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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

DART+ (DART Expansion)

1…140141143145146…217

Comments

  • #7102
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,046 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Will having the depot west of Maynooth have any negative impacts operationally? I mean, how will drivers start/end their shifts with the depot west of Maynooth? The first drivers of the day drive to the depot and train departs from there, how do they get back their to head home if the train doesn't return to the depot until the end of the day? Would it be better to have the trains passing the depot in service allowing for change of driver plus facilities for breaks, toilet stops, etc all at one location?


  • #7103
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    IE 222 wrote: »
    Are you referring to the road bridge at Castleknock station??

    These are 2 separate bridges. The rail bridges are not listed. The canal bridge is listed. The platforms won't allow a lowering of the track bed. The bridge will most likely be raised and a flat deck installed similar to the Old Navan Rd bridge. That bridge will most likely be raised as well.

    Broombridge could be knocked and incorporate something into the new Luas bridge.

    Broombridge should 100% never be knocked.


  • #7104
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,591 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Will having the depot west of Maynooth have any negative impacts operationally? I mean, how will drivers start/end their shifts with the depot west of Maynooth? The first drivers of the day drive to the depot and train departs from there, how do they get back their to head home if the train doesn't return to the depot until the end of the day? Would it be better to have the trains passing the depot in service allowing for change of driver plus facilities for breaks, toilet stops, etc all at one location?

    We already cope with depots in Portlaoise and Drogheda for services that start a lot further in.

    There will not be any depot on the Hazelhatch service, so trying to think of idealised service patterns to reduce dead running by either vehicles or staff goes out the window.


  • #7105
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,046 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    L1011 wrote: »
    We already cope with depots in Portlaoise and Drogheda for services that start a lot further in.

    There will not be any depot on the Hazelhatch service, so trying to think of idealised service patterns to reduce dead running by either vehicles or staff goes out the window.

    Presumably the relevant trains are regularly returning to those depots in service throughout the day, meaning they don't have this same issue. I was thinking more about extending DART to Kilcock, thereby passing the depot. It may be idealised but it is also beneficial for very little extra cost/effort. Surely the point of this type of investment is to make operations as efficient as possible. HH may not have a full depot but some documents definitely referred to stabling there.


  • #7106
    L1011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 69,591 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Presumably the relevant trains are regularly returning to those depots in service throughout the day.

    They mostly aren't. Neither get many trains near them a day and the Portlaoise one is well away from regular services.

    I've argued for extension to Kilcock in my submission; but any minor theorethical operational advantage is not going to swing it.


  • #7107
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Broombridge should 100% never be knocked.

    They'll need to alter it one way or another. The fact a new bridge is been built for Luas at the exact location it would be rather simple to do them both as one unless there is something preventing Broombridge been demolished.


  • #7108
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,943 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    L1011 wrote: »
    We already cope with depots in Portlaoise and Drogheda for services that start a lot further in.

    There will not be any depot on the Hazelhatch service, so trying to think of idealised service patterns to reduce dead running by either vehicles or staff goes out the window.

    Having all ICR servicing concentrated in Portlaoise and Drogheda does cause quite a bit of empty running to and fro that ideally could be avoided if some servicing could be done at Inchicore or Connolly.

    It’s far from ideal.


  • #7109
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Presumably the relevant trains are regularly returning to those depots in service throughout the day, meaning they don't have this same issue. I was thinking more about extending DART to Kilcock, thereby passing the depot. It may be idealised but it is also beneficial for very little extra cost/effort. Surely the point of this type of investment is to make operations as efficient as possible. HH may not have a full depot but some documents definitely referred to stabling there.

    The depot report suggests that between 30-70% of the fleet returns to base after the morning peak. Maynooth can only hold 40% of the overall fleet of 600. Presumably Fairview will be kept operational meaning only Maynooth services will operate from Maynooth depot for now. As each routes come online I'd presume each will have a base, stabling and servicing facilities.

    Set can last 2 days without servicing. Rotating sets in service between Maynooth and Fairview is a lot easier done than Portlaoise/Drogheda - Dublin.

    Drogheda, Fairview and Bray have very limited capacity so another site will most likely need to be found should the full 600 cars be ordered. Hazelhatch could easily be served from Fairview.


  • #7110
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    IE 222 wrote: »
    They'll need to alter it one way or another. The fact a new bridge is been built for Luas at the exact location it would be rather simple to do them both as one unless there is something preventing Broombridge been demolished.

