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

DART+ (DART Expansion)

Options
1…137138140142143…335

Comments

  • Options
    #4172
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,542 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    bk wrote: »
    I can just see us 20 years from now complaining about the money IR wasted on bimode trains where the Diesel engine is never used and just dragged around, adding weight on a fully electrified network.

    Surely in that case they could remove the diesel engine? Must be possible!


  • Options
    #4173
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,540 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    vrusinov wrote: »
    If next generation of DMUs are like these, pantograph is a relatively small addition to them that brings efficiency up while on electrified track.

    I agree that adding a pantograph to what should be a DMU shouldn't be a big extra cost and makes sense.

    But adding a Diesel engine to what should be a DART/EMU seems unnecessarily expensive.

    If it is just adding flexibility to the DMU fleet, then that is fine, but if they are also suggesting replacing the DART fleet with these, that doesn't seem as smart.

    And that is the thing, the DMU fleet is much younger then the EMU fleet.

    Plus you then have to ask how the interior is laid out. Commuter train seating or DART style high capacity layout.


  • Options
    #4174
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,540 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Surely in that case they could remove the diesel engine? Must be possible!

    Yes, I'd hope that they would be spec'd to easily do that.

    Obviously engines can normally be replaced, the question would be more can you remove it and leave it out and have all the control systems, safety systems, etc. still work properly (they might be expecting a heavier train).


  • Options
    #4175
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,542 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Best case they would be able to swap out the diesel engine and put a bigger battery in, might even help account for the weight loss of the engine.


  • Options
    #4176
    dublinman1990
    Registered Users Posts: 8,348 ✭✭✭dublinman1990


    I do have a few ideas about how the functions of these new DART trains would be deemed necessary by IE if the inevitability of using the diesel part of them becomes redundant in the long term. For one thing the overhead rail network on the DART is very reliable & not subject to frequent power cuts throughout regular periods.

    If IE started work on the building the overhead cables on the Maynooth & Drogheda rail lines; the rest of the DART network could continue on running services as normal in Dublin. The only time where these new trains could be using their new diesel engines when the new overhead infrastructure is built once on separate periods of time. The impact of using them in the short term would be beneficial in getting new DART services officially running either to Maynooth or Drogheda. But after these projects are completed by IE & the NTA; what happens next when they try to use the bi mode functions while they use these new trains.

    Is there a big likelihood that these functions would be made redundant on overhead lines?

    But what about DU? What happens in this case when this project is eventually completed in Dublin? Would there be a need from IE for these trains if the tunnel element of DU would not be physically able to use overhead lines for day to day running of services. Is there a possibility coming from IE that DU would not be able to include any overhead infrastructure at all while they just use the hybrid engines in the trains. Would there be a sensible rationale from IE to run these trains on both overground & underground lines at separate periods using brand new technologies to support their long term use on the Dublin rail network?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4177
    scouserstation
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭scouserstation


    All going to plan and they get these extra dart trains in 4 years what then? Where are they going to run all these services to? Connolly is at capacity and the interconnector tunnell from heuston will not be constructed for at least another 10 years, i wonder what is the overall plan from Irish rail


  • Options
    #4178
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,422 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Running diesels in long tunnels is not a great idea. Building tunnels without o/h cables would be a little stupid, so no tunnel will run diesels, so that cannot be the rational.

    The only reason would be to run north of Malahide, but even that makes no sense.

    How long does it take to put up electric cables along existing lines?


  • Options
    #4179
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,356 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    scouserstation wrote: »
    All going to plan and they get these extra dart trains in 4 years what then? Where are they going to run all these services to? Connolly is at capacity and the interconnector tunnell from heuston will not be constructed for at least another 10 years, i wonder what is the overall plan from Irish rail
    For starters extra sets will be needed for the DART Expansion to Balbriggan which should open around 2022.

    Ten minute DARTs?

    It would be nice to start implementing other elements of DART Expansion so we can get the overall cost down and focus on the tunnel itself being the big ticket element.

