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

MJohnston

LXFlyer wrote: »

The stations would be too close together for a start. Every station stop adds two minutes to the journey time. I think stations at Heuston West, Cabra, and Glasnevin are enough without slowing the journey even more.

Again, not sure how this any different from the existing DART stations? I pointed out the distances are comparable.

The location is completely unsuitable because it is on a curve which is specifically outlawed by the Commission for Railway Regulation for any new stations. There isn't enough space (lengthwise) for one immediately north of that (even allowing for the fact that the embankments leave no room for platforms).

Broombridge has a 180m platform. There's 250m along the straight section between the tunnel and Blackhorse Avenue - seems enough space to me? Also, just curious, what does this law about new stations on a curve define a curve as? That seems to contradict the previously stated potential for a Cross Guns/Whitworth Road station.

I'm really not sure I agree about the embankments - they managed to engineer a Luas platform with 3.5m of space to work with at Phibsboro, and the narrowest point of that hypothetical space above would give 13m on each side. Going back to that Cross Guns station, there's a comparable layout, but a narrower available space at around 7m. Yet this was presented as a engineering possibility?

At that stage you're getting too close to the planned station at the new development north of Cabra Road.

There would still be about 820m between them, again comparable with the south DART line.

highdef

Dravokivich wrote: »

Most people driving through it, aren't going there. A lot of folks on these type of threads tend to not consider that. I was replying to someone specifically regarding it because they suggested a station should cut out rat running somehow.

I thought it would be a good idea, mainly for during the summer months and also at the weekends, when literally thousands, if not tens of thousands of people avail of the parks' facilities. Having more of those people arrive by rail due to it being more convenient, would result in less cars parked up and driving within the park and will arrive into the park on foot instead.

Apologies if my earlier comments suggested that a railway station in the park (or nearby) would result in less commuters travelling through the park to reach their final destination.

Bray Head

I think the PPT goes at least a depth of 15m at some points. Including nearly directly under the Wellington Monument.

It is hardly suitable for retro-fitting using cut and cover.

cgcsb

Rather than a station, what I'd much prefer to see is a new walking/cycling route on the west side of the tracks from the proposed Cabra Station with the park, crossing the proposed Old Cabra Road bus and cycling corridor, Blackhorse Avenue and then crossing the, now closed, bridge between Marlborough rd and McKee barracks, then down a Marlborough Mews quietway and into the park via Garda HQ. Pedestrian/cycling connectivity between the park and the North west suburbs is pretty poor at present and I think this would drastically improve things and would be a regeneration opportunity for the Marlborough area.

Heartbreak Hank

Dats me wrote: »

and quad-tracking the Northern Line only to complete the plan. Quad tracking the northern line isn't actually part of the NTA's GDA 2016-2035 plan I saw recently, how did that happen?

What are the major obstacles to quad tracking this? Is it mostly acquiring back gardens? Presume the Malahide viaduct would also be an issue but not insurmountable.

CatInABox

Heartbreak Hank wrote: »

What are the major obstacles to quad tracking this? Is it mostly acquiring back gardens? Presume the Malahide viaduct would also be an issue but not insurmountable.

Back gardens, a number of houses, a sliver of golf course. Then bridges need to be widened, stations reworked.

The biggest obstacle is probably the cost benefit though. Until Dart Underground is built, the loop line is going to be the biggest bottleneck on the line, so quad tracking will only get more trains to the bottleneck faster. It would have a huge impact on trains terminating at Connolly though, but it's probably wiser to focus on other improvements first.

cgcsb

In my view the additional 2 tracks need not be immediately adjacent to the existing tracks, afterall the whole purpose of the additional tracks would be to allow Dundalk, Belfast and Express Drogheda trains bypass those stations. I would propose quad tracking Drogheda to Balbriggan then diverting Belfast/other express trains away from the coast south of Balbriggan on a new route parallel to the M1(publicly owned land, less CPOs) with a new intercity station at Dublin Airport and then continue in tunnel to emerge at Cabra station and then PPT to Heuston West. Build the new line to high speed standard for future upgrades. That way you cut the Drogheda-Dublin time down to about 15 mins with electrification and it integrates the airport(lets face it, it's by far this countries most significant gateway to the rest of the world) into the intercity network. Drogheda commuters would then have the option of a slower DART service to reach eastern parts of the City, change at the airport onto metrolink or change at Heuston onto luas or bus.

