Project FourNorth (Quad-Tracking the Northern Line)

OisinCooke

Just said I’d put this up here as a place to keep up with updates on this project, I believe a CBA/Feasibility Study is underway at the moment but does anyone know what the potential scope of the project would include?

Is four-tracking going to be Connolly - Malahide or all the way to Drogheda? And how would they work around the current DART stations on the northern line? Probably have to completely demolish them and reconstruct after four tracking… The new station locations may have to be moved so that the current stations can stay open while the new ones are being constructed…

Obviously it’ll be a very difficult project but a vital one too, so just wondering does anyone know what the plan involves?

Losty Dublin

A study was done in the mid 90's when Irish Rail first proposed an airport link and at the time they found that it was perfectly possible within the city confines.

Effectively it entails a third track to Clontarf Road, which already is there; the current station will have a bay platform on the east side. A reinforced embankment would be provided for the short section from Clontarf Road itself as far as Howth Road and Mount Temple school; this would mean little to no CPO although there would be some disruption while it's being built. From here on the line is in a cutting and it can be widened to Raheny and hence Howth Junction with little engineering bar providing wide road bridges at a few locations.

Once here, the station at Clongriffin is already future proofed; from here it's open country until the approach to Malahide station. A short section of a third line is proposed immediately outside Malahide for use as a turnback slash layover for waiting trains as part of the extended DARTplus project.

Of course the small issue of Exchequer funding and willpower is another story altogether.

PlatformNine

hasn't there also been talks of instead of quad-tracking past Clongriffin, they would create a new alignment from Clongriffin to Drogheda? The AISRR made it sound like it could be cheaper or a similair price, but I am not sure if that also considered thing like electrification of new alignment. At the very least I think it could be good for increasing speeds on Enterprise services and Dundalk commuters, as well as potentially making a heavy rail link to the airport easier.

goingnowhere

4 tracks Connolly to Clongriffin is fairly well agreed as the path forward. Its relatively easy to do. The GNR was looking at this as far back as the 1930's

AISRR was suggesting building the Clongriffin-Airport line and then turning north to follow the M1 alignment towards Drogheda.

PlatformNine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122607391#Comment_122607391

100% agree on four-tracking Connolly to Clongriffin, there is no way around it either, capacity on the section is needed for the future. It could potentially allow 5 minute(12tph, increase from D+ 9tph) DARTs on the slow line on top of more frequent and faster Dundalk commuters and Enterprise services on the fast line. Also depending on the layout for both the four-tracking, and how they redesign Howth Junction for the four-tracking, it could potentially allow for either some of those 12 DARTs to be to/from howth and/or allow the platform to be better designed for the Howth shuttles allowing quicker transfers.

Thats actually not true, they don't mention the new allignment and airport link together at all. I read the section again(p.47) and it suggests the new allignment because it would be shorter/more direct than the existing allignment, need less CPOing, have less level-crossings, have a smaller environmental imapct, and disrupt the existing services less.

Pete_Cavan

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122607391#Comment_122607391

4 tracks Connolly to Clongriffin is not relatively easy. The line is in a cutting for much of that stretch with house gardens up to the top of the slopes. There is no space to excavate from or remove excavated material along while keeping the line operational or else CPOing dozens of back gardens.

OisinCooke

Why only 4 tracks as far as Clongriffin, why at least not to Malahide…?

cgcsb

It'd be 4 tracks to clongriffin and then a new 2 track route from there to Drogheda closer to the M1. There's no need to keep the express tracks by the coast.

PlatformNine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122616962#Comment_122616962

Its not that we aren't thinking about upgrading past Clongriffin, we are just looking at the track in 2 sections. Connolly-Clongriffin and Clongriffin-Drogheda. Connolly-Clongriffin realistically has to be four-tracked. There aren't really any other practical ways to fix the capacity issues along the section. Clongriffin-Drogheda however has multiple options(or at least 2), either continue the 4-tack north or develop a new allignment. And if its decided to develop a new allignment, there isn't much of a point in four tracking past Clongriffin.

