DART+ (DART Expansion)

CatInABox

IE 222 wrote: »

Another potential issue that could arise unexpectedly now is from Rosslare users and understandably. Although Dart South isn't for another few years the details would suggest changes to Rosslare will need to be implemented with Maynooth as that requires terminating on platform 7. Connolly will effectively only have 2 through platforms, 5&6. I'm not sure it running them through is an option but terminating definitely won't be.

Wouldn't be surprised to see the Rosslare trains terminate out in Bray/Greystones, and passengers transfer to a waiting Dart. In fact, did I read something about this recently? I'll have a look, because I'm sure that I saw mention of this recently. Perhaps it was just the Wexford trains?

liamog

MJohnston wrote: »

Given that Leo Varadkar has seen fit to interfere due to this bridge, it seems like it might become a fairly critical part of the project.

It's clearly of high importance when it requires a personal intervention by the Tánaiste, I suppose it's the same with any project, there's always one hot button item that can derail the whole thing. We saw similar on the green line metro upgrade.

IE 222

liamog wrote: »

The houses at the front of Riverwood are about 7m away from the main road, so it would seem this shouldn't really be an issue. The embankment leading up to the bridge in Stationcourt will be about 20m away from a retaining wall and the report does also mention than noise abatement measures will be required across the new bridge. It's better to work constructively to improve the options instead of some of the local claims which are demonstrably untrue.

It's better for the tax payer as well to accept their claims and leave them with only a footbridge. To be honest I see their objections as a free pass here and to be jumped on at the earliest opportunity. Any inconvenience or hardship in the area as a result of this is completely self inflicted by the locals.

The only ones I feel sorry for are the locals who support and want the bridge that won't get a chance to have their voices heard as their views have already been drown out by this biased residents association mandate.

Sam Russell

CatInABox wrote: »

Wouldn't be surprised to see the Rosslare trains terminate out in Bray/Greystones, and passengers transfer to a waiting Dart. In fact, did I read something about this recently? I'll have a look, because I'm sure that I saw mention of this recently. Perhaps it was just the Wexford trains?

That has been suggested before. Only 5 trains go from Bray to Wexford with 4 returning, the fifth one goes from Gorey, so if a few terminated (originated at Bray, it would improve the number of services. Currently no service gets to Wexford from Bray before midday.

It could be easily done if a Dart train was waiting for the Wexford train, and same the other direction.

IE 222

CatInABox wrote: »

Wouldn't be surprised to see the Rosslare trains terminate out in Bray/Greystones, and passengers transfer to a waiting Dart. In fact, did I read something about this recently? I'll have a look, because I'm sure that I saw mention of this recently. Perhaps it was just the Wexford trains?

That's exactly what's going to happen and that's why I'm bringing it up as it would be viewed as a bit of an outsider in terms of Dart West and would come unexpectedly for many. To be fair they'd be more inconvenienced that Coolmine folks imo.

liamog

IE 222 wrote: »

It's better for the tax payer as well to accept their claims and leave them with only a footbridge. To be honest I see their objections as a free pass here and to be jumped on at the earliest opportunity. Any inconvenience or hardship in the area as a result of this is completely self inflicted by the locals.

The only ones I feel sorry for are the locals who support and want the bridge that won't get a chance to have their voices heard as their views have already been drown out by this biased residents association mandate.

The main problem is that you can probably draw a circle for the objections, consultation 1 results in a "win" for the small number of residents who will get to maintain their field, consultation 2 see's the residents who currently live south of the railway up in arms because they are now further cut off from the greater d15 area.

IE 222

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Given that Connolly will be worked on as part of the 'last' piece of the puzzle are they possibly getting the rest of the system to shovel ready and then hoping to present the more comprehensive rework as a fait-accompli to avoid wasting all the money already spent?

Has that been confirmed. The plans seem to show and detail Connolly as needing to be the starting point for any of this to work. Regardless if its North, West, South done first Connolly would need to be upgraded. The wording used by Jacobs in the second report tells me they are total against this idea and see it as a potential system failure. They clearly state they aren't factoring in major parts such as platform capacity as its simply not feasible to do so.

D15er

MJohnston wrote: »

Given that Leo Varadkar has seen fit to interfere due to this bridge, it seems like it might become a fairly critical part of the project.

As things stand, it's the part of the infrastructure that directly impacts most residents. The other crossings have less immediate impact on people's homes. Even the new Ashtown crossing is mainly impinging on office buildings and a stables.

I also expect this is why it's one of the first ideas that they released in any detail. They knew this was coming.

However, when they bring forward the proposals for Castleknock, expect sparks to fly there too.

IE 222

liamog wrote: »

The main problem is that you can probably draw a circle for the objections, consultation 1 results in a "win" for the small number of residents who will get to maintain their field, consultation 2 see's the residents who currently live south of the railway up in arms because they are now further cut off from the greater d15 area.

The way I see this playing out is IE running the bridge options at them knowing they don't want it. At the final stage IE listened to the locals, removed the bridge idea and just replace the crossing with a footbridge.

