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

Dart + (Coolmine LC closure issues)

Sam Russell

IE 222 wrote: »

It's more like rail complaining about traffic.

Most of the arguments, on here anyway, is for the railway not the road.

The residents association group and Leo have both clearly stated they want the crossing to remain open and with reduced closures.

It's clear that the best solution for everyone is a closed crossing with only a footbridge. It's up to the locals to accept that and push for it.

The train always takes precedence at a LC. If there is a train every 5 mins, and the gate closes for 3 mins before the train clears the LC then it will be closed more than 50% of the time - that is the way it is. The train must be able to stop before the LC under all circumstances.

What do the locals want?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117973714#Comment_117973714

Leave the gates down from 7 to 9 am and from 430 to 630 pm. They are the only times the trains will be running at anything like the frequency IE are talking about. At least then people will know they're closed and can plan accordingly.

The other 20 hours of the day, it operates as a standard level crossing.

IE improves the signalling so that the gates aren't down for ten minutes at a time.

Done.

There is absolutely no need to remove it completely. The only people who benefit from closing it permanently are IE. Not rail users, not residents, and certainly not the tax payer.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117972207#Comment_117972207

What is more, as a frequent user of the Coolmine crossing, there are a significant number of drivers who already ignore the red lights. If the number of times the gates are closed goes up, the potential for serious accidents will exponentially increase as drivers will be queueing for several closures.

I supported the option of a separate railway bridge at the alternative place which was rejected by most of the community, but there is no option except closing the gates.

LXFlyer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117972174#Comment_117972174

The length of time barriers stay down is directly linked to the signalling, and the length of the signal sections on the raiilway. The signal sections on the Maynooth line are longer than those on the existing DART line.

While the Maynooth line is to be resignalled as part of the DART+ project, at the same time the frequency of service is planned to be higher than the every 10 minutes on the southern section of the existing DART line which would render the gates pretty much closed semi-permanently at peak times.

You cannot operate a railway at the planned frequency levels and retain the level crossings. They are incompatible.

Seve OB

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117971246#Comment_117971246

As someone who grew up with the dart being built through my back garden I am well aware of the gate closures on each line. If you are familiar at all with coolmine I think you will understand braids point, as you could wait for 4 or 5 trains to pass through for up to 15 minutes quite easily. There could be 6 to 7 minutes between trains. It’s a joke. That doesn’t happen along the dart line.

LXFlyer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117971147#Comment_117971147

The level crossings on the railway south of Pearse are at absolute capacity as it is. You cannot operate a higher frequency along that section of railway line for that reason. They are planned to be closed as part of the DART+ Coastal phase of the project. The DART+ West plans a much higher frequency than that on the railway south of Pearse.

I will repeat myself. A high frequency railway line such as is planned under DART+ for the Maynooth line and level crossings are incompatible. You cannot have both.

Projects such as this are always going to be subject to cost controls - and if the cost of a particular alternative option were significantly excessive then you cannot expect any government to sanction it.

Re your comment on parking - people can take a bus (there may weill be feeder buses in time) or walk to the station? Why do they necessarily need to drive there?

I understand your frustration, but ultimately as a society we will all have to change our behaviour to a degree and stop being completely wedded to motor vehicles. We cannot continue with the status quo.

Sam Russell

`The comment about Dart LC opening seconds after the train passes has obviously never waited at a crossing.

I live near Sydney Parade and am very familiar with the crossing. The gates close for 2 mins for a southbound (Bray bound) train and 3 mins for a north bound (City).

That means for a 10 min service, as now, the gates are shut for up to 50% of the time, depending on the actual overlap of the closures.

If the schedule goes to 8 trains per hour from the current 6, the gates will be closed for 66% of the time. Of course, this does not take account of the commuter and Wexford trains, so closure could get to nearly 100%.

Merrion Gates is a major probably a critical crossing and needs to be permanently closed as it frequently gets a truck strike causing massive delays.

LC gates are very dangerous.

