Dart on the Northside

Sligo eye · 30-05-2020 5:39pm #1

The point was raised here about extra capacity for the Dart on the Northside; the OP made a very valid point about the current bottleneck.

Quad tracking between Clongriffin and Connolly is vital if this route is to expand. It also makes provision for the ultimate extension of the railway network to Dublin Airport, which would literally bring the railway to where the passengers are.

What would be the best method to allow quad track down to Connolly from Clongriffin?

yabadabado · 30-05-2020 5:47pm

Will Metrolink not be what is used to connect the airport to city centre?

Lord Glentoran · 30-05-2020 9:03pm

yabadabado wrote: »

Will Metrolink not be what is used to connect the airport to city centre?

When? Will it ever?

Zebra3 · 31-05-2020 10:59am

How much would a tunnel from Clontarf to Clongriffin cost instead of quad tracking? (It's about 7.5km).

Could use it purely for Dundalk and Belfast trains so no need for any stations.

GerardKeating · 31-05-2020 11:29am

Zebra3 wrote: »

How much would a tunnel from Clontarf to Clongriffin cost instead of quad tracking? (It's about 7.5km).

Could use it purely for Dundalk and Belfast trains so no need for any stations.

Or how about,

make Metro Link DART guage
Extend it to meet Northern line
quad track it

gjim · 31-05-2020 9:01pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

How much would a tunnel from Clontarf to Clongriffin cost instead of quad tracking? (It's about 7.5km).

Could use it purely for Dundalk and Belfast trains so no need for any stations.

This is all fantasy of course but if you're going to consider 8km of tunnelling to improve Northside Darts, then I've always fancied the idea of separating the inter-city traffic completely and keeping the 2-track northern line as commuter/DART only. Northern inter-city would run on a completely separate relatively high-speed inter-city connection from Drogheda to the west side of the airport (all through green fields) and then join the midlands line somewhere around Ashtown to terminate in the Docklands.

Or if you you really want tunnels then bring the line under Finglas to connect with the PPT and stop at an upgraded platform 10 in Hueston before continuing to Cork. Given the distances involved and assuming a nice straight new route with say just one intermediate stop, Drogheda to Heuston shouldn't take more than about 20 minutes.

The existing northern line would then be DART only could run a schedule designed purely around DART speeds/frequencies.

CatInABox · 31-05-2020 11:14pm

Ever since Dart Underground was essentially cancelled, I've thought that IR and the NTA decided to play a long game with Infrastructure in Dublin. No point in putting forward the same multi billion euro plans that never got off the ground, much better to split it into smaller projects that made the case for the next project.

Therefore we get them advocating for the Dart Expansion program, which is essentially the old Dart Underground project, just without the tunnel.

Once that's complete, or at least close to, I can see them pivoting to a story of "Well, we've got all this work done, now all we need is a relatively short tunnel to connect it all up, it just makes sense".

Once that's complete, then they can say, "Oh, we've now got this great rail network in Dublin, but the biggest problem with it is the lack of four tracking north of Connolly" and work on it then.

That's how I see it going anyway, I'd love to be proved wrong and for a massive increase in the schedule.

spacetweek · 01-06-2020 7:57pm

If that was what they were doing, it wouldn’t be so bad.

Thelonious Monk · 03-06-2020 9:07am

CatInABox wrote: »

Ever since Dart Underground was essentially cancelled, I've thought that IR and the NTA decided to play a long game with Infrastructure in Dublin. No point in putting forward the same multi billion euro plans that never got off the ground, much better to split it into smaller projects that made the case for the next project.

Therefore we get them advocating for the Dart Expansion program, which is essentially the old Dart Underground project, just without the tunnel.

Once that's complete, or at least close to, I can see them pivoting to a story of "Well, we've got all this work done, now all we need is a relatively short tunnel to connect it all up, it just makes sense".

Once that's complete, then they can say, "Oh, we've now got this great rail network in Dublin, but the biggest problem with it is the lack of four tracking north of Connolly" and work on it then.

That's how I see it going anyway, I'd love to be proved wrong and for a massive increase in the schedule.

Maybe, but this sounds like something that would take centuries in Ireland, I'd be surprised to see any of that in place before I retire in 15/20 years.

LXFlyer · 03-06-2020 10:40am

The penny has finally dropped with IE senior management that capacity enhancements on the Northern Line over and above the details already contained in the DART Expansion programme information.

Jim Meade is on the record stating that additional tracks will be required.

Quad tracking the entire route from Connolly to Malahide isn't needed though.

What is needed is the capacity to overtake a stopping DART service between Connolly and Howth Junction - that can be delivered by additional tracks from north of Clontarf Road to just short of Raheny.