OisinCooke

Ahhh ok ok I see, so lining up with the AISRR then. I’d just be sceptical about whether a new alignment would actually ne invested in and built, let alone justified money-wise by the public, who (in all fairness) will see that a duplication of the same route is being made…

As well as this if a new alignment from Clongriffin to Drogheda is constructed, it will presumably run close enough to Swords to warrant a station and if so, and you have DART services using that line to serve it as well all, is the point not defeated…?

Will the opportunity also be taken to build a new crossing over the Boyne at Drogheda to eliminate the only piece of single track on the route, which could be be up being a real crunch-point?

PlatformNine

I think the justification would be that because this route is shorter, goes through less-developed areas, and avoids a number of areas that are difficult to work with, it might be easier to get planning permission as well as being much faster (shorter and possibly capable of higher speeds). My hope looking at the route described in the AISRR is that being shorter and more direct and avoiding the existing bridges (for the most part it looks like many bridges along the existing allignment would be either shorter or completely avoided), it could save a lot of money on construction compared to four tracking all the way to Drogheda.

Looking where I would think the route would go, I think its possible there would be a push for a swords heavy rail station. However the problem with that is that to get the faster more direct route, IE is probably going to want a route that is away from the existing development in swords. Which leaves either two options for a swords station, either slow down the route to get into a more developed area. Or what I think the better option would be, keep the line away from developed areas and create a P&R that also has a long-term parking section for Enterprise passengers.

Either way it would not completely defeat the purpose. The former would slow down the Enterprise speeds towards the end, and both might cause some traffic slowing down Enterprise Services. However getting slowed down by one stop in Swords is a lot better than all the stops from Portmarnock to Laytown, and will still be much faster than the existing allignment. I also can't see a Swords commutter having more than maybe 4tph let alone dart frequency, and Swords-Clongriffin would ideally take around 5 minutes (similair distance as Malahide-Clongriffin with no stop inbetween), either operating as a shuttle service to Clongriffin or switching over to the slow line. And that's if a Swords commuter is its own service and not an added stop on the Dundalk commutter which is 2tph which would operate on the fast line anyways.

Its hard to say, current peak frequency on the Boyne Viaduct is 6tph, 2 Enterprise and 4 Dundalk commuters. I don't think a train every 10 minutes is a problem, but it probably doesn't leave much room for improved service.

p_haugh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122619713#Comment_122619713

If they could work the swords Heavy rail station to be near one of the metro stops, that would provide a handy interchange. Estuary will have a P&R element so could be a good interchange option.

cgcsb

No need for a swords stop. Swords passengers could change at the airport. The new tracks would be express intercity only

PlatformNine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122619980#Comment_122619980

I think it would be pretty difficult to get a heavy rail interchange, even at Estuary station I think there are a lot of space constraints on the line itself, as well as needing to cross the M1 to make the interchange, and then back over at some point which itself isn't easy. If a good connection is important I would almost say it would be better to put the station in Seatown East and run a dedicated shuttle service between The Seatown metro station and this Seatown East heavy rail station.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122623614#Comment_122623614

I don't disagree, but I think it would be difficult to get planning permission for a line that close to Swords without putting a station there.

goingnowhere

It would make sense to run the Airport - City rail service as a Swords-Airport-City, would make the airport station cheaper as it wouldn't be a terminus or need to hold out of service trains.

Its about building a network and more one seat journeys, if you are in Swords going to say DCU, Metro is great, if you want to get to Rahney, Clontarf etc…

Also business case, more catchment, more demand. Given the low design capacity of the metro it could prove valuable as well

PlatformNine

How would they physically manage that? Without turning around a train, which mean long dwell times, they would have to put the station far enough away that it would probably need an people mover. It's doable but I think it just makes more sense to have a more dedicated airport link and avoid a people mover if possible.

Beta Ray Bill

The important thing to remember is that Quad tracking is only half the problem.

