DART+ (DART Expansion)

Theta · 26-11-2009 10:15am

The other reason for the interconnector is to split the lines due to huge congestion currently between clontarf and tara station. Currently as it stands the junction can only take about 11 trains an hour which will be boosted with signalling upgrades to 13 - 15 but this is still not enough to take the dart and intercity traffic so by splitting the lines with one going to the docklands and onto the interconnector they are removing this problem.

Its a good idea and it does need to be done badly, im only hoping they will start soon.

murphaph · 26-11-2009 11:30am

All the folks who still doubt the Interconnector's effectiveness need only look to other cities which have actually built their equivalent already. The idea is not new. Munich built their's nearly 4o years ago. Berlin built it's (overground) version over 100 years ago. They do the business.

BluntGuy · 26-11-2009 12:14pm

I'm sure Irish Rail won't mind me copying part of their response to an e-mail I sent them. Hopefully I'll be able to make it up to Dublin for the public consultations next month.

Dear Mr O'Brien

We would like to address your e-mail etc.

1. While I am well aware that detailed design drawings have most likely not been made out at this stage, could you give any indication as to what the stations might look like? Will they be more similar to London Underground stations for example?

Response:
Design drawings are currently ongoing at the moment, but the internal station designs will be akin to modern metro systems throughout Europe. The external access/egress points will vary in appearance depending on locations.

2. Roughtly speaking, how is it envisaged the St.Stephen's Green station will be built? Are the RPA solely responsible for the whole station, or only the Metro North element of it?

Response:
The RPA Metro North element of the St.Stephen's Green Station will include access provision for the DART Underground Station.
The remaining elements of the DART Underground Station oustide of the Metro North footprint will be constructed from a seperate site compound on St.Stephen's Green North.

3. Is the proposed overground Inchicore station now to be developed as part of the main project?

Response:
Yes.

4. What sort of frequencies can we expect when the service is up and running? - Particularly in the city centre area.

Response: The frequency of trains will vary depending on passenger demand. However, the system is being designed to cater ofr up to 20 trains per hour in each direction.

5. It was mentioned in the Irish Times last October that IE will be placing an oder for 432 additional DART carriages. Does IE still intend to see this order through despite the economic downtown?

Response: This order will go ahead and will be phased in line with electrification.

6. Have IE considered the use of a Third Rail or Fourth Rail system for the electrification of either the DART underground tunnel or the whole line?

Response: No, Iarnród Éireann has not considered the use of a Third Rail or Fourth Rail electrification system as the system currently in place on the adjoining lines is an overhead structure.

[Question 7 is in relation to PPP - response is useless for discussion]

8. Instead of the RPA building the Metro West, which quite frankly is wasteful rubbish, have IE ever considered building spur lines to serve important locations on the MW route such as Blanchardstown for example?

Response: Investment for the country's public transport infrastructure is detailed in the governments' Transport 21 investment; we will not be suggesting any deviations from this programme.

9. There was no mention of either the Interconnector or Metro North in the An Bord Snip Nua report. Can this be taken as an indication that these projects are likely to proceed. If the government is only able to fund one of these projects, how will Irish Rail ensure that the most vital, Interconnector, is the one that proceeds?

Response: As far as we aware both projects remain on course to proceed while acknowledging that decisions on the funding of the projects remains a matter for Government. In the recently agreed Renewed Programme for Government it is stated: "We will fast track and prioritise the Dart interconnector (and its associated electrification and rolling stock projects) and Metro North so that they are completed by 2016".

[Question 10 was quoted on another thread]

11. While it may be too early to ask, when the two DART lines are up and running, how will they distinguished from each other? Will it be similar to LUAS with a Green line and Red line?

Response: There will be similar classification, the finer points of branding have not yet been decided upon.

12. Finally, in relation to DART Underground, provided the Railway Order is published this year, and An Bord Pleanála grant it approval some time next year, what timeframe do you envisage for enabling works and ultimately construction?

Respose: Iarnród Éireann plans to begin enabling works in late 2010 or early 2011. Construction by the main contractor is due to commence in 2011 and is expected to take 4 to 5 years.

13. Will an underground spur from the northern line to the airport ever be considered in the long-term?

Response: Iarnród Éireann has no plans to construct a line out to the Airport. The Railway Procurement Agencies Metro North project will be providing a link to the Airport.

Hopefully that provides a little bit of information.

