roddney wrote: » Sign of things to come. Would imagine south side will be the same, when they look to close those gates. Look what happened with Merrion gates. They just gave up in the end. It's all necessary though and will have a long term benefit to both road users and public transport users. They just need to plough ahead with railway order and factor in time for court cases. Kildare and Drogheda might need to be progressed first, if theirs delays.
Fiddle Castro wrote: » The issue with Coolmine crossing was raised in the Dail last nighthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9uYSsDq4Kk He seems to suggest a drop lock to lower the canal, is this even possible there? The local NIMBYs are really working hard.
IE 222 wrote: » I assume they are trying to suggest running the road under the rail line and lower the canal to run over that.
roddney wrote: » They seem to be suggesting raising the canal by adding a lock gate, so road can go under it. Given canals are only used for recreation these days it could make sense, depending on distance to next gate. You can only go up gates though, not up and down as water actually flows in one direction though. Question would be cost benefit then.
IE 222 wrote: » I don't know much about canals but that sounds like a massive undertaking. If I'm reading it correctly that would require a number of locks to lift the canal before the bridge on both sides or removing the previous drop lock(s) and raising the banks to achive the required height (not sure if that would even work) as it flowing towards Dublin. The canal there is a good 20-30ft below the road. The previous lock is Lexlip. That still doesn't resolve getting over the railway. IE priced a drop lock at Newcome Jct at €10million. I'd imagine raising the canal would be a colossal cost coming to multiples of that.
Fiddle Castro wrote: » Leo has now called for the crossing @ Coolmine to remain open also....
Zebra3 wrote: » Give them what they want.
roddney wrote: » Just had a look. Yeh Leixlip is a long long way away so it’s not feasible which is why Engineers haven’t looked at it. It’s not possible to go up and back down as a canal flows towards the sea like a river but very slowly. Unfortunately an Engineer will probably need to write a detailed report to appease the local complaints
IE 222 wrote: » Unfortunately its probably only a handful of nimby's issuing misinformation that has kick started this reaction with locals. What they fail to tell those that they are preaching too is exactly what will happen if these plans don't go ahead. It's very easy to gain support when telling someone little Johnny's playing field will be taking away. I really hope IE stick to their guns with this and don't start agreeing to leaving the crossing open for x amount min per hour or constructing a footbridge for the inconvenience caused by the locals objecting.
IE 222 wrote: » Unfortunately its probably only a handful of nimby's issuing misinformation that has kick started this reaction with locals. What they fail to tell those that they are preaching too is exactly what will happen if these plans don't go ahead. It's very easy to gain support when telling someone little Johnny's playing field will be taking away. I really hope IE stick to their guns with this and don't start agreeing to leaving the crossing open for x amount min per hour or constructing a footbridge for the inconvenience caused by the locals objecting. I think IE/NTA and especially the local TDs should explain exactly what the outcome of objecting to this is going to involve. It should be easy to prepare a simulation showing the number and length of time the crossing will be closed along with effect on traffic flows. If still adamant that it remains open so be it and use the money to extend to Kilcock, I'm sure they would only be grateful for the funds. As shown in the study during a period in 2019 during 8-9am the crossing was closed 9 times for a total of 41mins. Two of these closures was for over 7mins. Increasing the number of trains to 15 is easily going to leave the crossing closed for 45mins+. This seems to be the worst crossing for closure times on the line.
D15er wrote: » I'm a local resident, we all know exactly what leaving the crossing open would mean in terms of closures and traffic. And to be honest, that's an acceptable trade-off for me.
D15er wrote: » You've said that this is the worst crossing for closure times on the line. Maybe IE could figure out why that is and fix that?
D15er wrote: » You've said that this is the worst crossing for closure times on the line. Maybe IE could figure out why that is and fix that? I know I've often been stuck there for ages with no train in sight. A better signaling system maybe, I don't know.
LXFlyer wrote: » Right now, the lengthy closure times is down to a combination of longer signalling sections, which will be shorter as a result of this project, but also the fact that it is adjacent to a station, so the gates have to be shut before a westbound train enters the signalling section containing the station, lest the train not stop in time. The bottom line, is however, that the planned peak frequency is so great that the gates will be closed constantly at peak times.
D15er wrote: » I was responding to the suggestion that Coolmine is the worst crossing on the line. I don't know if that's accurate, but Ashtown and Clonsilla crossings are likewise adjacent to stations and don't seem to be as bad? When the line is electrified, the need for lengthy closures should reduce. Half the problem is the time needed for the diesel trains to slow down, stop and take off again. That would obviously be more than cancelled out by the increased frequency. So how about just close the gates at rush hour? You'd still need pedestrian and bike access I guess. I just think IE have been incredibly lazy here. This EXACT proposal was floated five years ago and the residents went nuts. They didn't change a single thing in the "new" proposal. What did they think was going to happen this time?
LXFlyer wrote: » I am not getting into the bridge -v- LC debate. I am only explaining what dictates the length of gate closure. There are two aspects as I said. The station is only one. The length of closure is also dependent upon the length of the signalling section (i.e. where the previous signal is) which in Coolmine's case is presumably further than the other ones at present.
D15er wrote: » I just think IE have been incredibly lazy here. This EXACT proposal was floated five years ago and the residents went nuts. They didn't change a single thing in the "new" proposal. What did they think was going to happen this time?
Pete_Cavan wrote: » I think the only real options are closing the level crossing without an alternative in the vicinity or closing the level crossing with the alternative route being the proposed bridge. That needs to be put to the people there. Leaving the crossing to open a couple of times when train scheduling allows is just going to force people to use other routes anyway, such will be the limited time the gates are open. You may as well just close it permanently instead of having people drive up to it expecting to get through and having to wait for a stupid length of time to get through. Locals will know not to go that way, instead all you will have is people whos satnav brought them there.
blanch152 wrote: » Agreed. Close the crossing, one way or the other. If the local residents don't want the bridge, they can put up with the ensuing gridlock.
riddlinrussell wrote: » Is there an option to simply close the level crossing with no bridge? Will anyone end up stranded or just have to travel further? Present the two options people have as A) closed crossing and bridge replacement, or Closed Crossing because the third alternative would be C) crossing opens for 1 minute every hour (or something like that)