    Broombridge might be specially modified as per the Main Report, but it’s a truly historic bridge, beyond even just being protected.

    attachment.php?attachmentid=528814&d=1602277777


  • Advertisement
  • #7111
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Broombridge might be specially modified as per the Main Report, but it’s a truly historic bridge, beyond even just being protected.

    [img][/img]https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=528814&d=1602277777

    What's so special about it.

    I just googled it there. Is it the mathematician who wrote a formula there your referring to?


  • #7112
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    IE 222 wrote: »
    What's so special about it.

    I just googled it there. Is it the mathematician who wrote a formula there your referring to?

    Yeah, it’s hugely famous for that, probably about as famous as a bridge can get for non-architectural reasons!

    It’s also been recently converted to be a two-way bus route (and cycle route) so it’s going to be hard to close for a long duration. Let’s see what the NTA have in mind here.


  • #7113
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Yeah, it’s hugely famous for that, probably about as famous as a bridge can get for non-architectural reasons!

    It’s also been recently converted to be a two-way bus route (and cycle route) so it’s going to be hard to close for a long duration. Let’s see what the NTA have in mind here.

    Fair enough. Well given its more the location than the architecture it wouldn't impose too much on its special status if they where to put a flat deck in.


  • #7114
    D15er
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭D15er


    MJohnston wrote: »
    Yeah, it’s hugely famous for that, probably about as famous as a bridge can get for non-architectural reasons!

    It’s also been recently converted to be a two-way bus route (and cycle route) so it’s going to be hard to close for a long duration. Let’s see what the NTA have in mind here.

    Whatever is planned, there's a lot more work needed that then has to go for two public consultations and an EIS. There are going to be thousands of observations to wade through given you're dealing with protected structures and environmentally sensitive areas.

    There's no way they can stick to their timeline of a Railway Order in q2 2021.


  • #7115
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Glass Prison 1214 wrote: »
    I was handed this NIMBY letter in Coolmine over the weekend. Does anyone know if this is a widely held view in the area?

    From what I've hear. Most of the objections have nothing to do with closing the level crossing. Most are fine with that.

    Most of the objection is to another bridge 500m from an existing bridge and the resulting traffic. Which then gets into a circular argument about it won't cause traffic, but it's needed because of all the traffic. Which then becomes a discussion why people need to drive everywhere and nothing about the trains.

    Which then returns to why do you need to close it anyway if the frequency is the same as the existing dart line which retained level crossing. Then a while bunch of smaller arguments about a bunch of issues with the process.

    I'm guessing most locals (obviously not all) would avoid that crossing even off peak as there are better options to cross the railway then taking a chance of getting caught by a train for a long delay.

    Most of the arguments for the bridge are mostly from people who don't live in the immediate vicinity of it, but drive through the area commuting. Many seem unfamiliar with the area or indeed the plans, or indeed any of the webinars.

    Traffic complaining about traffic, mostly.


  • #7116
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    beauf wrote: »
    Most of the arguments for the bridge are mostly from people who don't live in the immediate vicinity of it, but drive through the area commuting. Many seem unfamiliar with the area or indeed the plans, or indeed any of the webinars.

    Traffic complaining about traffic, mostly.

    It's more like rail complaining about traffic.

    Most of the arguments, on here anyway, is for the railway not the road.

    The residents association group and Leo have both clearly stated they want the crossing to remain open and with reduced closures.

    It's clear that the best solution for everyone is a closed crossing with only a footbridge. It's up to the locals to accept that and push for it.


  • Advertisement
  • #7117
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    https://kfmradio.com/news/26082020-1635/kildare-td-welcomes-opening-dart-extension-consultation

    https://kfmradio.com/news/20092020-1043/population-analysis-and-forecast-requested-maynooth-and-kilcock

    Seems some councillors and TD's are banging the Kilcock drum anyway. If they're penny pinching on Kilcock they can forget about Sallins.

    Looking at the latest passenger numbers Kilcock has fairly good ridership numbers given it population of 6000ish. It has just shy of 800 journeys with only 8 of the 21 trains at peak times. It has more a higher number passengers than Dunboyne who also fair better with more services and higher population.


  • #7118
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,494 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Does this work?

    * Double track Newcomen curve. Electric trains should be able to get up it OK.