The biggest problem of all is Connolly. There are only 7* platforms of which only 3 allow trains to pass through on 2 lines. (*what us platform 1 being used for these days?)

There are also Termination problems at Connolly in that trains that come from the west line that terminate at platforms 1-5, need to cross the lines used by platform 6 and 7 which effectively slows everything right down.

Irish rail have the wrong end of the stick on this. They're trying to sell off land for apartments around Connolly instead of trying to buy more to put in more platforms

The area highlighted needs a CPO and at least 4 more platforms built. (Maybe 5 with a terminating platform)

The Failte Ireland carpark is an absolute disgrace, I don't think I've even seen it at more than 10/20% capacity

Its important to remember you don't need to quad track the whole line, only areas where the stations are, so that non stop trains can get through.

L1011

P1 is still used, Connolly terminating Sligo/Maynooth line trains in the mornings in particular. During the day, those trains usually monopolise P7.

Failte Ireland are considering moving… so that site can become a hotel. The petrol station is also owned by hotel developers.

Beta Ray Bill

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122635800#Comment_122635800

Bananas…

I'd argue it's up there with Dublin Airport, Dublin Port and the M50, M1, Port tunnel as part of the most critical pieces of in Transport Infra in the country.

And we're letting some lad build a hotel on top of land needed to expand it.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122628637#Comment_122628637

I know it will be unpopular to say on this forum, but if you want to do it on the cheap then the cheapest option by far would be to just extend Metrolink to meet the Northern Line.

Relatively short distance, all above ground, no need for an expensive underground rail station under the airport, Metro's cheaper to build (much shorter stations), could also benefit from having a few new stations along the line and open up land for development north of Swords.

Folks wanting to get from Swords to Clontarf could get the Metro to the Northern line and then swap to DART. Alternatively get the Metrolink to DCU and then the N4 across to Clontarf.

The N4 is a real game changer. And speaking of which for the love of god, if we are going to the effort to quad track, can we please create a new entrance to Killester Dart station on the Southern end directly up to the bridge where the N4 stops and the H routes close by!

OisinCooke

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122635792#Comment_122635792

I do think though that the end plan for Connolly is to divert all but the Enterprise to Heuston - Sligo trains via a new Maynooth to Stacummy/Adamstown link and Wexford services via Waterford - so Connolly will be left only with the hourly Enterprise, the odd Dundalk, Gorey and Mullingar/Longford commuters, plus Navan services.

There’s also Spencer Dock station which I haven’t even considered here and that will take even further strain off Connolly. I would say that eventually all Mullingar/Longford Commuters terminating in Dublin will terminate either in Heuston, or more likely, in Spencer Dock so as to avoid crossing the through lines to access Connolly’s terminating platforms, with passengers for Connolly and the south changing to a through-running SW DART at Glasnevin…?

I’d even wager that Connolly won’t need any extra platforms at all but that it’ll be Heuston that might actually be in need of expansion… Thankfully they have the space though, I suppose a 9 and 10 could go beside the current 8 perhaps…?

Beta Ray Bill

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122636613#Comment_122636613

Quad tracking will involve the rebuilding (and possibly moving) of many stations. There may even be one or two closed, where there is no room to quad track on the station (Kilbarrack) Given they won't CPO around connolly, I doubt they'll CPO peoples houses

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122638495#Comment_122638495

The biggest problem with Heuston is that it's miles away from the business end of the city. I think diverting trains to that station without a Dart underground is going to just increase journey times.

CPO'ing the land around connolly is a no brainer. (In my opinion anyway) there's no political will to do it though.

