Phoenix Park Tunnel reopening and City Centre Resignalling

spacetweek

lxflyer wrote: »

Once work on the project actually started, it has taken pretty much the expected time

Do you know when it actually did start?

Idbatterim

I think he meant taking the train rather than driving into Dublin.

yeah that is what I meant

Ste.phen

Probably too much to ask, but could have put a platform at the back of Clancy Quay or just before the tunnel entrance, as a way of connecting the Kilmainham area to the line?

Selfishly, i'm just about to move to Clancy Quay, and it's a serious walk around to the main heuston entrance

{edit: actually, there is already a freight platform back there, was there any talk of adding a new passenger platform on the tunnel-bound direction too?}

LXFlyer

Ste.phen wrote: »

Probably too much to ask, but could have put a platform at the back of Clancy Quay or just before the tunnel entrance, as a way of connecting the Kilmainham area to the line?

Selfishly, i'm just about to move to Clancy Quay, and it's a serious walk around to the main heuston entrance

{edit: actually, there is already a freight platform back there, was there any talk of adding a new passenger platform on the tunnel-bound direction too?}

None at present no.

kc56

lxflyer wrote: »

None at present no.

Proposed service won't stop at Heuston at all - even P10.

LXFlyer

kc56 wrote: »

Proposed service won't stop at Heuston at all - even P10.

Correct - last stop before Drumcondra will be Parkwest.

To be honest the station would be too remote from the main Heuston Station as you'd need a shuttle bus to access it (it's too far away from the main station to expect people to walk), and from my eye there's not enough clearance room for direct access to Conyngham Road.

Heuston will still be served by existing commuter trains from the Kildare line which is important as it is useful for anyone travelling to anywhere west of the 'ha penny bridge.

n97 mini

I find it frustrating that the service will be viewed as a means to dump people into the city as quickly as possible at peak times, rather than as an integrated system of public transport. It would be nice to be able to get a train from Heuston to Drumcondra, or god forbid Docklands, but while those stations are very much city centre, they're completely disjointed from the city centre rail network. Only in Ireland.

LXFlyer

n97 mini wrote: »

I find it frustrating that the service will be viewed as a means to dump people into the city as quickly as possible at peak times, rather than as an integrated system of public transport. It would be nice to be able to get a train from Heuston to Drumcondra, or god forbid Docklands, but while those stations are very much city centre, they're completely disjointed from the city centre rail network. Only in Ireland.

Docklands isn't an issue as the LUAS red line offers a direct connection from Heuston.

The location of P10 is too far away from the main station to be any real use - only if there was sufficient clearance room for direct access to Conyngham Road would it be useful.

To my eye that's pretty tricky without some fairly major (and expensive) civil engineering work.

n97 mini

lxflyer wrote: »

Docklands isn't an issue as the LUAS red line offers a direct connection from Heuston.

My main issue with that is the Luas requires a separate ticket, when there's already a train station in Docklands. This is especially frustrating for people on the Maynooth line, as at weekends the one train station beside the Convention Centre is closed. Must be frustrating for tourists too who look at a map and assume a city centre train station actually has trains.

lxflyer wrote: »

The location of P10 is too far away from the main station to be any real use -

Like Pier D in Dublin Airport a travelator or two and some imagination could help with access from Heuston to P10.

lxflyer wrote: »

only if there was sufficient clearance room for direct access to Conyngham Road would it be useful. To my eye that's pretty tricky without some fairly major (and expensive) civil engineering work.

I do agree with you there, but that is a defeatist attitude all the same. Other countries could manage it, probably even third world ones.

LXFlyer

n97 mini wrote: »

My main issue with that is the Luas requires a separate ticket, when there's already a train station in Docklands. This is especially frustrating for people on the Maynooth line, as at weekends the one train station beside the Convention Centre is closed. Must be frustrating for tourists too who look at a map and assume a city centre train station actually has trains.


Like Pier D in Dublin Airport a travelator or two and some imagination could help with access from Heuston to P10.


I do agree with you there, but that is a defeatist attitude all the same. Other countries could manage it, probably even third world ones.

I think I'm being realistic rather than defeatist.

