DART - contingency plans

Liam O

Delays for upto 40 minutes is what is being broadcast at the moment on the dart line. The question is, why on long delays is there not shuttle buses or something on call to relieve the line? Might be somewhat time consuming given the layout of the line but what happens if the trains are stuck in the mud for an hour or two in the middle of rush hour? Does half the city stand still? I guess the lack of integrated transport again holding us back.

Bit ranty and just trying to get through this delay but it is infuriating how low the standard is for even general timetabling.

foggy_lad

Liam O wrote: »

Delays for upto 40 minutes is what is being broadcast at the moment on the dart line. The question is, why on long delays is there not shuttle buses or something on call to relieve the line? Might be somewhat time consuming given the layout of the line but what happens if the trains are stuck in the mud for an hour or two in the middle of rush hour? Does half the city stand still? I guess the lack of integrated transport again holding us back.

Bit ranty and just trying to get through this delay but it is infuriating how low the standard is for even general timetabling.

There are no real contingency plans but often IR will advertise that Dublin bus are accepting rail tickets, quite often though they say this on twitter before the arrangement has been passed along to Dublin Bus drivers.

end of the road

the problem is geting the busses at such short notice to operate such a shuttle bus service. not as easy to do as it sounds

devnull

Tonight's issues were caused by the newly refurbished Enterprise set not being able to move from Harmonstown because of an issue with the doors.

Single line working had to be set-up to route around it after they realised they could not fix it.

Carawaystick

What happened the doors at Harmonstown?

Why not get all pax of the train, move the train to Connolly yard and dart people to Connolly.
This would prevent loads of regular customers being held up and delayed.

end of the road

Carawaystick wrote: »

What happened the doors at Harmonstown?

Why not get all pax of the train, move the train to Connolly yard and dart people to Connolly.
This would prevent loads of regular customers being held up and delayed.

i'm not sure what time it happened but maybe there were huge crowds on the dart so they felt it best not to add to it? it may have been a better option for the reasons you state though dispite any existing over crowding

devnull

Problem with that is that at the time it failed there were Northbound trains sitting in Clontarf and Killester so it couldn't just head South on the Northbound track.

I believe it was related to a single door on one of the carriages, don't want to speculate on that any more, but I guess there are not many reasons that a broken door could stop a train.

Perhaps the failure meant that passengers could no longer be carried on it for safety reasons?

It was just after 5pm.

Carawaystick

It's only a short spin to HJ&D to cross over to the east tracks.
There would be loads of dart space going to Connolly in the evening.

devnull

Carawaystick wrote: »

It's only a short spin to HJ&D to cross over to the east tracks.
There would be loads of dart space going to Connolly in the evening.

Don't forget they had to let the trains that had already left Howth Junction on the Southbound track through to Pass Kilbarrack, before they could switch the northbound trains onto that track as well.

Then the tracks had to be set-up to allow the trains stopped on Northbound platform at Clontarf and Killester to be able to cross over onto the southbound tracks just after Killester.

In practice the whole of the above happened in about 30 minutes, but some trains were delayed by 40-45 minutes because of the sheer back-up.

The enterprise in the end ended up going to the third unused platform at Clongriffin where it could be kept out of the way of everything else.

Liam O

The problems with the dart are getting more and more prevalent is the problem, the line "there's nothing that could be done" doesn't really wash when 2 or 3 days in a row a month or so ago the same Dart I was on in the morning was delayed between the same stations. It should be one of the simplest systems to manage with only 2 lines converging at Howth Junction.

The amount of times you don't get full information over how long you will be delayed and often are kept between stations when these delays happen is infuriating, especially in the morning as being late for work for whatever reason reflects badly on you. The dart I get is scheduled to be in Lansdowne at 8:35 every morning on the timetable. In 5 months of getting it, not once has it been there at that time. The dart I get home is scheduled to be at Lansdowne at 17:36, every single day it is there 5-10 minutes later, maybe once a week or 2 then it does come on time. I don't get why it's so hard for them to stick to the timetables or at least change them when they aren't working as they should.