Additional loops and turnbacks are specified in the DART expansion plan which will help north of Howth Junction (including a southbound loop at Clongriffin).

Expensive it will be but it is going to have to happen at some point if competitive journey times are to be maintained on longer distance services as the service as a whole expands further.

CatInABox · 03-06-2020 10:50am

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Maybe, but this sounds like something that would take centuries in Ireland, I'd be surprised to see any of that in place before I retire in 15/20 years.

Haha, yeah, I get what you mean. Dart Expansion though, that seems to still be progressing nicely. The rest of it though, I don't know. Irish politicians are very much of the "squeaky wheel gets the grease" brigade, with nary a hint of forward planning. Dart Underground might not come about until the trains are packed again post-expansion.

Other parts of what used to be the Dart Underground project are still being progressed as well, such as the Merrion Gates closure, even if that one got refused.

Thelonious Monk · 03-06-2020 12:12pm

More tracks from Clontarf to Raheny. Never in a million years. There are affluent people's back gardens on each side, and a golf course. Look at the carry on with trying to build a few bus lanes for bus connects.
We do not have the political systems in place or leadership for any of this to ever happen.

LXFlyer · 03-06-2020 1:00pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

More tracks from Clontarf to Raheny. Never in a million years. There are affluent people's back gardens on each side, and a golf course. Look at the carry on with trying to build a few bus lanes for bus connects.
We do not have the political systems in place or leadership for any of this to ever happen.

I will respectfully disagree.

Some additional tracks will have to happen.

You have to able to facilitate overtaking - otherwise longer distance trains such as the Enterprise will crawl and be uncompetitive.

Whether that’s a third track (which could probably require minimal land take) or quad tracking is another issue.

Thelonious Monk · 03-06-2020 1:54pm

It's such a no brainer for greatly improving the services. Why isn't it happening? Is it down to cost? 100s of millions in CPOs?

L1011 · 03-06-2020 9:07pm

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

More tracks from Clontarf to Raheny. Never in a million years. There are affluent people's back gardens on each side, and a golf course. Look at the carry on with trying to build a few bus lanes for bus connects.
We do not have the political systems in place or leadership for any of this to ever happen.

The original lines were built through even more affluent peoples estates for the most part. It'll happen eventually, national infrastructure priorities make easy to justify CPOs.

GerardKeating wrote: »

Or how about,
make Metro Link DART guage

Extend it to meet Northern line

quad track it

You would destroy the business case with either 1 and 3. 2 is likely to happen anyway.

Once it becomes 1600mm it becomes part of the rail network and bye bye driverless. Operating cost goes through the roof, business case is damaged.

Quad tracking would be basically insane even if you were promoting it as a heavy rail alternative and would blow the costs out of the water.

Sligo eye · 04-06-2020 9:45am

L1011 wrote: »

The original lines were built through even more affluent peoples estates for the most part. It'll happen eventually, national infrastructure priorities make easy to justify CPOs.

You would destroy the business case with either 1 and 3. 2 is likely to happen anyway.

Once it becomes 1600mm it becomes part of the rail network and bye bye driverless. Operating cost goes through the roof, business case is damaged.

Quad tracking would be basically insane even if you were promoting it as a heavy rail alternative and would blow the costs out of the water.

Driverless is on other rail networks regardless of gauge. By what margin does operating costs go through the roof? How can you claim business case is damaged without facts and figures to back that up? The railway industry operates globally on very low operating costs. Just because a rail system is standard gauge doesn’t imply different costs to a railway operating on Irish 1600mm gauge.

It would be far more sensible to build metro at 1600mm as it would allow integration with the wider railway. Making an isolated railway doesn’t make any sense.

CatInABox · 04-06-2020 10:12am

Sligo eye wrote: »

Driverless is on other rail networks regardless of gauge. By what margin does operating costs go through the roof? How can you claim business case is damaged without facts and figures to back that up? The railway industry operates globally on very low operating costs. Just because a rail system is standard gauge doesn’t imply different costs to a railway operating on Irish 1600mm gauge.

It would be far more sensible to build metro at 1600mm as it would allow integration with the wider railway. Making an isolated railway doesn’t make any sense.

If it's Irish gauge, and able to mix with existing trains, then the unions will insist that there's a driver on board. The driver is what will drive the ongoing cost of the service up well past the point that it will pass a cost benefit analysis.

L1011 · 04-06-2020 11:01am

Sligo eye wrote: »

Driverless is on other rail networks regardless of gauge. By what margin does operating costs go through the roof? How can you claim business case is damaged without facts and figures to back that up? The railway industry operates globally on very low operating costs. Just because a rail system is standard gauge doesn’t imply different costs to a railway operating on Irish 1600mm gauge.