Additional benefit: All Cork and Belfast trains could be through services, meaning less need to terminate in Dublin, freeing up turn-around capacity in Heuston and Connolly for anything else IÉ wanted.

Bray Head

It's worth looking at the northern line on google maps. Four-tracking is feasible, but still very disruptive.

Some of it is indeed back gardens and a golf course. After Raheny there are a lot of properties very close to the tracks though.

It would also be a very big job going through Malahide.

It could involve the CPO-ing of 50-100 properties (not just gardens) and in that respect would be more controversial than Bus Connects.

Stephen Strange

Bray Head wrote: »

It's worth looking at the northern line on google maps. Four-tracking is feasible, but still very disruptive.

Some of it is indeed back gardens and a golf course. After Raheny there are a lot of properties very close to the tracks though.

It would also be a very big job going through Malahide.

It could involve the CPO-ing of 50-100 properties (not just gardens) and in that respect would be more controversial than Bus Connects.

If you were to move the Dart station south (just the other side of the road, it could be easy enough to quad track Malahide (as its just a GAA pitch to the south). Just my amateur opinion though.

cgcsb

Four tracking by the existing line isn't a good idea because eventually it'll be used by high-speed(medium speed depending on the definition) trains and the noise and vibration won't be appreciated by residents, 2 new tracks further inland is a better solution.

riddlinrussell

cgcsb wrote: »

In my view the additional 2 tracks need not be immediately adjacent to the existing tracks, afterall the whole purpose of the additional tracks would be to allow Dundalk, Belfast and Express Drogheda trains bypass those stations. I would propose quad tracking Drogheda to Balbriggan then diverting Belfast/other express trains away from the coast south of Balbriggan on a new route parallel to the M1(publicly owned land, less CPOs) with a new intercity station at Dublin Airport and then continue in tunnel to emerge at Cabra station and then PPT to Heuston West. Build the new line to high speed standard for future upgrades. That way you cut the Drogheda-Dublin time down to about 15 mins with electrification and it integrates the airport(lets face it, it's by far this countries most significant gateway to the rest of the world) into the intercity network. Drogheda commuters would then have the option of a slower DART service to reach eastern parts of the City, change at the airport onto metrolink or change at Heuston onto luas or bus.

Additional benefit: All Cork and Belfast trains could be through services, meaning less need to terminate in Dublin, freeing up turn-around capacity in Heuston and Connolly for anything else IÉ wanted.

This is a fascinating alternative that I've never really considered, probably total pie in the sky for the moment regarding cost but could be a real game changer while sidestepping a pile of issues with other solutions. Wouldn't the line run very close to the metro line from the Airport to Cabra? It essentially sounds like the "Crossrail 2" to Dart Undergrounds "Crossrail"

CatInABox

cgcsb wrote: »

Four tracking by the existing line isn't a good idea because eventually it'll be used by high-speed(medium speed depending on the definition) trains and the noise and vibration won't be appreciated by residents, 2 new tracks further inland is a better solution.

