nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Phoenix Park tunnel: 4 trains per hour from 2016

Lenton Lane

In today's Herald, can someone post up a link?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

LXFlyer

stop wrote: »

Unit fails on P1?

Both the Up and Down routes are bi-directional - there is really no need for a third through route here, given that there is the loop on the down side outside Pearse, which is also bi-directional.

Bear in mind that P2 is going to be occupied with trains terminating most of the time, so its use as a through platform would be minimal.

flyingsnail

trellheim wrote: »

It seems a reduction in flexibility not to have pointwork for the up main to get into P2 as well , and an obvious omission. What is the reason ? Is it signalling overlap or something , avoid the complexity of approach control ?

In setup above you can have simultaneous arrivals into P1 and P2, if the points that connected P2 to the up main at the Lansdowne road end remained there would be insufficient overlap to allow this and up trains would have to be held to allow arrivals into P2.

n97 mini

spacetweek wrote: »

The vast majority of people who get on a bus or train in Dublin are going to/from An Lar. .

Of course they are, as they've no choice! Duh! Everyone else has a car and drives.

LXFlyer

flyingsnail wrote: »

In setup above you can have simultaneous arrivals into P1 and P2, if the points that connected P2 to the up main at the Lansdowne road end remained there would be insufficient overlap to allow this and up trains would have to be held to allow arrivals into P2.

This is important - the whole point of the reconfiguration at GCD is to allow trains terminate there from the loop line without impacting on northbound services.

MrMorooka

The only real problem with the layout is that you probably can't have two trains in a row terminating at platform 2- you need to wait for the first one to leave, which is a few minutes turnaround. Even then, I'd imagine it will be possible to shunt out to the Up main to clear the platform if needed, and the loops mean that shouldn't impact anything but the two trains involved.

One thing I think is crucial though- are the crossovers to and from the loops designed for line speed or will they have speed restrictions? That could have a fair amount of impact on flexibility given DART performance/ ATP.

Jamie2k9

MrMorooka wrote: »

The only real problem with the layout is that you probably can't have two trains in a row terminating at platform 2- you need to wait for the first one to leave, which is a few minutes turnaround. Even then, I'd imagine it will be possible to shunt out to the Up main to clear the platform if needed, and the loops mean that shouldn't impact anything but the two trains involved.

One thing I think is crucial though- are the crossovers to and from the loops designed for line speed or will they have speed restrictions? That could have a fair amount of impact on flexibility given DART performance/ ATP.

Remember it's only one service per hour and two at pear hours so terminating two trains close to one another will not be a problem.

Wouldn't worry about speed over the points, most services will be going less than 30 miles anyway so speed isn't really relevant.

LXFlyer

MrMorooka wrote: »

The only real problem with the layout is that you probably can't have two trains in a row terminating at platform 2- you need to wait for the first one to leave, which is a few minutes turnaround. Even then, I'd imagine it will be possible to shunt out to the Up main to clear the platform if needed, and the loops mean that shouldn't impact anything but the two trains involved.

One thing I think is crucial though- are the crossovers to and from the loops designed for line speed or will they have speed restrictions? That could have a fair amount of impact on flexibility given DART performance/ ATP.

That really shouldn't be an issue - trains would be pathed to allow for turnaround time.

Also apart from the PPT services, I wouldn't expect that at peak times all Maynooth & Northern line trains will terminate at GCD. Some will still finish at Pearse and shunt to Boston Sidings.

stop

Will Maynooth trains that terminate at Pearse at the moment now terminate at GCD?

LXFlyer

stop wrote: »

Will Maynooth trains that terminate at Pearse at the moment now terminate at GCD?

Off-peak probably but as I posted above I wouldn't imagine they all will at peak times. Some will have to start at Connolly and Pearse due to running time constraints and the fact that the rolling stock may have been laying over in the Boston/Pearse sidings.

trellheim

In setup above you can have simultaneous arrivals into P1 and P2, if the points that connected P2 to the up main at the Lansdowne road end remained there would be insufficient overlap to allow this and up trains would have to be held to allow arrivals into P2.

Ta that is what I had thought.