    It would be much easier to push this through were DART Expansions to Hazelhatch, Maynooth, Balbriggan completed seperately. Also level crossing closures, station upgrades etc.

    Let the tunnel be done itself and minimize tacked on costs.


  • Options
    #4180
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    marno21 wrote: »
    For starters extra sets will be needed for the DART Expansion to Balbriggan which should open around 2022.

    Ten minute DARTs?

    It would be nice to start implementing other elements of DART Expansion so we can get the overall cost down and focus on the tunnel itself being the big ticket element.

    It would be much easier to push this through were DART Expansions to Hazelhatch, Maynooth, Balbriggan completed seperately. Also level crossing closures, station upgrades etc.

    Let the tunnel be done itself and minimize tacked on costs.

    Yes, the interconnector is a much easier sell politically on it's own. We are already seeing evidence that they want to complete all the enabling works first, like the Merrion Gates removal.


  • Options
    #4181
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,776 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    The point of this is to get the benefit of savings (and other benefits including running in a long tunnel) from using electricity instead of diesel, without having to run electric out to the edge of the network.

    Electrification is not tremendously expensive per km but it is just not worth it the cost if there isn’t a reasonably high all day frequency.

    A Cork-Dublin-Belfast service could potentially run through a city tunnel with such a vehicle.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4182
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,422 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    CatInABox wrote: »
    Yes, the interconnector is a much easier sell politically on it's own. We are already seeing evidence that they want to complete all the enabling works first, like the Merrion Gates removal.

    This is put forward as part of a cycling infrastructure - nothing to do with Dart enabling work.


  • Options
    #4183
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,542 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    This is put forward as part of a cycling infrastructure - nothing to do with Dart enabling work.

    That's not what that article says - it's being bundled with cycling infrastructure, but it's not intended as solely that. Though frankly, whatever helps it get built is fine by me.


  • Options
    #4184
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,356 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    This is put forward as part of a cycling infrastructure - nothing to do with Dart enabling work.

    Easier to push as cycling infrastructure - pushing it as a road measure within the M50 gives fodder to objections


  • Options
    #4185
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,843 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    What would just the tunnel on its own as the original plan cost ?


  • Options
    #4186
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,542 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    marno21 wrote: »
    Easier to push as cycling infrastructure - pushing it as a road measure within the M50 gives fodder to objections

    Well they managed the Ratoath Road bridge as a railway/road infrastructure project. Although I suppose the locals at the Merrion Gates would be the more objection-ready type.


  • Options
    #4187
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,542 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    What would just the tunnel on its own as the original plan cost ?

    Well you couldn't do the cycling underpass without removing the road first.


  • Options
    #4188
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Well you couldn't do the cycling underpass without removing the road first.

    I think Idbatterim was asking about the DART Underground tunnel. Unless there are plans to include a cycle lane with the DU tunnel :D.


  • Options
    #4189
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,542 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    I think Idbatterim was asking about the DART Underground tunnel. Unless there are plans to include a cycle lane with the DU tunnel :D.

    You might be right, although the context makes it uncertain!


  • Options
    #4190
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,265 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    This is put forward as part of a cycling infrastructure - nothing to do with Dart enabling work.

    Yeah, that's the point. Any mention of Dart Underground is pretty much toxic to either political or planning progress.

    Just look at the talk of the expansion of the dart lines, originally meant to part of Dart Underground, there's absolutely no mention of DU in relation to the new plans put forward.


  • Options
    #4191
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,777 ✭✭✭SeanW


    I like the idea of dual mode trains, but I'd prefer them as regional trains rather than diesel-electric DARTs. There is already far too much blurring on the Irish Rail network between short-haul services and long distance. You already have crap like 29000 railcars going to Sligo and other long distance destinations they're not appropriate for (actually I don't think the 29000s are appropriate for anything, the interior noise and vibrations are unreal, I'd rather use the bus, even on short journeys). I'd rather not also see a blurring of the DART and Commuter.

    If they were regional trains however, like the NIR 3000 and 4000 railcars with pantographs, that would be a different story. These could be used to provide regional service to the Dublin area, with the trains using electricity in express service in DART territory while serving local stops with diesel just beyond. Best example is the plan to extend the DART to Balbriggan - why not use dual-modes to provide commuter service to Drogheda/Dundalk? Drogheda is not that far from Balbriggan.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4192
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s4heZe7ChM


    Meanwhile not in the 80's


  • Options
    #4193
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,910 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    We had battery powered trains here in the 1930s...

    NTA state the planning process for Maynooth and Northern line electrification is to start in 2018, to apply for permission in 2020 and construction start 2021

    https://twitter.com/joanburton/status/936253536916123649


  • Options
    #4194
    Rashers72
    Registered Users Posts: 1,207 ✭✭✭Rashers72


    So any estimates when a revenue passenger will be carried to either Balbriggan or Maynooth? Best case scenario - would 2023 be aspirational?


  • Options
    #4195
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,910 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Probably yeah. A fire could be lit, slightly, for planning but there will always be time required for all the stages of it.

    Have the early enabling works been done to Balbriggan, bridge raising basically? It was done extensively, probably fully actually on the Maynooth line during the track doubling works in the early 00s.

    They are likely to have some level crossing replacement works in the Maynooth plan that do not actually have to be done at the same time that could be postponed for earlier delivery; but I'm not sure its worth it.


  • Options
    #4196
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,356 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    L1011 wrote: »
    Probably yeah. A fire could be lit, slightly, for planning but there will always be time required for all the stages of it.

    Have the early enabling works been done to Balbriggan, bridge raising basically? It was done extensively, probably fully actually on the Maynooth line during the track doubling works in the early 00s.

    They are likely to have some level crossing replacement works in the Maynooth plan that do not actually have to be done at the same time that could be postponed for earlier delivery; but I'm not sure its worth it.

    Given the costs quoted above you'd be hoping the electrification would be part of a wider "line upgrade" package as part of DART Expansion, with all planned works for that line done in one go.

    It certainly brings down the price of the DART Underground element if it's just the tunnel left to do


  • Options
    #4197
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,859 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    If, for example, the Maynooth line was to be electrified, would it be night time work with some/lots of weekend closures?


  • Options
    #4198
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,910 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    If, for example, the Maynooth line was to be electrified, would it be night time work with some/lots of weekend closures?

    The original DART electrification was done with just overnight closures and some single track running; that involved significant track bed lowering also.

    I think (but don't know) that the equivalent work is already done on the Maynooth line so "all" there is to do is the catenary which should definitely be doable in night works; and any over bridges for LC closures which previous experience is that they're done at night.


  • Options
    #4199
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,109 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    L1011 wrote: »
    We had battery powered trains here in the 1930s...

    NTA state the planning process for Maynooth and Northern line electrification is to start in 2018, to apply for permission in 2020 and construction start 2021

    https://twitter.com/joanburton/status/936253536916123649

    How long was she in Government? What did she do?

    Feck all! She was Tanaiste. Jesus wept!


  • Options
    #4200
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,356 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    How long was she in Government? What did she do?

    Feck all! She was Tanaiste. Jesus wept!
    Enda Kenny led a staunch anti-infrastructure Government, except for his own and Jimmy Deenihan pet projects.

    Since Leo came into power in July, a whole four months ago, we've had movement on the N2 through Louth/Monaghan, the M20, according to above DART Expansion, amongst others. Two major road schemes have also gone to tender.

    I think we can give the cynicism a rest and see how it goes, cautiously.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4201
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,843 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Any government here would have slashed infrastructure expenditure, wouldn't matter if it was Kenny or waffling Leo as Taoiseach.

    Mn and du shelved, you'd wonder if there had if been an election and ff were main party, would they have gone with their original scheme and scrapped this new bull**** scheme

    If they had any balls they'd be going with major game changer schemes like mentioned above. More bloody roads serving villages, yawn...


Advertisement