Also IE have vastly improved their DART Undeground page with schematics organised better and some more information. However, the FAQ page now has nothing on it... it went from being a clunky, messy page that at least had information on it, to a page with a download link to passenger penalties information.

Cool Mo D · 26-11-2009 12:59pm

murphaph wrote: »

All the folks who still doubt the Interconnector's effectiveness need only look to other cities which have actually built their equivalent already. The idea is not new. Munich built their's nearly 4o years ago. Berlin built it's (overground) version over 100 years ago. They do the business.

Indeed Dublin's first Interconnector was built in 1891 - and it's by far Ireland's busiest train line to this very day, carrying well over half the passenger journeys on the entire rail network.

29-11-2009 5:00pm

Having followed the line from Heuston to Docklands, on windows live mapping, where there is a branch leading into Connolly I still do not under stand why there is a need for an underground option. There is already a platform in Heuston serving that line, platform 10. The Luas serves the city centre between both stations and both Luas lines are to be joined up. Surely the money that would be spent on this could be better used elsewhere on the network?

Finally, the Inchicore station looks like it is being placed int he middle of nowhere!

markpb · 29-11-2009 5:15pm

foreign wrote: »

Surely the money that would be spent on this could be better used elsewhere on the network?

According to Irish Rail, the existing line between Heuston and Connolly would involved reversing and a 20 minute 20 trip. They also say that the area around Connolly is the main congestion point for the entire Dart network. Fixing that one point should have a huge improvement elsewhere. Lastly it opens the Dart network to new parts of the city (a major problem at the moment) and connects well with Metro North.

Luas doesn't have the capacity to carry the numbers required and (with the exception of the unconnected Green line) also cleverly manages to miss the central business district.

armada104 · 29-11-2009 10:45pm

foreign wrote: »

Having followed the line from Heuston to Docklands, on windows live mapping, where there is a branch leading into Connolly I still do not under stand why there is a need for an underground option. There is already a platform in Heuston serving that line, platform 10. The Luas serves the city centre between both stations and both Luas lines are to be joined up. Surely the money that would be spent on this could be better used elsewhere on the network?

Finally, the Inchicore station looks like it is being placed int he middle of nowhere!

The argument goes that Connolly is already packed and bringing more trains in from Heuston would only make things worse. Others argue that the trains could easily be run into Docklands with minor work, but that's not really relevant to the Interconnector debate.

The main benefit of the interconnector will be to entirely separate trains from Maynooth and trains from the Northern line. According to Irish Rail, this will triple the overall capacity of the Dublin rail network. The two cross-city DART lines will integrate with each other and with all other modes of transport

The purpose of the interconnector is not to link Heuston and Connolly, just like the purpose of Metro North is not trains to the airport. Iarnród Éireann have a difficult job on their hands trying to explain the necessity for this to the public. It's technical and dull and their non-use of the Phoenix Park Tunnel (whether right or wrong) makes it easy for people with an anti-public transport / anti-CIE agenda to dismiss it as wasteful.

http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/dart_underground.asp
Watch the video. It explains the interconnector quite well but it's too long for most people to bother with.

If they're to garner any public support for this they need to give people the headlines: two DART lines, trains every 10 minutes (possibly more), change at St. Stephen's Green or Drumcondra for the airport etc. And they need to show people a great big simplified network map with chunky lines and bright colours and big station names. Because every time there is a thread on this someone comes along and says "hang on, is this really necessary?" IÉ are doing a terrible job at explaining this.

PS @foreign - not saying you need a colourful network map, I just mean that this should be so high profile you couldn't possibly misunderstand it.

Chris_533976 · 29-11-2009 11:05pm

At the moment, everything is poorly joined up. The Interconnector will magically join everything up. We will then have an integrated transport system with all modalities well connected. It will actually be easy to get AROUND Dublin (not just into it) using public transport.

strassenwolf · 30-11-2009 7:20am

There's clearly some very serious inflation happening in the infrastructure business at the moment.

Two to three years ago - when hardly a day went by without, for example, the platform 11 guys, informing us about the benefits of the interconnector on this very board - the figure always quoted was 1.3 billion euro.

(And the p11 lads held on to the 1.3 billion figure for quite a long time, as a quick search through boards.ie will show).

Now, I know that the project is to be a bit longer than originally planned, with the western portal in Inchicore rather than the Heuston complex itself.

But 3 billion?

