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

Irish rail fleet and infrastructure plans

13567…30

Comments

  • #62
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 12,938 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    dermo888 wrote: »
    Jesus.......I knew the 22K's were good, but not THAT good!

    They're better than THAT good. One of the issues with the Enterprise is the times used up on it's various stops en route. Allow a reasonable 4 minutes per stop for a train to brake, stop, depart and accelerate up to running speeds and that give 16 minutes. 22000's move off a lot quicker, they accelerate well and they brake more rapidly as well.

    Certainly the fleet management office are very happy with them overall and they are the envy of other European operators.


  • #63
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Were is the purposed platform 8 for Connolly to be located, the carriage sheds?

    Is there any scope to create more through platforms onto the loop. Can work be done to alter platform 4 as a through platform. Understandably it would be costly and require serious work but surely the benefits outweighs the costs as were unlikely to see DU anytime soon.

    Have new developments along the loop line been required to leave enough clearance for possible quad tracking. The section between Amiens Street and Gardenier St would require some site clearance work but between Pearse and Gardenier St. it seems enough clearance has been allocated for it.


  • #64
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Has anyone ever costed going double decker with the loop line? (only slightly tongue in cheek)

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • #65
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,520 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    There is no way P4 could be made through. Think some of the buildings that are too close to P7 to allow another through platform are listed also.

    There definitely isn't the space to quad track it


  • #66
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    L1011 wrote: »
    There is no way P4 could be made through. Think some of the buildings that are too close to P7 to allow another through platform are listed also.

    There definitely isn't the space to quad track it

    Obviously major alterations would be needed but I don't mean making p4 a through platform in it's current format. My thinking would be to remove the Northern end of P4 and demolish P5 and build above the small car park accessed under the bridge on Amiens st. Widen Amiens street bridge also. P4 should still be long enough for 4-5 car train.

    In terms of the far side of P7 I think if they moved a platform slightly north, beyond the office block and were able demolish the last house and the rare of the red brick building on Preston street they could build another platform overhanging the arches.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users Posts: 10,663 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    Only way I see P8 is they knock down the shed next to P1 and straighten up P1,2,3 and add another.


  • #68
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,708 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    Jamie2k9 wrote: »
    Only way I see P8 is they knock down the shed next to P1 and straighten up P1,2,3 and add another.

    I assume it's an extra through platform they want though, or at least a terminus on the western side of the station. An extra platform in the shed would just lead to more conflicting movements, besides those platforms are not that heavily used (how often is P1 occupied?)


  • #69
    Del.Monte
    Registered Users Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭Del.Monte


    I've often wondered if there was any case to be made, or reasons against, the alteration of the line from Newcomen Junction to Connolly to a burrowing tunnel to end beneath the mainline station rather than its present climb up to the suburban platforms? I'm probably missing something very obvious but it would seem to be a practical proposition.

    Connolly.PNG

    ****



  • #70
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,520 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Vaulted structures the existing station and lines are built on. It would be possible but also hideously complex and expensive.

    However, it could still work and provide a non conflicted path. Its not something to be dismissed out of hand

    Low level / high level platforms are normal elsewhere


  • #71
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    loyatemu wrote: »
    I assume it's an extra through platform they want though, or at least a terminus on the western side of the station. An extra platform in the shed would just lead to more conflicting movements, besides those platforms are not that heavily used (how often is P1 occupied?)

    Agree, I can't see the need for another terminal platform. Even with an hourly Longford/Sligo and Belfast service there will be enough with the 4 platforms. Platform 1 isn't used as far as I know unless its needed since they started terminating Maynooth services at Connolly.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    thomasj
    Registered Users Posts: 4,785 ✭✭✭thomasj


    IE 222 wrote:
    Agree, I can't see the need for another terminal platform. Even with an hourly Longford/Sligo and Belfast service there will be enough with the 4 platforms. Platform 1 isn't used as far as I know unless its needed since they started terminating Maynooth services at Connolly.

    It was originally used for a while but after a bit of reaction over it , most if not all Connolly maynooth services now go from platform 7


  • #73
    uxiant
    Registered Users Posts: 282 ✭✭uxiant


    Building a fourth through platform or tunnelling under the station to create a terminus for the northwest line is likely to be highly complex and not really practical as mentioned before.