Passing loops would probably deal with most of the congestion along the line, in fairness.

schemingbohemia

cgcsb wrote: »

In my view the additional 2 tracks need not be immediately adjacent to the existing tracks, afterall the whole purpose of the additional tracks would be to allow Dundalk, Belfast and Express Drogheda trains bypass those stations. I would propose quad tracking Drogheda to Balbriggan then diverting Belfast/other express trains away from the coast south of Balbriggan on a new route parallel to the M1(publicly owned land, less CPOs) with a new intercity station at Dublin Airport and then continue in tunnel to emerge at Cabra station and then PPT to Heuston West. Build the new line to high speed standard for future upgrades. That way you cut the Drogheda-Dublin time down to about 15 mins with electrification and it integrates the airport(lets face it, it's by far this countries most significant gateway to the rest of the world) into the intercity network. Drogheda commuters would then have the option of a slower DART service to reach eastern parts of the City, change at the airport onto metrolink or change at Heuston onto luas or bus.

Additional benefit: All Cork and Belfast trains could be through services, meaning less need to terminate in Dublin, freeing up turn-around capacity in Heuston and Connolly for anything else IÉ wanted.

Your suggestion would add a Billion to the project costs. Never ever going to happen. Why do we need a Heavy Rail and Metro link to the airport?

LXFlyer

To try and bring an element of reality to this.

What is needed to facilitate the efficient operation of the 10 minute DART and northern line and Enterprise services is:

1) Four tracking from between Clontarf Road and Killester stations as far as Raheny station to allow overtaking - more than that is not required based on the 10 minute service. Also the buildings are too close to the tracks around Kilbarrack to allow it.

2) A southbound passing loop at Clongriffin

3) A turnback north of Malahide station so DART trains can stable off the running lines

cgcsb

riddlinrussell wrote: »

This is a fascinating alternative that I've never really considered, probably total pie in the sky for the moment regarding cost but could be a real game changer while sidestepping a pile of issues with other solutions. Wouldn't the line run very close to the metro line from the Airport to Cabra? It essentially sounds like the "Crossrail 2" to Dart Undergrounds "Crossrail"

Yes it'd run close I guess but would be a totally different animal, heavy rail, super straight alignment, suitable for high speed. It'd be slow between Cabra and Heuston, but who cares that's only the last km and the passengers would have been whisked from Drogheda to there in about 15 mins.

cgcsb

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Your suggestion would add a Billion to the project costs. Never ever going to happen.

Why would it be a billion more than quad tracking the current line? You'd be using mostly public land along the M1 rather than CPOing back gardens on the current line. There'd be no need to upgrade every single station on the current lane to allow for 4 tracks, you want the express tracks to bypass these stations anyway. The only element that would incur significantly more cost would be the deep bore tunnel between some greenfield site near Ikea to cabra station, about 3km. And overall it'd mean better outcomes, higher speed for long distance trains, a new intercity station at the airport, more capacity on the existing line for a DART every 5 minutes or less.

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Why do we need a Heavy Rail and Metro link to the airport?

This is common throughout Europe, even in the UK it's quite common. Given that it's the only significant airport hub for an island of 7 million, having rail access without needing to add more bodies changing modes in Dublin City Centre can only be a good thing. Dublin is the 10th busiest airport in the European Union and will be the 8th busiest after Brexit.

riddlinrussell

cgcsb wrote: »

Yes it'd run close I guess but would be a totally different animal, heavy rail, super straight alignment, suitable for high speed. It'd be slow between Cabra and Heuston, but who cares that's only the last km and the passengers would have been whisked from Drogheda to there in about 15 mins.

Oh I wasn't thinking in terms of a "competitor" more just in terms of engineering and the tunnels interacting.

Very expensive certainly but potentially the sort of thing we would need to seriously consider in creating a high speed network in Ireland. Not that that will be a priority.... ever

cgcsb

riddlinrussell wrote: »

Oh I wasn't thinking in terms of a "competitor" more just in terms of engineering and the tunnels interacting.