    * Electrify Glasnevin-Heuston. Add two high-level platforms at Platform 9 in Heuston. Northsiders had previously complained DART Underground would deprive them of a direct service to Connolly. It would also keep a proportion of people off the busiest section of Luas.

    * Use the reversing manoeuvre at Connolly / Spencer Dock for driver changes.

    * Potentially the only crossing trains are those from Kildare / Hazelhatch. That said, they seem to be proposing a diamond crossover at Glasnevin Junction.

    * Alternatively, use the MGWR line for westbound trains and the GSWR line for eastbound trains, thereby allowing overtaking.

    529020.png


  • #7119
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Victor wrote: »
    Does this work?

    * Double track Newcomen curve. Electric trains should be able to get up it OK.

    * Electrify Glasnevin-Heuston. Add two high-level platforms at Platform 9 in Heuston. Northsiders had previously complained DART Underground would deprive them of a direct service to Connolly. It would also keep a proportion of people off the busiest section of Luas.

    * Use the reversing manoeuvre at Connolly / Spencer Dock for driver changes.

    * Potentially the only crossing trains are those from Kildare / Hazelhatch. That said, they seem to be proposing a diamond crossover at Glasnevin Junction.

    * Alternatively, use the MGWR line for westbound trains and the GSWR line for eastbound trains, thereby allowing overtaking.

    529020.png


    * Doubling Newcome jct was part of the Connolly upgrade plan that doesn't seem to be going ahead now in favour of route changes and cost cutting. The drop lock is still been installed to allow them replace the opening bridge with a non opening one. To install a double line also required work to be done on Newcome bridge, this was expensive but if they're to achieve the 23tphpd in future it would need to be doubled although they'll have no option but to upgrade Connolly at that point.

    * Dart South West will bring electrification via PPT. It will use platform 10. Giving the new plan will require transfer at Glasnevin I can't see people opting to use this over Luas. I think this plan will also take numbers away from the GCD services in favour of Luas at Hueston especially if Lucan Luas is built.

    * No lines will use or operate on both Connolly and Spencer Dock. Glasnevin could be used if this option was to be needed.

    * The option was and as far as I can tell it's still the plan to run Maynooth services via Newcome and Kildare via North Strand. I'm pretty sure the updated Connolly report has a section regarding North Strand Jct upgrades in order to facilitate this. Doing this removes the need of a diamond at Glasnevin. The Glasnevin diamond was proposed in a number of options but none passed stage 1 as they were totally opposed to this idea.

    (This is wrong, I believe only the 5 terminating services on platform 7 will use the curve. The rest will operate via Ossary Rd.)

    * If I'm reading you right you don't remove the conflict. At that point of the line overtaking would have very limited benefits.

    You'd have to question if it's really necessary or worth the cost of replacing Docklands with Spencer Dock. I personally don't see the value in that expense which will essentially just be a glorified turn back facility for Kildare services, Docklands would be more than capable to provide this as well as handle the expected passenger capacity. For me the benefit of Spencer Dock was like having a mini Connolly with a range of routes to Kildare, Maynooth and Drogheda.

    The other issues are Drumcondra been vastly reduced and I don't really buy into the vision of forcing transfers at Glasnevin to drive up the BCR. I think Bus Connects shows people are not in favour of transfers and would rather avoid them. You run a high risk of losing passengers from GCD - Kildare services which has seen large growth over the last couple of years. It also decreases the benefits of SDZs such as Clonburris been built along the line by not having direct city centre trains.


  • #7120
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,046 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    IE 222 wrote: »
    You'd have to question if it's really necessary or worth the cost of replacing Docklands with Spencer Dock. I personally don't see the value in that expense which will essentially just be a glorified turn back facility for Kildare services, Docklands would be more than capable to provide this as well as handle the expected passenger capacity. For me the benefit of Spencer Dock was like having a mini Connolly with a range of routes to Kildare, Maynooth and Drogheda.

    If the cloth has to be cut, I'd rather see them focusing investment on Connolly at the expense of Spencer Dock. This is probably a once in a century opportunity to upgrade Connolly and that needs to be done right. So much hinges on Connolly and having four through platforms there would be hugely beneficial. The Spencer Dock station could be created at any point in the future and would ideally be done with at least some level of design completed on DU to minimise disruption and costs when it actually goes ahead. Obviously first choice is both to be done but I'd hate to see them cheap out on Connolly to pay for Spencer Dock, as you say, Docklands can do a job for now with Spencer Dock remaining a possibility in future.


