Socialist Party Transport Proposals for North Dublin

Corsendonk · 26-08-2010 1:32am #1

I came across these little gems on the Socialist Party website. Cllr Clare Daly proposals for the rail system in North Dublin. What do you think?

The rail network should be the key to efficient transport in the north county with every major urban area on the rail line with the exception of Swords and Kinsealy. However the reality is that many people can’t use the service because of massive overcrowding, which means they can’t get a seat. Also, people can’t get to the station because there is no regular reliable bus link, or a chronic shortage of parking, which makes the service unusable. There has been no serious examination or radical development of the rail network since the 1890s. With a serious approach and investment the service could be dramatically altered to transform the situation in a relatively short period of time, even within the existing network.

• It is the size of the platforms that restricts capacity, despite relatively recent expansions the platforms can only accommodate 8 carriages. This is insufficient for the size of the population. We demand the immediate doubling of capacity. With serious investment and decisive action this could be done within 6 months. In 1979, it took four weeks to build a temporary station at Ashtown to accommodate 16 carriage trains for the Pope’s visit. This could be done at every station, linked to increasing the number of carriages to 16 at peak hours.

• End the system of same start and end point journeys. Have some trains starting at Balbriggan, or Skerries, or Rush/Lusk, and so on, to ensure that commuters from those locations get a seat.

• Suburban trains have restricted access to the network because of the priority awarded to express mainline trains on the two-line system. Develop a third line at three or four locations on the northside and southside, where there is land available to enable suburban trains to keep moving while an express train passes by.

• Every town in the north county should have a regular feeder bus from the main housing areas to the train station at peak hours, combined with an extension of car-parking facilities. Where there are physical limits to available parking at train stations, or in areas like Swords, where there is currently no rail link, a PARK & RIDE area should be provided linked by a regular feeder bus to the nearest station.

• The development of a rail link from Swords to Malahide along the estuary as the shortest and most expedient method of connecting Swords, and ultimately the METRO to the main rail line. This link could be developed in advance of METRO and linked to a PARK & RIDE station at the Estuary industrial estate.

snappieT · 26-08-2010 1:45am

Forget 16 carriage DARTs, just have the frequency be more than once every half hour. Loopline congestion my arse.

oharach · 26-08-2010 9:24am

• It is the size of the platforms that restricts capacity, despite relatively recent expansions the platforms can only accommodate 8 carriages. This is insufficient for the size of the population. We demand the immediate doubling of capacity. With serious investment and decisive action this could be done within 6 months. In 1979, it took four weeks to build a temporary station at Ashtown to accommodate 16 carriage trains for the Pope’s visit. This could be done at every station, linked to increasing the number of carriages to 16 at peak hours.

Haha, if you extend some of the platforms any more, the stations will physically join together (Howth Junction and Kilbarrack come to mind). There are some vague long-term plans for 12 car trains though, although I don't recall where I read that. 16 will never be necessary, we don't live in a Japanese megalopolis

• End the system of same start and end point journeys. Have some trains starting at Balbriggan, or Skerries, or Rush/Lusk, and so on, to ensure that commuters from those locations get a seat.

- Short-distance rail isn't economical if everyone is guaranteed a seat.
- You really need a third platform to start trains at a station so that they don't block the mainline while they are turned around. No one wants another Malahide.
- If you start one train at each station, places like Laytown would be left with only one train in the morning and evening peak, a huge drop in choice.

• Suburban trains have restricted access to the network because of the priority awarded to express mainline trains on the two-line system. Develop a third line at three or four locations on the northside and southside, where there is land available to enable suburban trains to keep moving while an express train passes by.

Agree, but there is generally little space. You might be able to triple Baldoyle to short of Malahide, but after that you have to start demolishing houses, and I'm sure the Socialists are opposed to this. Looking at Google Maps though, the density is very low on the northside, and there is a lot of green space. Does anyone have concrete ideas on an acceptable section of the route to triple that would minimise demolition? Feel free to break off into separate thread.