In time a separate station at Conyngham Road might be developed - but there simply isn't the money in the pot for it right now. Talk of travelators is nonsense - if you had any idea of the lie of the land between Heuston and Platform 10 you'd realise that. It's along walk in the open.

Docklands would require a new double junction at Glasnevin for trains to access it from Heuston and I really can't see that happening anytime soon - far better scope sending the trains around to Grand Canal Dock.

You seem to have a fixation about the Convention Centre - I'm far from convinced that the Maynooth line alone would generate enough traffic at weekends travelling here as opposed to Connolly, Tara Street, Pearse and Grand Canal Dock.

n97 mini

lxflyer wrote: »

I think I'm being realistic rather than defeatist.

In time a separate station at Conyngham Road might be developed - but there simply isn't the money in the pot for it right now. Talk of travelators is nonsense - if you had any idea of the lie of the land between Heuston and Platform 10 you'd realise that. It's along walk in the open.

Docklands would require a new double junction at Glasnevin for trains to access it from Heuston and I really can't see that happening anytime soon - far better scope sending the trains around to Grand Canal Dock.

You seem to have a fixation about the Convention Centre - I'm far from convinced that the Maynooth line alone would generate enough traffic at weekends travelling here as opposed to Connolly, Tara Street, Pearse and Grand Canal Dock.

Personally I think you have a "no money" attitude that seems to prevail in Ireland which prevents us from even trying. You also seem to be content with a city centre trains station being closed, best reason being because a junction is wrong (and requires money). That's daft.

Are you familiar with the travelators to Pier D? Why are you talking about long walks out in the open? Nonsense.

LXFlyer

n97 mini wrote: »

Personally I think you have a "no money" attitude that seems to prevail in Ireland which prevents us from even trying. You also seem to be content with a city centre trains station being closed, best reason being because a junction is wrong (and requires money). That's daft.

Are you familiar with the travelators to Pier D? Why are you talking about long walks out in the open? Nonsense.

The walk from Heuston to P10 is in the open - there is no shelter anywhere.

You're coming up with grandiose ideas that frankly won't provide a great return on investment and overkill in terms of funding.

Docklands station serves an area that is frankly dead at weekends - it's pointless. I suggest you go for a walk down there and you'll see what I mean.

Routing the trains to the other city centre stations makes far more sense.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

Personally I think you have a "no money" attitude that seems to prevail in Ireland which prevents us from even trying. You also seem to be content with a city centre trains station being closed, best reason being because a junction is wrong (and requires money). That's daft.

it is daft, but that is politics for you. he is telling you how the government, NTA and IE see the situation. for what it is worth i agree with a couple of your suggestions but nobody is going to take the bull by the horns and fund them. thats not his fault.
remember, IE ended up having to remove a useful loop (mosney) supposibly because of "cost reasons" . the government and NTA didn't stop them (which makes them worse TBH)
when that is what you are dealing with you can forget about extra stations and capacity.

JMurphy84

I hope to move to Celbridge in the coming months. All i want to know is when the PPT opens will Hazelhatch trains stop at Drumcondra? Handy way of getting to Croke Park on matchdays!!

LXFlyer

JMurphy84 wrote: »

I hope to move to Celbridge in the coming months. All i want to know is when the PPT opens will Hazelhatch trains stop at Drumcondra? Handy way of getting to Croke Park on matchdays!!

Yes they will.

A little bit of joined up thinking and you could have a Luas spur to P10 at Heuston that just runs from Platform 10 along the quays towards the docks for passengers from the new PPT service to use as an alternative way into the city.
The tram could also shuttle passengers between P10 & the main terminus.

spacetweek

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A little bit of joined up thinking and you could have a Luas spur to P10 at Heuston that just runs from Platform 10 along the quays towards the docks for passengers from the new PPT service to use as an alternative way into the city.
The tram could also shuttle passengers between P10 & the main terminus.

The whole point of the PPT is so that people don't have to get the luas outside Heuston and instead can be brought to their destination without changing.

spacetweek

n97 mini wrote: »

I do agree with you there, but that is a defeatist attitude all the same. Other countries could manage it, probably even third world ones.

But remember that when the full Dart U opens, the PPT won't matter much anymore so it would probably not be worth the effort in this case.

spacetweek

spacetweek wrote: »

The whole point of the PPT is so that people don't have to get the luas outside Heuston and instead can be brought to their destination without changing.