Braids

Hi LXFlyer,

Thank you for your reply. There are crossings on the current DART line whose Gates open within seconds of the DART passing through. At Coolmine in particular, the crossing used by most vehicles of the 3, the gates remain shut and do not open for up to 30-40 seconds at the earliest. The electrified DART crossings are not permanently closed to vehicular traffic - there is no reason to do the same at Coolmine, Porterstown or Clonsilla if this system is logically implemented.

Iaranrod Eireann's own other option - OPTION 10 - is to install a vehicular pathway UNDER Coolmine's current rail lines (over the Canal) to facilitate traffic WITHOUT disruption to trains passing over. Representatives of Iaranrod Eireann advised in their Webinar on Tuesday 28th September that Option 10 was removed due to matters relating to infrastructure - most probably costs.

Also a good point - where are the passengers from the NORTH side of Coolmine Crossing & Clonsilla Crossing going to park their cars? There are no parking lots adjacent to Kirkpatrick/Rockfield estates? The necessary infrastructural plans between Iaranrod Eireann and Fingal County Council do not exist (except for some new traffic lights on Carpenterstown Road...

LXFlyer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117970948#Comment_117970948

So what you're saying is that, effectively, you don't want the necessary investment in public transport that can deliver the high frequency service that the railway line deserves?

Retaining the level crossings is incompatible with that.

Braids

IMPORTANT REMINDER - Submissions by Residents to Iaranrod Eireann are DUE

COOLMINE TRAIN CROSSING

PORTERSTOWN TRAIN CROSSING

CLONSILLA TRAIN CROSSING

ARE DUE NO LATER THAN CLOSE OF BUSINESS THIS WEDNESDAY 6th OCTOBER 2021.

IF THIS DECISION PROCEEDS-it will severely impact All Residents - Closing off Access from Ambulance/Fire Services as well as

GARDA SIOCHANA. IT will also cause daily backups and delay to traffic attempting to exist at:-

Diswellstown Junction (FATHER TROY BRIDGE)
Laural Lodge Road (going LEFT ONTO GRANARD BRIDGE (aka Humpty Back Bridge) to Blanchardstown or RIGHT towards Castleknock
Carpenterstown Road past College Gate

HERE IS THE LINK TO FOLLOW TO MAKE YOUR SUBMISSION:-

https://www.dartplus.ie/en-ie/projects/dart-west/public-consultation-round-2/how-to-engage-contact-us

If you want continued vehicle access over the above locations - get your submission IN NOW

Thanks

Seve OB

Just looked at the plan.

a pedestrian and cyclist bridge!

no logic there at all really

Seve OB

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117842410#Comment_117842410

As it happens I Saw a dead badger today by Castleknock college. Not seen a badger in years. Used to have them living in our garden in Shankill when I was growing up, which happened to have the Dart line running right through it.

and as for bridges. Are they building some at kellystown? I don’t believe they plan to but maybe I’m mistaken?

imo they should, it’s a green field site and won’t offend anyone.

daft if they don’t

LXFlyer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117842410#Comment_117842410

The whole point of the re-signalling of the line, along with electricification and level crossing elimination is to allow the maximum number of trains along the route.

Maynooth line trains will under the plan mainly continue to a new Docklands station at Spencer Dock which will avoid the bottleneck at Connolly that you refer to. But having said that the entire line is going to be resignalled and Connolly may see some remodelling which will improve the throughput of trains.

The crossings have to go as they are very much a limiting factor on the ability to deliver a high frequency rail service on the line.

djan

I really hope that the closure of Coolmine will be overturned unless there is a bridge built there instead or in the near estate entrance. The alternative of using the big bridge or humpback bridge at Castleknock station will lead to huge traffic issues. The campaigns that were (and still are) about saving the badgers and the like are IMO ridiculous. Plenty of space for a bridge to be built that would solve traffic and train slow-down issues while utilising the unused banked grass areas coming into the estate.

