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)

12357…329

Comments

  • #122
    Hungerford
    Registered Users Posts: 912 ✭✭✭Hungerford


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    I was referring to where Dart crosses the Eastbound track ( or vice versa)...who knows !

    But the Dart doesn't have to cross the eastbound track. The eastbound track appears to just run along the side of the Dart tracks.


  • #123
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    At and east of Park West the two Dart tracks are north of the two express tracks.

    'Something' happens on the section west of Kylemore road which is not part of the KRP and a map is available below showing a section west of Kylemore road and not part of the KRP. The result of the 'something' is that the eastbound express track is north of both Dart Tracks by then.

    The Dart tracks also have power cateneries above them .

    http://www.transport21.ie/Maps/upload/Image/kildare-route-big.gif

    Inchicore station is on the surface which means the Westbound track is surely up on an Overbridge on your map segment Hungerford

    see.

    http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/DartUnderGround/20A%20Proposed%20Layout%20of%20Completed%20Station%20at%20Inchicore.pdf


  • #124
    Gordon Straight Pacemaker
    Posts: 0 ✭ Gordon Straight Pacemaker


    markpb wrote: »

    I've attached a schematic showing what it will look like.

    It's simple things like that which make it easy for fools like me to understand it. It wasn't clear from the information in the news reports that the current DART network would be split.

    Would it be peoples opinions that this has not been well publicised?

    irlmarc wrote: »
    Maybe it might make more sense if you see it,

    Phoenix park tunnel is in black and the interconnector is in red (My tracing is pretty poor)

    I've already traced it on windows live maps. Use the birds eye feature. But thanks for the effort.


  • #125
    armada104
    Closed Accounts Posts: 139 ✭✭armada104


    foreign wrote: »
    It's simple things like that which make it easy for fools like me to understand it. It wasn't clear from the information in the news reports that the current DART network would be split.

    Would it be peoples opinions that this has not been well publicised?
    Sorry for assuming that you knew what was going on. That would be my opinion certainly. It was the whole thrust of my response to your original post.


  • #126
    Hungerford
    Registered Users Posts: 912 ✭✭✭Hungerford


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    At and east of Park West the two Dart tracks are north of the two express tracks.

    That's odd as, according to KRP documents, the Dart/slow tracks should be the centre two - which appears to be the situation in the maps for Inchicore.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    The Dart track in Hazelhatch will be the northern pair, where do they cross over then ??


  • #128
    Hungerford
    Registered Users Posts: 912 ✭✭✭Hungerford


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    The Dart track in Hazelhatch will be the northern pair, where do they cross over then ??

    How do you ascertain that? There's no plans to my knowledge showing the track layout of a post-electification Hazlehatch.


  • #129
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    That is my recollection from observation Hungerford, maybe someone has a schematic somewhere proving otherwise.


  • #130
    Hungerford
    Registered Users Posts: 912 ✭✭✭Hungerford


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    That is my recollection from observation Hungerford, maybe someone has a schematic somewhere proving otherwise.

    My understanding is that the Dart lines will be the centre lines - something which I sure you're also hoping will be the case.

    My fear is that your recollection is correct and Iarnrod Eireann have ballsed up the project even before it has started.


  • #131
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,941 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Hungerford wrote: »
    My understanding is that the Dart lines will be the centre lines - something which I sure you're also hoping will be the case.

    My fear is that your recollection is correct and Iarnrod Eireann have ballsed up the project even before it has started.
    Give them a bit more credit will you?

    My recollection of the KRP docs was that the DART would be the centre two tracks. However, currently they are the northern two. Is this correct? The idea being that when Kildare is electrified, the switch would be made.

    No ballsup.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    ilovegermany
    Closed Accounts Posts: 76 ✭✭ilovegermany


    Just reading back on this thread -
    Am I right in saying that at the moment the Interconnector Project does not plan for 4 tracking between the Kylemore Road Bridge and the Le Fanu Road Bridge?

    This can't be correct is it?


  • #133
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    IE Map (from previous page) shows no 4 track section west of Kylemore.

    crapquad2.jpg


  • #134
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    Ok, there seems to be a few misconceptions here.