  • #7121
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    If the cloth has to be cut, I'd rather see them focusing investment on Connolly at the expense of Spencer Dock. This is probably a once in a century opportunity to upgrade Connolly and that needs to be done right. So much hinges on Connolly and having four through platforms there would be hugely beneficial. The Spencer Dock station could be created at any point in the future and would ideally be done with at least some level of design completed on DU to minimise disruption and costs when it actually goes ahead. Obviously first choice is both to be done but I'd hate to see them cheap out on Connolly to pay for Spencer Dock, as you say, Docklands can do a job for now with Spencer Dock remaining a possibility in future.


    Exactly, the whole project and Intercity services completely relies on Connolly's ability to function. Apart form train movements Connolly won't be able to cope with the future increased number of passengers. Even Jacob's report suggests this is a bad idea. It will be a big ask to fund it at a later date and the level of disruption it will create will be immense. It's a massive gamble with the potential for a even bigger backlash. It seriously hampers growth, service level increases and heavily relies on peoples willingness to accept transfers over direct services on both Wexford and Kildare lines. The Glasnevin transfer is another potential mess. Wait times and possibly trains already full when arriving.

    Spencer Dock will just become a big white elephant if it's limited to Kildare services and will be seen as €100 million plus wasted. Putting Connolly aside that €100million would be better spent on the likes of Kilcock and overtaking loops on the Northern line. In this case I'd rather see them reduce the number of Kildare Darts into Spencer Dock to 6 and operate it as a small regional terminal at peak times using the high capacity ICRs sets for Dundalk, Mullingar, Portlaoise, Carlow and Athlone.

    The conflict issues haven't gone away either. Using platform 7 for terminating forces everything else into 5 and 6. Sligo trains and 2 other Dart services are also going to need to cross over into platforms 1-4. Clonflict will also remain at Glasnevin and will be a lot worse with increased frequencies and the need to stop. It also cripples Intercity services on the Northern line. The timetable isn't exactly straightforward either from a passengers perspective. Maynooth line will offer 5 different routes all along the same stretch of line. Northern line is the same with Northbound Darts running to either Clongriffin or Malahide.

    I would imagine it also means whatever was planned for Dun Laoghaire will be drastically scaled back as well to make use of the current turn back bay. The opening of Glasnevin could potentially be deferred for preference of transfer at Drumcondra.


  • Advertisement
  • #7122
    CatInABox
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    Could they be planning on building Spencer Dock, keeping Docklands, and then using these two as a replacement for Connolly while it's being upgraded?


  • #7123
    D15er
    Closed Accounts Posts: 94 ✭✭D15er


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    That's exactly what's going on here. You've cracked it.

    I mean, you're all for not planning for future expansion "to save money" sure.

    No, couldn't give a shyte about saving money. The actual spend on this will be multiples of the projected budget so they may as well shoot for the stars.


  • #7124
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    CatInABox wrote: »
    Could they be planning on building Spencer Dock, keeping Docklands, and then using these two as a replacement for Connolly while it's being upgraded?

    No, although possible that's not within their sights. They believe the remodelling of routes will deliver the capacity needed until the "unlimited rail" plan is required. They don't expect that to be needed for another 15-20 years. My reading of it is that on their predictions Connolly will suffice until the "unlimited rail" plan is needed. Its beggars believe to go to the expense of this project only to delay implementing the core part of it for 15-20 years at a even greater expense and massive disruption. The Connolly works were costed at €200 million while Spencer Dock €160 million, it doesn't take much to figure out which one offers a better return.


  • #7125
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    D15er wrote: »
    No, couldn't give a shyte about saving money. The actual spend on this will be multiples of the projected budget so they may as well shoot for the stars.

    Your right, having to jump through hurdles to satisfy a few will undoubtedly drive the costs up.

    Cost doesn't seem to be the only thing multiplying. I see in your previous post one demolished house has now turned into a few.


  • #7126
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,061 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    Folding bikes are allowed on the regular dart, so should still be allowed, I imagine the same will be true of e-scooters. I used to see them on the metro alot in Paris and there was never an issue.


  • #7127
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,061 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    beauf wrote: »
    Being allowed on and having a facilities for them is very different. Especially when it's packed.

    Generally you stand over a folding bike or scooter, what facilities do you need for them exactly?


  • #7128
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,873 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Off peak, full sized bikes would appear to be OK, but not at peak.

