nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

DART+ (DART Expansion)

murphaph

New propoganda here but it really whets the appetite.....who knows if we'll have the nerve to do it though....

Find more posts tagged with

dublin

train

track

underground

rail

tunnel

interconnector

dart

suburban rail

transport 21

emu

electrification

ride me sideways

Quick Links

Comments

Sam Russell

no.8 wrote: »

Interesting. Nice work.

My opinion is that it may not be cheap, but it would be far more practical to build underpasses on the 1st 2 options. I mean the 1st option would be unacceptable in terms of the scale any proposed bridge. Plus for locals there would be far less to complain about, in terms of obstructions of views, wider impact etc. etc.

The main advantage is that you can keep the same alignment and provide access for pedestrians/cyclists. Again, major project but far less 'collateral damage'.

The Merrion Gates replacement in the two car parks would work well as an underpass as there is enough approach to drop the road under the line, and would reduce the visual impact of the proposed scheme.

The time to tackle the Lansdowne Road LC was when they were building the new stadium. That train has left the station.

In the case of any of the others, none of these are proposed by any official body. That makes them unlikely to progress. It is more likely that they will simply be closed or left as they are.

no.8

Khuitlio wrote: »

I reckon if you really wanted to get rid of the level crossing you could build these three road bridges and have them all closed.

Interesting. Nice work.

My opinion is that it may not be cheap, but it would be far more practical to build underpasses on the 1st 2 options. I mean the 1st option would be unacceptable in terms of the scale any proposed bridge. Plus for locals there would be far less to complain about, in terms of obstructions of views, wider impact etc. etc.

The main advantage is that you can keep the same alignment and provide access for pedestrians/cyclists. Again, major project but far less 'collateral damage'.

Sam Russell

markpb wrote: »

And third, you have to find a balance between the needs of the double digit numbers of people affected versus the teens of thousands of people who could benefit from it.

Traffic is like water, it finds its own level. Closing the LC gates will cause people to go around 'the long way'. Grand Canal Quay bridge was closed some tme ago without any problem. It was only a low bridge fit just for cars, but closed none the less.

If the LC remains open, but closed 50% of the time for trains then it will not get much traffic outside local residents if alternatives exist. Only if 5 min Darts are proposed, then they will remain as is. Merrion Gates LC is the major problem, not the others.

markpb

MJohnston wrote: »

You can certainly question the practicality of the option, but the bolded is a really weak reason to do so.

And third, you have to find a balance between the needs of the double digit numbers of people affected versus the teens of thousands of people who could benefit from it.

MJohnston

strassenwo!f wrote: »

One would certainly question the practicality of that option.

Two quiet roads in a Dublin suburb, with that possibility foisted upon them.

It is probably doubtful that we need further discussion of this idea

You can certainly question the practicality of the option, but the bolded is a really weak reason to do so. First, there's nothing sacrosanct about the 'quietness' of streets. Second, it's hardly that anyway, being 100m away from the main road:

strassenwo!f

MJohnston wrote: »

I think Serpentine Ave is the one specifically that they're going to have to leave open and fix. Arguably once the Merrion Gates crossing is fully separated, Sydney Parade Ave is served well enough by that, and Lansdowne by Bath Ave, but you probably need Serpentine to have something in that 3km gap, at which point Sandymount Ave could be closed.

The problem is the physics of the situation. The only solution I can think of that wouldn't involve large-scale CPOing would be a very tight road bridge using Serpentine Terrace and Oaklands Park (1 house CPO'd) - but I don't know how practical this would be, and whether they'd just prefer to keep the crossing.

One would certainly question the practicality of that option.

Two quiet roads in a Dublin suburb, with that possibility foisted upon them.

It is probably doubtful that we need further discussion of this idea

Sam Russell

The bridge through the carparks has been proposed and has been to public consultation. The result is awaited.

The other two have zero chance of happening as they pass through very expensive property owned by well connected folk.

I do not think so.

