Merrion Gates removal scheme

Del.Monte

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Isn't it just so easy to spend other people money..here's 10 million lads.

Shure it's Dublin - hang the expense.

Sam Russell

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It's such a bottlekneck costing tens of millions each year in productivity, give those 10 houses either side of it €1 million each and market price of their property to clear off and redevelop the area to have the rail line uninterupted.

There were no house CPOs involved in the removal of the gates. It is just the diversion of the Strand Rd up to the Merrion Road through two car parks. The land take was to do with the cycle scheme. That scheme is now part of busconnects.

The removal of the gates was really part of the ten minute Dart project.

Khuitlio

Recently came across this project in Melbourne to remove their level crossings - 75 being removed in total!
We could definitely learn a thing or two from them with regards to closing Dublin's level crossings.

Some really impressive projects:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49TjGxa80Iw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-XbZ7enXik

Sam Russell

The removal of the LC gates cannot be done like that because there is no room. Either the rail is raised or lowered by 5 metres over the distance of the 5 LC gates or the roads are raised or lowered by 5 metres. Now if the rail is moved the three stations will have to be rebuilt in total.

There is a design for Merrion Gates that would work and would not be too expensive. That is the busiest and most needed so that should go ahead as a stand alone project.

There is no space around Sydney Parade to do anything with the road so that should stay as is. Same applies to Sandymount as well. Lansdowne should have been done as part of the stadium but it was not - so too late.

The only one that could be removed without too much trouble is the Serpentine Ave, which could have the rail raised or lowered by 2 or 3 metres, with the road moved to match giving the 5 metre clearance required. The change in gradient would be minor for the train, and there is enough room for the road to accommodate it. I]I am not a road or rail engineer[/I

With two LC gates removed, the problem with the last three might be OK, perhaps Sydney Parade could be closed with just a pedestrian crossing footbridge.

I think a better approach would be to remove most of the diesel trains south of GCD and North of Bray. They are no quicker than Dart trains and in fact slower, and do not stop at all stations, so what is the point of them?

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

The removal of the LC gates cannot be done like that because there is no room. Either the rail is raised or lowered by 5 metres over the distance of the 5 LC gates or the roads are raised or lowered by 5 metres. Now if the rail is moved the three stations will have to be rebuilt in total.

There is a design for Merrion Gates that would work and would not be too expensive. That is the busiest and most needed so that should go ahead as a stand alone project.

There is no space around Sydney Parade to do anything with the road so that should stay as is. Same applies to Sandymount as well. Lansdowne should have been done as part of the stadium but it was not - so too late.

The only one that could be removed without too much trouble is the Serpentine Ave, which could have the rail raised or lowered by 2 or 3 metres, with the road moved to match giving the 5 metre clearance required. The change in gradient would be minor for the train, and there is enough room for the road to accommodate it. I]I am not a road or rail engineer[/I

With two LC gates removed, the problem with the last three might be OK, perhaps Sydney Parade could be closed with just a pedestrian crossing footbridge.

I think a better approach would be to remove most of the diesel trains south of GCD and North of Bray. They are no quicker than Dart trains and in fact slower, and do not stop at all stations, so what is the point of them?

The peak hour diesels to/from Maynooth and the Northern Line offer additional capacity over the DART which would otherwise not be offered.

The sets that operate the Rosslare services are integrated with other journeys on lines to Sligo and Dundalk, and the diesels need to get to Drogheda for servicing in any case.

Sam Russell

LXFlyer wrote: »

The peak hour diesels to/from Maynooth and the Northern Line offer additional capacity over the DART which would otherwise not be offered.

The sets that operate the Rosslare services are integrated with other journeys on lines to Sligo and Dundalk, and the diesels need to get to Drogheda for servicing in any case.

We have discussed this before, and it is off topic here, except that the additional trains cause more closed time for the LC gates. Not all diesels need to be affected, but there is a very poor service to Wexford with no AM arrivals into Wexford, and only five services Bray to Wexford and four back. First train into Wexford arrives after 12 noon, and last back leaves before 6 pm.

Turning at least one service would improve the overall service. Bad service kills the service over time.

Last Stop

Sam Russell wrote: »

The removal of the LC gates cannot be done like that because there is no room. Either the rail is raised or lowered by 5 metres over the distance of the 5 LC gates or the roads are raised or lowered by 5 metres. Now if the rail is moved the three stations will have to be rebuilt in total.

That’s exactly what they did in Melbourne
https://youtu.be/cK9xwX_ZyYA

Roughly the same length as between Sydney Parade and Landsdowne Road. If they dropped the rail here, it would also reduce the height required for the proposed bridge to replace the Merrion gates. Looking at the video, it looks like the majority of the works were confined to inside rail lands with the exception of the site compound which used a sports facility (Monkstown Rugby club backs onto the line along this stretch?)