It's likely the hierarchy of the association will feel they ultimately got what they wanted out of it and won't risk appealing it. The association will take the lead role in this and if their happy the politicians aren't going to care about it. Maybe a few rebellious members will consider challenging it but they'll be a smaller group rather than the association and won't be seen as representing the community.

If it goes for judicial review IE will make a good case of the importance of the infrastructure in the national interest and that they offered on numerous occasions to build a bridge which the locals, supported by TDs, claimed they didn't want or need. Other areas within the vicinity accepted the concept and happy with the improvements ect.

CatInABox

IE 222 wrote: »

That's exactly what's going to happen and that's why I'm bringing it up as it would be viewed as a bit of an outsider in terms of Dart West and would come unexpectedly for many. To be fair they'd be more inconvenienced that Coolmine folks imo.

Yeah, found what I was looking for alright.

Annex-3-4A-Appendix-A-Peak-Hour-Service-Plans

This is just peak hour I suppose, so perhaps they'll have Connolly to Rosslare running at other hours, but to be honest, I can't see it happening. Once they make the swap for the peak hour, they'll hail it as a success and run it from there all the time I'd say.

There's some other stuff in there as well, such as Howth Junction to Howth becoming a shuttle service.

IE 222

CatInABox wrote: »

Yeah, found what I was looking for alright.

Annex-3-4A-Appendix-A-Peak-Hour-Service-Plans

This is just peak hour I suppose, so perhaps they'll have Connolly to Rosslare running at other hours, but to be honest, I can't see it happening. Once they make the swap for the peak hour, they'll hail it as a success and run it from there all the time I'd say.

There's some other stuff in there as well, such as Howth Junction to Howth becoming a shuttle service.

Ah it will be ran throughout the day.

Personally I do think there is potential for a good trade off here. If it was to be cut to 1 peak + 1 off peak IC service and 1 peak Gorey direct along with a bi-hourly shuttle between Greystones and Wexford increasing the number of services on the line to 7 or 8 and offered a arrival into Wexford before 10am and after 10pm I feel it would be worthy trade off for Wexford users.

Dundalk and M3 will also be shuttle.

CatInABox

IE 222 wrote: »

Dundalk and M3 will also be shuttle.

Not during the peak hour anyway.

MJohnston

D15er wrote: »

However, when they bring forward the proposals for Castleknock, expect sparks to fly there too.

Why would they need to bring forward proposals for Castleknock? You mean the bridge demolition and modified rebuild?

LXFlyer

CatInABox wrote: »

Yeah, found what I was looking for alright.

Annex-3-4A-Appendix-A-Peak-Hour-Service-Plans

This is just peak hour I suppose, so perhaps they'll have Connolly to Rosslare running at other hours, but to be honest, I can't see it happening. Once they make the swap for the peak hour, they'll hail it as a success and run it from there all the time I'd say.

There's some other stuff in there as well, such as Howth Junction to Howth becoming a shuttle service.

Given that passengers south of Greystones are paying Intercity fares and more specifically Interciity priced season tickets, I think you can expect a significant backlash to that idea.

IE 222

CatInABox wrote: »

Not during the peak hour anyway.

Is option 6 not been implemented. It would agree paths diagrams.

IE 222

IE 222 wrote: »

Is option 6 not been implemented. It would agree paths diagrams.

Actually I think this is only implement when PPT is electrified.

D15er

MJohnston wrote: »

Why would they need to bring forward proposals for Castleknock? You mean the bridge demolition and modified rebuild?

It's a protected structure so demolition is problematic to say the least. There's no room to widen the span of the bridge either, at least not on the north side.

I'm sure there's an answer but it's just odd to be talking about filing a railway order in Q2 2021 when major challenges are either unresolved or the solutions haven't gone for consultation.

MJohnston

D15er wrote: »

It's a protected structure so demolition is problematic to say the least. There's no room to widen the span of the bridge either, at least not on the north side.

I'm sure there's an answer but it's just odd to be talking about filing a railway order in Q2 2021 when major challenges are either unresolved or the solutions haven't gone for consultation.

It’s not a protected bridge according to the Full Report (there’s a section on bridges, and protected bridges are flagged). I think the one that crosses the canal is protected, but maybe not the railway bridge.

D15er

MJohnston wrote: »

It’s not a protected bridge according to the Full Report (there’s a section on bridges, and protected bridges are flagged). I think the one that crosses the canal is protected, but maybe not the railway bridge.

It's the same bridge, there are two arches - one over the railway, one over the canal, but it's a single bridge.

You're actually correct that the IE report says that it's not a listed structure - but that is wrong, it is protected.

Edit : now that I think about it, since the canal predates the railway by about a hundred years, maybe they are technically two different structures joined together. But then I'm not sure how you demolish one and leave the other unscathed?

IE 222

D15er wrote: »

It's the same bridge, there are two arches - one over the railway, one over the canal, but it's a single bridge.

You're actually correct that the IE report says that it's not a listed structure - but that is wrong, it is protected.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?