10 minute Dart frequency: Union and other issues

BoatMad

end of the road wrote: »

but degrading our services further isn't the answer either. the only people asking for sacrifices are the NTA asking users of other services who all ready have long journey times to have even longer journey times to support something that while great in theory, isn't workable. the people who use these services have no option but to fight against any further downgrades. it's not about "let'sh get at that lot up in dublin begorra" it's about protecting what we have from being downgraded further. that is all. nothing more. i really don't think that is unreasonable, and i think people really need to understand this whether they agree with the stance or not. you are right that 2 and 3 could be solved in the morning but in my view IE politics will see to it that they won't be.

10 minutes dart services are entirely implementable , running this on existing tracks has risks in that delays cause greater knock on effects. ( no more then busy motorways )

The big issue is without expanding track paths , is how you thread slower services ( ie diesels or even freight ) through whAt is now a track that is at capacity. The U.K. Is desperately wrestling with this issue as well.

The fact is you just make a decision , you cannot have " equality of suffering " as a design goal. You must maximise the infrastructure or expand it. If you can't expand it ,you can only maximise it.

That is the decision That had been taken , despite the current issues and in reality it's the only one and the correct one in the circumstances

LXFlyer

BoatMad wrote: »

The installation of passing loops is not a panacea that would solve this problem .

Allowing " notionally " faster trains to overtake slower ones is a great idea in theory , however it typically requires the " notionally" slower train to be held at that passing point , as you can't have passing points every ten feet !

The net result is the slower trains clog together and overall frequency declines , throughput goes into the toilet

This was the traditional way railways dealt with slow and express trains in the past , particularly in the days when track configurations were much more complex


The problem is notional " slow " and fast trains

Darts are very quick to accelerate and stop over diesel commuter or diesel expresses . Intercity trains stopping at intermediate stations have considerably longer dwell times.

The argument has been advanced that given the priority is to increase dart throughput , that all intercity and slower commuter trains , should actually only run to interface stations and not through to city centre termini.

This in fact in my view is the only solution to the issue of pathing difficulties in Dublin

I don't think stopping Enterprise or Northern line services at "interface" stations is an option.

It might work off peak on the Southeastern at Greystones, but there is no way that you could implement it on the Northern line due to the loadings. You clearly aren't familiar with loading levels on those services.

It would also dilute the Enterprise product to becoming a complete irrelevance.

If you read my post, you would have seen that I only mentioned a passing loop once, southbound at Clongriffin, and that is from a flexibility perspective.

The northbound loop is already in use there with the 11:00 Enterprise overtaking a northern line train there.

What I actually suggested was:

1) A southbound passing loop at Clongriffin
2) A siding north of Malahide Station to allow DARTs stable off the running lines rather than blocking them as at present and forcing southbound northern line services switch to the northbound line to overtake them
3) A bi-directional third line between Killester and Raheny or Kilbarrack to allow Enterprise and Northern line services overtake DARTs

While we might be able to live in the short term with the extended journey times that will result on Northern line and Enterprise services, in the medium term at least one extra line will have to be fitted in to allow the service develop and remain competitive.

BoatMad wrote: »

There are four things that are obviously wrong with the east coast inter urban services and yes it's appalling , 2 hours to travel 60 miles is ridiculous

1. The quality of the line , especially through the mountains is appalling and results in 30 mph average running in these sections

2. The unsuitability of short duration commuter rolling stock on a relatively long journey ( longer in time then Waterford Dublin ) a fact pointed out by the strategic rail review

3. The absence of sufficient frequency of trains

4. Delays caused by pathing difficulties from greystones to Connolly.

2 and 3 could be solved in the morning

1 is a long term issue and the alignment of the track is not easy to solve

4. Is a fact of life when mixing up interurban non local non stopping trains with fast high frequency mass transit systems.