At a time when infrastructure costs should be coming down, the extension to Inchicore seems to be more than doubling the cost of the project.

Could someone explain?

Theta · 30-11-2009 10:09am

The 3 Billion figure has been quoted for well over a year and that was before the bust. I dont even know if the figure has been revaluated. Even if it hasnt they may be holding onto the figure and adjust at the time the project starts and leave some room for budget overuns.

Sponge Bob · 30-11-2009 10:54am

strassenwolf wrote: »

the figure always quoted was 1.3 billion euro.

On a narrow definition yes. This was the projected cost of the tunnel from Clontarf to Heuston and about 4 stations _only_ . This , by itself , is useless.

Now, I know that the project is to be a bit longer than originally planned, with the western portal in Inchicore rather than the Heuston complex itself.

It is a lot bigger . The tunnel goes to Inchicore now, from Inchicore to Hazelhatch will be electrified and from Clontarf to Balbriggan will too .

The Maynooth line also gets electrified and lots more DART trains will be needed for all that.

The Ballyfermot/Inchicore overground bit must be converted to four tracks too otherwise there is no point doing it al all .

Resignalling will be required too .

But 3 billion?

Could someone explain?[/quote]

Well there is the inevitable mate of someone working for CIE who will invoice for 10000 more truckloads of spoil than was actually removed and who will be paid in full with nobody checking the payment , that is how CIE operate

markpb · 30-11-2009 10:57am

irlmarc wrote: »

The 3 Billion figure has been quoted for well over a year and that was before the bust. I dont even know if the figure has been revaluated. Even if it hasnt they may be holding onto the figure and adjust at the time the project starts and leave some room for budget overuns.

€1.3bn was probably the cost of construction but the PPP cost will be considerably higher.

strassenwolf · 02-12-2009 2:41am

I'm trying to get this straight.

In the middle of the boom, the figure which was always quoted by the p11 people was 1.3 billion euro.

That seems to have been for the tunnel alone.

The extra length for tunnelling to/from Inchicore would have added another few hundred million to the cost.

Now the cost is 3 billion, but - according to posters on this thread - this figure now includes the extra costs of the PPP process, the costs of electrification of Hazelhatch to Inchicore, Maynooth to Connolly and Clontarf to Balbriggan.

Surely these projects would have needed to be carried out, in any case, for the originally planned tunnel to be properly effective?

So why were these not included in the original cost?

I believe that the route needs a bit of tweaking, but it is basically a sensible project, provided that the capacity is used effectively.

Upping the price for the project, by a factor of at least two, in the middle of a downturn, is rather strange.

Theta · 02-12-2009 9:45am

I dont know if this page has been updated but,

http://www.railusers.ie/transport21/costs.php

It may not have been but that included the costs for electrification and other things bringing it to 3.5 billion. Which includes 700 million for stock alone.

strassenwolf · 03-12-2009 11:13am

armada104 wrote: »

If they're to garner any public support for this they need to give people the headlines: two DART lines, trains every 10 minutes (possibly more

...

I think it would probably need to be more than one train every 10 minutes if around 3 billion is to be spent on the project.

IE have talked about the capacity for 20 trains an hour, though this is clearly quite fanciful under the current plans.

I am broadly in favour of this project, as I believe there could be many benefits.

But for it ever to see the light of day, some details need to be ironed out:

e.g.

A) Munich's tunnel, which has been mentioned on this thread. 30 trains an hour in each direction. You are suggesting that there will be six per hour in Dublin, possibly more. In other words, around 20 percent of what we know can be achieved.

"Possibly" more?

The layout of the proposed station at Spencer Dock. As I said above, the proposed 20 trains an hour is a fantasy under the current proposals.

Has anyone on the board got any idea where IE are ever going to get 20 trains an hour from, in one direction, and how they propose to process these with the currently proposed arrangement at Spencer Dock.

armada104 · 03-12-2009 1:27pm

strassenwolf wrote: »

"Possibly" more?

Well yes, I realise that's not exactly reaching for the stars, but as you've mentioned, without a turnback at Spencer Dock it's unclear how many trains per hour could be fed up on to the Northern line. I realise that it would obviously be a lot more than 6 trains per hour.