Khuitlio

I reckon if you really wanted to get rid of the level crossing you could build these three road bridges and have them all closed.

Ireland trains

Will Irish rail ever build more rail lines. Maby a third track North north of Connolly because with a 10 min DART to Drogheda the enterprise will get stuck very quickly

[Deleted User]

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is either 5 metres up or 5 metres down or split between the two, plus the thickness of the bridge. Dropping the line by 3 metres say would sever the line for at least 6 months as the whole job has to be completed at one go. It would not be like the re-cabling of the overhead wires which was done at weekends.

It would also only make sense if a third or fourth rail was added at the same time to allow overtaking trains. It would also require the rebuilding of all the stations affected. Maybe a tunnel would be better, but none of it would be worth the disruption or cost.

That's what I suspected, I just wondered if that option was ever considered.

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

Has anyone investigated the costs involved in dropping the track by 2 metres and then having road bridges over the line that only have to rise a couple of metres rather than about 4m, I know it would be expensive & disruptive, but the end result would probably be worth it.

It is either 5 metres up or 5 metres down or split between the two, plus the thickness of the bridge. Dropping the line by 3 metres say would sever the line for at least 6 months as the whole job has to be completed at one go. It would not be like the re-cabling of the overhead wires which was done at weekends.

It would also only make sense if a third or fourth rail was added at the same time to allow overtaking trains. It would also require the rebuilding of all the stations affected. Maybe a tunnel would be better, but none of it would be worth the disruption or cost.

markpb

Deleted User wrote: »

Has anyone investigated the costs involved in dropping the track by 2 metres and then having road bridges over the line that only have to rise a couple of metres rather than about 4m, I know it would be expensive & disruptive, but the end result would probably be worth it.

The track is already at sea level, dropping it would probably make it very prone to flooding.

[Deleted User]

Has anyone investigated the costs involved in dropping the track by 2 metres and then having road bridges over the line that only have to rise a couple of metres rather than about 4m, I know it would be expensive & disruptive, but the end result would probably be worth it.

MJohnston

You can maintain pedestrian traffic to all the stations without leaving level crossings open though, as you say there's no lift at the minute, but they're not that expensive to add, especially if the upside is a closed level crossing.

Sam Russell

MJohnston wrote: »

Well yes, you're right in the sense that most of those DART stations in that area are very close to stations.

There are other good reasons to get rid of the crossings too like safety. But I suppose I'd come at it from the other direction - if Merrion Gates is fully grade-separated, the question is why does Sydney Parade Avenue need to remain open? They're so close together, and there's no real necessity to retain it.

Local traffic, particularly pedestrian traffic requiring access to the station. There is no lift, so the LC provides that convenience. It is also close the St Vincent's Hospital, and soon to be maternity hospital so patients not able to manage the pedestrian bridge are accommodated.

If most traffic goes through the Merrion Gates replacement unhindered it will relieve the pressure on Sydney Parade LC.

MJohnston

Sam Russell wrote: »

I've not seen them slow, but entering or leaving the station makes it a bit moot. The speed of through trains varies enormously - some crawl through and others race through. If they tightened the timing, it might matter.

Anyway, the trains have priority.

Well yes, you're right in the sense that most of those DART stations in that area are very close to stations.

There are other good reasons to get rid of the crossings too like safety. But I suppose I'd come at it from the other direction - if Merrion Gates is fully grade-separated, the question is why does Sydney Parade Avenue need to remain open? They're so close together, and there's no real necessity to retain it.

Sam Russell

MJohnston wrote: »

Yeah but doesn't the very existence of a level crossing mean that the trains have to reduce speed? I'd rather get rid of them all myself.

I've not seen them slow, but entering or leaving the station makes it a bit moot. The speed of through trains varies enormously - some crawl through and others race through. If they tightened the timing, it might matter.

Anyway, the trains have priority.