The problem is you cannot sacrifice the requirements of 100 s of thousands over the needs of A few hundreds

The rather bizzare fact is that northern towns like drogheda have high capacity high frequency services , yet places like arklow are treated like they were Ballybrophy

Solving 2 and 3 is a bit more difficult than you suggest - you'd need more trains, which are not exactly growing on trees right now. There's only one service rostered for 29k operation now and that's the 05:35 from Rosslare and the 16:37 from Connolly. Other trains may see 29k operation if the rostered 22k set is not available, but those are the only trains rostered for them.

Competing against the M11 really isn't feasible given the indirect route that the line takes - it can only really compete at peak times when traffic on the M11 is at its highest.

The northern line loadings have always been much higher and have far bigger communities en route - it's a natural substitute for road given it is a much more direct route.

trellheim

Was there no suggesting of clearing some paths for example south of Dun Laoghaire by just running a shuttle Bray - Dun Laoghaire , same greystones-Bray ( wasn't that what used to be there ? ) , and run more Darts to Howth instead of Malahide - one more retimed dart might clear the needed paths north of Howth Junction

Stop gap solution of course and in no way ideal but the intent is to run a 10 min reliable service Dun Laoghaire to Howth Junction

BoatMad

Solving 2 and 3 is a bit more difficult than you suggest - you'd need more trains, which are not exactly growing on trees right now. There's only one service rostered for 29k operation now and that's the 05:35 from Rosslare and the 16:37 from Connolly. Other trains may see 29k operation if the rostered 22k set is not available, but those are the only trains rostered for them.

Competing against the M11 really isn't feasible given the indirect route that the line takes - it can only really compete at peak times when traffic on the M11 is at its highest.

The northern line loadings have always been much higher and have far bigger communities en route - it's a natural substitute for road given it is a much more direct route.

The fact that 22K are " rostered " is irrelevant , the fact is they dont run on that roster, because the stock isn't available

2 and 3 are easily solved simply by the application of money that whats I mean , 1 is not easily solved nor is 4


the Rosslare line is a Cinderella line , typically of IE illogical approach to rail transport, number s were poor on WRC, the frequency of trains was increased significantly and concession fairs were introduced , results numbers increased significantly

the same approach could be implemented on the Rosslare line , yet we have a fare that is twice the bus fare and takes twice as long to complete the same journey . i.e. is a manufactured mess.

LXFlyer

trellheim wrote: »

Was there no suggesting of clearing some paths for example south of Dun Laoghaire by just running a shuttle Bray - Dun Laoghaire , same greystones-Bray ( wasn't that what used to be there ? ) , and run more Darts to Howth instead of Malahide - one more retimed dart might clear the needed paths north of Howth Junction

Stop gap solution of course and in no way ideal but the intent is to run a 10 min reliable service Dun Laoghaire to Howth Junction

Why would you do that? There has been no suggestion of curtailing DARTs on the southern section.

One of the main features of the 10 minute DART service was an effort to equalise the split between Howth and Malahide, something users from the latter section have been looking for.

end of the road

BoatMad wrote: »

The fact that 22K are " rostered " is irrelevant , the fact is they dont run on that roster, because the stock isn't available

the thing is that is debatible. the reason it is debatible is 22ks turning up on suburbans in the connolly area is very very common. 29ks turning up on rosslares is a lot more common as well. personally i believe IE would rather keep the 22ks on the heuston side altogether (personally i believe that was the original plan but it won't be written in a document so i will never be able to prove it unfortunately)

BoatMad wrote: »

the Rosslare line is a Cinderella line , typically of IE illogical approach to rail transport, number s were poor on WRC, the frequency of trains was increased significantly and concession fairs were introduced , results numbers increased significantly

the same approach could be implemented on the Rosslare line , yet we have a fare that is twice the bus fare and takes twice as long to complete the same journey . i.e. is a manufactured mess.