    The real solution to the bottleneck is diverting all Maynooth trains to Docklands and running them underground to Heuston via Pearse - removing all the Maynooth and Phoenix Park tunnel trains from Connolly. That will take a lot of pressure off Connolly nevermind the many other benefits.

    Obviously will cost a fortune but it's the sort of investment that needs to happen.


  • #74
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,520 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    uxiant wrote: »

    The real solution to the bottleneck is diverting all Maynooth trains to Docklands and running them underground to Heuston via Pearse - removing all the Maynooth and Phoenix Park tunnel trains from Connolly. That will take a lot of pressure off Connolly nevermind the many other benefits.

    Obviously will cost a fortune but it's the sort of investment that needs to happen.

    That's the exact opposite of how the issue is intended to be sorted - Maynooth trains will run through; Northern services will run to Kylemore via DART Undeground.


  • #75
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,719 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Del.Monte wrote: »
    I've often wondered if there was any case to be made, or reasons against, the alteration of the line from Newcomen Junction to Connolly to a burrowing tunnel to end beneath the mainline station rather than its present climb up to the suburban platforms? I'm probably missing something very obvious but it would seem to be a practical proposition.

    Connolly.PNG
    The main use for such a line would be express services leaving/bound for Connolly that do not need to stop at Drumcondra. Especially as the Drumcondra line is starting to get slow/congested in the peak, the idea merits further thought.

    I can think of a few reasons why that might not be such a good idea though.
    1. It would have to be a new branch in addition to the existing line. That is, coming from the Midland line, cross the canal bridge, new line deviates from the existing Newcommon incline. Otherwise, you would lose the ability to run a train from Pearse to the Midland line.
    2. Am underground station would require electric trains. No use to Sligo or Longford unless new regional and Intercity trains are ordered that can use elecricity (neither the 22ks nor the 29ks can use electricity in DART territory) the main users of said underground terminal would not be able to use it.
    3. The Connolly area is a collection of bridges, trying to put a sub-surface platform there would be ... fun to say the least.

    The only way I can see a Platform 8 happening is if the station expands towards and over Amiens St. CIE/Irish Rail would have to CPO some buildings in the immediate vicinity, including likely the office block at 110 Amiens St. It could be done but would be expensive, I suspect they're thinking of a terminal platform 8 on the suburban platforms and using it to avoid conflicts associated with sending Western services to the sheds.


  • #76
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,520 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    We are going to order dual mode 1500v DC/diesel so that solves point 2. The construction complexity is still the most difficult issue


  • #77
    uxiant
    Registered Users Posts: 282 ✭✭uxiant


    L1011 wrote: »
    That's the exact opposite of how the issue is intended to be sorted - Maynooth trains will run through; Northern services will run to Kylemore via DART Undeground.

    Any reason for northbound trains running through the tunnel rather than Maynooth? Or is it much of a muchness?

    Either way the DART Underground is badly needed.


  • #78
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,520 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    uxiant wrote: »
    Any reason for northbound trains running through the tunnel rather than Maynooth? Or is it much of a muchness?

    Either way the DART Underground is badly needed.

    Provides two city crossing routes with interchange at Pearse which has the capacity for it. Your idea would create a Kildare to Kildare route looping the city centre which would be odd to say the least!

    It also reduces traffic over the loop line at least in the short term, as the Drogheda - Hazelhatch service would be busier at least at the beginning; and Maynooth - Greystones quieter than the current services


  • #79
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    thomasj wrote: »
    It was originally used for a while but after a bit of reaction over it , most if not all Connolly maynooth services now go from platform 7

    I presume it's the time it takes to get across to Dart services they are complaining about. Platform 7 is fine as long it's a quick turn around.


  • #80
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,520 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Going to P1 involves crossing all other paths, twice, so its a case of blocking one or crossing all. And the DART transfer time from P1, considering you now *must* change to go further South during the daytime, is very long


  • #81
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    SeanW wrote: »

    The only way I can see a Platform 8 happening is if the station expands towards and over Amiens St. CIE/Irish Rail would have to CPO some buildings in the immediate vicinity, including likely the office block at 110 Amiens St. It could be done but would be expensive, I suspect they're thinking of a terminal platform 8 on the suburban platforms and using it to avoid conflicts associated with sending Western services to the sheds.