• Every town in the north county should have a regular feeder bus from the main housing areas to the train station at peak hours, combined with an extension of car-parking facilities. Where there are physical limits to available parking at train stations, or in areas like Swords, where there is currently no rail link, a PARK & RIDE area should be provided linked by a regular feeder bus to the nearest station.

No argument here. Feeder bus should be free, or available as a 50c/1euro add-on to the rail ticket.

• The development of a rail link from Swords to Malahide along the estuary as the shortest and most expedient method of connecting Swords, and ultimately the METRO to the main rail line. This link could be developed in advance of METRO and linked to a PARK & RIDE station at the Estuary industrial estate.

By the time it was planned, the Metro will be built. Better to extend the Metro in due course to Donabate.

dowlingm · 26-08-2010 9:46pm

Quickest way to increase Northern Line capacity would be eliminate Howth-Connolly, at least at peak times. Not only would the actual Howth slots come available for additional Malahides but you might be able to fit in a few extras because the trains passing across the line to the branch won't be causing conflicts.

sdanseo · 26-08-2010 11:26pm

oharach wrote: »

No argument here. Feeder bus should be free, or available as a 50c/1euro add-on to the rail ticket.

Annoyingly, in Malahide a licence for a private shuttle between Seabury, Yellow Walls and Malahide Village - and I think it was to run out the other side to Seapark etc too - was recently refused on the grounds that it competes with the 102 - which runs only every 30 mins and is hard to predict time-wise because it neither starts nor ends at either Seabury or Malahide. Would have been a great choice and wouldn't exactly put BAC out of business as it covers such a short distance.

Agh, transport law in this country. Makes me want to hurl in its nonsensicalness.

It's fairly clear that the Northern line needs Kildare line treatment. Land is a problem, but only in a few places. The route from Malahide outwards is virtually clear for development except through the towns, and even from Malahide to Howth Jct there's space either side of the track though it's elevated so clearly a huge amount more engineering involved. The huge population on the route justified same 20 years ago. Amazing that they'll do 16 carriage trains for the pope and his gaggle of paedophiles and cover-up artists, but not for Joe Soap.

Corsendonk · 27-08-2010 12:11am

Anyone know if there was a train station at Loughshinny/Ballykea, I read mention of it in a history article from the early 1900s.

oharach · 27-08-2010 10:50am

sdonn wrote: »

Annoyingly, in Malahide a licence for a private shuttle between Seabury, Yellow Walls and Malahide Village - and I think it was to run out the other side to Seapark etc too - was recently refused on the grounds that it competes with the 102 - which runs only every 30 mins and is hard to predict time-wise because it neither starts nor ends at either Seabury or Malahide. Would have been a great choice and wouldn't exactly put BAC out of business as it covers such a short distance.

Bus licensing is a mess in this country, but hopefully Network Direct, and some intermediate departure times will increase patronage on the 102 in the medium term.

sdonn wrote: »

It's fairly clear that the Northern line needs Kildare line treatment. Land is a problem, but only in a few places. The route from Malahide outwards is virtually clear for development except through the towns, and even from Malahide to Howth Jct there's space either side of the track though it's elevated so clearly a huge amount more engineering involved. The huge population on the route justified same 20 years ago.

Beyond Malahide I really don't think there's much need for quad-tracking. The priority has to be from Malahide inwards.

Howth Road (just short of Clontarf Rd) outwards to Brookwood Avenue should be possible with the loss of about 30 houses and a few other buildings. Widening takes place on the north side of the tracks, taking land from the school and golf course. After Collins Ave East, widening takes place on the south of the tracks, and some houses are lost. Killester station is entirely remodelled. Widening ends short of Brookwood Ave. Total length of 3/4 track: approx 2km.

For the sake of another ca. 1km, extend further south from Howth Rd, losing all of the houses on the north of Hollybrook Grove, through a remodelled Clontarf Road station, over the canal, losing part of West Rd, and merging into the interconnector line where it diverges. Loss: maybe 40-50 houses

North of Beeckwood Avenue to Howth Junction it's much more difficult, with very little green space, and terraced/semi detached houses backing onto the railway on both sides.