Wild Garlic

Liam O wrote: »

The problems with the dart are getting more and more prevalent is the problem, the line "there's nothing that could be done" doesn't really wash when 2 or 3 days in a row a month or so ago the same Dart I was on in the morning was delayed between the same stations. It should be one of the simplest systems to manage with only 2 lines converging at Howth Junction.

The amount of times you don't get full information over how long you will be delayed and often are kept between stations when these delays happen is infuriating, especially in the morning as being late for work for whatever reason reflects badly on you. The dart I get is scheduled to be in Lansdowne at 8:35 every morning on the timetable. In 5 months of getting it, not once has it been there at that time. The dart I get home is scheduled to be at Lansdowne at 17:36, every single day it is there 5-10 minutes later, maybe once a week or 2 then it does come on time. I don't get why it's so hard for them to stick to the timetables or at least change them when they aren't working as they should.

Not once has it been on time in 5 months? I smell BS.

Liam O

Wild Garlic wrote: »

Not once has it been on time in 5 months? I smell BS.

The closest it gets is about 8:40. Even today I got the later one, scheduled to be there at 8:55 and it was after 9 before it got there.

devnull

Liam O wrote: »

The dart I get home is scheduled to be at Lansdowne at 17:36, every single day it is there 5-10 minutes later, maybe once a week or 2 then it does come on time. I don't get why it's so hard for them to stick to the timetables or at least change them when they aren't working as they should.

If you think that service is bad, you should check the one 8 minutes later to Malahide, not only does it have less capacity, it runs even later than the Howth one because of huge levels of loading which often leave people behind from Pearse onwards!

There was supposed to be a new timetable that would fix a lot of these things, but now Translink have thrown their toys out of the pram so it's probably a few months away now! Thankfully I no longer have to take the infamous 17:10 from Bray (17:44 from Lansdowne) since I changed my shifts to avoid it so have regained my will to live.

LXFlyer

Liam O wrote: »

Delays for upto 40 minutes is what is being broadcast at the moment on the dart line. The question is, why on long delays is there not shuttle buses or something on call to relieve the line? Might be somewhat time consuming given the layout of the line but what happens if the trains are stuck in the mud for an hour or two in the middle of rush hour? Does half the city stand still? I guess the lack of integrated transport again holding us back.

Bit ranty and just trying to get through this delay but it is infuriating how low the standard is for even general timetabling.

Where are all these buses going to come from at peak time?

Do you think bus operators have large fleets of vehicles and drivers sitting around on call, doing nothing?

end of the road

devnull wrote: »

Translink have thrown their toys out of the pram

while i get the proposed new time table would have benefited you, and your understandably disapointed its now on hold, Translink have every right to complain about it considering it would make the enterprise slower. while dart is a very important rail service, the reality is there are others using the rail network as well. they do have to get some consideration (i know some out there won't like that) but i couldn't care a less. we can't simply continue with the motto that dart must get everything possible at the expence of everyone else at all costs. that was fine in 1984 when services were sparce and you would have probably been better off driving a tractor on the roads instead of a car. while a 10 minute dart frequency should be welcome the reality is the infrastructure even with the new signalling cannot support it especially with the proposed killdare gcd service, which while only a few trains, make a big difference.. the best way to proceed i believe is re-balancing the dart services and capacity in favour of malahide which going on here seems to need the greater capacity. it won't make up for a 10 minute frequency but it would certainly help a lot. of course the politicians waking up and realizing infrastructure projects are good for the country and quadrupling the northern line and maybe even the southern one where possible would be the best idea. but there is more chance of me becoming president of the country then that happening and that chance is minus a billion

dubscottie

As a regular Enterprise user about 10 years back, I know that a bomb scare on the 16:00ish departure from Belfast was a long wait for a bus and you were lucky to be in Dublin for 22:00.. 23:30 was the record.