    The first is around the kildare route project. The two Dart tracks are going to be in the middle, using the island platforms only, and the intercity on the outside. This means that the layout in the pictures above completely segragates DART from intercity, (assuming 4 track is built, which is a big assumption).

    The other is the northern line. A train coming from the interconenctor NOT have to go onto the Northern line. Look at the junction in front of Connolly- there are clearly two options coming from the docklands, take the curve to the Northern line, or continue straight onto the Phoenix Park tunnel/Maynooth line.

    To run more trains through the city, IE could start at the planned turnback in Inchicore, through the tunnel, onto the Phoenix Park tunnel line, and turn around at platform 10 at Heuston without ever touching the northern line.


  • #135
    armada104
    Closed Accounts Posts: 139 ✭✭armada104


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    The other is the northern line. A train coming from the interconenctor NOT have to go onto the Northern line. Look at the junction in front of Connolly- there are clearly two options coming from the docklands, take the curve to the Northern line, or continue straight onto the Phoenix Park tunnel/Maynooth line.

    To run more trains through the city, IE could start at the planned turnback in Inchicore, through the tunnel, onto the Phoenix Park tunnel line, and turn around at platform 10 at Heuston without ever touching the northern line.
    They could but that's very much not part of the plan. IE's position is that the two DART lines will be completely separate. Obviously this could change long term but it's not part of IE's current argument in favour of the tunnel, the main crux of which is removing the conflict between the Maynooth and Northern lines.


  • #136
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,017 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    IE Map (from previous page) shows no 4 track section west of Kylemore.

    crapquad2.jpg
    Yeah I wouldn't worry about that. That's a project scope map, the heavy black line shows the start/end of project scope. Sometimes such maps show things which will be provided by an adjacent project that are required by the project in question (usually with a reference "by others") or sometimes nothing at all.


  • #137
    Hungerford
    Registered Users Posts: 912 ✭✭✭Hungerford


    armada104 wrote: »
    They could but that's very much not part of the plan. IE's position is that the two DART lines will be completely separate. Obviously this could change long term but it's not part of IE's current argument in favour of the tunnel, the main crux of which is removing the conflict between the Maynooth and Northern lines.

    They won't be entirely separate for operational reasons. The current electrified connection between Connolly and Fairview will have to be maintained so IE can service Darts from the Maynooth line.

    I suspect that the Midland line from Docklands to Glasnevin Junction will also wind up electrified as part of the electrification scheme.


  • #138
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    armada104 wrote: »
    They could but that's very much not part of the plan. IE's position is that the two DART lines will be completely separate. Obviously this could change long term but it's not part of IE's current argument in favour of the tunnel, the main crux of which is removing the conflict between the Maynooth and Northern lines.

    Not part of their plan now, but after the interconnector, if they wanted more trains through the city centre, it could be done with no capital investment. It's just to show that there are options for increasing service through the tunnel without extra tracks on the northern line.


  • #139
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users Posts: 7,516 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    Hungerford wrote: »
    I suspect that the Midland line from Docklands to Glasnevin Junction will also wind up electrified as part of the electrification scheme.

    Which is the midland one, beside the Royal Canal ?


  • #140
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,017 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    GerardKeating wrote: »
    Which is the midland one, beside the Royal Canal ?
    Yeah, that's it.


  • #141
    Hungerford
    Registered Users Posts: 912 ✭✭✭Hungerford


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    Not part of their plan now, but after the interconnector, if they wanted more trains through the city centre, it could be done with no capital investment. It's just to show that there are options for increasing service through the tunnel without extra tracks on the northern line.

    The problem is that you can only send stuff through the tunnel southwards towards Connolly, plus such movements would conflict with Maynooth line darts - even if they reworked the junction, trains would still have to cut across to get to the Midland line.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Hungerford
    Registered Users Posts: 912 ✭✭✭Hungerford


    GerardKeating wrote: »
    Which is the midland one, beside the Royal Canal ?

    Midland line = line from Glasnevin Junction to Docklands [opened 1864]
    Loop line = line from Pearse to Connolly (includes Newcommen Junction with Midland) [opened 1891]
    Maynooth line = line from Glasnevin Junction to Drumcondra/North Wall [opened 1906]


  • #143
    strassenwolf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 642 ✭✭✭strassenwolf


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    Not part of their plan now, but after the interconnector, if they wanted more trains through the city centre, it could be done with no capital investment. It's just to show that there are options for increasing service through the tunnel without extra tracks on the northern line.