    I would think the other passengers might not let you on if it is crowded in any way. It might be difficult getting of a crowded train with a bike as well.


  • #7129
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Off peak, bikes shouldn't be an issue. It would be wise to allocate an area around the toilet area with a dedicated door with a retractable ramp that can provide multiple wheelchair spacing and prams/luggage. It could double up as add standing room when not in use or carry bikes off peak.


  • #7130
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,008 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    The question of bikes/folding bikes/scooters seems more suited to the C&T forum. No reason to think Dart+ will be any different to the rules for the current Dart and Commuter services which are the same as one another and are well explained here:

    https://www.irishrail.ie/travel-information/bicycle-information-for-rail-travel


  • #7131
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,873 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Mod: I'll move the Coolmine level crossing discussion to a new thread (when I get time).

    The question of bikes etc on trains is off topic for this thread as it has nothing to do with Dart Expansion.


  • Advertisement
  • #7132
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    We do need to eventually start thinking about bicycle carriages in this country. They’re common in so many other countries.


  • #7133
    Tomrota
    Registered Users Posts: 338 ✭✭Tomrota


    IE 222 wrote: »
    https://kfmradio.com/news/26082020-1635/kildare-td-welcomes-opening-dart-extension-consultation

    https://kfmradio.com/news/20092020-1043/population-analysis-and-forecast-requested-maynooth-and-kilcock

    Seems some councillors and TD's are banging the Kilcock drum anyway. If they're penny pinching on Kilcock they can forget about Sallins.

    Looking at the latest passenger numbers Kilcock has fairly good ridership numbers given it population of 6000ish. It has just shy of 800 journeys with only 8 of the 21 trains at peak times. It has more a higher number passengers than Dunboyne who also fair better with more services and higher population.
    Why?


  • #7134
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Tomrota wrote: »
    Why?

    Well it means extending it an extra 6 miles or so from where its planned to stop. Then your looking at the expense of quad tracking along with a rebuild of the station and that's before you starting adding up the cost of buying land and widening bridges ect. Don't forget that the quad tracking is already designed for this which makes the Kildare line cheap and easy in comparison. Its the section between Hueston - Inchicore that's driving that cost up but that's a lot more palatable than the alternative cost of DU.

    I'm not against the idea but as I said if an extra 500 meters of single track and a bay platform isn't within their budget I can't see any hope for Sallins at all. Judging by other cost estimates on the project you'd be talking €100+ million to do Sallins. With that level of cost and with no intermediate towns it's a hefty price tag. At that rate your nearly just as well going all in and building a spur into Naas town to maximize the return benefit.


  • #7135
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,046 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    IE 222 wrote: »
    Exactly, the whole project and Intercity services completely relies on Connolly's ability to function. Apart form train movements Connolly won't be able to cope with the future increased number of passengers. Even Jacob's report suggests this is a bad idea. It will be a big ask to fund it at a later date and the level of disruption it will create will be immense. It's a massive gamble with the potential for a even bigger backlash. It seriously hampers growth, service level increases and heavily relies on peoples willingness to accept transfers over direct services on both Wexford and Kildare lines. The Glasnevin transfer is another potential mess. Wait times and possibly trains already full when arriving.

    Spencer Dock will just become a big white elephant if it's limited to Kildare services and will be seen as €100 million plus wasted. Putting Connolly aside that €100million would be better spent on the likes of Kilcock and overtaking loops on the Northern line. In this case I'd rather see them reduce the number of Kildare Darts into Spencer Dock to 6 and operate it as a small regional terminal at peak times using the high capacity ICRs sets for Dundalk, Mullingar, Portlaoise, Carlow and Athlone.

    The conflict issues haven't gone away either. Using platform 7 for terminating forces everything else into 5 and 6. Sligo trains and 2 other Dart services are also going to need to cross over into platforms 1-4. Clonflict will also remain at Glasnevin and will be a lot worse with increased frequencies and the need to stop. It also cripples Intercity services on the Northern line. The timetable isn't exactly straightforward either from a passengers perspective. Maynooth line will offer 5 different routes all along the same stretch of line. Northern line is the same with Northbound Darts running to either Clongriffin or Malahide.

    I would imagine it also means whatever was planned for Dun Laoghaire will be drastically scaled back as well to make use of the current turn back bay. The opening of Glasnevin could potentially be deferred for preference of transfer at Drumcondra.