Clongriffen - short of Malahide is pretty easy, apart from limited demolition around Portmarnock station. You could get another 5km out of that.

Thoughts?

Stonewolf · 27-08-2010 11:20am

oharach wrote: »

Bus licensing is a mess in this country, but hopefully Network Direct, and some intermediate departure times will increase patronage on the 102 in the medium term.

Beyond Malahide I really don't think there's much need for quad-tracking. The priority has to be from Malahide inwards.

Howth Road (just short of Clontarf Rd) outwards to Brookwood Avenue should be possible with the loss of about 30 houses and a few other buildings. Widening takes place on the north side of the tracks, taking land from the school and golf course. After Collins Ave East, widening takes place on the south of the tracks, and some houses are lost. Killester station is entirely remodelled. Widening ends short of Brookwood Ave. Total length of 3/4 track: approx 2km.

For the sake of another ca. 1km, extend further south from Howth Rd, losing all of the houses on the north of Hollybrook Grove, through a remodelled Clontarf Road station, over the canal, losing part of West Rd, and merging into the interconnector line where it diverges. Loss: maybe 40-50 houses

North of Beeckwood Avenue to Howth Junction it's much more difficult, with very little green space, and terraced/semi detached houses backing onto the railway on both sides.

Clongriffen - short of Malahide is pretty easy, apart from limited demolition around Portmarnock station. You could get another 5km out of that.

Thoughts?

You'd also want to do something about the Howth branch linking in with the mainline.

sdanseo · 27-08-2010 11:04pm

oharach wrote: »

Bus licensing is a mess in this country, but hopefully Network Direct, and some intermediate departure times will increase patronage on the 102 in the medium term.

Beyond Malahide I really don't think there's much need for quad-tracking. The priority has to be from Malahide inwards.

Howth Road (just short of Clontarf Rd) outwards to Brookwood Avenue should be possible with the loss of about 30 houses and a few other buildings. Widening takes place on the north side of the tracks, taking land from the school and golf course. After Collins Ave East, widening takes place on the south of the tracks, and some houses are lost. Killester station is entirely remodelled. Widening ends short of Brookwood Ave. Total length of 3/4 track: approx 2km.

For the sake of another ca. 1km, extend further south from Howth Rd, losing all of the houses on the north of Hollybrook Grove, through a remodelled Clontarf Road station, over the canal, losing part of West Rd, and merging into the interconnector line where it diverges. Loss: maybe 40-50 houses

North of Beeckwood Avenue to Howth Junction it's much more difficult, with very little green space, and terraced/semi detached houses backing onto the railway on both sides.

Clongriffen - short of Malahide is pretty easy, apart from limited demolition around Portmarnock station. You could get another 5km out of that.

Thoughts?

Measuring with google earth, the slope of the embankment seems to be slight enough to take 10m lateral space each side of the line - that's enough in itself for two extra rails. A little steep excavation, with steel-reinforced vertical retaining walls, should hold the earth back and allow for development without the need to CPO so much property.

That's thinking logically and literally - unfortunately something to which neither the government nor CIÉ are accustomed. In any event, I can't see demolishing 50-200 houses getting a green light, it'd be the Irish equivalent of the displacement of a million in China for the three gorges dam.

The other option is of course to tunnel - from Clongriffin to Clontarf Golf course is well under 5km if you bore directly from A to B.

Stonewolf · 28-08-2010 12:16am

Sure nobody would take it seriously if it didn't CPO a whole bunch of land, who'd get to claim the compo?

Corsendonk · 28-08-2010 12:29am

Your thinking too logical lads! Where are the protest groups against all this! Double the cost with delays, compo and impact studies.

BrianD · 28-08-2010 2:28am

End the system of same start and end point journeys. Have some trains starting at Balbriggan, or Skerries, or Rush/Lusk, and so on, to ensure that commuters from those locations get a seat.

