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)

1226227229231232395

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,117 prunudo
    ✭✭✭


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    How likely/possible is it that extra track be provided at Shanganagh as part of DART+ Coastal South, even if only one northbound? You could have 2km of extra track without demolishing anything which could allow Wexford trains overtake a DART at Woodbrook.

    Good idea, so probably won't happen! But at the very least a corridor should be set aside for future expansion.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,637 loyatemu
    ✭✭✭✭


    the tender for Woodbrook is already out and the design for the big development around the station is done.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,117 prunudo
    ✭✭✭


    loyatemu wrote: »
    the tender for Woodbrook is already out and the design for the big development around the station is done.

    Any idea if they left scope for expansion or is it typical of other developments and designed right to the boundary.
    OT but always thought that section between Bray and Shankill would make a great place for integration into a future metro line to link up to Sandyford.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,637 loyatemu
    ✭✭✭✭


    prunudo wrote: »
    Any idea if they left scope for expansion or is it typical of other developments and designed right to the boundary.
    OT but always thought that section between Bray and Shankill would make a great place for integration into a future metro line to link up to Sandyford.

    Woodbrook plans are here:https://www.woodbrook1shd.com/drawingsarchitecture and the answer to your question is no, they didn't

    TBH I don't think a passing loop so close to Bray would make much difference anyway.

    the proposed Luas extension of the Green Line doesn't use the old Harcourt alignment, instead it goes into "Little Bray" (the bit of Bray north of the Dargle) and connects with the Dart at Bray Station (at least that was the previous preferred route, they'll probably have to redo the design if it gets back into the planning process).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,376 Pete_Cavan
    ✭✭✭


    loyatemu wrote: »
    Woodbrook plans are here:https://www.woodbrook1shd.com/drawingsarchitecture and the answer to your question is no, they didn't

    TBH I don't think a passing loop so close to Bray would make much difference anyway.

    the proposed Luas extension of the Green Line doesn't use the old Harcourt alignment, instead it goes into "Little Bray" (the bit of Bray north of the Dargle) and connects with the Dart at Bray Station (at least that was the previous preferred route, they'll probably have to redo the design if it gets back into the planning process).

    That doesn't prevent an additional track on the eastern side of the existing line, development not happening on that side. The seaward platform at Woodbrook would just become an island which could be done even after the station was built. It is possible to do but obviously there are other factors which will influence if it is worth doing, worth considering though.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,030 cgcsb
    ✭✭✭✭


    Rosslare is a bit of a conundrum. I think that we'll see when the high speed rail study comes out that there'll be some political quid pro quo for the lesser used lines Sligo, Rosslare etc. basically if we're connecting the three cities by hsr the towns on lesser used lines will have to get some line speed improvements. It's shouldn't be hard to improve speeds on the Rosslare line, most of the slowness is not accounted for by sharing with DART but rather the ****e single track further south. It takes 2 hours to get from Rosslare to Greystones by train, work out a programme to reduce that to 1.5hrs or less and increase the frequency of the service and the politics of stopping Rosslare trains and swapping to DART at Greystones goes away.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,637 loyatemu
    ✭✭✭✭


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Rosslare is a bit of a conundrum. I think that we'll see when the high speed rail study comes out that there'll be some political quid pro quo for the lesser used lines Sligo, Rosslare etc. basically if we're connecting the three cities by hsr the towns on lesser used lines will have to get some line speed improvements. It's shouldn't be hard to improve speeds on the Rosslare line, most of the slowness is not accounted for by sharing with DART but rather the ****e single track further south. It takes 2 hours to get from Rosslare to Greystones by train, work out a programme to reduce that to 1.5hrs or less and increase the frequency of the service and the politics of stopping Rosslare trains and swapping to DART at Greystones goes away.

    I still think the "Intercity" services will go through to Connolly, with additional "Commuter" services connecting to Greystones. Politics will come into play.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,670 IE 222
    ✭✭✭


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    How likely/possible is it that extra track be provided at Shanganagh as part of DART+ Coastal South, even if only one northbound? You could have 2km of extra track without demolishing anything which could allow Wexford trains overtake a DART at Woodbrook.

    Its possible but what about the other 4 or 5 Darts in front of it before it got there. You'd only be knocking 2-3 mins off the journey provided the Rosslare can approach without having to wait for the Dart to clear the line.