Its what I would describe in my job now as a "fluid situation". If it goes tits up we give folks a rough idea of what is going on and a estimated time frame.

Railways are the same. 100's of things that need to be looked at or can go wrong.

You should be grateful that they still try to run a service!

end of the road

dubscottie wrote: »

You should be grateful that they still try to run a service!

with the greatist of respect, why should one be greatful that they try do what they are supposed to and are paid to do?

devnull

end of the road wrote: »

while i get the proposed new time table would have benefited you, and your understandably disapointed its now on hold, Translink have every right to complain about it considering it would make the enterprise slower. while dart is a very important rail service, the reality is there are others using the rail network as well. they do have to get some consideration (i know some out there won't like that) but i couldn't care a less. we can't simply continue with the motto that dart must get everything possible at the expence of everyone else at all costs. that was fine in 1984 when services were sparce and you would have probably been better off driving a tractor on the roads instead of a car. while a 10 minute dart frequency should be welcome the reality is the infrastructure even with the new signalling cannot support it especially with the proposed killdare gcd service, which while only a few trains, make a big difference.. the best way to proceed i believe is re-balancing the dart services and capacity in favour of malahide which going on here seems to need the greater capacity. it won't make up for a 10 minute frequency but it would certainly help a lot. of course the politicians waking up and realizing infrastructure projects are good for the country and quadrupling the northern line and maybe even the southern one where possible would be the best idea. but there is more chance of me becoming president of the country then that happening and that chance is minus a billion

I don't think that Malahide needs to have the greater frequency on the DART even for it to work better, it just needs to have a bigger share of the capacity than it does now which is a little too slanted in Howth's favour.

When you have one branch that has 2.5 more DARTS during one half of peak that is leaving the station before the split being very lightly loaded and the other branch with less trains crammed like sardines leaving the same station, something has gone wrong with the act of matching capacity and demand.

Also the big gaps in the Malahide timetable are the other issue, such as the 48 minute one in evening peak, the 90 minute on Saturday mornings, and a few others.

It doesn't have to be a DART every 20 minutes all day long, but the current situation can't continue.

GM228

devnull wrote: »

There was supposed to be a new timetable that would fix a lot of these things, but now Translink have thrown their toys out of the pram so it's probably a few months away now!

Translink were happy to proceed with the new timetable, it is TransportNI (who are Northern Irelands Department of Transport - a department within the DRD) who have put it on hold following direct complaints from the deputy secretary of the TNI.

Infini

Id be one to agree that there should be more capacity not more services. Many of the crammed trains are 4 carrige ones that are full on a regular basis.

monument

Arguing against Dart improvements in capacity and frequency is fine in isolation but when you look at the desperate state of investment in transport in Dublin City, bringing Dart to 10 min frequently is one of a few badly needed sticky plasters.

Dublin isn't far of mass traffic gridlock. It has not been for years and now there's growth again.

end of the road

the thing is, nobody is arguing against a 10 minute dart frequency. what me and others are arguing against is a 10 minute dart frequency on infrastructure that just can't support it. quadruple the northern and even the southern line if possible and you can have a 5 minute frequency if its demanded and if its possible, but on a 2 track railway which is used by a mix of suburban intercity and regional services, simply implementing a high frequency service without taking into consideration the effects on other users and services is just complete madness.
yes dart is a very important service, nobody is disputing it. but as much as IE and the NTA might like it to be, its not the only service. there are other services and they are entitled to some consideration. i don't believe they got that in this timetable.

devnull

A lot of the infrastructure really is madness, like not having a loop for both directions in Clongriffin even though a fourth platform is built it just doesn't have any tracks or overhead lines next to it.

Removing the extra platforms at Pearse was another stupid idea as well and short-sighted, you just have less and less room to cope when something goes wrong.