    I had a quick look at the reports again, Docklands Option A (expanded station next to existing Docklands Station) is costed at €91m but Option B (relocated station at Spencer Dock) is €138m. The cost difference is much smaller than I expected. It probably doesn't make much difference to Connolly where the options are priced at >€180m. The report also states Option B does provide over €84.7 million more in terms of transport user benefits.

    A new Spencer Dock Station could be built in such a way so as to limit works required should DART Underground proceed in future. The new Spencer Dock Station should be as deep as practical below ground level to minimise excavation for DART Underground. Platforms, etc. should be precast sections which could be lifted out and reused. The station building/concourse could span parallel to Mayor Street straddling the tracks/platforms rather than situated off to the side as shown in drawings. It is almost certain that the platforms from any future DART Underground station further south will stretch back under Mayor Street so this station/concourse could be retained as a northern entrance to the new station. Foundations and structural supports would have to be placed outside of future track alignment or at least station building/concourse be of composite construction so could be removed for construction and later reassembled.


  • #7136
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    I had a quick look at the reports again, Docklands Option A (expanded station next to existing Docklands Station) is costed at €91m but Option B (relocated station at Spencer Dock) is €138m. The cost difference is much smaller than I expected. It probably doesn't make much difference to Connolly where the options are priced at >€180m. The report also states Option B does provide over €84.7 million more in terms of transport user benefits.

    A new Spencer Dock Station could be built in such a way so as to limit works required should DART Underground proceed in future. The new Spencer Dock Station should be as deep as practical below ground level to minimise excavation for DART Underground. Platforms, etc. should be precast sections which could be lifted out and reused. The station building/concourse could span parallel to Mayor Street straddling the tracks/platforms rather than situated off to the side as shown in drawings. It is almost certain that the platforms from any future DART Underground station further south will stretch back under Mayor Street so this station/concourse could be retained as a northern entrance to the new station. Foundations and structural supports would have to be placed outside of future track alignment or at least station building/concourse be of composite construction so could be removed for construction and later reassembled.

    It would be sensible to have as much of the DU station prepared when constructing Spencer Dock. From reading the report I think the tunnel and station area will be cut and cover so should be less complicated. Spencer Dock will offer less disruption than the Docklands site but the sounds of it.

    In saying that, the needs of Spencer Docks have been drastically downgraded to a fraction of it's designed capacity and volume of passengers. It's not envisioned to expand services there within the next 20 years according to the modelling anyway. The whole basis of the station was designed and planned for all 3 Dart lines offering a frequent service throughout the day. With the level of transfers at Glasnevin the demand for Docklands doesn't warrant a new station. It will merely just become a turn back. Even the associated works outside the station to connect all 3 lines to it where a costly expense, I believe that's what is driving the €138 million price tag up to €165 million.

    With a remodelling of the line to North Strand jct Docklands should be capable of serving the much reduced needs of Kildare line. Spencer Dock should be preserved for a later date and judging by the level of chopping I can't see either IE or NTA having any vision for Spencer Dock until DU goes ahead.


  • #7137
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Would it be wise for Dart to look at moving away from intermediate timetables when the network is developed or do people still look for the exact minute of departure on such services. Given there'll be a frequency of roughly every 5 - 15 mins with the majority been closer to 5mins and only Greystones been the exception.

    Ideally trains should only have a scheduled departure time from its originated station and maybe key locations such as connecting stations and 1 city centre station. These stops could be used to ensure trains keep within their paths. Each station should just display the routes serving it and the frequency interval throughout the day. Real time info on platforms can give more precise info.

    Rather than run on a stop by stop schedule trains should solely run on headway and paths within the boundary of Dart. Obviously outer regional or intercity services running on lower frequency will remain timetabled.

    Would this speed services up and remove unnecessary padding, holding early arriving trains until listed departure times?


  • #7138
    1huge1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,174 ✭✭✭1huge1


    I'm no expert but I'd imagine part of the problem with that is that the line is shared with commuter and intercity trains which do run on a timetable. Open for correction.


  • #7139
    riddlinrussell
    Registered Users Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    1huge1 wrote: »
    I'm no expert but I'd imagine part of the problem with that is that the line is shared with commuter and intercity trains which do run on a timetable. Open for correction.

    Would think freeing the Darts from a specific timetable would help with that? Instead of aiming to be at station x at 10am exactly they can arrive within 5 minutes, giving time if needed for an intercity to pass them out? Maybe I'm wrong on that but seems it would make this more flexible?


