Connolly Station and those idling diesels

L1011

IE 222 wrote: »

Nah only 3 - 4 days a week why is that of importance. Do trains produce different fumes on different days.

Different air flow will have a major impact on static air quality. The blue clouds only became obvious when it was very warm and still.

Also, on different days, trains are powered on/off at different times so there is a fairly big difference in fume production - but its not to any calendar.

IE 222

L1011 wrote: »

Different air flow will have a major impact on static air quality. The blue clouds only became obvious when it was very warm and still.

Also, on different days, trains are powered on/off at different times so there is a fairly big difference in fume production - but its not to any calendar.

Granted were talking rush hour times here. The fumes don't change and number of trains don't differ much during the week, if anything trains will be left idling longer under the shed during quieter times.

Weather conditions will of course have a part to play but the same effect will happen regardless if it's in or outdoors.

Depending on wind direction and strength there does be a very strong smell of aviation fuel in the Swords area at times which can be a lot more stronger than Connolly.

Diesel fumes are to be expected and will vary throughout the day depending on the level of service but there not over powering as the EPA and HSA have proven.

L1011

Have you EPA and HSA docs to prove that claim?

IE 222

L1011 wrote: »

Have you EPA and HSA docs to prove that claim?

I haven't but I also haven't seen or heard of any documents to suggest otherwise, unless you have some findings.

Im sure If their monitoring equipment did find excessive pollution in the train shed it would be well-known to the general public by now and major works would be in place to deal with the issue.

L1011

If you don't have them you can't claim they exist and ask for counter-documents. Debate 101.

demanufactured

Do the 22000's not have DPF's?

Jamie2k9

demanufactured wrote: »

Do the 22000's not have DPF's?

Not sure but suspect no because they already exceed emissions targets but somebody will know. Its largely the 2900 which are the issue in Connolly from my experience.

IE 222

L1011 wrote: »

If you don't have them you can't claim they exist and ask for counter-documents. Debate 101.

Im not claiming these reports exist what I'm saying is that the monitors are in place and as far as anyone is aware of no reports or details have suggested that this is an issue.

I'm sure you can agree if the EPA or HSA have found issues surrounding excessive fumes recorded in the train shed since been installed work would of been undertaken already to resolve the issue.

L1011

IE 222 wrote: »

Im not claiming these reports exist what I'm saying is that the monitors are in place and as far as anyone is aware of no reports or details have suggested that this is an issue.

I'm sure you can agree if the EPA or HSA have found issues surrounding excessive fumes recorded in the train shed since been installed work would of been undertaken already to resolve the issue.

You very much were claiming they existed and now you've been asked for them are backtracking. You said "have proven" without proof.

I can't agree with anything you say when you're making stuff up.

Dravokivich

L1011 wrote: »

You very much were claiming they existed and now you've been asked for them are backtracking. You said "have proven" without proof.

I can't agree with anything you say when you're making stuff up.

I'm scratching my head here. This thread is about a declared issue not being addressed. But anything stating what the issues are, are nothing but conjecture based on smell and visual issues. The op has no measurement for what's contained there, nor whether or not what's contained has increased and poses a direct risk.

Now you are challenging someone who expects there's no risk because of equipment in place to measure these things, with no reports published to indicate a risk.

Are we to sit here and argue over disproving a negative? If there's an issue, I genuinely want to see it. But all that's going on here is lead by perception and is more suited to the other CT forum with that kind of attitude.

lawred2

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'm scratching my head here. This thread is about a declared issue not being addressed. But anything stating what the issues are, are nothing but conjecture based on smell and visual issues. The op has no measurement for what's contained there, nor whether or not what's contained has increased and poses a direct risk.

Now you are challenging someone who expects there's no risk because of equipment in place to measure these things, with no reports published to indicate a risk.

Are we to sit here and argue over disproving a negative? If there's an issue, I genuinely want to see it. But all that's going on here is lead by perception and is more suited to the other CT forum with that kind of attitude.

