion is a disaster. At peak hours, the evening traffic is backed up all the way back to the Sean More Road. Morning traffic is beyond Booterstown.

    Locals opposed the solution because it impacted their parking. Those trapped in the traffic jams were never asked.

    I didn't ask about the traffic I asked about the frequency of the rail.

    Bit it's interesting that the issue doesn't seem to be about the trains. But about traffic.


  • #2


    IE 222 wrote: »
    Yeah I was responding to this comment that you made before hand. Can you clarify where you gained such information.

    Maybe I should apply your movie comment here as well


    Quote: beauf
    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.

    Perhaps it would be better not to keep tracking back to posts out of context. Quote exactly what you're replying to. Very hard to follow.

    It's very simple most people want the Dart+. The rest of it is a separate issue.


  • #2


    beauf wrote: »
    I could be wrong but I think its there since the railway was built. Long before the estates. I'd be curious of the dates. I'm remember when much of this was still fields at least on the eastern side.

    But certainly it's not fit for purpose. I'd argue the roads all around it aren't either. Not for the traffic using them.

    So bad planning in the past should preclude improving infrastructure in the future?


  • #2


    beauf wrote: »
    I didn't ask about the traffic I asked about the frequency of the rail.

    Bit it's interesting that the issue doesn't seem to be about the trains. But about traffic.

    The trains always win.


  • #2


    beauf wrote: »
    Perhaps it would be better not to keep tracking back to posts out of context. Quote exactly what you're replying to. Very hard to follow.

    It's very simple most people want the Dart+. The rest of it is a separate issue.

    Why did you track back to my previous comment? I don't think you should be posting something if you can't stand by it.

    Perhaps you could just explain to us as to who informed you that either of those bridges where been "closed" in preference of a new bridge been built. Its quite clear you haven't read the report or even misread it for that matter as there is absolutely nothing in them to even suggest either of them bridges were to be closed.

    You are making false claims and im just trying to correct you before spread misinformation.

    Unfortunately it ain't a separate issue and I believe this is the misconception you seem to have about the project. Its rail project and not a road upgrade programme for Coolmine.


  • #2


    IE 222 wrote: »
    Why did you track back to my previous comment? I don't think you should be posting something if you can't stand by it.

    Perhaps you could just explain to us as to who informed you that either of those bridges where been "closed" in preference of a new bridge been built. Its quite clear you haven't read the report or even misread it for that matter as there is absolutely nothing in them to even suggest either of them bridges were to be closed.

    You are making false claims and im just trying to correct you before spread misinformation.


    Actually you're just making stuff up then arguing against it.

    Quote where I said "where been" or "them bridges"
    IE 222 wrote: »
    Unfortunately it ain't a separate issue and I believe this is the misconception you seem to have about the project. Its rail project and not a road upgrade programme for Coolmine.

    Then only talk about the rail aspect.


  • #2


    The trains always win.

    Except perhaps when they were ripped up and disappeared...

    Be interesting what happens post COVID...

    https://www.thejournal.ie/impact-of-covid-19-on-rail-public-transport-traffic-5160807-Jul2020/


  • #2


    beauf wrote: »
    Actually you're just making stuff up then arguing against it.

    Quote where I said "where been" or "them bridges"


    Then only talk about the rail aspect.

    Ok, here's the crap you've splurt out about bridges been closed. You even listed the "3" bridges Coolmine, Clonsilla and Porterstown which was later reduce to 2 and changed to Castleknock and Dr Tony bridges.

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

    I think it's time for you to go and troll elsewhere.

    1.
    Quote: beaufI understand it has pros and cons.

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

    2.
    Quote: beaufYou 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

    3.
    Quote: beaufThe 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?

    4.
    Quote: beaufThere is Dr Troy bridge it's a massive thing hard to miss. You're not aware of giant bridge 500m away from where you want to build a new one. There's another bridge over the railway not far away on Castleknock road.

    A "Coolmine thing" what does that mean lol?


  • #2


    IE 222 wrote: »
    Ok, here's the crap you've splurt out about bridges been closed. You even listed the "3" bridges Coolmine, Clonsilla and Porterstown which was later reduce to 2 and changed to Castleknock and Dr Tony bridges. ...