The other reason I chose such a low number (probably too low a number in retrospect) is that there is no demand for a train every 3 minutes to and from places like Adamstown and Hazelhatch. I'm looking at this from the point of view that there are plenty of people ready to say that IÉ are overreaching themselves and that the project is unnecessary. Obviously there's a balance to be struck, and yes, a train every 10 minutes is underwhelming but I was just trying to reflect the reality of what the service level is actually likely to be at first. I concede that maybe it would be better to mention potential rather than actual service levels, but doing so poses the risk of being accused of being unrealistic.

Regardless of the trains per hour, I think the DART/Metro network (with easy-to-understand map) is the big sell that should be used more often in trying to get the public and politicians behind this. Interestingly, IÉ seem to be much better at doing this than the RPA, generally providing a network map that includes Metro North and Luas as part of their material on the interconnector. The RPA, on the other hand, when confronted with the "nobody needs to get from the city centre to the airport" argument, consistently fail to mention interchange with DART at Stephen's Green and Drumcondra. Presumably because they think only one of these projects will get the go-ahead, if any. They're probably right but they're doing themselves more harm by not explaining the benefits of the two projects combined.

armada104 · 03-12-2009 4:04pm

I should also add that my post above is about publicity. I haven't addressed your points about the capacity because I know very little about it. The "every ten minutes", as you may have guessed, was pulled out of my arse.

Sponge Bob · 03-12-2009 4:14pm

The tunnel section should be able to do 20 trains an hour, build quality and signalling wise and platform length etc from Hazelhatch all the way to Spencer dock where there will be no track sharing.

It will not be able to do 20 trains an hour absent terminus platforms in docklands for some trains liek Strassenwolf pointed out , the trains that will not be able to go north from Spencer dock and absent 4 tracks to Balbriggan from where it joins the Northern line.

There should be a spencer dock style terminus platform in Heuston as well. The busy bit will be from Heuston to Spencer dock and that is the first section that could max out ...around 2030 or so

Theta · 03-12-2009 4:38pm

But cant the use the siding at the clontarf service depot to terminate trains?

I mean off load the passangers and turn in clontarf or whatever?

Hungerford · 03-12-2009 10:51pm

armada104 wrote: »

Well yes, I realise that's not exactly reaching for the stars, but as you've mentioned, without a turnback at Spencer Dock it's unclear how many trains per hour could be fed up on to the Northern line.

I'm an interloper from the C&T forum but I think I can provide a few of the answers. Basically, the plan is for Northern Line trains to terminate at Connolly/Pearse as before. There won't be that many diesel trains on the line as IE now plan to electrify up to Drogheda.

In terms of diesels terminating at Spencer Dock, only Navan line trains will and there would only be about four to six per hour.

In terms of the wider capacity issue, I think a few posters may be getting confused by the fact that the Loop Line [Connolly to Pearse] will remain in operation.

So, in addition to the 20 new train paths per hour provided by the Interconnector, there will still be a slightly lower number (16 if I recall) going through the Loop Line.

Basically, the Interconnector will more than double rail capacity through the city centre.

BluntGuy · 04-12-2009 11:42pm

I want this thread to get more attention - it's the most vital piece of transport infrastructure in the state - so I'm stickying it for a while.

strassenwolf · 05-12-2009 12:43am

Hungerford wrote: »

In terms of the wider capacity issue, I think a few posters may be getting confused by the fact that the Loop Line [Connolly to Pearse] will remain in operation.

So, in addition to the 20 new train paths per hour provided by the Interconnector, there will still be a slightly lower number (16 if I recall) going through the Loop Line.

Basically, the Interconnector will more than double rail capacity through the city centre.

I hope I'm not one of the people who you think is confused on this issue.;)

Train paths are one thing; trains are another: from what I've read fairly recently on this thread, the current plans will probably result in the interconnector (cost, including related works, 3 billion euro) carrying fewer trains than the loop line bridge (cost, effectively zero?).

I fully understand that the interconnector will double rail capacity through the city.

(In fact, I would say that it could do more than that: for example, Munich's city centre tunnel mentioned above currently carries around three times as many passengers as the original planners envisaged would be the demand).

But saying that the tunnel will have a capacity of 20 trains per hour in each direction is a very different thing from saying that 20 trains per hour in each direction will use the tunnel.

With such a large amount of money involved, there does need to be a proper road map explaining how the tunnel's capacity is to actually be used.

Where are these trains going to come from?