as i have stated before (and no there is no link availible to prove it either way but use the rail network for a while and you might pick it up) . i believe IE run lines on the basis of a form of "railway politics" . now whether that politics is to do with pre-CIE politics, the basis of the companies who built the lines, or favouritism toards particular places i don't know. what we can gather is, the Cinderella lines have 1 thing in common. they venture into what is considered the southeast. rosslare line, waterford line, lj waterford, rosslare waterford when it was open, ballybroaphy limerick via nenagh i think might be a little bit debatible as only part of tip is in the southeast? the lines either have a low quality of service, or they are left to go short when things go wrong. can such politics if it does indeed exist be got rid of? no

end of the road

"I don't think stopping Enterprise or Northern line services at "interface" stations is an option.
It might work off peak on the Southeastern at Greystones"

absolutely not. and any attempt to do it will be faught against by the rail users of wicklow and wexford. implementing that would destroy those services. i saw for myself the usage when trains were changing at enniscorthy (the first evening down and the first morning up) the numbers were aweful until the change was abolished.

BoatMad

end of the road wrote: »

"I don't think stopping Enterprise or Northern line services at "interface" stations is an option.
It might work off peak on the Southeastern at Greystones"

absolutely not. and any attempt to do it will be faught against by the rail users of wicklow and wexford. implementing that would destroy those services. i saw for myself the usage when trains were changing at enniscorthy (the first evening down and the first morning up) the numbers were aweful until the change was abolished.

Again, I was not arguing that its a customer solution , merely that it is a pathing solution , changing trains is always disliked by rail passengers , especially in ireland, where we do not have a history of such activities

end of the road

BoatMad wrote: »

Again, I was not arguing that its a customer solution , merely that it is a pathing solution , chasing trains is always disliked by rail passengers , especially in ireland, where we do not have a history of such activities

yes i know you weren't, my post wasn't aimed at you. sorry for any confusion, i pulled the quote from another poster but didn't quote them.

Carawaystick

This is slightly off topic, but it's peculiar how people say don't widen the road it'll only fill up with traffic again, but the same argument is never made by those people about widening train lines...

Back on topic
One issue which definitely slows trains down is the change of driver thing just outside Clontarf road station.

Also there are a few descriptions of Darts being faster than non-dart traffic, if they were then there'd be no issue with more darts, as they wouldn't be delaying non-dart traffic...

BoatMad

Carawaystick wrote: »

This is slightly off topic, but it's peculiar how people say don't widen the road it'll only fill up with traffic again, but the same argument is never made by those people about widening train lines...

Back on topic
One issue which definitely slows trains down is the change of driver thing just outside Clontarf road station.

Also there are a few descriptions of Darts being faster than non-dart traffic, if they were then there'd be no issue with more darts, as they wouldn't be delaying non-dart traffic...

The road traffic argument is actually nonsense , there is a limit to the number of cars in a country , as you cant drive two cars at the same time

all that phrase does is demonstrate that the road network in places is vastly under developed for the demand that wishes to use it. Mostly today this is as a result of a policy position rather then a lack of infrastructure

You clearly dont under stand railways

a faster Dart catches up on the slower train in front , the result of that is a knock on effect that then slows all Darts behind that train down, fixed block section signalling exacerbates that problem

Carawaystick

BoatMad wrote: »

a faster Dart catches up on the slower train in front , the result of that is a knock on effect that then slows all Darts behind that train down, fixed block section signalling exacerbates that problem

But if it takes a Dart 14 mins to get to HJ&D from Connoly and a 29k can do it in 8 minutes, the DART is not faster.

BoatMad

Carawaystick wrote: »

But if it takes a Dart 14 mins to get to HJ&D from Connoly and a 29k can do it in 8 minutes, the DART is not faster.

you need to factor stoping and dwell times, its the effect that speed through the signalling block sections that matters

devnull

lxflyer wrote: »

One of the main features of the 10 minute DART service was an effort to equalise the split between Howth and Malahide, something users from the latter section have been looking for.

Exactly.

As someone who uses the Malahide Branch the biggest issue was the lack of DART capacity between 5.30 and 7.00pm from Clontarf. There was just TWO, both four cars and often it was impossible to board them. In that time there was about 5-6 Howth's (can't remember exact number and don't have time to check) including 3 in a row which didn't have enough passengers to fill one carriage after Howth Junction, whereas the Malahide DART's were completely full at Howth Junction still.

