LXFlyer wrote: » Container trains ran under the bridge right up to where the lines into the proposed station is located - I seriously doubt excavation would be needed. Surely the bridge would be raised instead if necessary?
lucernarian wrote: » The station plans for Glasnevin showed a drawing for just such realignment of the junction to allow this connection to happen. All quite doable.
AngryLips wrote: » So am I correct in thinking that Docklands services could also serve Drumcondra station if the station was to be relocated to Spencer Dock?
MJohnston wrote: » No need to guess—the bridge is marked as having a 4.6m clearance for the buses. That seems on the low-side for DART contact height?
bk wrote: » Picture probably worth a thousand words. It shows better the difference between Docklands versus Spencerdock. In particular the interconnection between the lines before the stations.NOTE: Spencerdock station may end up looking different to below, maybe three platforms versus 2 and straight. Docklands: Spencerdock:
loyatemu wrote: » where are those drawings from? So they're considering moving Docklands slightly to the east (1st picture), or moving it to Spencer Dock (2nd picture)? Both options have access to all lines.
LXFlyer wrote: » Again though as I said, surely you’d raise the bridge if needs be rather than deep excavating? That would be the easier option if required.
L1011 wrote: » No, they have a realignment to do the exact opposite of what was being suggested They're going to allow PPT to go to Docklands (which can't currently be done) The suggestion I was replying to was to allow Maynooth to go to PPT!
1huge1 wrote: » Do you mean Barberstown Level crossing or am I missing something?https://goo.gl/maps/wT1fzmiLWzqvZpbQ9
L1011 wrote: » In the options document, they rejected a foot/cycle bridge at Blakestown on cost and environmental grounds but being open to reinstate if the public requested it. Which I will be in my submission. Definitely no car traffic going through there afterwards anyway.
spacetweek wrote: » Made a list of upcoming new train stations in the Dublin area in the next 10 or so years: Pelletstown: 2021 Kishogue: 2021 (probably) Woodbrook: New housing granted PP in March 2020; station to be provided in conjunction 2023 Glasnevin: When Metrolink is finished in 2028 Carnlough Rd: Suggested, not committed Inchicore: When Lucan Luas is built by 2030 Porterstown: When Metro West is built after 2030
Kevtherev1 wrote: » Are the following Dart Stations not in play for the future Cabra -at Faussagh avenue to service housing developments beside st finbarrs GAA club.
Kevtherev1 wrote: » Houston West -to service PPT route. Has Houston West been dropped now instead of future station inchicore at kylemore road. Or will Houston West and Inchicore be built in the future.
L1011 wrote: » Another, I believe more recent service frequency document has Maynooth services going 8 Bray 8 Connolly 0 Spencer Dock; and also 0 from Northern to Spencer Dock. Kildare remains the same as your post.
Zebra3 wrote: » But that's Maynooth + M3?
bk wrote: » Wow, the reports in the ANNEX are a goldmine of their thinking about how all this will fit together, the cost and performance difference between Dart+ versus full Dart Underground and it also gives us the cheaper DART Underground options they were considering!!DART+ versus DU So first off, the report shows that this DART+ plan carries almost the same number of passengers (just 0.10% less) as full DART Underground, while being about 2 billion cheaper! So obviously this DART+ plan comes out with a significantly better cost to benefit ratio (not that DU's was bad either). Other benefits include that it can be rolled out much faster then DU, thus gaining those benefits quicker and supporting the development of West Dublin faster. And the fact that it can be phased, making it overall less risky. Of course it also doesn't preclude DU happening in future and most of the cost of this DART+ would be needed for DU anyway. It all strikes me as quiet a no brainer to proceed in this manner.Alternative Dart Underground plans They also looked at 3 other "cheaper" DU plans. - Follow the original DU alignment, but with an underground turnback station under Hueston Station. Basically this means people would have to transfer between DARTs at Hueston station coming from the west of the city. - Follow the original DU alignment, but with an underground turnback station under Pearse station, underground line does not cross the Liffey. This would mean people coming in from the West and wanting to go North of the Liffy would need to transfer at Pearse Station. - A tunnel just between East Wall and Pearse Station. Again would require folks to transfer. These 3 options all saved about 400 million (and more for the third one, I forget how much) out of the roughly 4 billion full DU cost. However 400 million isn't that much in the greater scheme of things and they all ended up carrying less passengers and thus had worse benefit to cost ratios compared to both the full DU and the Dart+ plans and thus they