L1011

A number of the structures in the indicative drawing above are listed, so extremely difficult to knock even if CPOed. Preston Street houses and the old railway post office are listed in fairly sure

PlatformNine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122635792#Comment_122635792

I would love to see some more platforms at Connolly! not sure how feasible it is however, and espeically since they are working on the new Spencer Dock station I don't think they have much of a plan to expand which is a shame. However with that said I think the future situation at Connolly is a bit more complicated than just adding a few platforms for terminating west line services. Adding more platforms west of platforms the through platforms would be good for reducing platform congestion and increase capacity for the future (which given why we have Docklands and Spencer Dock it will be needed). But I don't think it's going to make a massive difference with line crossovers, though I also might have a bad understanding of how the current routing into Connolly works. And then it will only get more complicated with the four-tracking.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122638495#Comment_122638495

I would go a bit further than that and say that the long term goal is to turn Connolly into a DART hub. Connolly terminating and GCD through Drogheda and Maynooth/M3 Parkway services. Through GCD HH services (maybe even some terminating services to increase frequency if GCD gets too congested). And through Malahide/Howth-Bray/Greystones DARTs. All frequently interchanging through Connolly. Then like you say, the Hourly Enterprise. However I think its possible that to make room for Connolly DART services Spencer Dock will be used not just for Longford services, but also the Dundalk services(provided its not a GCD services), as well as Maynooth/M3 services as needed. I think they might also used it as the ending point for Sligo services as a stop gap if the Maynooth-Adamstown link is built.

As far as not needing extra platforms, for now once Spencer dock is complete? probably not no, even if they mothball Docklands it would likely be fine for a while (I don't know and can't find what their plan for Docklands is) but its also about thinking about the future in an area that is limited on space.

Charles Babbage

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122638834#Comment_122638834

Why shouldn't they CPO people's houses? Manys a house or garden was CPOed for road projects, how do you think the Stillorgan road became so wide? If you choose to live by a railway line then there is always a chance they would widen it, especially in this obvious case.

Beta Ray Bill

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122641405#Comment_122641405

I never said they shouldn't, I think they should… but I don't think that they will. Political suicide and all that.

Beta Ray Bill

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122639094#Comment_122639094

This?:

I don't get why we are list building with no historical significance.

At this stage I literally think its just a job for someone…

Corrstown Golf Club has a listed building. It has no historical significance other than its old and it's also out in St Margarets

The Front of the KBC building is a listed building, It used to be a garage, again no historical significance.

Probably deserves its own thread.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122644596#Comment_122644596

Yes - https://www.buildingsofireland.ie/buildings-search/building/50010042/parcels-post-office-102-106-amiens-street-preston-street-dublin-1-dublin . RPS Reference 126.

1-4 Preston Street are also listed.

The front of the KBC building was a notable art deco industrial structure; it was illegally demolished and they had to rebuild it.

Beta Ray Bill

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122644605#Comment_122644605

Incredible, so the cities infra has to suffer because of this building.

Ironic that something built for the railway is now hindering it's development because in 2011 some lad with a clip board said, "That's old, we should preserve that"

There's the building on Corrstown
https://www.buildingsofireland.ie/buildings-search/building/11341001/corrstown-house-corrstown-co-dublin

#jobsfortheboys

Pete_Cavan

Would CPOs there actually make any difference? Someone else can confirm or deny but I suspect capacity is more constrained by the situation south of Connolly than by the number of through platforms in Connolly. If that is the case, relieving that congestion should be more of a priority than adding platforms. I don't see a point in spending a lot of money widening the mouth of the funnel unless something has been first done about the narrow end.

Unfortunately the only real way to relieve that congestion is with DART+ Tunnel. If we ever get around to building the tunnel, I could see the original DU X service configuration being used - Northern Line to Hazelhatch via the tunnel and Maynooth to Bray via Connolly. In that case Connolly would continue to be used as a terminus for Mullingar/Longford services and Enterprise plus more trains from south of Bray. Connolly is well setup as a terminus, it'll continue to have through services but there are limitations on that which aren't related to Connolly itself.

roadmaster

I heard Barry Kenny on the radio this evening saying the New Spencer Dock station will help solve some off the issues with timetables and connolly.

The drawings done by IDOM for spencer dock are they concept or Construction?