Very expensive certainly but potentially the sort of thing we would need to seriously consider in creating a high speed network in Ireland. Not that that will be a priority.... ever

If we're quad tracking the entire Northern line as far as Drogheda (Where DART will terminate) anyway, my view would be why not spend a little more and get a far superior outcome. But as posters have said, it's sufficient at the moment to have a shorter section of quad track and more passing loops, just to maintain present frequency until line speeds degrade further of course. :pac:

Also extending DART to Drogheda will actually increase journey times for the Drogheda commuter so a super fast alternative would mitigate that quite a bit.

Pete_Cavan

People here are seriously underestimating the landtake required for two additional tracks on the northern line. Obviously the existing line will have to remain operational throughout so you have to avoid all existing embankments, electrical infrastructure and overhead line supports, drainage, station access, allow safe working distance, etc. and provide all new of the same for the new tracks.

Basically, any new construction would be starting at the boundaries with adjoining properties and working back (away from the existing track) from there. Where the adjoining property is a house they would be required to purchase the entire thing otherwise the construction would be taking place up against the kitchen window. The opposition to it would be like nothing else.

cameramonkey

cgcsb wrote: »

This is common throughout Europe, even in the UK it's quite common. Given that it's the only significant airport hub for an island of 7 million, having rail access without needing to add more bodies changing modes in Dublin City Centre can only be a good thing. Dublin is the 10th busiest airport in the European Union and will be the 8th busiest after Brexit.

Heavy rail to Dublin airport is long overdue. A Dublin airport station could possible be the busiest station in the country. It could link to Belfast and Cork and the rest of the population centers around the country.It would have the added benefit of getting rid huge amounts of car journeys around the M50 and all the other congested roads near the Airport.

SeanW

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

People here are seriously underestimating the landtake required for two additional tracks on the northern line. Obviously the existing line will have to remain operational throughout so you have to avoid all existing embankments, electrical infrastructure and overhead line supports, drainage, station access, allow safe working distance, etc. and provide all new of the same for the new tracks.

Basically, any new construction would be starting at the boundaries with adjoining properties and working back (away from the existing track) from there. Where the adjoining property is a house they would be required to purchase the entire thing otherwise the construction would be taking place up against the kitchen window. The opposition to it would be like nothing else.

Presumably some of the work could be done at night time when possession of the line would be less of an issue?

CatInABox

SeanW wrote: »

Presumably some of the work could be done at night time when possession of the line would be less of an issue?

I'd doubt it, to be honest. Most of the work would still be pretty close to residential areas, and there's only so much that a noise shield could do.

The Dublin Port tunnel had this problem as well, and that was underground. There was some pretty incredible restrictions put on that one, including a limit that effectively meant they could only detonate explosives once per day.

LXFlyer

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

People here are seriously underestimating the landtake required for two additional tracks on the northern line. Obviously the existing line will have to remain operational throughout so you have to avoid all existing embankments, electrical infrastructure and overhead line supports, drainage, station access, allow safe working distance, etc. and provide all new of the same for the new tracks.

Basically, any new construction would be starting at the boundaries with adjoining properties and working back (away from the existing track) from there. Where the adjoining property is a house they would be required to purchase the entire thing otherwise the construction would be taking place up against the kitchen window. The opposition to it would be like nothing else.

I’m not underestimating anything - it would be a massive job that would inevitably include temporary rolling station closures during the works project.

But from an operational perspective, at a minimum adding a bi-directional third track or ideally four tracking from between Clontarf Road and Killester stations to Raheny station is essential - otherwise northern line and Enterprise services will be condemned to crawl between Connolly and Clongriffin in perpetuity because they can’t overtake stopping trains.

Four tracking north of Raheny is out due to the proximity of adjoining property to the permanent way.

specialbyte

I'd love to see full 4 tracking of the northern line but I'm not sure it is realistic. For a start it would be great if faster trains could pass out the slower trains. A few passing loops in stations would be ideal. Providing them in stations has the advantage that slower trains are stopping there anyway.

I suspect with some significant engineering work you could 4 track to just south of Killester station. Rebuilding Killester station to the south of Collins Avenue with four tracks would then be ideal. That would also create better transport network integration as the station is then on a bus road instead of hidden away.