were all rejected.Modified full DU plan They also looked at a slight modification of the full DU plan, which takes into account Metrolink. It saves about 200 million of the full DU plan and looks like so. It follows much the same route as original DU, with the same stations, except: - Stephens Green DU Station moved closer to the Metrolink station at Stephens Green, an obvious change. - The Western DU portal moved closer to Hueston Station and instead an above ground station at Kylemore road. It would require more quad tracking closer into Hueston. All seem like sensible changes for a future DU IMO.Other tibits - They are looking to lengthen station platforms to take 10 carriage DARTs - That would be too much capacity off peak, so they are looking to operate 4 carriage DARTs at 2/3'rds frequency off peak. - They are thinking of building another turn back at Dun Laoghaire to handle more DARTs coming across the Loop line Bridge. - The three lines, Kildare/PPT, Maynooth and Northern will all be able to terminate at either Connolly, Spencer Dock or across the loop line bridge, however the division looks something like this per hour at peak time: -- Kildare/PPT line, 16 total, 4 into Hueston, 12 into the PPT and on into Spencer Dock. -- Maynooth, 16 total, 6 Connoly, 3 Spencer Dock, 7 Loop line bridge -- Northern Line, 19 total, 5 Connoly, 3 Spencer Dock, 11 loop line bridge The report is here (warning big PDF):https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/getmedia/d34065cd-6540-4be1-9cb3-bcea61273fdd/Annex-3-3-DART-Expansion-Programme-Options-Assessment.pdf All very interesting. Of course some of the above details may have changed since this report (2018) and could change yet as it goes through planning process. But a veery interesting insight into what has been going on.
The additional Boardings, are however, facilitated mostly by reductions in other modes (Bus down 4,900, Luas down 1,600 and Metro down by 2,000 compared to Bundle 6). Scheme Bundle 2 does, however have the highest level of Transport User Benefits at around €6.5billion which is €1.6billion higher than Scheme Bundle 6. This indicates that Scheme Bundle 2 carries similar levels of public transport passengers than Bundle 6, but facilitates passengers to access their final destination more efficiently with a shorter journey time.
bk wrote: » -- Kildare/PPT line, 16 total, 4 into Hueston, 12 into the PPT and on into Spencer Dock.
spacetweek wrote: » 1. Are there implications in the siting of the relocated Spencer Dock station for the tunnelling that DU would require? 2. I was under the impression that the diversion proposed for Coolmine had already been considered and rejected?
bk wrote: » Absolutely, worth stressing again, this report is 2 years old. Very interesting report that shows the overall thinking, but I'm certain some of the details have and will change. BTW Another point about the report, they also looked into the quad tracking the Northern line, but they rejected it quickly based on the high cost versus relatively modest gains in passenger numbers.
ted1 wrote: » No comparison of journey times between D+ and DU. That’s a key factor
liamog wrote: » Basically says that the full tunnel is much more efficient at getting passengers to their destination, but does so by reducing the load on buses, Luas and Metro. Why is increasing the capacity on other modes seen as a negative?
spacetweek wrote: » 1. What is this costing?
spacetweek wrote: » 2. Are there implications in the siting of the relocated Spencer Dock station for the tunnelling that DU would require?
spacetweek wrote: » Isn't it astonishing that the PPT will have gone from something IR/Gov didn't want to open to a train every 5 mins in under a decade or so?
lucernarian wrote: » That's quite a pity, I don't understand why they talk about quad track for Heuston and not for Connolly.... Also a previous report showed 3 tracks was a small fraction of the cost. I explained before that for catering for peak movements, only 3 is actually needed (two for the peak direction, bidirectional operation) and I can't see how that escaped them.
bk wrote: » Because they are looking at the bigger picture. The goal isn't to get more people on heavy rail, the goal is to get more people using public transport in all it's forms. To increase public transports share of all transport into the city. There is no point in spending billions extra, just to cannibalise people off bus/tram/metro, if it then leaves those other services half empty. Specially as I mentioned above, those billions extra can be put to better use increasing public transport elsewhere, where the demand actually exists.
liamog wrote: » By all means, I agree that spending money in the most efficient manner is the correct approach, but I don't think person using option A over option B is a positive if it results in longer journeys. To be clear the report is indicating a 5% reduction for the Metro and 14% for Luas. If they think those systems become untenable with such a small reduction in AM load then we have bigger problems on our hands.