    To gain any worthwhile improvements for the line your talking doubling Bray Head and treble tracking about 50% of the line. That's hundards of €million to serve 1 route with a 1000 commuters.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 BonnieSituation
    ✭✭✭✭


    IE 222 wrote: »
    Its possible but what about the other 4 or 5 Darts in front of it before it got there. You'd only be knocking 2-3 mins off the journey provided the Rosslare can approach without having to wait for the Dart to clear the line.

    To gain any worthwhile improvements for the line your talking doubling Bray Head and treble tracking about 50% of the line. That's hundards of €million to serve 1 route with a 1000 commuters.

    One would assume that the amount of commuters would grow with a better service. Anyway...

    ---

    Tbh, any further coastal expansion is a bit pointless given the cost and the erosion that will become a growing problem.

    The line needs to go inland really somewhere. Now that is a bigger ballache to deal with.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,030 cgcsb
    ✭✭✭✭


    IE 222 wrote: »
    Its possible but what about the other 4 or 5 Darts in front of it before it got there. You'd only be knocking 2-3 mins off the journey provided the Rosslare can approach without having to wait for the Dart to clear the line.

    To gain any worthwhile improvements for the line your talking doubling Bray Head and treble tracking about 50% of the line. That's hundards of €million to serve 1 route with a 1000 commuters.

    only 1000 using a rubbish service but tens of thousands using bus services and driving cars up the motorway because that's faster and better value than the rubbish train service. I see there's a big spend project upgrading the M11 for all the people who think the train service to Wicklow and Wexford is rubbish.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 876 Lord Glentoran
    ✭✭✭


    AngryLips wrote: »
    RIP the Rosslare line

    If they do that then ferries should shift to Waterford and have a ship side rail connection to Dublin, Limerick, Galway and Cork at Belview. Simple as that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 BonnieSituation
    ✭✭✭✭


    Imagine if Iarnród Éireann only knew that they owned Rosslare Europort.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,670 IE 222
    ✭✭✭


    One would assume that the amount of commuters would grow with a better service. Anyway...

    ---

    Tbh, any further coastal expansion is a bit pointless given the cost and the erosion that will become a growing problem.

    The line needs to go inland really somewhere. Now that is a bigger ballache to deal with.

    Yes there is definitely growth to be gained but there comes a point where it's not economically viable.

    The money involved here would build a new line and there ain't many options for a new line either. Best I can see is something running along the M50 to Park West or taking over the Harcourt alignment from Luas after that its tunnelling.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,670 IE 222
    ✭✭✭


    cgcsb wrote: »
    only 1000 using a rubbish service but tens of thousands using bus services and driving cars up the motorway because that's faster and better value than the rubbish train service. I see there's a big spend project upgrading the M11 for all the people who think the train service to Wicklow and Wexford is rubbish.

    I don't disagree but until someone is willing to pull road funding and sign of on what I'd imagine would be well over €500 million nothing is going change. It's a very large investment with a very limited return.

    The NTA ruled it out as been too expanse and expensive and that was just the Bray Head part.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,030 cgcsb
    ✭✭✭✭


    Just pull road funding then. A policy of widening existing commuter motorways is counter productive in this day and age. If there is a capacity issue on motorways build PT


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,693 bk
    Mod ✭✭✭✭


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Just pull road funding then. A policy of widening existing commuter motorways is counter productive in this day and age. If there is a capacity issue on motorways build PT

    Well there are motorways like the M20 that still desperately need doing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 BonnieSituation
    ✭✭✭✭


    bk wrote: »
    Well there are motorways like the M20 that still desperately need doing.

    Yes. But not at the expense of PT in a capital city that has been crying out for rail upgrades for half a century.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,030 cgcsb
    ✭✭✭✭


    bk wrote: »
    Well there are motorways like the M20 that still desperately need doing.

    That's a new motorway that provides an inter-city and port connecting function. A different concept to widening an existing commuter motorway to encourage more rural to city car commuting. The M28 and and the Foynes-Adare motorways are also justifiable on that basis.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,693 bk
    Mod ✭✭✭✭


    Yes. But not at the expense of PT in a capital city that has been crying out for rail upgrades for half a century.

    Of course, I'm not suggesting that for a moment!

    Though Cork has been massively underinvested compared to Dublin over the past 30 years. Every motorway leads to Dublin, M50, port tunnel, Luas, vastly better bus services, Dart. And hopefully soon Metrolink, Dart+, Busconnects, etc.