The point is that if many of the commuter trains are going to go via the tunnel the additional stop would be much appreciated for those who still need to get off at Heuston ant their train now doesn't stop there anymore.

spacetweek

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The point is that if many of the commuter trains are going to go via the tunnel the additional stop would be much appreciated for those who still need to get off at Heuston ant their train now doesn't stop there anymore.

Ok, that is a fair point.

LXFlyer

Deleted User wrote: »

The point is that if many of the commuter trains are going to go via the tunnel the additional stop would be much appreciated for those who still need to get off at Heuston ant their train now doesn't stop there anymore.

There are still going to be plenty of trains terminating at Heuston - most (if not all) of the trains going to Grand Canal Dock will be additional trains.

Folks, people are losing track of themselves here with talk of LUAS spurs and travelators. This is a low cost project that will deliver service improvements using existing infrastructure (and taking advantage of the extra capacity delivered by the city centre resignalling project), while retaining services to/from Heuston.

Some of you are getting carried away with grandiose ideas that frankly will cost an arm and a leg and won't really see much use.

thomasj

JMurphy84 wrote:

I hope to move to Celbridge in the coming months. All i want to know is when the PPT opens will Hazelhatch trains stop at Drumcondra? Handy way of getting to Croke Park on matchdays!!

That would be a logistical nightmare for Irish rail! Maynooth line services at matches the platform does quite often be full could you imagine the crowds of kildare and maynooth passengers on the line and then a maynooth line train pulls in and you have to get through the crowds to kildare line passengers to be able to get on the train?

lxflyer

lxflyer wrote: »

Folks, people are losing track of themselves here with talk of LUAS spurs and travelators. This is a low cost project that will deliver service improvements using existing infrastructure (and taking advantage of the extra capacity delivered by the city centre resignalling project), while retaining services to/from Heuston.

Some of you are getting carried away with grandiose ideas that frankly will cost an arm and a leg and won't really see much use.

I did mention "joined up thinking", as in an extra Luas service running from Platform 10 east to the city. There's no harm in dreaming!
In most other EU countries the Luas link would be top of the list.

LXFlyer

Deleted User wrote: »

I did mention "joined up thinking", as in an extra Luas service running from Platform 10 east to the city. There's no harm in dreaming!
In most other EU countries the Luas link would be top of the list.

Do you really think so?

We are talking about one train per hour in either direction off-peak and two (maybe three) per hour at peak times.

Do you seriously think that level of service would warrant that level of investment considering Heuston will still be served by most (if not all) of the existing services?

Deedsie

lxflyer wrote: »

Do you really think so?

We are talking about one train per hour in either direction off-peak and two (maybe three) per hour at peak times.

Do you seriously think that level of service would warrant that level of investment considering Heuston will still be served by most (if not all) of the existing services?

Did I not read it is to be 4 trains per hour at peak times?

LXFlyer

Deedsie wrote: »

Did I not read it is to be 4 trains per hour at peak times?

That is wrong and has been wrong since the outset of this and other threads/reports.

The planned service levels are as I outlined above.

n97 mini

lxflyer wrote: »

D
We are talking about one train per hour in either direction off-peak

As the existing (Hazelhatch-ish) off peak service is one per hour to Heuston, do you envisage this switching entirely to Connolly, or do you envisage an increase in service levels?

LXFlyer

n97 mini wrote: »

As the existing (Hazelhatch-ish) off peak service is one per hour to Heuston, do you envisage this switching entirely to Connolly, or do you envisage an increase in service levels?

The Grand Canal Dock services will be additional to the existing service levels. In all probability they will turn back at Newbridge.

The current off peak Heuston-Portlaoise will continue.

n97 mini

lxflyer wrote: »

The Grand Canal Dock services will be additional to the existing service levels. In all probability they will turn back at Newbridge.

The current off peak Heuston-Portlaoise will continue.

Do you really think the off-peak service between Hazelhatch and the city centre will be greater than the Maynooth line?

LXFlyer

n97 mini wrote: »

Do you really think the off-peak service between Hazelhatch and the city centre will be greater than the Maynooth line?

For a start they serve more than just Hazelhatch and the city centre.