Love they way that the perpetuate the Irish myth that there should be a seat for everyone on a commuter train so you can sit back and read your broadsheet. Wake up it's a commuter train, some sit most stand.

sdanseo · 28-08-2010 3:32am

BrianD wrote: »

Love they way that the perpetuate the Irish myth that there should be a seat for everyone on a commuter train so you can sit back and read your broadsheet. Wake up it's a commuter train, some sit most stand.

Well they're right, there should be a seat for everyone.

Unfortunately, they live in la-la land and we in the real world :P

sdanseo · 28-08-2010 3:36am

oharach wrote: »

Bus licensing is a mess in this country, but hopefully Network Direct, and some intermediate departure times will increase patronage on the 102 in the medium term.
Thoughts?

Just picking up on this, missed it earlier - I really would like to hope Network Direct will be as good as it's made out to be.

Ultimately though, Dempsey and BAC are in charge of it, and thus it must inevitably be doomed to fail. The current establishment have proven they are inept, unintelligent and completely, utterly, totally and shambollically incapable of running and improving the transport system in this country.

oharach · 28-08-2010 8:18pm

sdonn wrote: »

That's thinking logically and literally - unfortunately something to which neither the government nor CIÉ are accustomed.

Well I've been in Germany for a few months, so I have that luxury!

sdonn wrote: »

In any event, I can't see demolishing 50-200 houses getting a green light, it'd be the Irish equivalent of the displacement of a million in China for the three gorges dam.

This is sadly very true. However, we shouldn't forget that these are all pretty much detached or semi-detached properties. This equals low density, which doesn't belong so close to the city centre, and a relatively low number of people inconvenienced in reality.

SimCity 4 is instructive in this regard. If I had a busy rail route going into my city, and only low density housing along side, I wouldn't hesitate to knock it down for the good of my other sims. And I would build the displaced sims a nice new high density city quarter. Sometimes life is as simple as a computer game.

sdonn wrote: »

The other option is of course to tunnel - from Clongriffin to Clontarf Golf course is well under 5km if you bore directly from A to B.

This is a great idea. If we can just sell it as a plan to take trucks trains off the streets tracks of North Dublin, I think we might have a winner.

Cool Mo D · 29-08-2010 12:38pm

sdonn wrote: »

The other option is of course to tunnel - from Clongriffin to Clontarf Golf course is well under 5km if you bore directly from A to B.

It could be a good idea. I would have thought that 5km would be too long an underground distance for diesel trains, as it would be Enterprise and Commuter using this, but the Severn tunnel between England and Wales is 7km long, and not electrified.

Since the distance is about the same as the port tunnel, and the tunnel would be smaller, it could be built cheaper, maybe €500/600 million? Surely that would be cheaper and easier than CPOing houses, rebuilding stations, and widening the alignment.

oharach · 29-08-2010 4:48pm

Cool Mo D wrote: »

It could be a good idea. I would have thought that 5km would be too long an underground distance for diesel trains, as it would be Enterprise and Commuter using this, but the Severn tunnel between England and Wales is 7km long, and not electrified.

Since the distance is about the same as the port tunnel, and the tunnel would be smaller, it could be built cheaper, maybe €500/600 million? Surely that would be cheaper and easier than CPOing houses, rebuilding stations, and widening the alignment.

I would tend to agree with the idea that the tunnel could be cheaper, although obviously a railway tunnel is more expensive to fit out than a road tunnel. A lot of the work they did for the Port Tunnel as regards rock type etc. should be applicable though, so hopefully they could save money there.

As regards a route, it would probably be unwise to follow the existing route, since all sorts of restrictions would be imposed for tunnelling under a live railway. It might be wise to take a more inland (and direct) route, using some of the parks in the area for ventilation shafts, to avoid CPOing property.

sdanseo · 29-08-2010 4:57pm

oharach wrote: »

SimCity 4 is instructive in this regard. If I had a busy rail route going into my city, and only low density housing along side, I wouldn't hesitate to knock it down for the good of my other sims. And I would build the displaced sims a nice new high density city quarter. Sometimes life is as simple as a computer game.