MJohnston

Sam Russell wrote: »

The crossing at Sydney Parade would be OK if the Merrion Gates was sorted. Bus route (47) could be diverted onto the replacement and so avoid the Sydney Parade crossing. The traffic would reduce if the new proposed crossing worked well - which is no means certain.

I cannot see any of the others working though.

Yeah but doesn't the very existence of a level crossing mean that the trains have to reduce speed? I'd rather get rid of them all myself.

Sam Russell

The crossing at Sydney Parade would be OK if the Merrion Gates was sorted. Bus route (47) could be diverted onto the replacement and so avoid the Sydney Parade crossing. The traffic would reduce if the new proposed crossing worked well - which is no means certain.

I cannot see any of the others working though.

MJohnston

I think Serpentine Ave is the one specifically that they're going to have to leave open and fix. Arguably once the Merrion Gates crossing is fully separated, Sydney Parade Ave is served well enough by that, and Lansdowne by Bath Ave, but you probably need Serpentine to have something in that 3km gap, at which point Sandymount Ave could be closed.

The problem is the physics of the situation. The only solution I can think of that wouldn't involve large-scale CPOing would be a very tight road bridge using Serpentine Terrace and Oaklands Park (1 house CPO'd) - but I don't know how practical this would be, and whether they'd just prefer to keep the crossing.

Sam Russell

cgcsb wrote: »

assuming that after these works, level crossings will be closed and there'll be DARTs from Bray to Maynooth or Drogheda every ten mins or less.

With regard to level crossings, the one in Bray is probably not significant as there is little to no traffic, but the Merrion Gates is a big problem but there is a plan to divert Strand Road up through the carparks at the side of the Merrion Our Lady Queen of Peace Church and the old CTT building.

That leaves the crossings at Sydney Parade, Sandymount Ave, Serpentine Ave, and Landowne. They cannot be changed easily as buildings are right up against the line. A 10 minute Dart service would mean that the gates would be closed more than half the time. This could be alleviated if the timings/signalling was tightened to have the gates close nearer to the arrival time of the train.

Eliminating most of the diesels would improve the situation.

cgcsb

LXFlyer wrote: »

Given that the two morning peak trains are already fully loaded to standing leaving Wicklow as it is (let alone Greystones) I don’t think adding those passengers to create a crush loaded DART is necessarily such a good idea.

Remember too that both trains then form other workings from Connolly and may not be available to head back south.

assuming that after these works, level crossings will be closed and there'll be DARTs from Bray to Maynooth or Drogheda every ten mins or less.

roadmaster

Is Docklands still a temporary station technically or was that planning sorted out? Also if we a lot more trains going in there could we seen additional platforms being built?

loyatemu wrote: »

then you're back to the issue of the massive demand for any train that goes over the Loop Line, and no extra capacity (well, Metro will take some passengers heading for the areas around OCS and SSG, but anyone going to the main south city business districts will still be trying to get on the Loop Line Darts).

"Massive" demand is a bit strong. The Metro at Whitworth Road will take anyone who wants to go to OCS, Tara (College Green area), SSG area. Those heading to Docklands/IFSC area will obviously stay on the train.

That just leaves GCD, which is certainly a busy station, but not as busy as all of the above which will all already have gotten off. Remember GCD has 3,731 alightings per the 2015 rail census. So busy, but not that busy. And many of them would be coming off the DART anyway. You are talking maybe 1,000 people needing to change at Whitworth road to get to GCD.

My bigger concerns is if Metro can take the numbers who would want to trasnfer on at Whitworth, given that it would have already picked up people Swords and the Airport! It really shows the need for 90m Metro trains at high frequency.

loyatemu wrote: »

Also if every Maynooth line train is going to Docklands, how will you be able to change at Whitworth Rd? Or are you expecting Darts through the PPT will continue to go to GCD (oh god, the acronyms!)

Obviously we will need to wait and see what happens. But I suspect at least some of the electric trains coming in from West Dublin will continue over the loop line bridge to GCD. People on docklands destined trains will then be able to change at Whitworth Road to those trains if they need to head to GCD or even further south.