The existing Heuston-Portlaoise service doubles up as a method of getting ICRs back to the depot for servicing from Heuston and is a feeder service into the Galway and Cork services at Portarlington and Portlaoise - or would you prefer that they just went empty?

That is completely separate from these new services for which funding has been provided.

n97 mini

lxflyer wrote: »

or would you prefer that they just went empty?

I'm only asking a question about your thoughts on service levels, no need to be a smartass.

Pete_Cavan

With the increase in services might we see movement on the KRP2 any time soon?

LXFlyer

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

With the increase in services might we see movement on the KRP2 any time soon?

It's not needed at this stage at all.

LXFlyer

n97 mini wrote: »

I'm only asking a question about your thoughts on service levels, no need to be a smartass.

With respect - you asked me the same question effectively twice, despite me giving a clear answer.

I'm not in the habit of posting incorrect information here, and gave you a clear explanation of why the two service will operate.

Just because it's not what you want to hear does not mean you have to lower yourself to personal insults.

trellheim

How many trains with passengers a day through PPT when this is all done - 5 each way is it or am i wrong ?

LXFlyer

trellheim wrote: »

How many trains with passengers a day through PPT when this is all done - 5 each way is it or am i wrong ?

You're wrong.

It's an all day service.

One train per hour off-peak in either direction, rising to two (possibly three) per hour in the direction of peak travel flow at peak times.

Pete_Cavan

lxflyer wrote: »

It's not needed at this stage at all.

Right but it will be needed at some stage, hopefully in the not too distant future. It’s a project that will have a lot of benefits for a reasonable cost and maximises the investment already made in the PPT and City Centre Resignalling. Hopefully the NTA are thinking about it that way. The scope could be changed to quad track as far as Kilmainham. It is needed as part of DU anyway so is probably a more worthwhile long term investment than reopening the PPT and doing it as a standalone project reduces the cost of DU.

A Dart style services to GCD/Docklands (I assume there won’t be slots for any services above what is currently proposed to cross the bridge to Tara Street) would do a lot to get people out of their cars. With more services, new stations could be opened after the tunnel also.

Charles Babbage

The PPT project is possible because the Victorians had the foresight to invest in the line in the first place. While some money has had to be spent on upgrades that investment is still paying for itself. If only the same long term view was taken about the Dart Underground and similar projects.

kencoo

Does anyone have an idea when timetables will be announced?

LXFlyer

kencoo wrote: »

Does anyone have an idea when timetables will be announced?

This isn't going live until Autumn.

LXFlyer

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Right but it will be needed at some stage, hopefully in the not too distant future. It’s a project that will have a lot of benefits for a reasonable cost and maximises the investment already made in the PPT and City Centre Resignalling. Hopefully the NTA are thinking about it that way. The scope could be changed to quad track as far as Kilmainham. It is needed as part of DU anyway so is probably a more worthwhile long term investment than reopening the PPT and doing it as a standalone project reduces the cost of DU.

A Dart style services to GCD/Docklands (I assume there won’t be slots for any services above what is currently proposed to cross the bridge to Tara Street) would do a lot to get people out of their cars. With more services, new stations could be opened after the tunnel also.

If DU happens then sure, but the current infrastructure is sufficient to support this service and Intercity services - the line has still got capacity available.

There isn't the rolling stock to do a DART level of service, and secondly the line can only access the line through Drumcondra to Connolly from Glasnevin Junction. It would require major infrastructure works at Glasnevin to allow trains from the PPT access the line to Docklands.

GCD can only be accessed via Connolly, Tara St and Pearse so I'm not sure why you're using that alongside Docklands?

Charles Babbage

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The PPT project is possible because the Victorians had the foresight to invest in the line in the first place. While some money has had to be spent on upgrades that investment is still paying for itself. If only the same long term view was taken about the Dart Underground and similar projects.

The Victorians saw the railways as a good investment due to the fact that the alternative forms of transport either had four legs or floated but both went at little more than walking pace. The freight trains could easily do 30mph or more.

kc56

Deleted User wrote: »

The Victorians saw the railways as a good investment due to the fact that the alternative forms of transport either had four legs or floated but both went at little more than walking pace. The freight trains could easily do 30mph or more.