Sam Russell

Vic_08 wrote: »

Reducing cost by not having to include an extra set of points and signalling for a route that would rarely if ever be needed.

According to the diagram posted above, there are 13 sets of points around GCD, so adding one more would not increase cost by much. The added flexibility would allow the Wexford train to pass the Dart in front and arrive at Pearse ahead of it, giving a quicker travel time.

There may be other benefits as well - such as 'fast' Darts that skip under used stations giving reduced travel times during busy times. However, none of this will be possible just to save a few bob.

flyingsnail

Sam Russell wrote: »

According to the diagram posted above, there are 13 sets of points around GCD, so adding one more would not increase cost by much. The added flexibility would allow the Wexford train to pass the Dart in front and arrive at Pearse ahead of it, giving a quicker travel time.

There may be other benefits as well - such as 'fast' Darts that skip under used stations giving reduced travel times during busy times. However, none of this will be possible just to save a few bob.

In this case I think the ability to have trains arrive into P2 without disruption to northbound services outweighs the possible benefit of the connection remaining.

Vic_08

stop wrote: »

Unit fails on P1?

A complete failure is a very unusual occurrence, for one to happen in that exact spot even once over the lifetime of the trackwork would be very unlikely.

Sam Russell wrote: »

According to the diagram posted above, there are 13 sets of points around GCD, so adding one more would not increase cost by much. The added flexibility would allow the Wexford train to pass the Dart in front and arrive at Pearse ahead of it, giving a quicker travel time.

Even if the following train was as close as possible approaching GCD the stopped train would be delayed by several minutes doing this.

Sam Russell wrote: »

There may be other benefits as well - such as 'fast' Darts that skip under used stations giving reduced travel times during busy times. However, none of this will be possible just to save a few bob.

GCD is not likely to appear in any list of under used stations.

If you understand railway signalling then you will know that station loops are not useful for that kind of operation, the signal spacing and overlaps will not allow a quick overtake like you are suggesting.

Separate fast and slow lines or dynamic loops of several Kms are required to allow a train overtake another without causing significant delay to one or both services.

As already explained by flyingsnail the signal overlap would prevent the current required working from being possible without impacting on through services. Not only would your suggestions not be practical but the whole point of having a central turnback platform to prevent conflicting movements would be compromised.

I am not trying to put anyone down but TBH unless you have a decent working knowledge of railway signalling then you are unlikely to understand what can and cannot be achieved within the rules. Railway control has evolved to allow as close to 100% safe operation as is possible, the restrictions that lay people see as stupid are there for very good reasons and are why unlike roads a single rail accident in a developed county makes headlines across the world; they are extremely rare.

Sam Russell

Thank you for explaining that - I am not even well informed about railway signalling and did not realise that it is so complicated.

It is fortunate that railway collisions are so rare - particularly in this country where we have a lot of single line working.

MrMorooka

Irish Rail have released a video on this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBRxEM5_CYc

cowboyjoe

Out of interest I entered Adamstown to GCD on IR timetable. Up came a ghost train probably entered into system for IT testing purposes. It's been since taken down. 40 mins was the time it said it would take between these two via PPT stopping at all intermediate stops.

Jamie2k9

cowboyjoe wrote: »

Out of interest I entered Adamstown to GCD on IR timetable. Up came a ghost train probably entered into system for IT testing purposes. It's been since taken down. 40 mins was the time it said it would take between these two via PPT stopping at all intermediate stops.

So we are possibly looking at 60-67 minutes from either Newbridge or Kildare to GCD. Could be a hard sell especially when those will have fast services into Heuston taking less than 20 and 25 minutes.

I was expecting slightly less travel time but guess extra time is needed for guaranteed delays on Connolly side.

Have they confirmed that extra cost for annual holders or will they leave it as it is?

kc56

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

So we are possibly looking at 60-67 minutes from either Newbridge or Kildare to GCD. Could be a hard sell especially when those will have fast services into Heuston taking less than 20 and 25 minutes.

I was expecting slightly less travel time but guess extra time is needed for guaranteed delays on Connolly side.

Have they confirmed that extra cost for annual holders or will they leave it as it is?