    If they build a new platform further north they can avoid 110 Amiens street. It's only Preston street were some CPO's would be required. The space is there further north, most of it is either CIE land or car parking. Pushing north would also allow for access onto Seville Place which will also help serve the Connolly redevelopment project. Reopening the old Dart entrance on Amiens street would be a good idea as well. It would be a very long walk if exiting a train at Seville Place to the main concourse.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,708 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    IE 222 wrote: »
    If they build a new platform further north they can avoid 110 Amiens street. It's only Preston street were some CPO's would be required. The space is there further north, most of it is either CIE land or car parking. Pushing north would also allow for access onto Seville Place which will also help serve the Connolly redevelopment project. Reopening the old Dart entrance on Amiens street would be a good idea as well. It would be a very long walk if exiting a train at Seville Place to the main concourse.

    you could build a 200m elevated platform 8 between Seville Place and Preston Place - you'd probably have to demolish the redbrick warehouse and last house on Preston Place (which was badly damaged by fire a few years back but I think was recently restored):

    https://pasteboard.co/I55yFDO.png


  • #83
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,520 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    It's still a burnt out shell. Or at least it was last night!

    Both may be on the RPS, will check later. Obviously not insurmountable as its been overriden for national infrastructure before, but adds complexity and cost of there's objections to it


  • #84
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users Posts: 10,663 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    Will a through platform 8 will deliver anything besides costing a fortune?

    There is on siding at Pearse followed by 2 in GCD which were up for sale a few months ago (full daily now). Off peak Maynooth services scrapped and its only a matter of time before they gradually push a few peak Maynooth/N Commuter services to terminate/start at Connolly and the GCD sidings sale only confirm this.

    PPT services will continue to operate to GCD so a Drumcondra interchange might be more beneficial for Maynooth services. You could in theory operate GCD bay with PPT/Maynooth/N Commuter however scheduling makes this extremely difficult.
    It was originally used for a while but after a bit of reaction over it , most if not all Connolly maynooth services now go from platform 7

    P4 now or at least multiple services I have saw were on P4.


  • #85
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,979 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    so they are selling off more sidings now? i presume there are no plans to replace them with new ones elsewhere?

    shut down alcohol action ireland now! end MUP today!



  • #86
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,520 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Boston Sidings which are rather short and not massively operationally useful.

    The red brick warehouse abutting P7 is the former railway post office and is listed, as is the shell of 4 Preston Street. So there goes that being easy/cheap.


  • #87
    Jamie2k9
    Registered Users Posts: 10,663 ✭✭✭✭Jamie2k9


    L1011 wrote: »
    Boston Sidings which are rather short and not massively operationally useful.

    The red brick warehouse abutting P7 is the former railway post office and is listed. So there goes that being easy/cheap.

    They are short but they hold 2 sets of 2900s everyday. Pearse holds a 7 ICR.


  • #88
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    loyatemu wrote: »
    you could build a 200m elevated platform 8 between Seville Place and Preston Place - you'd probably have to demolish the redbrick warehouse and last house on Preston Place (which was badly damaged by fire a few years back but I think was recently restored):

    https://pasteboard.co/I55yFDO.png

    Yeah, I made a similar suggestion yesterday regarding that side of platform 7. I still think a complete rebuild of Platforms 5,6,7 and part of 4 would be worthwhile. Straightening out the platforms would be very beneficial also.


  • #89
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    L1011 wrote: »
    Boston Sidings which are rather short and not massively operationally useful.

    The red brick warehouse abutting P7 is the former railway post office and is listed, as is the shell of 4 Preston Street. So there goes that being easy/cheap.

    It's only the warehouse part of the red brick building that would needed. I'm sure as long as the front facade remains they could work around this. Considering the last house on the block has been fire damaged this could help with been CPO.

    We seem to list and protect a lot of useless buildings in this country. Especially ones in vital areas and serve very little in terms historical importance.


  • #90
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Speaking of sidings, was there ever a purpose other than been sidings for the 2 on the short arch beside the Newcome curve.

    There is also the strip of land along the canal bank opp Docklands station. Should get 3-4 long sidings in there should they need more within the locality of Connolly albeit the manoeuvring would not be ideal.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,520 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    IE 222 wrote: »
    .

    There is also the strip of land along the canal bank opp Docklands station. Should get 3-4 long sidings in there should they need more within the locality of Connolly albeit the manoeuvring would not be ideal.

    That's the already under construction Royal Canal Greenway


Advertisement