Removing the terminating platform at Grand Canal Dock and transferring terminating services into sidings between Grand Canal Dock and Pearse, then totally removing everything from the terminating platform, then a few years later rebuilding what they earlier removed, all be it on a fully through platform basis.

That's before we even start about Heuston Platform 10, which is basically a single platform station in itself.

LXFlyer

devnull wrote: »

A lot of the infrastructure really is madness, like not having a loop for both directions in Clongriffin even though a fourth platform is built it just doesn't have any tracks or overhead lines next to it.

Removing the extra platforms at Pearse was another stupid idea as well and short-sighted, you just have less and less room to cope when something goes wrong.

Removing the terminating platform at Grand Canal Dock and transferring terminating services into sidings between Grand Canal Dock and Pearse, then totally removing everything from the terminating platform, then a few years later rebuilding what they earlier removed, all be it on a fully through platform basis.

That's before we even start about Heuston Platform 10, which is basically a single platform station in itself.

There was never a terminating platform at GCD. There have only ever been the two through platforms. The third track was just a loop not signalled for trains carrying passengers It remained in use as a storage point for trains until the city centre resignalling work started south of the Liffey. It was a case of advance planning but the funding for the resignalling was withheld by government.

Platform 10 at Heuston was necessary during the Heuston re-development some years back in order to retain five operational platforms at all times during the process. The location it's in was the only place that it could go. I'm not sure why you seem to think that is strange.

patrickbrophy18

monument wrote: »

Arguing against Dart improvements in capacity and frequency is fine in isolation but when you look at the desperate state of investment in transport in Dublin City, bringing Dart to 10 min frequently is one of a few badly needed sticky plasters.

Dublin isn't far of mass traffic gridlock. It has not been for years and now there's growth again.

I completely agree with you here. An increase in frequency from 4 to 6 trains an hour has to have a very positive impact in curbing the ever increasing gridlock in Dublin City. It baffles me that Irish Rail have faced such harsh criticism over the first major improvement in frequency in over half a decade. A lot of people have cited the longer journey times as fodder for their objections. However, this is probably a temporary adjustment until the infrastructure gets used to more trains. Once this has been perfected, they can start speeding up the trains again especially with the fruits of the City Center Re-signaling Project's efforts.

LXFlyer

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I completely agree with you here. An increase in frequency from 4 to 6 trains an hour has to have a very positive impact in curbing the ever increasing gridlock in Dublin City. It baffles me that Irish Rail have faced such harsh criticism over the first major improvement in frequency in over half a decade. A lot of people have cited the longer journey times as fodder for their objections. However, this is probably a temporary adjustment until the infrastructure gets used to more trains. Once this has been perfected, they can start speeding up the trains again especially with the fruits of the City Center Re-signaling Project's efforts.

Nothing temporary at all.

Separate tracks would be needed to improve journey times for the longer distance services.

devnull

lxflyer wrote: »

There was never a terminating platform at GCD. There have only ever been the two through platforms. The third track was just a loop not signalled for trains carrying passengers It remained in use as a storage point for trains until the city centre resignalling work started south of the Liffey. It was a case of advance planning but the funding for the resignalling was withheld by government.

I know that the platform wasn't signalled for passenger use, but correct me if I'm wrong they took away a lot of the trackbed, track and related infrastructure from the third unused platform only to put it back again. I know that it was not being used or signalled for passenger trains, but it seems like a waste and surely would have been better if they build and modified that platform and track rather than ripping everything out for a few years and installing the same infrastructure again?

Vic_08

devnull wrote: »

A lot of the infrastructure really is madness, like not having a loop for both directions in Clongriffin even though a fourth platform is built it just doesn't have any tracks or overhead lines next to it.

To what end? How many trains do you envisage are likely to turn back at Clongriffin?