I wonder if the aim to reduce train crossings will have any impact on service times of trains as there seems to be a bottleneck coming up to Drumcondra and then Conolly. I then wonder what the point is of limiting road throughput such as this case.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117255258#Comment_117255258

I look forward to the protests in a few years calling for the bridge to be built.

riddlinrussell

Carawaystick wrote: »

There isn't the airdraught over the canal to have an underpass under the railway

The presumption would be that the underpass would have to go below the canal as well, thus the significant expense.

Carawaystick

riddlinrussell wrote: »

I cant say I'm surprised this is the outcome, I am disappointed that there isn't the ambition to do a Dutch style underpass for pedestrians and cyclists, but with the canal as well I can see how it would be an expensive job. Bridge isn't as good for reducing severance though.

There isn't the airdraught over the canal to have an underpass under the railway

Dats me

riddlinrussell wrote: »

No but if some other aspect of the project ends up costing more than anticipated this bridge not being built would help with staying in budget surely?

It will probably help with the business case by both reducing the cost and slightly increasing benefits by making car travel a tiny bit more unattractive

riddlinrussell

Victor wrote: »

Note that while it still needs to convince funders to fund projects, Irish Rail do not directly benefit from budget savings.

No but if some other aspect of the project ends up costing more than anticipated this bridge not being built would help with staying in budget surely?

Victor

Former Former Former wrote: »

It was local opposition but IE will gladly take the budget savings.

Note that while it still needs to convince funders to fund projects, Irish Rail do not directly benefit from budget savings.

Former Former Former

magicbastarder wrote: »

i believe the bridge planned between station court road and riverwood court has been abandoned - local opposition/budget/...?
i had thought that had always been planned, they seemed to have made the PP for the housing estates there take that into account, going back decades?

No, this was suggested here during the original consultation period but it wasn't true. It was never in the long term plans for the area.

Basically, IE said "grand, we won't build the bridge but we're still closing the crossing, ye can take the long way round..."

It was local opposition but IE will gladly take the budget savings.

magicbastarder

i believe the bridge planned between station court road and riverwood court has been abandoned - local opposition/budget/...?
i had thought that had always been planned, they seemed to have made the PP for the housing estates there take that into account, going back decades?

blanch152

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I expect a campaign for a bridge at Coolime to begin the day after the level crossing closes. "What maniac thought closing it without providing a bridge wouldn't lead to traffic chaos Joe"?

Absolutely 100%, this will happen.

BonnieSituation

Phil.x wrote: »

As will clonsilla, we will have to build bmx style ramps to cross the canal

Who could have foreseen that building right up to the railway line from Riverwood to Laurel Lodge would cause issues down the line.

I told ya

Phil.x wrote: »

As will clonsilla, we will have to build bmx style ramps to cross the canal

Westmanstown LC as well and presumably the LC at Intel.

Definitely going to be a new bridge somewhere between Westmanstown and Coolmine. If not two.

Phil.x

I told ya wrote: »

Any word on the LC at Porterstown? I assume that will close as well.

As will clonsilla, we will have to build bmx style ramps to cross the canal

I told ya

Any word on the LC at Porterstown? I assume that will close as well.

riddlinrussell

I cant say I'm surprised this is the outcome, I am disappointed that there isn't the ambition to do a Dutch style underpass for pedestrians and cyclists, but with the canal as well I can see how it would be an expensive job. Bridge isn't as good for reducing severance though.

cgcsb

Good news. Now use the money to part fund kylemore kilmainham and cabra stations

Former Former Former

Peregrine wrote: »

I'd say this saves around €15m. DART+ West will cost the best part of €1bn so I don't think this will make that much difference.

They're probably delighted anyway. It looks like they'll manage to close the level crossing without building an expensive road bridge all the while making the residents think it was their idea.

It will be interesting to see how the residents react, as this was not their preference, but they may see it as the least bad compromise.

Peregrine

I'd say this saves around €15m. DART+ West will cost the best part of €1bn so I don't think this will make that much difference.

They're probably delighted anyway. It looks like they'll manage to close the level crossing without building an expensive road bridge all the while making the residents think it was their idea.