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

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.

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.

stop

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

stop

Vic_08 wrote: »

Can you think of any <reasonable> scenario in which it would?

Unit fails on P1?

Vic_08

end of the road wrote: »

well let's hope that such isn't needed.

Can you think of any <reasonable> scenario in which it would?

end of the road

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.

well let's hope that such isn't needed.

Vic_08

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 ?

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

trellheim

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 ?

LXFlyer

D.L.R. wrote: »

What's the benefit of switching the Up line to P1?

Trains can terminate in P2 directly from Pearse without having to cross over the up line, thus not disrupting through trains in the opposite direction.

D.L.R.

flyingsnail wrote: »

For anybody having problems visualising the works here is a quick diagram of what should be the final layout.
Platform 1 used to be the out of use platform will now be the up platform
Platform 2 used to be the up platform will now be a dead end bay only accessible from the Pearse end. (In Blue)
Platform 3 remains the same
The red is the Boston and up sidings.

What's the benefit of switching the Up line to P1?

flyingsnail

For anybody having problems visualising the works here is a quick diagram of what should be the final layout.
Platform 1 used to be the out of use platform will now be the up platform
Platform 2 used to be the up platform will now be a dead end bay only accessible from the Pearse end. (In Blue)
Platform 3 remains the same
The red is the Boston and up sidings.

LXFlyer

I understand that stage 9 of the third phase of the city centre resignalling project will happen next weekend, with a closure between Connolly and Dun Laoghaire on Sunday and commissioning happening in the early hours of Monday morning.

This will see the up main line slewed to serve platform 1 at Grand Canal Dock and platform 2 converted into a turnback platform with no through route anymore. At least one poster here should be happy to hear this!!

LXFlyer

IrishZeus wrote: »

Hi,

I've been trying to find out if there will be any trains running from Sallins & Naas train station through the tunnel to Connolly when it opens? We've recently moved into the area and my wife will be travelling to Connolly daily from the end of the year, so it would be a huge bonus for us.

Thanks for any info!

Yes there should be - but schedule information has yet to be released.

Roughly two trains per hour at peak and one off-peak.

IrishZeus

Hi,

I've been trying to find out if there will be any trains running from Sallins & Naas train station through the tunnel to Connolly when it opens? We've recently moved into the area and my wife will be travelling to Connolly daily from the end of the year, so it would be a huge bonus for us.

Thanks for any info!

tabbey

Del.Monte wrote: »

Even a through express between Cork and Belfast - heaven forbid. :rolleyes:

In 1947 that was called enterprise.

Jamie2k9

end of the road wrote: »

DU is certainly not a waste of money, and the huge capacity it would release is of huge benefit to the dublin area. we can invest in both the maynooth and DU, it doesn't have to be 1 or the other. the money will be there. containing the m3 parkway is not a good idea, the trains need to be direct and they offer more capacity on the clonsilla- city centre corridor. these projects offer more then "papering over the cracks" however they are a huge part of a big solution to the problem of lack of future capacity on the dublin area rail network.

It delivers capacity in the city center but that's all, there would be minimal benefit. Just look at lack of investment on N Commuter, Maynooth and poor decisions in relation to Intercity network

* - Belfast-Dublin - Getting Slower Every New Timetable, full N Commuter should be electrified
* - DART - Getting Slower
* - Maynooth Line - LC's not removed/automated slowing trains, not electrified
* - GalwayWestport/Tralee/Rosslare - Speeds more less confined to 80mph or less because of signalling and infrastructural issues through lack of investment and poor decisions by IE.

New new city signalling systems will deliver (up to 20 trains per hour?) between Connolly & GCD and given that takes into account a 10 minute DART, N Commuter, Kildare and Maynooth there is still 30-40% to grow capacity and I don't see the DART getting more frequent than 10 minutes so that leaves the rest it will be a long time before they take up the slack.

I am not against DU but feel that there is significant better ROI before it should be considered and passengers would benefit in better ways. The current network needs investment and soon, the long finger will have to end at some stage.

Grandeeod

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

It's just not really practical from an operational point of view and I expect if you asked passengers for feedback most would like improved journey times to Heuston than going to Connolly.

Cheers.

You have raised two particular issues.

The operational side, which we know can be affected by all sorts of issues from both a technical aspect and an industrial relations aspect. I'll park that one for now.

As for passenger feedback, we really don't know. Improved journey times are improved journey times and just that, no matter where they are departing from or arriving. I really believe that a lot more thinking outside the "box that is always shut" needs to happen. I hate "crayonism", so it annoys me to be even suggesting the following, but looking at the Businesses around the GCD area, how would fast IC train services to the likes of Cork and Belfast be considered if departing from GCD.

end of the road

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Not a hope, would destroy IC services for little gain.

in what way would would it destroy IC services? the little gain would be offering through trains direct to the city centre.

I wish we would, biggest wast of money ever, big cost little benefit and the N Commuter line which delivers best profit per km to IE hasn't a penny invested and demand on such a route is only going to grow. Proper investment on Maynooth and containing the M3 Parkway etc is what's needed.

These flash new projects are papering over the cracks.

DU is certainly not a waste of money, and the huge capacity it would release is of huge benefit to the dublin area. we can invest in both the maynooth and DU, it doesn't have to be 1 or the other. the money will be there. containing the m3 parkway is not a good idea, the trains need to be direct and they offer more capacity on the clonsilla- city centre corridor. these projects offer more then "papering over the cracks" however they are a huge part of a big solution to the problem of lack of future capacity on the dublin area rail network.

Jamie2k9

Grandeeod wrote: »

Explain?

It's just not really practical from an operational point of view and I expect if you asked passengers for feedback most would like improved journey times to Heuston than going to Connolly.

LXFlyer

trellheim wrote: »

Or going to more central locations, if this is a success you might well see a couple of IC trains routed to Connolly or GCD

Good luck in finding paths to do it.

I really don't see that happening - certainly not to GCD and unlikely to Connolly either. IC trains need servicing and that is not going to happen at GCD.

Given Cork trains will virtually all be Mk 4 operated again, with turnarounds of less than an hour that would be tricky. Most other IC trains have other services to operate - they don't lie idle at Heuston for long. Set diagrams don't leave much room for manoeuvre.

Bear in mind too that for anywhere west of O'Connell Bridge, Heuston and bus/tram will be faster than train to Connolly/Tara St and walk.

This line re-opening is aimed purely at the commuter market.

Grandeeod

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Not a hope, would destroy IC services for little gain.

Explain?

Jamie2k9

trellheim wrote: »

Or going to more central locations, if this is a success you might well see a couple of IC trains routed to Connolly or GCD

Not a hope, would destroy IC services for little gain.

The goal should be to offer everybody as high as frequently as is practically possible. If there isn't potential uptake for higher frequently on the Kildare route we might as well give up on Dart Underground.

I wish we would, biggest wast of money ever, big cost little benefit and the N Commuter line which delivers best profit per km to IE hasn't a penny invested and demand on such a route is only going to grow. Proper investment on Maynooth and containing the M3 Parkway etc is what's needed.

These flash new projects are papering over the cracks.

IE management must be pushing for funding for the existing network to deliver a high quality service and not the low quality service on a network which operating like they do a bit of patch work here and there every now and again.

savagethegoat

not least the impact it would have on regular interval services.