It is obvious from looking at the layout that the station was built so that adding an extra track wouldn't require any mods to the station but there is not the land available in the current layout for even a station loop. It is only ever going to be necessary to have an extra line if 4 tracking is extended to there and it would be a very small part of that project to include the 4th station track as well.

devnull wrote: »

Removing the extra platforms at Pearse was another stupid idea as well and short-sighted, you just have less and less room to cope when something goes wrong.

And what do you think they were ever going to be used for? Nobody has any use for terminating trains at pearse from the south. The Down bay was little more than a stub and the space has been used to widen the platform as well as add in the new entrance. The Up bays were a little longer but nowhere near long enough for 6 let alone 8 car trains. There was not even facing access to them so it would have required extra pointwork and re-signalling. Pointless expense for platforms that would be of little to no use.

devnull wrote: »

Removing the terminating platform at Grand Canal Dock and transferring terminating services into sidings between Grand Canal Dock and Pearse, then totally removing everything from the terminating platform, then a few years later rebuilding what they earlier removed, all be it on a fully through platform basis.

The line on the third face of GCD was one of the sidings, it was just realigned to run along the platform when GCD was built but as the funding was not available to re-signal or re-lay to passenger standard a siding is all it was.

devnull wrote: »

That's before we even start about Heuston Platform 10, which is basically a single platform station in itself.

And your problem with that is? It was built to allow Heuston to continue services while the main station upgrading was taking place.

devnull wrote: »

I know that the platform wasn't signalled for passenger use, but correct me if I'm wrong they took away a lot of the trackbed, track and related infrastructure from the third unused platform only to put it back again. I know that it was not being used or signalled for passenger trains, but it seems like a waste and surely would have been better if they build and modified that platform and track rather than ripping everything out for a few years and installing the same infrastructure again?

Do you really think that the PW department would take up the track and have at the structure underneath with plant hire if it was not necessary? Whatever the underlying issue was they have put a lot of material into the trackbed to sort it so I am guessing that it was actually necessary work rather than some plot to p1ss you off.

Obviously the line was suitable as a slow speed siding for stabling trains. The requirements for a fully operational running line taking a constant pounding is very different. They aren't going to be putting the same track back down, it will be re-laid with fresh CWR, points and fully interlocked S+T to allow the current Up line be used as a turnback platform with the remaining lines realigned for stabling units.

It is really disappointing reading these sorts of scattergun posts complaining about everything IE does from you and others, it takes away from any reasonable points you make when you just complain about every thing you can think of in this way. It reads more like political point scoring nonsense than anything remotely useful, what incentive is there to wade through that to get to any sensible points you have to make?

Infini

monument wrote: »

Arguing against Dart improvements in capacity and frequency is fine in isolation but when you look at the desperate state of investment in transport in Dublin City, bringing Dart to 10 min frequently is one of a few badly needed sticky plasters.

Dublin isn't far of mass traffic gridlock. It has not been for years and now there's growth again.

Wouldnt be against 10min services if the trains were already at full capacity but the problem is they seem to be putting the cart before the horse again. They need bigger trains 1st as well as rebalancing the line. They could easily have a shuttle service to Howth from howth jct. and have the rest of them running to malahide and back as 8 carriage trains in the meantime.

Long term a number of things badly need to happen,

1) The DU link HAS to be built just for the sheer importance of rebalancing the load and taking the pressure off connolly big time,
2) They need to at the very least put a third track in between connolly and howth jct/clongriffin. Obviously this would be a very costly option because of the amount of work involved between rebuilding many stations platforms and the CPO of houses that shouldnt have been built where they are but eventually it may need to be done.
3) While its a further down the list priority they seriously should consider a double track option between Bray/Greystones even if it means boring a completely new tunnel through the mountain to get around the coastal erosion problems of the current line. This would allow for much needed expansion to the south as well.

LXFlyer

devnull wrote: »

I know that the platform wasn't signalled for passenger use, but correct me if I'm wrong they took away a lot of the trackbed, track and related infrastructure from the third unused platform only to put it back again. I know that it was not being used or signalled for passenger trains, but it seems like a waste and surely would have been better if they build and modified that platform and track rather than ripping everything out for a few years and installing the same infrastructure again?