Yes, but how long does it take to get from Heuston to GCD? The 145 bus is very slow on the North Quays these days despite it being summer and doesn't even get close. Luas to Connolly + DART or Geoges Dock and walk is not fast either so the 60min run time may not be all that unattractive. Until a timetable is published, we won't know the running time.

n97 mini

cowboyjoe wrote: »

Out of interest I entered Adamstown to GCD on IR timetable. Up came a ghost train probably entered into system for IT testing purposes. It's been since taken down. 40 mins was the time it said it would take between these two via PPT stopping at all intermediate stops.

Leixlip Confey to GCD is ~40 mins so that sounds about right.

Jamie2k9

kc56 wrote: »

Yes, but how long does it take to get from Heuston to GCD? The 145 bus is very slow on the North Quays these days despite it being summer and doesn't even get close. Luas to Connolly + DART or Geoges Dock and walk is not fast either so the 60min run time may not be all that unattractive. Until a timetable is published, we won't know the running time.

I get that totally but I suspect the time won't be far off. I think it will work but uptake will be interesting as unless you work in GCD I don't think there will be massive savings in times to most places.

Kildare-Connolly via Heuston/Luas 45 minutes at most, likely the same via PPT.

Vic_08

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I get that totally but I suspect the time won't be far off. I think it will work but uptake will be interesting as unless you work in GCD I don't think there will be massive savings in times to most places.

Kildare-Connolly via Heuston/Luas 45 minutes at most, likely the same via PPT.

I do seem to recall that this point was made when people suggested that PPT was a suitable alternative to Dart underground.

While it is a welcome development it will be a relatively slow and low frequency service. For many journeys it will most likely be quicker to use current connections via Heuston rather than wait for the next through PPT train.

Jamie2k9

Vic_08 wrote: »

I do seem to recall that this point was made when people suggested that PPT was a suitable alternative to Dart underground.

While it is a welcome development it will be a relatively slow and low frequency service. For many journeys it will most likely be quicker to use current connections via Heuston rather than wait for the next through PPT train.

It is a half baked solution but if you read back I am not a big fan of DU.

Grandeeod

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

It is a half baked solution but if you read back I am not a big fan of DU.

I wouldn't consider it a half baked solution. I would consider it an expansion of current services. DU is still needed.

kc56

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

I get that totally but I suspect the time won't be far off. I think it will work but uptake will be interesting as unless you work in GCD I don't think there will be massive savings in times to most places.

Kildare-Connolly via Heuston/Luas 45 minutes at most, likely the same via PPT.

45 mins Kildare/Connolly is not realistic. The best times Kildare-Heuston are about 27min (0928 is timetabled at 32mins at that is non-stop - less 5 for padding) if everything is spot-on. Allow 5 mins to get a Luas (avg depending on arrival platform), 20-25mins to get to Connolly (Luas give 16min) and another 5 to get to the DART platforms and that's 55-60mins give or take a min or two.

Absolute min time: Train 27 (5 mins early), P2/3/4/5 to Luas 2, Luas waiting for you, to Conn 16 = 45 mins.
More likely: Train 30, to Luas 5 (allowing arrival P1/6/7/8, wait for Luas 3, To Connolly Luas 20 = 58mins off the a non-stop train.

In short, 45min Kildare to Connolly is the absolute best time while average time are more likely to be nearer 60.

If going to GCD, another 5 to get to DART platforms, wait 7 mins for DART, and 10mins to get to GDC; that's another 22mins. Tara St/Pearse a few mins quicker.

Jamie2k9

kc56 wrote: »

45 mins Kildare/Connolly is not realistic. The best times Kildare-Heuston are about 27min (0928 is timetabled at 32mins at that is non-stop - less 5 for padding) if everything is spot-on. Allow 5 mins to get a Luas (avg depending on arrival platform), 20-25mins to get to Connolly (Luas give 16min) and another 5 to get to the DART platforms and that's 55-60mins give or take a min or two.

Absolute min time: Train 27 (5 mins early), P2/3/4/5 to Luas 2, Luas waiting for you, to Conn 16 = 45 mins.
More likely: Train 30, to Luas 5 (allowing arrival P1/6/7/8, wait for Luas 3, To Connolly Luas 20 = 58mins off the a non-stop train.