  • #7140
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    Moving the Docklands was always a bit dubious.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irelands-newest-train-station-could-move-because-of-major-shortfall-in-passengers-36916197.html

    They want to move it to increase numbers. But they had made that train is shorter than it used to be and numbers had exploded on it, and was dangerously overcrowded.
    It also only runs at peak, and not at the weekend. Its literally a 5 min walk (400m) between the station and Spencer Dock.
    It could be made quicker if they just made a walkway through from the Bus Park at the Docklands to Spencer Dock
    And sign posted it. The sign to direct people leaving the station could be made a lot more obvious.
    Considering the time it takes to get into Connolly and walk back out of it. Its as quick to go to the Docklands and walk back past Connolly. But most people won't be aware of that.
    Spencer Docks (going city center) is/was very crowded at peak in the evenings. I wonder what are the number stats on it.

    Docklands always seemed underutilised to me.


  • Advertisement
  • #7141
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    1huge1 wrote: »
    I'm no expert but I'd imagine part of the problem with that is that the line is shared with commuter and intercity trains which do run on a timetable. Open for correction.

    Commuter services will become part of the Dart network. Trains will still run within paths. For example a southbound Dart from Connolly to Bray could operate freely without waiting for departure times at each station. It might only knock 2 or 3 mins off the journey time but it will encourage drivers to operate faster without been held at the next stop.


  • #7142
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    beauf wrote: »
    Moving the Docklands was always a bit dubious.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irelands-newest-train-station-could-move-because-of-major-shortfall-in-passengers-36916197.html

    They want to move it to increase numbers. But they had made that train is shorter than it used to be and numbers had exploded on it, and was dangerously overcrowded.
    It also only runs at peak, and not at the weekend. Its literally a 5 min walk (400m) between the station and Spencer Dock.
    It could be made quicker if they just made a walkway through from the Bus Park at the Docklands to Spencer Dock
    And sign posted it. The sign to direct people leaving the station could be made a lot more obvious.
    Considering the time it takes to get into Connolly and walk back out of it. Its as quick to go to the Docklands and walk back past Connolly. But most people won't be aware of that.
    Spencer Docks (going city center) is/was very crowded at peak in the evenings. I wonder what are the number stats on it.

    Docklands always seemed underutilised to me.

    That's old news. The reason for moving it is to increase capacity overall with the number of trains and routes using it and to better accommodate Dart Underground while also making use of Luas. It allows frequency increases on all 3 lines by avoiding Connolly.

    The question now is whether this move is required with the scaled back services. The new routes downgraded the need for it and Docklands can suffice with Kildare. Although the number of trains using it will increase passenger numbers are expected to pretty much remain the same or even drop at peak time given Docklands only operates at peak times currently.


  • #7143
    Dats me
    Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭Dats me


    IE 222 wrote: »
    That's old news. The reason for moving it is to increase capacity overall with the number of trains and routes using it and to better accommodate Dart Underground while also making use of Luas. It allows frequency increases on all 3 lines by avoiding Connolly.

    The question now is whether this move is required with the scaled back services. The new routes downgraded the need for it and Docklands can suffice with Kildare. Although the number of trains using it will increase passenger numbers are expected to pretty much remain the same or even drop at peak time given Docklands only operates at peak times currently.


    What do you mean by scales back services? What are the services now and what are they scales back compared to? Sorry if this has been said already


  • #7144
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Dats me wrote: »
    What do you mean by scales back services? What are the services now and what are they scales back compared to? Sorry if this has been said already

    Firstly current service will remain in place until Dart+ changes.

    Dart+ is to see Spencer Dock developed which allowes a number of trains from Maynooth, Kildare and Drogheda to serve it along with increasing its platform capacity and to later become part of Dart Underground. This was needed in order to increase the frequency level on each line by avoiding Connolly. It also gave each line a number of through services on the LLB.

    This has since been revised and only Kildare lines will serve it in favour of running most Maynooth and Drogheda service through the LLB. Kildare line services will focus on passengers transferring at Glasnevin or Hueston for city centre. The current M3 service will move to Connolly. Spencer Dock will effectively just be used as a turn back facility and DU is still nothing more than a pipe dream really at the moment. With the €165 million price tag and the fact Docklands will be capable of handling the revised services, minor works are needed, you'd have to ponder if this should be taking precedence over more vitality important projects such as Connolly upgrade. Connolly upgrade would offer immediate benefits to all Connolly services while Spencer Dock will sit idly under used as Connolly continues to struggle with capacity limits.