Sponge Bob · 05-12-2009 1:39am

Munich took a while to max out the S Bahn common tunnel between Laim and The Ostbahnhof too. It meant that in the first few years the stations felt spacious. Now they are rather crowded. It should take 10-20 years before you notice the place is crowded at 8am but eventually you will.

If you max them out on day one you have obviously failed.

By capacity I mean that the signalling/platform capacities/escalators exits ticketing systems etc etc can handle a full train every 3 minutes or 20 an hour in nearly all stations bar perhaps Christchurch.

Perhaps the elephant you are looking for in the room is that the project does not include a quad track to ( at least) the north fringe of Dublin city if not to Balbriggan. I had not heard of electirifcation to Drogheda until Hungerford mentioned it just there, I thought it would be to Balbriggan.

strassenwolf · 05-12-2009 2:16am

Robert, are you sure you're right?

From what I have read, Munich's city centre tunnel was originally designed to carry around 250,000 people per day.

Within a year of it opening, it was carrying over 400,000 people per day.

Now it's up to over 750,000 per day using the city centre tunnel.

One big difference (from that currently proposed in Dublin) is that Munich's arrangement allowed extra trains to travel through their main tunnel as the signalling was improved.

The problem in Dublin is not going to be extra signalling, or lack of demand for trains which travel between the East and the West of the city.

It's going to be lack of trains which can actually get in and use the tunnel.

Sponge Bob · 05-12-2009 2:44am

Eh ???

IE are ordering 400 new DART carriages , they only have about 150 at present. The cost of this order is a large part of the total cost of €3-4bn for the interconnector.

see

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/budget/news/dart-gets-8364900m-fleet--investment-for-430-new-carriages-1510815.html

Chris_533976 · 05-12-2009 1:35pm

The Interconnector is one of those things that they predict that xxx thousand will use in the first year but in reality about twice that will use it because it will link everything up and be useful.

Sponge Bob · 05-12-2009 3:05pm

It will change EVERYTHING if built. Just like the central Munich S Bahn corridor did or indeed the RER in Paris which was built at the same time or slightly later but for a much larger conurbation than Munich or Dublin.

Nither Munich nor Paris intended to revisit this infrastructure but Munich now must look at it.

I remember being very young and seeing Chatelet Les Halles when it was only a hole in the ground but the biggest hole I ever saw in my life. This is it half filled in already with the lower levels of the RER station.

They had no intention of doing it again so they did it properly. This is what Stephens Green and the whole interconnector project must deliver for Dublin.

armada104 · 05-12-2009 3:10pm

strassenwolf wrote: »

I hope I'm not one of the people who you think is confused on this issue.;)

Ditto. I don't know where you got the impression that there was confusion about this, Hungerford. The concerns people are expressing are about the capacity of the Northern line not matching the capacity of the tunnel.

In their promo video, Iarnród Éireann claim that capacity on the Northern line will increase from 10 to 21 per hour. If the DART is extended to Drogheda (apparently it will be), then we can assume that all trains from as far as Drogheda will be fed into the tunnel. As this removes the conflict with Maynooth trains at Connolly, you can see where some of the capacity increase is coming from. But if the number of trains was increased to 21 it looks like Dundalk and Enterprise trains would spend the majority of their time crawling behind DARTs. And does this mean that Drogheda trains will stop at every single DART station? There are a lot of unanswered questions.

I can see the benefits of the tunnel and I want it to go ahead but it would be stupid not to question these things.

Sponge Bob · 05-12-2009 3:19pm

armada104 wrote: »

And does this mean that Drogheda trains will stop at every single DART station? There are a lot of unanswered questions.

I can see the benefits of the tunnel and I want it to go ahead but it would be stupid not to question these things.

It would be absolutely impossible to have Enterprise + Dart without VERY substantial Quad track sections. Even if it were not continous Quad there would have to be quad around Laytown/Bettytown and one of Skerries / Donabate / Malahide and again around Baldoyle somewhere.

We must assume the high frequency Dart line is Hazelhatch to Spencer Dock or the sidings in Clonraf to the north and no further.

21 trains an hour is impossible , even if that is 10 each way ....still impossible.

That was why they quad tracked out towards Kildare after all.

D.L.R. · 05-12-2009 5:23pm

Having a high capacity tunnel thru town should stand on its own merit, even if all those trains can't fit onto the N.Line.

The city centre needs more trains anyway, judging by a lifetime taking the dart through town. Its always busiest between Lansdowne-Clontarf.

DART+ (DART Expansion)

Comments