    The least they could do for Cork is build the M20!

    Of course hopefully we will also see a big improvement in Cork Bus Service under Busconnects, maybe Cork Luas, improvements to rail (Blarney), etc.
    cgcsb wrote: »
    That's a new motorway that provides an inter-city and port connecting function. A different concept to widening an existing commuter motorway to encourage more rural to city car commuting. The M28 and and the Foynes-Adare motorways are also justifiable on that basis.

    I agree completely, that clarification just wasn't clear from your comment.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,088 BonnieSituation
    ✭✭✭✭


    bk wrote: »
    Of course, I'm not suggesting that for a moment!

    Though Cork has been massively underinvested compared to Dublin over the past 30 years. Every motorway leads to Dublin, M50, port tunnel, Luas, vastly better bus services, Dart. And hopefully soon Metrolink, Dart+, Busconnects, etc.

    The least they could do for Cork is build the M20!

    Of course hopefully we will also see a big improvement in Cork Bus Service under Busconnects, maybe Cork Luas, improvements to rail (Blarney), etc.



    I agree completely, that clarification just wasn't clear from your comment.

    I knew you didn't mean that, but it needs to be said all the time. I'm all for investing more in Cork and Limerick and the SW generally to take the pressure off Dublin and the GDA.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,925 dublinman1990
    ✭✭✭


    IÉ is holding a webinar for Clonsilla Residents affected by Dart+ at 6:30pm tomorrow evening. It's discussing alternative access to Clonsilla Level Crossing.

    Eh9wXY4XkAATcmm?format=jpg&name=large


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,376 Pete_Cavan
    ✭✭✭


    Is there anything which people want to submit to the consultation which they think is worth others repeating?

    For the underpass at Ashtown station, they should consider the potential for adding additional tracks along there in future and not do anything to prevent it. The terminating station for DART needs a turnback platform to avoid repeating the problems which already exist on the network. That would require a rebuild of Maynooth station or, if enough space doesn't exist there, moving the terminus west.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,127 Rulmeq
    ✭✭✭


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    ...rebuild of Maynooth station or, if enough space doesn't exist there, moving the terminus west.


    Will they consider bringing it as far as kilcock (or even Enfield!) given that the depot will practically be in Kilcock anyway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,637 loyatemu
    ✭✭✭✭


    Rulmeq wrote: »
    Will they consider bringing it as far as kilcock (or even Enfield!) given that the depot will practically be in Kilcock anyway.

    it seems a no brainer - maybe a P&R station at the depot.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,376 Pete_Cavan
    ✭✭✭


    The no brainer location for a P&R is west of Kilcock beside Musgraves, directly off the M4 J8;

    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.407587,-6.6844645,542m/data=!3m1!1e3

    Could have four platforms there, only about 2km of extra double track beyond the depot.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,637 loyatemu
    ✭✭✭✭


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    The no brainer location for a P&R is west of Kilcock beside Musgraves, directly off the M4 J8;

    https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.407587,-6.6844645,542m/data=!3m1!1e3

    Could have four platforms there, only about 2km of extra double track beyond the depot.

    depends how straightforward or not it is to double thru Kilcock, but yeah looks like a better location.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,670 IE 222
    ✭✭✭


    loyatemu wrote: »
    depends how straightforward or not it is to double thru Kilcock, but yeah looks like a better location.

    Its fairly simple to double. Current station should allow a second track under the bridge with a second platform either side of it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72,883 L1011
    ✭✭✭✭


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    The terminating station for DART needs a turnback platform to avoid repeating the problems which already exist on the network. That would require a rebuild of Maynooth station or, if enough space doesn't exist there, moving the terminus west.

    There's a turnback siding West of Maynooth as it is; albeit currently without the right points work to address the Eastbound platform I believe. But anyway, the correct submission in my eyes is to extend to Kilcock when they're already nearly there.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,670 IE 222
    ✭✭✭


    Kilcock makes the most sense but it will effect Sligo/Longford services further.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,924 GerardKeating
    ✭✭✭


    loyatemu wrote: »
    depends how straightforward or not it is to double thru Kilcock, but yeah looks like a better location.

    When origionally built, it was double track to Ballinasloe (via Mullingar/Athlone) so unless a building has encroached on the track, it should be ok to re-double


Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Advertisement