    Essentially, why build something designed and planned on a system you don't tend use in the medium - long term.


  • #7145
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,666 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    The counterpoint to that is that perhaps Docklands/Spencer Dock is in a location that's much more oriented towards where the majority of Dubliners will be working in the near future.


  • #7146
    riddlinrussell
    Registered Users Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    MJohnston wrote: »
    The counterpoint to that is that perhaps Docklands/Spencer Dock is in a location that's much more oriented towards where the majority of Dubliners will be working in the near future.

    I appreciate possible future proofing that this offers, but given just how integral to the operation of the entire network Connolly appears to be until DU comes around, I think it should probably still get priority...


  • Advertisement
  • #7147
    beauf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,648 ✭✭✭✭beauf


    MJohnston wrote: »
    The counterpoint to that is that perhaps Docklands/Spencer Dock is in a location that's much more oriented towards where the majority of Dubliners will be working in the near future.

    I wonder how much of companies around that area are WFH. A lot I would imagine.


  • #7148
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    MJohnston wrote: »
    The counterpoint to that is that perhaps Docklands/Spencer Dock is in a location that's much more oriented towards where the majority of Dubliners will be working in the near future.

    There is nothing wrong with the location and the plan itself is a good idea and worth the investment imo but it's a purpose built station and it's meaningless if they dont tend to use it for that purpose within the next 15-20 years.

    If something needs to give, you'll get more bang from you're buck with a Connolly upgrad than a Spencer Dock one, the price difference between them is rather small for the scale of works. There is clearly doubts that if all Dart+ projects will be funded so I think it would be better to get Connolly done while its possible.

    The remodelling and BEMUs should be fall back/gap filler plan for if future projects are to be deferred not the leading specified plan. Once they complete the Maynooth line they can still achieve everything they wanted to without doing it.


  • #7149
    liamog
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 8,061 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    beauf wrote: »
    I wonder how much of companies around that area are WFH. A lot I would imagine.

    It's mostly finance and tech, so working from home is pretty straightforward. I work in a tech company by the point. We've found that a lot of the younger staff want to go back to the office because they mostly live in small apartments or shares. There isn't really enough room for them to work from home on a permanent basis.


  • #7150
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    beauf wrote: »
    I wonder how much of companies around that area are WFH. A lot I would imagine.

    That wouldn't be a long term concern. Even if there was large scale downsizing these buildings will be utilized or repurposed before constructing more.


  • #7151
    gjim
    Registered Users Posts: 1,231 ✭✭✭gjim


    IE 222 wrote: »
    This has since been revised and only Kildare lines will serve it in favour of running most Maynooth and Drogheda service through the LLB. Kildare line services will focus on passengers transferring at Glasnevin or Hueston for city centre. The current M3 service will move to Connolly. Spencer Dock will effectively just be used as a turn back facility and DU is still nothing more than a pipe dream really at the moment. With the €165 million price tag and the fact Docklands will be capable of handling the revised services, minor works are needed, you'd have to ponder if this should be taking precedence over more vitality important projects such as Connolly upgrade. Connolly upgrade would offer immediate benefits to all Connolly services while Spencer Dock will sit idly under used as Connolly continues to struggle with capacity limits.
    Why would it be left sit idle while Connolly struggles when there would be the option of shifting any northern, Kildare or Maynooth services to the new Spencer Dock station?

    The LLB cannot handle everything that the northern, Kildare and Maynooth DART services would be capable of delivering into Dublin so there's no option except to terminate some services before the LLB.

    And surely there would be advantages in terminating any DARTs coming from Kildare or Maynooth in the new Spencer Dock station rather than Connolly as they'd have an unimpeded run to Spencer Dock without having to merge with a congested northern line?

    I also find the location quite attractive and it delivers people into the centre of what will be one of the densest parts of the docklands with direct access to Luas and a much shorter walk to the south docks. With ML and an interchange at Cross Guns, the connectivity options will be great - which would drive all-day demand instead of the into-town-in-the-morning, home-in-the-evening current pattern of usage in then Docklands station.

    Finally, the way the current docklands station is laid out represents very inefficient use of land and if you decommissioned it, the land under it would have high value for development - it's a bigger plot than the high density Connolly Quarter development being built a block away. The land freed up would surely be worth 60-80m.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement