View Single Post
Unread 01-09-2016, 19:23   #9
berneyarms
Really Regular Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 602
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Howard View Post
Dwell times were particularly short allright - I'd say he spent less than a minute in each station. We got a relatively clear run in from Maynooth but nothing spectacular.

I agree that there is a balance to be struck between speed and reliability but being able to recover 17 minutes between Edgeworthstown and Connolly is perhaps pushing it a tad away from the speed side of the balance.

Is it getting carried away to suggest that adding another 10 minutes to allow 27 minutes' recovery time on a 70 mile journey is a little unreasonable?
But it's not 27 minutes recovery time - that train normally has to follow the 07:55 from Maynooth and is just ahead of the 08:10 from M3 Parkway at Clonsilla. That means that the running time between Maynooth and Connolly is extended regardless to be able to fit into the suburban timetable. That's different to recovery time.

This morning your train got a clear run between Maynooth and Connolly in terms of other traffic - this meant that it was considerably quicker than usual.

Similarly there will always be engineering allowances along the entire route to permit temporary speed restrictions to be put in place when engineers require them, without impacting on the overall schedule. That's not the same as adding recovery time for the sake of it.

Sure there certainly is recovery time that is there to allow for a degree of resilience and reliability in terms of arrival time in Connolly, but it does not amount to 27 minutes.

As for the proposed timetable, I would share your frustration at the original draft timetable, but we haven't seen the final proposed timetable post-consultation which may have managed to address that issue.
berneyarms is offline   Reply With Quote