    Yeah, thats not what I asked you to quote and even it was its not quoting it's mis quoting and impressively out of context. Also its not Dr Tony.


  • #2


    ..
    What do the locals want?

    As you say the trains always win. I don't think it will matter what the locals want. They just keep at it until they override all the objections. So discussing it is largely pointless.

    Are the funds for this ring fenced? Seems odd time to start such a project. I can't remember exactly what that said when asked. I think it was that funds are there for it, and such projects won't be effected by current events. Can't remember if anyone mentioned metro in reply.


  • #2


    beauf wrote: »
    As you say the trains always win. I don't think it will matter what the locals want. They just keep at it until they override all the objections. So discussing it is largely pointless.

    Are the funds for this ring fenced? Seems odd time to start such a project. I can't remember exactly what that said when asked. I think it was that funds are there for it, and such projects won't be effected by current events. Can't remember if anyone mentioned metro in reply.

    Forget the other locals, what do YOU want beauf?


  • #2


    I think the fundamental issue that some don't seem to see is that improving the railline improves connectivity between D15 and the city centre.
    However doing so without rebuilding crossings results in reduced connectivity between lands south of the railway and north of the railway. Not everyone in D15 travels East to West, many people work in D15 either at the retail centre or the industrial parks north of the N3.

    I don't think anyone is asking for North/South connectivity to be improved on the back of this project, but they are at least asking for it to not be degraded.


  • #2


    beauf wrote: »
    Yeah, thats not what I asked you to quote and even it was its not quoting it's mis quoting and impressively out of context. Also its not Dr Tony.

    What is it you want me to quote you on. Have you not dug enough holes on this already.

    Considering there is no railway bridges at the first 3 locations you mentioned it's very clear and obvious you have no understanding whatsoever on this. I'd nearly be of the opinion that you can't tell the difference between a bridge and level crossing.

    I'll happy stand corrected if you would like to show and explain to me that your previous comments of bridge closures are indeed correct or if I've misquoted you.

    Failing that, maybe you could start fresh and outline your views and reasons as to why a bridge should or shouldn't be built at Coolmine to give us a better understanding of what it is your suggesting or arguing and keeping in mind this time that there is no bridge closures as part of the project.


  • #2


    liamog wrote: »
    I think the fundamental issue that some don't seem to see is that improving the railline improves connectivity between D15 and the city centre.
    However doing so without rebuilding crossings results in reduced connectivity between lands south of the railway and north of the railway. Not everyone in D15 travels East to West, many people work in D15 either at the retail centre or the industrial parks north of the N3.

    I don't think anyone is asking for North/South connectivity to be improved on the back of this project, but they are at least asking for it to not be degraded.

    The suggestion to build a bridge at Stationcourt is to IMPROVE N/S connectivity and it's being argued AGAINST.

    Any degradation in N/S connectivity will be as a direct result of interference from locals and local politicians.

    You can't have it all.


  • #2


    liamog wrote: »
    I think the fundamental issue that some don't seem to see is that improving the railline improves connectivity between D15 and the city centre.

    I can't imagine anyone doesn't see that...but whatever.


  • #2


    liamog wrote: »
    I think the fundamental issue that some don't seem to see is that improving the railline improves connectivity between D15 and the city centre.
    However doing so without rebuilding crossings results in reduced connectivity between lands south of the railway and north of the railway. Not everyone in D15 travels East to West, many people work in D15 either at the retail centre or the industrial parks north of the N3.

    I don't think anyone is asking for North/South connectivity to be improved on the back of this project, but they are at least asking for it to not be degraded.

    Completely agree and so do the planners, however, the local residents association tell us they would rather cut off that link than have a bridge. As they rightly point out there is alternative routes to make such journeys.

    If we are to accept their concerns and issues as the factual reasons to not build a bridge then we ought to apply these same reasons to the level crossing when deciding its future. We are only eliminating the visual impact concern by not building the bridge. In order to satisfy and meet their other concerns such as traffic chaos, emissions, environmental damage, road & rail safety, access to estates and better protection of pedestrian and cyclists we have to conclude that this can only be achieved by closing the crossing with a replacement footbridge. Other alternatives such as peak time closures do not meet these requirements and would likely aggravate them further.


Society & Culture