Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Phoenix Park tunnel: 4 trains per hour from 2016

1…1314161819…50

Comments

  • #452
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,834 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


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

    Absolutely - there's plenty of scope for new traffic flows on the railway as a result of this investment.

    I think it will prove useful for anyone working at Parkwest.

    As to who will use it rather than switching to LUAS/bus at Heuston, well we will have to wait and see - I don't have a crystal ball and I don't believe in making sweeping statements about things, but I'd be cautiously optimistic that a direct train will prove more attractive than switching for many people working in the areas around the city centre stations and the CBD.

    With any new service people can be surprised with the results, especially the planners themselves.

    If nothing else, people will now have more choice, which can only be a good thing.


  • #453
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    If there were four services per hour, then that is the current frequency of the Dart. Frequent services cause traffic, assuming travel time is reasonable, reliable, and realistic. (No regular delays).

    If people come, so will the trains.


  • #454
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,834 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    If there were four services per hour, then that is the current frequency of the Dart. Frequent services cause traffic, assuming travel time is reasonable, reliable, and realistic. (No regular delays).

    If people come, so will the trains.

    Well that would require more rolling stock over and above what's in service right now and consequently more money from the NTA.

    From small acorns do oak trees grow - best to start modestly and build it up.


  • #455
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    lxflyer wrote: »
    Well that would require more rolling stock over and above what's in service right now and consequently more money from the NTA.

    From small acorns apple trees grow - best to start modestly and build it up.

    Exactly - although you might need some botany lessons. :)


  • #456
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,834 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    The revised track layout is now in place at Grand Canal Dock and operational as of this morning.


  • Advertisement
  • #457
    cowboyjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 96 ✭✭cowboyjoe


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    Ok your a little hard to listen to, Lucan for example has a population of c 45,000 people. If even a small fraction of those who are commuters choose to use the expanded service (which they will) from either Adamstown or Fonthill then this service will do more than fine.

    I can't wait to board the expanded service at Adamstown or Fonthill and know others in ParkWest who feel the exact same. We all plan to use this service to get to work everyday in town. I know of many others who will be happily joining me using the PPT from the above stations. I also can't wait to get to games via PPT in Croke Pk and The Aviva off peak. Hopefully the sheep and cows will let us sit beside them!


  • #458
    stop
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 901 ✭✭✭stop


    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 will be pleasantly surprised if there is a service from GCD that will arrive at Parkwest in time for a 9am start.


  • #459
    Thrashssacre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,287 ✭✭✭Thrashssacre


    Will all services be run with 22000 stock or is there a chance specifically during peak times that 29000s will be used?


  • #460
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,852 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    Thrashssacre wrote: »
    Will all services be run with 22000 stock or is there a chance specifically during peak times that 29000s will be used?

    22000 porbally a 4 coach which carries 265 seated and easily 40 standing with space for more.

    Given there is two services ar peak times I think it should be quiet adequate.


  • #461
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,834 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Thrashssacre wrote: »
    Will all services be run with 22000 stock or is there a chance specifically during peak times that 29000s will be used?

    They will be 22000.

    There are no spare 29k sets.


  • Advertisement
  • #462
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,834 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    stop wrote: »
    I will be pleasantly surprised if there is a service from GCD that will arrive at Parkwest in time for a 9am start.

    Well I would be cautiously optimistic that they will - if inbound services start early enough they will have to reposition to work back in again in the same way existing Kildare line trains do from Heuston.


  • #463
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,834 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    stop wrote: »
    I will be pleasantly surprised if there is a service from GCD that will arrive at Parkwest in time for a 9am start.

    Well I would be cautiously optimistic that they will - if inbound services start early enough they will have to reposition back out to work back in again in the same way existing Kildare line trains do from Heuston. At the very least it would make sense for them to stop at Parkwest.

    There are going to have to be trains arriving into GCD between 07:00 and 07:30 and onwards - they will have to go back out to Newbridge (which is where I'm expecting them to terminate)not operate the next trains inbound.