Once you integrate it to the not driverless main rail network, it can't be driveless.

Drivers are the main operating cost. Introduce drivers and the business plan is out the window, particularly for 24h ops.

Standard gauge rolling stock is cheaper, btw.

Sligo eye wrote: »

It would be far more sensible to build metro at 1600mm as it would allow integration with the wider railway. Making an isolated railway doesn’t make any sense.

It would be reckelessly stupid to built Metro at 1600mm, considering it is designed to integrate with the Luas network with future upgrades to it; and its standard gauge.

It isn't isolated.

GerardKeating · 04-06-2020 11:48am

L1011 wrote: »

It would be reckelessly stupid to built Metro at 1600mm, considering it is designed to integrate with the Luas network with future upgrades to it; and its standard gauge.

In Ireland, 1600mm IS the standard gauge.

We have two incompatable rail networks in Dublin, Luas and DART.

Metro will be a third, since it cannot run over the luas network, otherwise why the shutdown required to upgrade the Green line to metro.

Unless we plan to convert the DART network to the european standard guage, it might make more sense to make Metro a DART, and integrate with that. Metro could be extended beyond the airport and join to the northern line near Rush/Lusk

Sligo eye · 04-06-2020 11:53am

GerardKeating wrote: »

In Ireland, 1600mm IS the standard gauge.

We have two incompatable rail networks in Dublin, Luas and DART.

Metro will be a third, since it cannot run over the luas network, otherwise why the shutdown required to upgrade the Green line to metro.

Unless we plan to convert the DART network to the european standard guage, it might make more sense to make Metro a DART, and integrate with that. Metro could be extended beyond the airport and join to the northern line near Rush/Lusk

Yes this is my very point. Getting the airport connected to the heavy rail network is vital for the long term future of the railways and a massive boost to our commitments to reduce carbon.

As to L1011’s claims about driver costs, I would love to see the figures that those claims are based on. If they exist.

L1011 · 04-06-2020 12:54pm

GerardKeating wrote: »

In Ireland, 1600mm IS the standard gauge.

We have two incompatable rail networks in Dublin, Luas and DART.

Metro will be a third, since it cannot run over the luas network, otherwise why the shutdown required to upgrade the Green line to metro.

Unless we plan to convert the DART network to the european standard guage, it might make more sense to make Metro a DART, and integrate with that. Metro could be extended beyond the airport and join to the northern line near Rush/Lusk

If you make the Metro 1600mm, bye bye green line conversion. The work to convert the green line to 1600mm would be implausibly difficult compared to a few months of rolling closures to raise platform heights

It is NEVER going to be part of the DART network. Please drop the pipe dream suggested by the same lunatic that has spent a decade trying to redesign DART Underground with crayons across the internet (for this is a recreation of a locked thread by him)

It makes no sense for it to be 1600mm. Its going to be 1435mm. Any extension to the Northern Line will be to the same format and have a cross-platform interchange just as we already have at Broomebridge.

Sligo eye wrote: »

As to L1011’s claims about driver costs, I would love to see the figures that those claims are based on. If they exist.

What precisely do you think drivers are paid if it isn't money? Magic beans?

MJohnston · 04-06-2020 12:59pm

GerardKeating wrote: »

Metro will be a third, since it cannot run over the luas network, otherwise why the shutdown required to upgrade the Green line to metro.

That's got nothing to do with the rail, which is perfectly compatible.

The shutdown would be required to seal off crossings, install safety barriers that become required when you're dealing with a driverless system, and raise platforms to the higher floor height of Metro trains.

Sligo eye · 04-06-2020 1:03pm

To L1011, I asked you where you got your figures from and in response you appear to be getting angry.

So I guess you don’t have an answer. That’s fine, it tells me all I need to know.

L1011 · 04-06-2020 1:07pm

Sligo eye wrote: »

To L1011, I asked you where you got your figures from and in response you appear to be getting angry.

So I guess you don’t have an answer. That’s fine, it tells me all I need to know.

You are asking for figures on how not paying people is cheaper than paying people.

Figures don't exist for something quite so bloody obvious.

Is 0 less than 45k*200 (salary*driver guesswork)?

There's your answer.

There is a slight increase in maintenance costs for the kit but this is usually offset entirely by the computers being rather more efficient power-wise than a human driver ever is; before you even look at the massive staff savings costs.

Also, driven trains cannot have the same headway as driverless trains, meaning you cut the capacity by going back to humans; which will again damage the business plan significantly.

Sligo eye · 04-06-2020 1:27pm

L1011 wrote: »

You are asking for figures on how not paying people is cheaper than paying people.

Figures don't exist for something quite so bloody obvious.

Is 0 less than 45k*200 (salary*driver guesswork)?