Funny, I thought of exactly the same thing! I'm not the only SC4 fan around so!

Cool Mo D wrote: »

It could be a good idea. I would have thought that 5km would be too long an underground distance for diesel trains, as it would be Enterprise and Commuter using this, but the Severn tunnel between England and Wales is 7km long, and not electrified.

Since the distance is about the same as the port tunnel, and the tunnel would be smaller, it could be built cheaper, maybe €500/600 million? Surely that would be cheaper and easier than CPOing houses, rebuilding stations, and widening the alignment.

It's about the same distance (4.6km) to go directly from Clontarf Golf course to the first decent place for a portal at Clongriffin. If you could get the line to route a bit further up towards Raheny then that's less distance again.

oharach wrote: »

I would tend to agree with the idea that the tunnel could be cheaper, although obviously a railway tunnel is more expensive to fit out than a road tunnel. A lot of the work they did for the Port Tunnel as regards rock type etc. should be applicable though, so hopefully they could save money there.

As regards a route, it would probably be unwise to follow the existing route, since all sorts of restrictions would be imposed for tunnelling under a live railway. It might be wise to take a more inland (and direct) route, using some of the parks in the area for ventilation shafts, to avoid CPOing property.

Precisely - the DPT can take hundreds of vehicles at a time all exhausting diesel and petrol fumes so no reason why the same can't be done with rail.

I'm still of the opinion that strengthening the retaining walls and removing the sloped embankment along much of both sides of the existing northern line could enable double tracking on most of it. Kilbarrack and a few other spots would be tricky with narrow bridges and houses on either side but it could be done.

I'm not an engineer, but it just seems like there's enough space for 3 rails if not 4.

I'm tempted to make a new thread for this, there's enough discussion on the issue floating about.

spacetweek · 30-08-2010 4:32pm

sdonn wrote: »

Amazing that they'll do 16 carriage trains for the pope and his gaggle of paedophiles and cover-up artists, but not for Joe Soap.

I love it! Classic!

It's hard to cost an online widening, as we don't have in Ireland a good example of shedloads of gafs being demolished to make way for infrastructure. I'm sure there'd be loads of opposition what with Irish people's unusually strong ideas about their entitlement to their piece of turf.

dowlingm · 31-08-2010 7:31pm

1. SC4 doesn't have a Donnybrook or Portmarnock option where you can fill the LD housing with lawyers and journalists, no? (My SC is older

)

2. They didn't have the RSC when the Pope came.

3. I don't think they'd need 16 car trains if Benny 16 came now.

Transportuser09 · 31-08-2010 11:13pm

However the reality is that many people can’t use the service because of massive overcrowding, which means they can’t get a seat.

Fact of life I'm afraid. The likes of New York, Paris and London have far better urban transport systems than we do yet standing still occurs and is accepted.

Also, people can’t get to the station because there is no regular reliable bus link, or a chronic shortage of parking, which makes the service unusable.

Fair enough there should be adequate bus links feeding urban developments to rail stations.

It is the size of the platforms that restricts capacity, despite relatively recent expansions the platforms can only accommodate 8 carriages. This is insufficient for the size of the population. We demand the immediate doubling of capacity. With serious investment and decisive action this could be done within 6 months.

Even if you could lenghten the platforms in 6 months, where do they expext to get the extra rolling stock from in such a short space of time. I would have thought the limitations to the track and signalling system are more of a problem here than platform lenghts.

In 1979, it took four weeks to build a temporary station at Ashtown to accommodate 16 carriage trains for the Pope’s visit. This could be done at every station, linked to increasing the number of carriages to 16 at peak hours.

That was 1979, the H&S authorities of the 21st century would have a fit if that happened today. I also understand that much of this 'extra capacity' came at the expense of most regular services.