What are you scratching your head about?

It is a fact that noxious gases emitted by idling diesels are being trapped under an unventilated roof.

I don't know whether it averages out at deathly levels.. it may not do so. All I know is that it's a vile experience at peak times for a commuter on a regular basis.

Some days it is better than others.

You can argue that trapped diesel fumes from idling trains are part and parcel of train systems and if you're happy with such fumes then fine.. it's not an issue for you. But I know for a fact that it's an issue for many as I've seen them struggling first hand with the fumes.

Do you commute though Connolly station daily?

Dravokivich

It's doesn't matter whether or not I do.

lawred2

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's doesn't matter whether or not I do.

Indeed. You just like to pick an argument about something you haven't a clue about.

Dravokivich

lawred2 wrote: »

Indeed. You just like to pick an argument about something you haven't a clue about.

I don't. I asked earlier in the thread is there anything published to support it, because I'd have an interest in that. Especially when you claimed an increase in levels. Now this just reads like how can you not see the problem, when it's lead under the expectation there is one.

IE 222

L1011 wrote: »

You very much were claiming they existed and now you've been asked for them are backtracking. You said "have proven" without proof.

I can't agree with anything you say when you're making stuff up.

Have proven in the sense that nothing has changed in the train shed, stating the obvious really that if nothing has changed its shown nothing alarming was found. I never said documents exist. Don't know why you feel the word proven has to imply there is a full reported document attached to my comment.

IE 222

lawred2 wrote: »

Indeed. You just like to pick an argument about something you haven't a clue about.

Are you an expert in pollution and emissions and collected this data to back up your claim or does simply walking through Connolly on your daily commute qualifie you.

lawred2

IE 222 wrote: »

Are you an expert in pollution and emissions and collected this data to back up your claim or does simply walking through Connolly on your daily commute qualifie you.

It qualifies me to say that it is regularly a very unpleasant experience for commuters at peak times. Which is what I said. And which is a fact. If you used it on a daily basis at peak times you'd be hard pressed to genuinely argue otherwise.

If you believe that I claimed to be an expert then you'll have to show me where I did so..

I'm not sure such figures would necessarily be published to the public anyway.. especially if it was CIE that commissioned a report. Where is the evidence of such a report being commissioned anyway?

IE 222

lawred2 wrote: »

It qualifies me to say that it is regularly a very unpleasant experience for commuters at peak times. Which is what I said. And which is a fact. If you used it on a daily basis at peak times you'd be hard pressed to genuinely argue otherwise.

If you believe that I claimed to be an expert then you'll have to show me where I did so..

I'm not sure such figures would necessarily be published to the public anyway.. especially if it was CIE that commissioned a report. Where is the evidence of such a report being commissioned anyway?

It doesn't qualify you to speak on behave of other commuters. You seem to dismiss anyone that disputes your argument so unless your an expert in the matter you shouldn't be stating its excessive or above acceptable levels without proof or data to make your claims. I use the station and I don't find it any worse than I'd expect it to be.

Various types of trains and many more polluting than the current fleet have been using the shed over the decades and it's never been an issue until now supposedly.

lawred2

IE 222 wrote: »

It doesn't qualify you to speak on behave of other commuters. You seem to dismiss anyone that disputes your argument so unless your an expert in the matter you shouldn't be stating its excessive or above acceptable levels without proof or data to make your claims. I use the station and I don't find it any worse than I'd expect it to be.

Various types of trains and many more polluting than the current fleet have been using the shed over the decades and it's never been an issue until now supposedly.

I haven't disputed anyone's experience where they have said that they commute daily at peak hours. Show me where I have disputed anyone's personal experience of peak times please.

There have been a few disputing my experience despite clearly not even using the station.

You say you use it - do you use it daily at peak commuting times?

Anyway nevermind.. it's not going to change anytime soon anyway. That was what the query in my OP was. I think that's been answered.