Sam Russell

Last Stop wrote: »

That’s exactly what they did in Melbourne
https://youtu.be/cK9xwX_ZyYA

Roughly the same length as between Sydney Parade and Landsdowne Road. If they dropped the rail here, it would also reduce the height required for the proposed bridge to replace the Merrion gates. Looking at the video, it looks like the majority of the works were confined to inside rail lands with the exception of the site compound which used a sports facility (Monkstown Rugby club backs onto the line along this stretch?)

That stretch is at or near sea level. Dropping the line would run the risk of flooding but that might be OK except the proximity of the sea at Merrion Gates.

It is unlikely it could be done in anything like the time proposed - besides which it is a residential area, so 24 hour working would not be possible.

Basically, you are talking about 'cut and cover' type work. The Green Line upgrade south of Charlemont was pencilled in as 4 years.

No, it will not happen. Merrion Gates - yes, Sydney Parade - no, Sandymount - no, Serpentine Ave - perhaps, Landowne - no.

Overall, not likely because of cost, disruption, and that it is the heart of D4.

Last Stop

Sam Russell wrote: »

That stretch is at or near sea level. Dropping the line would run the risk of flooding but that might be OK except the proximity of the sea at Merrion Gates.

Which is why it would start north of Merrion Gates

It is unlikely it could be done in anything like the time proposed - besides which it is a residential area, so 24 hour working would not be possible.

The one in Melbourne is in a residential area too?

Basically, you are talking about 'cut and cover' type work. The Green Line upgrade south of Charlemont was pencilled in as 4 years.

1) it’s not ‘cut + cover’ type work, it’s just cut.
2) the biggest driver of the up to 4 years on the green line was the tunnel portal
3) the green line upgrade was 7km and 9 stations, this is 3 stations and 2km

No, it will not happen. Merrion Gates - yes, Sydney Parade - no, Sandymount - no, Serpentine Ave - perhaps, Landowne - no.

Overall, not likely because of cost, disruption, and that it is the heart of D4.

Great so we’re back to using potential NIMBYism as an excuse not to do a project. To be clear that’s not people objecting to it, but fear that they might object to it as a reason not to go ahead with a project.

p_haugh

Last Stop wrote: »

Which is why it would start north of Merrion Gates

Sandymount is prone to flooding and it is a flat area, so it would be unlikely but depending on how severe the flooding is it could still reach the rail line

Last Stop

p_haugh wrote: »

Sandymount is prone to flooding and it is a flat area, so it would be unlikely but depending on how severe the flooding is it could still reach the rail line

There are countless buildings closer to the sea which have basements along that stretch. Elm Park and Merrion centre to name but a few.
The fear of flooding along this stretch is being greatly exaggerated given
1) the existing line would be flooded in such an event
2) the plan was for an underpass at the location of the Merrion Gates

roddney

Or just close the line down and build a new underground joining in at Grand Canal Dock to Donnybrook and roughly following the N11.

There's be houses on both sides rather than just one side (and the sea), which would make for a far higher capacity service.

Sam Russell

roddney wrote: »

Or just close the line down and build a new underground joining in at Grand Canal Dock to Donnybrook and roughly following the N11.

There's be houses on both sides rather than just one side (and the sea), which would make for a far higher capacity service.

They have planned that already except they started at Tara St, and routed to SSG and onto Sandyford. They will get there eventually. I think it is called Metrolink.

Last Stop

roddney wrote: »

Or just close the line down and build a new underground joining in at Grand Canal Dock to Donnybrook and roughly following the N11.

There's be houses on both sides rather than just one side (and the sea), which would make for a far higher capacity service.

While I have advocated using the central median of the N11 for a Luas line, using it for a heavy rail line is a completely different ball game.

Not wanting to sound pedantic but you’re confusing capacity and demand. The DART has very high capacity but as you said it’s demand is restricted to one side. Having said that, the demand is very strong so the best solution would be to upgrade the line through the removal of the level crossings.

Khuitlio

Irish Rail have just launched a plan for closing 7 level crossings on the Cork to Dublin line. Hopefully this is the start of them getting rid of all level crossings.

https://www.irishrail.ie/About-Us/Iarnrod-Eireann-Projects-and-Investments/Cork-Line-Level-Crossings-Project

Last Stop

Sam Russell wrote: »

They have planned that already except they started at Tara St, and routed to SSG and onto Sandyford. They will get there eventually. I think it is called Metrolink.

That’s a totally different project/proposal
Different gauges
Different networks
Different catchments
The N11 is far further east than the green line. It’s between 2-3km away at Dundrum for example. That’s well outside the typical 1km catchment area for a metro line.

Sam Russell

Last Stop wrote: »

That’s a totally different project/proposal
Different gauges
Different networks
Different catchments
The N11 is far further east than the green line. It’s between 2-3km away at Dundrum for example. That’s well outside the typical 1km catchment area for a metro line.

Let us build one Metrolink line and then we might build a second one.
There is no reason why the ML could not be built on the Irish gauge, but it will not be.
There are plans to extend the GL Luas towards Bray, and it could be extended south towards Greystones.