In short, 45min Kildare to Connolly is the absolute best time while average time are more likely to be nearer 60.

If going to GCD, another 5 to get to DART platforms, wait 7 mins for DART, and 10mins to get to GDC; that's another 22mins. Tara St/Pearse a few mins quicker.

I was factoring in 2 or 3 minutes off the service with better speeds with the new timetable.

That 09.28 service has 7-9 minutes padding to it's always held at Cherryville or Kildare to leave the scheduled (poorly timetabled) late running Limerick service pass and that even lasts 10 minutes a lot. If it gets a clear run and Limerick is on time then 25 minutes to Heuston. Since Feb it's been poor.

But lets take 25 to Heuston, 20 to Connolly and at peak times trams are ever few minutes so 5 minutes train to tram and waiting. Around 50 minutes all in all to Connolly, 45 to Tara.

My main point was there will be little difference and if your working near Tara/Connolly why use a service when you have much better and frequent choice. If you work within a few minutes from GCD then it will be useful but I really can't see major difference from Pearse, Tara, Connolly. Yes you have the joy of not changing which may appeal to those but from a time prospective not a lot of benefit. Pricing may prove very important here.

It would be a far more time efficient service if its didn't serve all KRP stops as most are ghost stations. Fonthill will be a complete waste as will Park West and even perhaps Adamstown to a lesser degree or at least one of the peak trains ran perhaps non stop from Nass if uptake was high. I know the service is about connecting these exact area's to city center but the demand will not be there for a decade or so when houses are actually build.

spacetweek

Totally agree about the ghost stations, the Kildare Route Project under which they were built doesn't do much on its own without conversion of the line to Dart and DU to get passengers right into the city centre.
Kishogue was never opened at all.

LXFlyer

This line will suit anyone going to places near Drumcondra (or on a bus route serving outside it) and anywhere east of O'Connell Bridge.

For anyone going west of O'Connell Bridge, Heuston will remain as the destination.

There is plenty of room for both services and the some of the doom and gloom being expressed here is just massively over the top.

These services will also facilitate anyone working at Parkwest but commuting from point along the DART line or living in the east of the city centre. These new services may help grow the business from KRP stations - that's the whole point.

Grandeeod

lxflyer wrote: »

This line will suit anyone going to places near Drumcondra (or on a bus route serving outside it) and anywhere east of O'Connell Bridge.

For anyone going west of O'Connell Bridge, Heuston will remain as the destination.

There is plenty of room for both services and the some of the doom and gloom being expressed here is just massively over the top.

These services will also facilitate anyone working at Parkwest but commuting from point along the DART line or living in the east of the city centre. These new services may help grow the business from KRP stations - that's the whole point.

I'm glad somebody sees the potential in how the route can open up new destinations.

Jamie2k9

For anyone going west of O'Connell Bridge, Heuston will remain as the destination.

Anyone not transferring trains at Connolly will find it no use either, so unless you work to an extent near Pearse or in GCD it won't be a massive win for customers.

There is plenty of room for both services and the some of the doom and gloom being expressed here is just massively over the top.

We are allowed to express issues about a service, some might argue some praise for IE is way over the top to!

It will be great if it's a big success.

These services will also facilitate anyone working at Parkwest but commuting from point along the DART line or living in the east of the city centre. These new services may help grow the business from KRP stations - that's the whole point.

It might but increasing usage on the KRP will not happen unless cows and sheep are included as passengers. Fonthill should not be served and I can't say much about Adamstown.

Col_30

I use Adamstown -> Heuston and either walk or Luas to my office beside Tara St. So obviously, I cannot wait for the new service to start. If it's 40 min travel time from Adamstown to GCD as previously suggested, I reckon about 30 min to Tara with no delays/issues. This will improve my commute.

I think it's going to benefit people in the Lucan south (who are close to Adamstown station south of the N4) area who work in the City Centre. The direct buses from Lucan are great until you get on the quays. Sometimes it can take 30min from Heuston to D'Olier St. which is a total pain.