Presumably with good reason. It was necessary for the storage of trains, and as such if it needed short term remedial work, then that work would need to happen.

The work on resignalling etc was completely dependent upon getting the funding for that project.

devnull

Vic_08 wrote: »

To what end? How many trains do you envisage are likely to turn back at Clongriffin?

There was one that turned back last week. The enterprise that failed, the turn back platform saved a huge amount of disruption by allowing something to be taken out of the firing line and stored in a platform to let other things through.

It is obvious from looking at the layout that the station was built so that adding an extra track wouldn't require any mods to the station but there is not the land available in the current layout for even a station loop.

That site has no houses, there is a small link temporary building leading up to it from the Baldoyle side, but that can easily be removed, there is enough room for the track at that platform if the land was the correct level which I'm sure can be done at a later date. There are no houses anywhere near the station on that side.

And what do you think they were ever going to be used for? Nobody has any use for terminating trains at pearse from the south. Pointless expense for platforms that would be of little to no use.

And what happens when a train breaks down on a two track railway and it has nowhere to go to take out of the firing line and everyone has to follow it moving slow as hell or bring everything to a halt and a delay?

Having extra sidings where broken down trains can be moved rather than clogging up the main line and delaying everything else means that services can be recovered much easier.

And your problem with that is? It was built to allow Heuston to continue services while the main station upgrading was taking place.

I didn't realise that, I rarely use Heuston but it always seemed to be an odd layout, but now I know the reason.

Do you really think that the PW department would take up the track and have at the structure underneath with plant hire if it was not necessary?

If you think our public sector and public bodies in this country are run perfectly and make the best decisions all of the time then I have to say you are very naive, there are many occasions where things have been done in this country have been done that are not necessary, I don't know the technical details, but it always seemed kind of strange.

Obviously the line was suitable as a slow speed siding for stabling trains. The requirements for a fully operational running line taking a constant pounding is very different

I don't dispute that, but at the same time surely it would have been more efficient to build on what was already there than start again unless there was some serious structural issue?

It is really disappointing reading these sorts of scattergun posts complaining about everything IE does from you and others.

Irish Rail in general has a lot of room where it can improve, especially when it comes to customer information and capacity planning and the current timetable is completely wrongly balanced leading to some trains carrying fresh air whilst others are like sardines.

But they actually handled last weeks disruption with the Enterprise quite well and the woman in Connolly who does announcements from time to time is excellent and VASTLY better than any of the other guys who make very poor announcements, they do some things right but there is still a long way to go before they can be considered a competent railway operator.

hatrickpatrick

The issue with "Dublin Bus will accept tickets" is that this does nothing for people who have already tagged on to the DART with a leap card. Tagging off at the same station or failing to tag off at a DART station incurs a full fare (close to €5 I think) and as far as I know busses have no way to get around this if they're accepting DART tickets.

With so many now using leap cards, this essentially means that "Dublin Bus will accept tickets" is utterly meaningless.

devnull

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The issue with "Dublin Bus will accept tickets" is that this does nothing for people who have already tagged on to the DART with a leap card. Tagging off at the same station incurs a full fare (close to €5 I think) and as far as I know busses have no way to get around this if they're accepting DART tickets.

No - There is cancel functionality, if you tag off at the same staiton you tagged on, it will cancel the fare.

smackyB

devnull wrote: »

No - There is cancel functionality, if you tag off at the same staiton you tagged on, it will cancel the fare.

Only if the tag off was within a certain number of minutes of the tag on.

devnull

smackyB wrote: »

Only if the tag off was within a certain number of minutes of the tag on.

It's at least 15 minutes though, I checkec my LEAP account and I did it a couple of weeks ago and it was 15 minutes and it reversed it no problem.