    Would you care to elaborate on this?

    When responding, please bear in mind the following:

    How is it proposed to process 20 trains in each direction per hour, through a Spencer Dock station which appears to have only two platfoms?

    And/or

    How is it proposed to process 20 trains in each direction per hour, along a Northern Line which is not - for the foreseeable future - going to be double-tracked.

    I would be very interested to see how - with no capital investment (as you say) - the promised capacities can be achieved.


  • #144
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,941 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    strassenwolf wrote: »
    Would you care to elaborate on this?

    When responding, please bear in mind the following:

    How is it proposed to process 20 trains in each direction per hour, through a Spencer Dock station which appears to have only two platfoms?

    And/or

    How is it proposed to process 20 trains in each direction per hour, along a Northern Line which is not - for the foreseeable future - going to be double-tracked.

    I would be very interested to see how - with no capital investment (as you say) - the promised capacities can be achieved.
    There will be 2 Spencer Dock stations. The terminus, which will handle Navan/Dunboyne trains, and the underground station, which will be a through-station. Trains will only dwell for 30 secs or so. It's terminal stations that have a low throughput.

    The Northern Line will need quad-tracking (which is what you meant to say), but not for a long time. Remember the DART is being extended to Drogheda so this will effectively eliminate the service that we now refer to as the Drogheda Arrow which is run with diesel trains. Dundalk is the only station between Drogheda and the border and it's likely they'll get rid of the diesel Arrows altogether here and just have Belfast trains serve this. So the only services on the Northern line will be DARTs to Howth and Drogheda and the Enterprise.

    Please correct any errors on my part.


  • #145
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    If that is the case, and going by this (http://www.irishrail.ie/your_journey/printed_timetable_pdfs/2010/Dublin%20Belfast%2010.pdf) timetable there are only between 8 and 10 departures on that route a day, then it shouldn't be that big an issue. I'm not up on the mechanics of overtaking, but once every two hours shouldn't pose a problem, I'd think. Would quad-tracking really be worth the expenditure?


  • #146
    dowlingm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    It would cost a *lot* of money to widen the Northern Line alignment based on the overhead photos - the embankment is narrow, a lot of mature trees would have to go and hundreds of adjoining houses encroached on. For me the quickest way to maximise the available infrastructure would be to disconnect the Howth branch.


  • #147
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    I have often thought of the viability of the Howth branch. Would it be possible to have a shuttle service from HJ/D to Howth, just going back and forth with no contact with the mainline? Last time I took the Dart there, the train was quite empty.


  • #148
    dowlingm
    Registered Users Posts: 5,309 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    A busway with artic buses would probably do fine, or LUASification at a pinch. Howth Stn catchment is 50% water 40% golf course FFS.

    If MetroWest was converted to LUASWest (as it should be) the Howth alignment could be its eastern terminus after a run through Coolock and over/under the Northern Line.


  • #149
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,017 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    If and until the metroWest comes along the Howth Branch should run as a heavy rail shuttle service, timed to meet DART and other services at Howth Junction. Pull the direct connection but give them something in return, extra services overall but requiring a cross platform change to get to Dublin.

    It would be the obvious thing to do.


  • #150
    ilovegermany
    Closed Accounts Posts: 76 ✭✭ilovegermany


    murphaph wrote: »
    Yeah I wouldn't worry about that. That's a project scope map, the heavy black line shows the start/end of project scope. Sometimes such maps show things which will be provided by an adjacent project that are required by the project in question (usually with a reference "by others") or sometimes nothing at all.


    Do you reckon then that that section will be identified for four tracking by the time the final application goes in?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,017 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    ilovegermany wrote: »
    Do you reckon then that that section will be identified for four tracking by the time the final application goes in?
    It's already identified for 4 tracking. IE are idiots but they aren't about to build a billion+ euro tunnel and 4 track to within a few hundred yards of it. They know 100% that 4 tracking all the way into the tunnel is what's going to happen.

    I'll eat my hat if the Interconnector doesn't open with 2 dedicated DART tracks all the way from Hazelhatch, throught he tunnel to Spencer Dock. After that who knows.


Advertisement