  • #464
    Del.Monte
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭Del.Monte


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

    The same could be said for the Western Rail Corridor. :D

    ****



  • #465
    chillin117
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 736 ✭✭✭chillin117


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Exactly - although you might need some botany lessons. :)
    I think you are mixed up.....https://www.google.ie/search?q=acorn+to+oak&newwindow=1&biw=1440&bih=754&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-55DfwP3NAhUIL8AKHfZ_BHEQsAQILg#imgrc=Ug85gjPV8smrkM%3A


  • #466
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    chillin117 wrote: »
    I think you are mixed up.....https://www.google.ie/search?q=acorn+to+oak&newwindow=1&biw=1440&bih=754&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-55DfwP3NAhUIL8AKHfZ_BHEQsAQILg#imgrc=Ug85gjPV8smrkM%3A

    Of course, you are looking post edit. Look at the times of the posts and edits.


  • #467
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,318 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    Del.Monte wrote: »
    The same could be said for the Western Rail Corridor. :D


    Go way ya troll!:D


  • #468
    ClovenHoof
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,121 ✭✭✭ClovenHoof


    cowboyjoe wrote: »
    I can't wait to board the expanded service at Adamstown or Fonthill and know others in ParkWest who feel the exact same. We all plan to use this service to get to work everyday in town. I know of many others who will be happily joining me using the PPT from the above stations. I also can't wait to get to games via PPT in Croke Pk and The Aviva off peak. Hopefully the sheep and cows will let us sit beside them!

    and how many years did Irish Rail say 'no demand', 'modern trains don't fit in the tunnel', 'everybody wants to go to Hueston'

    Looking back at the excuses now and reading this post it is comical and tragic at the same time.


  • #469
    Captain Chaos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,175 ✭✭✭✭Captain Chaos


    ClovenHoof wrote: »
    and how many years did Irish Rail say 'no demand', 'modern trains don't fit in the tunnel', 'everybody wants to go to Hueston'

    Looking back at the excuses now and reading this post it is comical and tragic at the same time.

    That one was true for the IWT liners when they started to load the high cube containers. They had to slew the two lines closer together in the tunnel to get the height clearance but in doing so the tracks were too close together to allow a train to pass each other so only one train at a time could use the tunnel despite having two tracks.

    They have now lowered the track bed and slewed the tracks back to their old position.


  • #470
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,834 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    chillin117 wrote: »
    I think you are mixed up.....https://www.google.ie/search?q=acorn+to+oak&newwindow=1&biw=1440&bih=754&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-55DfwP3NAhUIL8AKHfZ_BHEQsAQILg#imgrc=Ug85gjPV8smrkM%3A

    Combination of auto correct and not thinking - I edited my post subsequently!


  • #471
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,318 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    ClovenHoof wrote: »
    and how many years did Irish Rail say 'no demand', 'modern trains don't fit in the tunnel', 'everybody wants to go to Hueston'

    Looking back at the excuses now and reading this post it is comical and tragic at the same time.

    Hard to believe that a commuter service via the PPT was first mooted in the early 90s and even by the late 90s it was still on the cards. By the early noughties every excuse under the sun was offered. It has taken approx. 25 years to do it and 13 years since a lobby brought it to the attention of an Oireachtas Committee.


  • Advertisement
  • #472
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,318 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    ClovenHoof wrote: »
    and how many years did Irish Rail say 'no demand',

    You'll love this one. An ex IE "manager" was asked about the PPT route 10 years ago at a public meeting. He told those present that running some trains to Heuston and via the PPT would be confusing for customers! Thankfully he left IE before his mate Dick.


  • #473
    ClovenHoof
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,121 ✭✭✭ClovenHoof


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    You'll love this one. An ex IE "manager" was asked about the PPT route 10 years ago at a public meeting. He told those present that running some trains to Heuston and via the PPT would be confusing for customers! Thankfully he left IE before his mate Dick.