End the system of same start and end point journeys. Have some trains starting at Balbriggan, or Skerries, or Rush/Lusk, and so on, to ensure that commuters from those locations get a seat.

They seem to be unaware of things like track capacity constraints as I'm sure frequent services starting from intermediate stations would mean less capacity for through trains from Drogheda.

Suburban trains have restricted access to the network because of the priority awarded to express mainline trains on the two-line system.

One could equally turn that argument the other way around, with Enterprises crawling behind Darts, this is even more evident on the southside.

Develop a third line at three or four locations on the northside and southside, where there is land available to enable suburban trains to keep moving while an express train passes by.

In an ideal world yes but there is little land available in the critical area behind Malahide and the city centre.

Every town in the north county should have a regular feeder bus from the main housing areas to the train station at peak hours, combined with an extension of car-parking facilities. Where there are physical limits to available parking at train stations, or in areas like Swords, where there is currently no rail link, a PARK & RIDE area should be provided linked by a regular feeder bus to the nearest station.

One the more realistic proposals in this statement.

The development of a rail link from Swords to Malahide along the estuary as the shortest and most expedient method of connecting Swords, and ultimately the METRO to the main rail line. This link could be developed in advance of METRO and linked to a PARK & RIDE station at the Estuary industrial estate.

I very much doubt it would be developed before the Metro, and once the Metro is operational the purpose of such a route could just as easily be catered for by a bus service. It also assumes the mainline has the capacity to handle this extra traffic.

All in all this statement seems very poorly thought out and it seems unlikely it's proposers have much knowledge of how the modern transport system actually works. There's a lot of 'sure we could just add another track here and there' as if it were a hornby train set or something.

sdanseo · 01-09-2010 12:08am

Transportuser09 wrote: »

In an ideal world yes but there is little land available in the critical area behind Malahide and the city centre.

Reading through this thread though, we've suggested several alternatives.

Transportuser09 wrote: »

I very much doubt it would be developed before the Metro, and once the Metro is operational the purpose of such a route could just as easily be catered for by a bus service. It also assumes the mainline has the capacity to handle this extra traffic.

If I see any more buses on the R106 I'll be buying an RPG. Hate the sight of the things. On a serious note though, the airport has been served by too many buses. It needs a rail link and I personally think it should be heavy rail - those in power don't agree. Both metro and DART would be serious overkill, however, and Metro has been chosen.

Either way, Metro is needed NOW for the entire route's benefit, not just the airport.

Transportuser09 wrote: »

All in all this statement seems very poorly thought out and it seems unlikely it's proposers have much knowledge of how the modern transport system actually works. There's a lot of 'sure we could just add another track here and there' as if it were a hornby train set or something.

Granted, but it raises some very pertinent issues. To quote choice words above, sometimes life is as simple as a computer game - or as simple as a socialist manifesto :P

senordingdong · 13-10-2010 2:52pm

oharach wrote: »

Agree, but there is generally little space. You might be able to triple Baldoyle to short of Malahide, but after that you have to start demolishing houses, and I'm sure the Socialists are opposed to this. Looking at Google Maps though, the density is very low on the northside, and there is a lot of green space. Does anyone have concrete ideas on an acceptable section of the route to triple that would minimise demolition? Feel free to break off into separate thread.

Underground perhaps?

oharach · 13-10-2010 2:56pm

senordingdong wrote: »

Underground perhaps?

Thanks for the reply. What do you think of the proposals we made in posts 7, 9, 16-18

senordingdong · 13-10-2010 3:20pm

oharach wrote: »

Thanks for the reply. What do you think of the proposals we made in posts 7, 9, 16-18

I think that it be best to put any such line underground.

I couldn't fathom the immense difficulty and cost of CPOing so much land, especially land with people homes on it.
And that's if it's not met with huge resistance, which I believe it would be.

Stonewolf · 14-10-2010 12:43am

The problem is not the objections but the complete and utter lack of political will to tell people where to shove them.

Socialist Party Transport Proposals for North Dublin

Comments