On many of those Howth's there were more people getting of at Howth Junction to change for Malahide than were left on the train for the Howth Section, the last thing that we need now they've finally (far too late) done something to address the capacity issues to some degree, is to take it away again to allow yet more carriages to carry fresh air to Howth.

Carawaystick

BoatMad wrote: »

you need to factor stoping and dwell times, its the effect that speed through the signalling block sections that matters

I think you've left something out here.

I can't see how you can say a train that takes substantially longer to go the same distance is faster.
If you let a dart go now, and in 5 minutes let a 29k go, the 29k will catch it before HJ&D, and then have to travel slowly until the dart turns off to Howth, or gets out of the way some other way(proposed Clongriffin passing loop/existing Malahide infrastructure/future 3rd shunting line north of Malahide)

Sam Russell

devnull wrote: »

Exactly.

As someone who uses the Malahide Branch the biggest issue was the lack of DART capacity between 5.30 and 7.00pm from Clontarf. There was just TWO, both four cars and often it was impossible to board them. In that time there was about 5-6 Howth's (can't remember exact number and don't have time to check) including 3 in a row which didn't have enough passengers to fill one carriage after Howth Junction, whereas the Malahide DART's were completely full at Howth Junction still.

On many of those Howth's there were more people getting of at Howth Junction to change for Malahide than were left on the train for the Howth Section, the last thing that we need now they've finally (far too late) done something to address the capacity issues to some degree, is to take it away again to allow yet more carriages to carry fresh air to Howth.

I thought the plan was to put the Howth service as a shuttle.

Captain Chaos

Sam Russell wrote: »

I thought the plan was to put the Howth service as a shuttle.

It can't work as then too many DARTs would end up in Malahide with no paths to turn back. In the end the nothern line would end up blocked up. The Howth branch is a great place to lose up to 4 DART sets at peak times to get them out of the way of semi fast and Enterprise services.

BoatMad

Carawaystick wrote: »

I think you've left something out here.

I can't see how you can say a train that takes substantially longer to go the same distance is faster.
If you let a dart go now, and in 5 minutes let a 29k go, the 29k will catch it before HJ&D, and then have to travel slowly until the dart turns off to Howth, or gets out of the way some other way(proposed Clongriffin passing loop/existing Malahide infrastructure/future 3rd shunting line north of Malahide)

The dart has faster acceleration time and quicker braking then the 29k

The issue is that threading an express train , ie one with fewer stops through a mass transit system , is several fold

Typically the mass transit system is stopping at every stop , whereas the express is not . In short track circuit block systems ( needed to allow mass transit system to run at high frequency ) the express train tends to either catch up on trains in front and hence is slowed by them ( three circuit blocks back ) , a phenonium known as " running on double yellow" or the express train cannot make progress ( due to requirements to accelerate or brake quickly in short track circuit blocks. ) and therefore cause the mass transits system to bunch up behind , which has greatly increased running times and slow running as a result

The danger is the whole system ends up running on double yellows

In the past this worked because there was significant speed disparity between express trains and slow diesel ( or steam commuter services. Dwell times were greater so larger gaps existed to successfully thread non stopping services through

High acceleration , high braking electric mass transits will always outperform slower diesels , when you increase the frequency of these , you effectively remove both the spare space and spare time to thread an express through

Grandeeod

Captain Chaos wrote: »

It can't work as then too many DARTs would end up in Malahide with no paths to turn back. In the end the nothern line would end up blocked up. The Howth branch is a great place to lose up to 4 DART sets at peak times to get them out of the way of semi fast and Enterprise services.

Run DART to Drogheda as originally planned and Howth becomes a shuttle.

Sam Russell

Carawaystick wrote: »

I think you've left something out here.

I can't see how you can say a train that takes substantially longer to go the same distance is faster.
If you let a dart go now, and in 5 minutes let a 29k go, the 29k will catch it before HJ&D, and then have to travel slowly until the dart turns off to Howth, or gets out of the way some other way(proposed Clongriffin passing loop/existing Malahide infrastructure/future 3rd shunting line north of Malahide)

The times work if the 29k leaves 7 mins after the Dart (and 3 mins before the next Dart) but it is tight. The passing at Clongriffin could require the Dart to dwell longer than would normally occur. The same would apply southbound (if the fourth platform path was completed).