The PPT was needed by the GS&WR back in the day in order that they could reach the docks where they had their own depot. Wasn't just foresight, it was a necessity.

Pete_Cavan

lxflyer wrote: »

If DU happens then sure, but the current infrastructure is sufficient to support this service and Intercity services - the line has still got capacity available.

There isn't the rolling stock to do a DART level of service, and secondly the line can only access the line through Drumcondra to Connolly from Glasnevin Junction. It would require major infrastructure works at Glasnevin to allow trains from the PPT access the line to Docklands.

GCD can only be accessed via Connolly, Tara St and Pearse so I'm not sure why you're using that alongside Docklands?

I mentioned Docklands because I know Connolly is very busy and all slots for crossing the bridge will most likely be used up straight away. I didn't realise PPT doesn't connect to the line to Docklands.

My point is that we shouldn't sit on our hands once PPT opens and hope government approves DU. Projects like KRP2 and level crossing removal are relatively inexpensive, they have some immediate benefits but the real benefits will come over the longer term because they will allow service levels to increase. DU should be the ultimate goal but IE should chip away at the cost by seeking funding from NTA for smaller enabling projects now. Waiting for DU to happen is just another excuse to ignore rail investment. The extra capacity may not be needed now but if we have any ambition it will be needed in the not too distant future.

spacetweek

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I mentioned Docklands because I know Connolly is very busy and all slots for crossing the bridge will most likely be used up straight away. I didn't realise PPT doesn't connect to the line to Docklands.

My point is that we shouldn't sit on our hands once PPT opens and hope government approves DU. Projects like KRP2 and level crossing removal are relatively inexpensive, they have some immediate benefits but the real benefits will come over the longer term because they will allow service levels to increase. DU should be the ultimate goal but IE should chip away at the cost by seeking funding from NTA for smaller enabling projects now. Waiting for DU to happen is just another excuse to ignore rail investment. The extra capacity may not be needed now but if we have any ambition it will be needed in the not too distant future.

That is a good summary.

Jamie2k9

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I mentioned Docklands because I know Connolly is very busy and all slots for crossing the bridge will most likely be used up straight away. I didn't realise PPT doesn't connect to the line to Docklands.

My point is that we shouldn't sit on our hands once PPT opens and hope government approves DU. Projects like KRP2 and level crossing removal are relatively inexpensive, they have some immediate benefits but the real benefits will come over the longer term because they will allow service levels to increase. DU should be the ultimate goal but IE should chip away at the cost by seeking funding from NTA for smaller enabling projects now. Waiting for DU to happen is just another excuse to ignore rail investment. The extra capacity may not be needed now but if we have any ambition it will be needed in the not too distant future.

To be honest if the Government had money to splash around, personally increase North of Connolly from 2 to 4 lines should be a better priority.

There is no real pressing need for DU.

Not making the minor adjustments to track layout where Drumcondra, bypass line and PTT meet is a big mistake and it will need to happen at some point.

Zebra3

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

There is no real pressing need for DU.

Of course not. :rolleyes:

Jamie2k9

Zebra3 wrote: »

Of course not. :rolleyes:

Their isn't really, why is there a pressing need? Justify it. There is a more immediate need to protect N Line services.

10 m DART more than adequate for many years to come and until all operating with 8 coaches no need to increase.
Maynooth has an hourly service, could do with more however will likely take a sizable hit once Luas BXD is opened, prehaps even some may terminate at broombridge at peak hours.
Dundalk have a decent service however time is a major problem because of DART and for a growing commuter belt major improvement is needed.
Kildare will have it's 2-3 hourly service, no much more needed for many years to justify billions been spent.

DU is more less doing what Luas does N of LIffy and now PPT opens the connection for transfers.

Pete_Cavan

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

To be honest if the Government had money to splash around, personally increase North of Connolly from 2 to 4 lines should be a better priority.

Increasing North of Connolly from 2 to 4 lines would require major CPOing, demolition and cost a lot more than KRP2. Even DU is more likely to happen than adding tracks to the northern line.

end of the road

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Increasing North of Connolly from 2 to 4 lines would require major CPOing, demolition and cost a lot more than KRP2. Even DU is more likely to happen than adding tracks to the northern line.

it does need to be done though. or something at least to help with capacity on the northern line