Then it seems like the priority is can we extend some of the stations along the route to have 4 tracks through them. This would allow for fast trains to pass out slow trains waiting in stations.

Adding a southbound track to Clongriffin is an obvious choice and is so easy to do I'm surprised it's not done already.

Howth junction could potentially be widen to allow four tracks on the northern line and two tracks on the Howth branch. It would require closing the Howth branch, probably for more than 2 years. Then CPO'ing into the industrial lands and the lane in front of Howth Junction cottages. Then reconnecting the Howth branch.

Malahide station would then be another key target, particularly if trains will be stopping there to turn around. A new station south of the Malahide Road using the GAA pitch and back gardens there might be possible with limited demolition.

Donabate, if Smyth Bridge's house isn't protected, then you could potentially build a four-tracked station there too using argicultural land and the station car park. Rush and Lusk, Skerries station also has lots of space for 4 tracking the station.

I'd say with a few passing loops you'd get most of the benefit of four tracking without the full expense of it. Particularly in the more urban sections south of Malahide.

LXFlyer

You don’t need all of that - see my earlier post #5145 above.

Apart from the existing bi-directional line between Skerries and Balbriggan (and Skerries passing loop), reinstating Mosney loop would provide sufficient passing opportunities north of Malahide provided the actions in my earlier post are taken.

You need longer sections of additional track work on an intensely worked line (as between Connolly and a Howth Junction) - only having passing loops at stations is useless as it offers no redundancy for late running and would just lead to knock-on delays.

There is no other magic solution between Connolly and Howth Junction which is where most of the issues arise.

L1011

Howth Branch could be run as a shuttle to a temp platform in any such notional works rather than closed. It's future may easily be shuttle anyway

Nidgeweasel

Pardon my ignorance, would any dart underground / expansion allow for a 'circle' line type of service ala, rather obviously, the circle line in London.

By that I mean just a continual loop around the city environs without it being a 'through service' to Hazehatch etc.

Sam Russell

Nidgeweasel wrote: »

Pardon my ignorance, would any dart underground / expansion allow for a 'circle' line type of service ala, rather obviously, the circle line in London.

By that I mean just a continual loop around the city environs without it being a 'through service' to Hazehatch etc.

Given the geography of Dublin with a large bay on one side, a circle would not be appropriate. Unfortunately, Luas and Dart use incompaible guage so they cannot share tracks. Metro will use sandard guage.

A luas line from GCD along Percy Place, Adelaide Road to the South Circular Rd to join the Red line at Rialto would go a long way to provide significantly to the Luas connectivity, particulary if al the possible routes are exploited. For exampe SSG to GCD, SSG to Rialto and onto Tallaght, Tallagh to GCD, etc.

Dats me

Sam Russell wrote: »

Given the geography of Dublin with a large bay on one side, a circle would not be appropriate. Unfortunately, Luas and Dart use incompaible guage so they cannot share tracks. Metro will use sandard guage.

A luas line from GCD along Percy Place, Adelaide Road to the South Circular Rd to join the Red line at Rialto would go a long way to provide significantly to the Luas connectivity, particulary if al the possible routes are exploited. For exampe SSG to GCD, SSG to Rialto and onto Tallaght, Tallagh to GCD, etc.

I think he meant could a DART trains post DU go Heuston->Christchurch->SSG->Pearse->Docklands then instead of using Northern Line go Drumcondra->Whitworth etc and back to Hueston through PPT creating a circle, I think it sounds lovely

Dats me wrote: »

I think he meant could a DART trains post DU go Heuston->Christchurch->SSG->Pearse->Docklands then instead of using Northern Line go Drumcondra->Whitworth etc and back to Hueston through PPT creating a circle, I think it sounds lovely

I don't think so, from what I can remember DU would connect to the Northern Line (surfaces) north of the junction to Drumcondra etc