    Meanwhile all the trains with the wrong name of the stations on their destination boards are not confusing for customers.

    It is like what someone said here last week about 'timetables are now well established.'

    The mentality is staggering. "Things can't change because they will then be changed!!!!"

    Looking back on it now, I can actually state that some of the CIE mangers I dealt with were clearly suffering from personality disorders. Some were barely lucid and could be mistaken for psychiatric outpatients.

    on 200K a year...Celtic Tiger salaries for 1950s mindsets. Shocking looking back on it now.


  • #474
    ClovenHoof
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,121 ✭✭✭ClovenHoof


    that guy in the Grand Canal Dock works video hardly makes me feel confident for the future either. I think I even recall him at a meeting in Sherrif Street smirking in the front row with some other public sector welfare case.

    To hell with them all. Wastes of space and oxygen the lot of them and that will never change until privatisation or they have closed down the entire network.


  • #475
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,318 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    ClovenHoof wrote: »
    that guy in the Grand Canal Dock works video hardly makes me feel confident for the future either. I think I even recall him at a meeting in Sherrif Street smirking in the front row with some other public sector welfare case.

    If he was there, then you may bask in the feckin irony.:D


  • #476
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    Hard to believe that a commuter service via the PPT was first mooted in the early 90s and even by the late 90s it was still on the cards. By the early noughties every excuse under the sun was offered. It has taken approx. 25 years to do it and 13 years since a lobby brought it to the attention of an Oireachtas Committee.

    Do not forget that CIE were trying to get support for the 'interconnector' at the time. If they were 'keeping on message' the there was no-alternative.

    Understandable but misguided.


  • #477
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Del.Monte wrote: »
    The same could be said for the Western Rail Corridor. :D

    Silly comparison. The WRC serves villages, the Phoenix Park Tunnel serves hundreds of thousands of people.


  • #478
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    spacetweek wrote: »
    Silly comparison. The WRC serves villages, the Phoenix Park Tunnel serves hundreds of thousands of people.

    The WRC would serve villages if the villagers would use it. The PPT will serve large towns and the townees will use it.


  • #479
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,318 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Do not forget that CIE were trying to get support for the 'interconnector' at the time. If they were 'keeping on message' the there was no-alternative.

    Understandable but misguided.

    DU came a bit later. In 1999 IE were only planning a rail crossing over the liffey between Spencer Dock and Barrow Street. (GCD Now) Trust me Sam, I'm an old hack.;) Once DU came about, all reference to the PPT route became shrouded in BS.

    But you are right in saying that DU did eventually become a reason for not opening up the PPT route, despite both being completley different options. Despite grandiose plans, the PPT should have happened years ago. Its simple, obvious and cheap and adds to the network. Even if we had DU the PPT route would still be worthwhile.


  • #480
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    DU came a bit later. In 1999 IE were only planning a rail crossing over the liffey between Spencer Dock and Barrow Street. (GCD Now) Trust me Sam, I'm an old hack.;) Once DU came about, all reference to the PPT route became shrouded in BS.

    But you are right in saying that DU did eventually become a reason for not opening up the PPT route, despite both being completley different options. Despite grandiose plans, the PPT should have happened years ago. Its simple, obvious and cheap and adds to the network. Even if we had DU the PPT route would still be worthwhile.

    Not so.

    DU was a new name for the old Interconnector. It was this plan that got CIE/IR rubbishing the PPT. If the PPT was allowed to be considered, it would be a yellow-pack DU, as indeed some in FG consider it to be.


  • Advertisement
  • #481
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,318 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Not so.

    DU was a new name for the old Interconnector. It was this plan that got CIE/IR rubbishing the PPT. If the PPT was allowed to be considered, it would be a yellow-pack DU, as indeed some in FG consider it to be.

    You are obviously young and misinformed. That link means nothing. I know more about this than you will ever realise. I'll step back for now.


Advertisement