There's your answer.

There is a slight increase in maintenance costs for the kit but this is usually offset entirely by the computers being rather more efficient power-wise than a human driver ever is; before you even look at the massive staff savings costs.

Also, driven trains cannot have the same headway as driverless trains, meaning you cut the capacity by going back to humans; which will again damage the business plan significantly.

You need moving block signalling to run driverless trains. Along with compatible equipment on board each train. Not an insigificant cost. The Thameslink programme implemented driverless trains in the central core area between St Pancras and London Bridge. It has given the route the capacity of 24 trains per hour compared to the previous timetabled capacity of 11 tph.

Drivers are kept on though, as they are there to ensure doors are opened and closed safely and to override the system if an emergency happens. The London Underground is mostly automatic but a driver is on board to ensure safety.

Even the Docklands Light Railway maintain personnel on board to ensure safety and where necessary can manually drive the trains.

So if your argument is that driverless trains reduce cost, that is not correct. Driverless trains do allow further capacity. But from a safety point of view there is always a human on board to ensure everything works safely.

I presume you don’t work in the railway industry?

CatInABox · 04-06-2020 1:38pm

L1011 wrote: »

You are asking for figures on how not paying people is cheaper than paying people.

Figures don't exist for something quite so bloody obvious.

Is 0 less than 45k*200 (salary*driver guesswork)?

There's your answer.

There is a slight increase in maintenance costs for the kit but this is usually offset entirely by the computers being rather more efficient power-wise than a human driver ever is; before you even look at the massive staff savings costs.

Also, driven trains cannot have the same headway as driverless trains, meaning you cut the capacity by going back to humans; which will again damage the business plan significantly.

You're forgetting the benefits/pensions as well, they're arguable even more expensive than the salary themselves long term.

MJohnston · 04-06-2020 1:39pm

Sligo eye wrote: »

You need moving block signalling to run driverless trains. Along with compatible equipment on board each train. Not an insigificant cost. The Thameslink programme implemented driverless trains in the central core area between St Pancras and London Bridge. It has given the route the capacity of 24 trains per hour compared to the previous timetabled capacity of 11 tph.

Drivers are kept on though, as they are there to ensure doors are opened and closed safely and to override the system if an emergency happens. The London Underground is mostly automatic but a driver is on board to ensure safety.

Even the Docklands Light Railway maintain personnel on board to ensure safety and where necessary can manually drive the trains.

So if your argument is that driverless trains reduce cost, that is not correct. Driverless trains do allow further capacity. But from a safety point of view there is always a human on board to ensure everything works safely.

I presume you don’t work in the railway industry?

The DLR is GoA3 and the Underground is GoA2 so they're not really comparable. There are plenty of fully-automated GoA4 systems around Europe.

LeinsterDub · 04-06-2020 1:44pm

L1011 wrote: »

The original lines were built through even more affluent peoples estates for the most part. It'll happen eventually, national infrastructure priorities make easy to justify CPOs.

You would destroy the business case with either 1 and 3. 2 is likely to happen anyway.

Once it becomes 1600mm it becomes part of the rail network and bye bye driverless. Operating cost goes through the roof, business case is damaged.

Quad tracking would be basically insane even if you were promoting it as a heavy rail alternative and would blow the costs out of the water.

Plus Metro south would jump from about 300 ml to about 2 billion as it could no longer link in with MN

LeinsterDub · 04-06-2020 1:48pm

GerardKeating wrote: »

In Ireland, 1600mm IS the standard gauge.

We have two incompatable rail networks in Dublin, Luas and DART.

Metro will be a third, since it cannot run over the luas network, otherwise why the shutdown required to upgrade the Green line to metro.

Unless we plan to convert the DART network to the european standard guage, it might make more sense to make Metro a DART, and integrate with that. Metro could be extended beyond the airport and join to the northern line near Rush/Lusk

This is like saying DART and intercity trains are incompatible as DART can't run past Greystones

CatInABox · 04-06-2020 1:50pm

MJohnston wrote: »

The DLR is GoA3 and the Underground is GoA2 so they're not really comparable. There are plenty of fully-automated GoA4 systems around Europe.

Indeed, the very line that Metrolink takes it's inspiration from, Barcelona Line 9, is GoA4, fully automated.

LeinsterDub · 04-06-2020 1:50pm

Sligo eye wrote: »

Yes this is my very point. Getting the airport connected to the heavy rail network is vital for the long term future of the railways and a massive boost to our commitments to reduce carbon.

As to L1011’s claims about driver costs, I would love to see the figures that those claims are based on. If they exist.

More important to the long term future of the railways is DART expansion and the integration MN will support at Glasnevin, Tara and eventually Bray

Dart on the Northside

Comments