I think we may end up seeing some big changes to long distance commuter trains. Maybe see trains from Drogheda terminate at Connolly and trains from the Rosslare line terminate at Bray. Then you only have DART's crossing the loop line bridge, which may help simplify operations in the city center.

loyatemu

bk wrote: »

I don't think it will come to that though, I'd be surprised if those on Docklands terminating trains won't be able to change for GCD trains at Whitworth road.

then you're back to the issue of the massive demand for any train that goes over the Loop Line, and no extra capacity (well, Metro will take some passengers heading for the areas around OCS and SSG, but anyone going to the main south city business districts will still be trying to get on the Loop Line Darts).

Also if every Maynooth line train is going to Docklands, how will you be able to change at Whitworth Rd? Or are you expecting Darts through the PPT will continue to go to GCD (oh god, the acronyms!)

Idbatterim wrote: »

will this not change a bit though with the new pedestrian bridges they are building over the liffey?

Yes, it becomes a 1km walk then. Still a little long, but not end of the world. Lots of Dublin Bikes at both ends would help a lot.

I don't think it will come to that though, I'd be surprised if those on Docklands terminating trains won't be able to change for GCD trains at Whitworth road.

Of course another, painful option would be change to Metro at Whitworth and then change again to DART at Tara for GCD! Not that I think it will be necessary.

Idbatterim

loyatemu wrote: »

Dockland's station is fine for the IFSC and Spencer Dock - it's a bit of hike from the southside docks (or "Silicon Docks" as the press like to call it). It's 1.6km walk from Docklands Station to Google's office for example, compared with 100m from GCD Station. The numbers are still stacked heavily in favour of trains serving Connolly->Lansdowne.

will this not change a bit though with the new pedestrian bridges they are building over the liffey?

Sam Russell

LXFlyer wrote: »

Given that the two morning peak trains are already fully loaded to standing leaving Wicklow as it is (let alone Greystones) I don’t think adding those passengers to create a crush loaded DART is necessarily such a good idea.

That is justification for more trains from Wexford. There could be an extra Dart train to provide for the Wexford passengers. The Wexford train has 3 or 4 coaches and so, even at crush, would not fill a 8 coach Dart. The replacemet Dart need not stop at all station to Connolly, only at those served by the diesel.

Remember too that both trains then form other workings from Connolly and may not be available to head back south.

That is a timetable issue. Any train turned back at Bray is an hour or more worth of train time available for either more service to Wexford to other services.

Currently a 6 coach IC train heads down from Connolly to DL at about 10 am to park, and return empty at 1:15 pm from DL back again to Connolly. If there is a shortage of stock, maybe they could use that set for something. There is plenty of dead running on the system as it is.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

Stopping the Wexford train at Bray makes sense as the train is as slow as a Dart and can be turned back giving a much improved service to Wexford. Not all IC trains would be turned but most would. This would allow the Wexford train to terminate on the island platform and passengers would simply cross the platform to a waiting Dart. I think this would be essential if a 10 min Dart service was in operation.

Given that the two morning peak trains are already fully loaded to standing leaving Wicklow as it is (let alone Greystones) I don’t think adding those passengers to create a crush loaded DART is necessarily such a good idea.

Remember too that both trains then form other workings from Connolly and may not be available to head back south.

cgcsb

loyatemu wrote: »

Dockland's station is fine for the IFSC and Spencer Dock - it's a bit of hike from the southside docks (or "Silicon Docks" as the press like to call it). It's 1.6km walk from Docklands Station to Google's office for example, compared with 100m from GCD Station. The numbers are still stacked heavily in favour of trains serving Connolly->Lansdowne.

If you're on a train coming from Hazelhatch or Maynooth/M3 going towards Docklands and you want to go to GCD you would just change at the proposed glasnevin for a train heading to GCD or Bray. Alternatively you could probably get the red line luas from Spencer Dock down to somewhere near Ringsend road but we've no details on that yet.