However, there is a need for improved tracking at Malahide.

There is also the option of altering the stopping pattern of Darts to facilitate the 29k traffic.

Pete_Cavan

In all the talk of the need for passing loops, I dont see why the tracks between Connolly and Clontarf Road cant be used for such northbound. It would require some alterations but that is a lot more achievable than building another track anywhere north of there. Many DARTs stop at Fairview to change drivers and then stop at Clontarf Road so it is a slow section for DARTs already. Would it be easier to coordinate a DART and a commuter train to pass at Clontarf Road, freeing up the path, than it is to coordinate the commuter train with stopping DARTs as far as HJ or beyond?

At Malahide, would a new DART turnback station on the three track section south of the existing station help? Commuter trains would still serve the existing station.

LXFlyer

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

In all the talk of the need for passing loops, I dont see why the tracks between Connolly and Clontarf Road cant be used for such northbound. It would require some alterations but that is a lot more achievable than building another track anywhere north of there. Many DARTs stop at Fairview to change drivers and then stop at Clontarf Road so it is a slow section for DARTs already. Would it be easier to coordinate a DART and a commuter train to pass at Clontarf Road, freeing up the path, than it is to coordinate the commuter train with stopping DARTs as far as HJ or beyond?

At Malahide, would a new DART turnback station on the three track section south of the existing station help? Commuter trains would still serve the existing station.

It's too close to Connolly - there are four tracks to Ossory Rd Jctn already.

You need the extra capacity further out (between Clontarf Rd/Killester and Raheny).

trellheim

What is the best method to provide this with

a) no cap-ex

b) limited cap-ex < 10 million

c) Medium Cap-ex < 100 million

Hungerford

lxflyer wrote: »

You need the extra capacity further out (between Clontarf Rd/Killester and Raheny).

I've had a quick look on Google Maps and the main issue with extra capacity between those points is the design of the DART stations. There's clearly enough space for four tracks, suggesting that it may have been planned by the GNR at some stage.

After Raheny, space gets very tight - I can't see how four tracking could be achieved without considerable loss of property.

end of the road

the best solution is to implement 4 tracking where it is easy to do, and do the rest later on if needed. some bit is a lot better then none at all.

Captain Chaos

They should install the up loop at Clongriffin station, the platform is built for it but they never expanded the space fully for the loop. There is even the yellow line on the platform and ballast layed for the track bed, it's like they ran out of cash and just installed the down loop.

BoatMad

end of the road wrote: »

the best solution is to implement 4 tracking where it is easy to do, and do the rest later on if needed. some bit is a lot better then none at all.

The issue however being " rest later on if needed" , just other can , a kick ,and a road , planning , that typifies Ireland and especially Dublin approach to transport planning

Sam Russell

Hungerford wrote: »

I've had a quick look on Google Maps and the main issue with extra capacity between those points is the design of the DART stations. There's clearly enough space for four tracks, suggesting that it may have been planned by the GNR at some stage.

After Raheny, space gets very tight - I can't see how four tracking could be achieved without considerable loss of property.

They could move the platforms back enough to put a third rail between for passing trains while the Dart waits in the station, like exists at Bray station.

Carawaystick

Sam Russell wrote: »

They could move the platforms back enough to put a third rail between for passing trains while the Dart waits in the station, like exists at Bray station.

These are the stations that were closed for ages lengthening the platforms and building structures to preventing any extra tracks easily being introduced less than a decade ago?

LXFlyer

Hungerford wrote: »

I've had a quick look on Google Maps and the main issue with extra capacity between those points is the design of the DART stations. There's clearly enough space for four tracks, suggesting that it may have been planned by the GNR at some stage.

After Raheny, space gets very tight - I can't see how four tracking could be achieved without considerable loss of property.

You don't need extra tracks all of the way between Connolly and Howth Junction - as I've said several times fit it in between Killester and Raheny.