LeinsterDub

Sam Russell wrote: »

Let us build one Metrolink line and then we might build a second one.
There is no reason why the ML could not be built on the Irish gauge, but it will not be.
There are plans to extend the GL Luas towards Bray, and it could be extended south towards Greystones.

ML can't be Irish gauge unless you plan to rip up the green line. Also the point of using standard gauge is being able to buy rolling stock off the shelf

Sam Russell

LeinsterDub wrote: »

ML can't be Irish gauge unless you plan to rip up the green line. Also the point of using standard gauge is being able to buy rolling stock off the shelf

I know that, but the advantage of Irish gauge would be to allow ML trains to run up the northern line to Drogheda. The GL from Charlemont to Sandyford is only 7 km of open track, so not a great expense. Some of the track will be relaid such as the St Raphaela's Rd crossing, and the section from Charlemont to Beechwood. The difference is only 16.5 cm, or 6.5 inches. It is hardly going to make a huge difference in cost since it only applies to the bogies.

Mod: This is going off topic, so can we stop this. ML is not going to be anything but standard gauge, and there is no way the Dart Line is being closed.

L1011

Khuitlio wrote: »

Irish Rail have just launched a plan for closing 7 level crossings on the Cork to Dublin line. Hopefully this is the start of them getting rid of all level crossings.

https://www.irishrail.ie/About-Us/Iarnrod-Eireann-Projects-and-Investments/Cork-Line-Level-Crossings-Project

The "start" was about fifteen years ago; they have a plan to close or automate all crossings and have been working away at them since then. There's some presentations that were given to various events up on their website if you can find them about batches done on specific lines.

One crossing of that 7 on the Cork line is being retained as an automatic.

marno21

I see the council are proposing to make Strand Road one way to accomodate improved cycling facilities.

Has this any connection to this scheme?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/cars-to-give-way-for-sandymount-cycle-path-1.4324957

Any word on how this is going to go down locally?

magicbastarder

i suspect any objection from those who actually live on strand road will be tempered by the knowledge that it'll noticeably reduce HGV traffic outside their houses.

Claw Hammer

There will be serious issues for people who rely on the East Link bridge to the Merrion gates if they can only get to it one way. It will force more traffic in towards the city centre. It would make one want to jump into the Liffey.

Marcusm

magicbastarder wrote: »

i suspect any objection from those who actually live on strand road will be tempered by the knowledge that it'll noticeably reduce HGV traffic outside their houses.

There won’t be any basis for an objection as it is planned to be implemented on a “temporary” basis under Covid emergency legislation just like that in DLR, ie Blackrock to Sandycove. There is no effective control over the decision making process of the council executive on this.

Carawaystick

Marcusm wrote: »

There won’t be any basis for an objection as it is planned to be implemented on a “temporary” basis under Covid emergency legislation just like that in DLR, ie Blackrock to Sandycove. There is no effective control over the decision making process of the council executive on this.

Apart from Judicial Review....

Marcusm

Carawaystick wrote: »

Apart from Judicial Review....

Without an injunction, which might be hard to obtain in these periods of light traffic, a judicial review would be 12-18 months away, I would guesstimate. The Sandymount scheme might be more disruptive (due to greater number of goods vehicles etc) that Blackrock, Monkstown etc but I suspect that the availability of a large number of other routes for all but the most local of traffic would doom any JR to failure.

Sam Russell

The original plan was to put a bridge to divert traffic through the two carparks either side of the railway, one beside the Our Lady Queen of Peace church on the Merrion Road and the other beside Merrion Hall on Strand Road.

The project was part of a cycle lane project along Dublin Bay as far as Seapoint. The project was dropped because of local outrage at the loss of parking in front gardens.

If this works, expect the renewed attempt at the bridge.

However, the one-way system is not necessary. The current pedestrian footpath next to the road can be diverted onto the existing footpath down the centre of the linear park, and the pedestrian footpath can be repurposed as a two-way cycle lane.

One way vehicular traffic will be difficult because there is no natural alternative for the other direction.

HGVs are banned from that route.

MJohnston

HGVs are banned from Strand Road too though

NuMarvel

MJohnston wrote: »

HGVs are banned from Strand Road too though

If I'm reading this map correctly, HGVs are allowed on Strand Road. It's actually a designated route, presumably because of its proximity to East Link and the Port.

I'm pretty sure HGVs are allowed on Merrion Road too. I've only ever seen No HGV signs when I turn off Merrion or Strand Roads, and not on the road themselves.

Sam Russell

NuMarvel wrote: »

If I'm reading this map correctly, HGVs are allowed on Strand Road. It's actually a designated route, presumably because of its proximity to East Link and the Port.

I'm pretty sure HGVs are allowed on Merrion Road too. I've only ever seen No HGV signs when I turn off Merrion or Strand Roads, and not on the road themselves.

Five axle trucks are banned on Strand Road but not HGVs per se but they are OK on Merrion Road. Three tonne vehicles are banned on most nearby roads through Sandymount and Sydney Parade