DART+ (DART Expansion)

riddlinrussell · 27-08-2020 11:45am

I think this is going to be a case of time and picking their battles rather than anything else, the options are:

Build a new Semi-High Speed line Belfast to Cork with underground section through Dublin
Quad track Northern line

Politically Cork/Belfast High Speed is probably an easier sell to the whole country as its not 'Exclusively for Dublin'

Price wise we know even semi HS rail is going to be much pricier than the Quad track even with expensive CPOs etc

Practically will a new HS line solve ALL of the problems with the Northern Line? It can take Intercity service away from the route but can Commuter and Dart happily fit in the 2 track line as population expands?

Northern line improvement is going to have to be a one and done big job, semi High Speed could feasibly be done more peacemeal, depending on if that means upgrading the current Cork/Dublin and Dublin/Belfast routes or an entirely new line.

Even with fully new lines you could build Belfast to Dublin Airport, and Cork to... maybe Heuston with a southern Tunnel section (That expense may break this idea...) and then have the Dublin Tunnel presented as a Fait accompli 'no-brainer' to link the two routes.

riddlinrussell · 27-08-2020 11:47am

LXFlyer wrote: »

As I have posted many times, in order to effectively operate the inner stopping DART service operating every 10 minutes, the outer semi-fast DART, and an hourly Enterprise, an overtaking facility is needed between north of Clontarf Road and just before Raheny Station.

That will allow for an outer DART or Enterprise to overtake a stopping DART at line speed. Otherwise the outer DART/Enterprise will continue to crawl at pedestrian speeds to Clongriffin.

Loops at Clongriffin In both directions further assist in the ability to overtake.

The whole line does not need three/four tracks. Just between north of Clontarf Road and Raheny.

Thanks LX, I think this idea was what I was thinking would be the 'acceptable stopgap' until a possible new High Speed line exists

Sam Russell · 27-08-2020 11:47am

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

There are many houses less than 30m from the existing tracks. That is not a lot of space to operate large plant. You probably need 3m buffer from the operating tracks. You will need 10m for two tracks, plus another few metres for embankment/retaining wall. At the stations, 8m or more is taken up with platforms, ramps etc. which are need to remain. It may be possible that some properties would be left with up to 10m of a garden but for many, they would have little or nothing left. I doubt they'd be allowed to CPO a full garden and leave the house which is seriously devalued, they would probably be made but the whole lot.

Even if possible to leave the houses, you have a long linear work site along the tracks with the only access at the bridges crossing the tracks which is not practical. The excavators/trucks cant operate on the embankment, they need to be on level ground which is the gardens. Most of the gardens seem to be less than 15m long, you would need all of that. You then need to dig out the embankment while keeping back from the operational tracks, remove all the material from the site and build replacement embankment/retaining walls in such a way to avoiding subsidence to the houses. The trucks once loaded probably can't continue straight on as that is where the excavation is, they would need to turn or reverse out. It really isn't practical from any point of view.

This may sound dumb, but can they not use railway trucks to remove the spoil?

Would working at weekends not allow the rail line work during the week?

Would they need the third line all the way from Connolly to Howth Junction?

Pete_Cavan · 27-08-2020 11:53am

MJohnston wrote: »

So the 'why' essentially boils down to not being able to close the line while working on the widening?

I'm just saying that it seems perfectly practical to add a single extra track without having to CPO much more than a few metres of some back gardens IF you accept that the line will have to close for some period.

You can't be too close the line while working on the widening but you also need a lot of space to do the engineering works required.

What's a few metres of some back gardens? Looking at Google maps and saying there is Xm of space there means nothing, particularly when much of that space is a steep embankment therefore not available for tracks without major construction works. I'm talking about the practical realities of these construction works.

Plant can't operate on such a slope, and certainly not one overlooking live rail tracks. So the plant needs to operate from the level gardens at the top of the embankment, which is the gardens. Even the bare minimum 5m strip to allow for single track is very little space for an excavator to operate and movements for trucks for spoil removal would be severely restricted as there are limited access points due to the houses and they have to travel along that same 5m channel which is being excavated and therefore below the level of the road so you also need to facilitate them getting back up to the road. You also need to build a retaining structure to avoid undermining the slope and having everything subside down onto the rail line. The laws of physics apply.

I doubt 5m is enough to do these works, and even if it was it would be incredibly expensive and drawn out for many years. Taking more land and adding two tracks is an easier job due to the additional working space allowing for more productivity but at that stage you are close to the back wall of the houses and probably have to CPO them. CPOing the houses makes construction much easier as you have a much wider site and continue access the whole way long.

Brian CivilEng · 27-08-2020 11:59am

Very quickly ran the exercise south of Raheny as far as east wall road. Again a 25m corridor, so final layout not including for construction. It is very tight, I see at least 20 house that are clipped, multiple houses that would have zero back gardens. And as stated this is just in 2D, a lot of this area is in cut or fill.

Not saying it's impossible, but it would be a "courageous decision".

lucernarian · 27-08-2020 11:59am

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Where's your sources? Unless you have a link to support, that means nothing. Even if it was said by someone in Irish Rail, it needs context, I mean is the 4 tracks an additional track on either side or two additional on the same side?

I've spent quite a while digging now.... This Irish Rail document I refer to was back in the day of Sponge Bob et al posting on C&T and with Google de-indexing old pages, I've not found it yet. It's likely over 10 years old also. Very sorry about this, I can try to spend some time looking for this / the thread it was posted in later. I don't remember the report giving any details on the two options, but I suspect the "middle line" passing loop / express line idea was involved, given the price difference. And this is probably all that's needed to make Dart+ or DU a success.

lucernarian · 27-08-2020 12:01pm

Brian CivilEng wrote: »

Very quickly ran the exercise south of Raheny as far as east wall road. Again a 25m corridor, so final layout not including for construction. It is very tight, I see at least 20 house that are clipped, multiple houses that would have zero back gardens. And as stated this is just in 2D, a lot of this area is in cut or fill.

Not saying it's impossible, but it would be a "courageous decision".

There would not be 25 metres needed for a third track, and a lot of space is available to one side (clontarf golf course as an obvious example).

Pete_Cavan · 27-08-2020 12:04pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

This may sound dumb, but can they not use railway trucks to remove the spoil?

Would working at weekends not allow the rail line work during the week?

Would they need the third line all the way from Connolly to Howth Junction?

Whats pretty dumb? The laws of physics prevent an excavator from sitting on a steep slope, it would topple over immediately nevermind trying to dig out the slope it is sitting on.

Using an active railway to remove spoil isn't practical. I'm sure noisy construction works at night would be limited as a planning condition given the proximity of houses so wont be able to work through the night. During the day, you couldn't realistically run any meaningful level of service on the track, the spoil removal train would be sitting there all to fill it.

It doesn't matter how far it goes, the same problem exists from before Killester going north so anywhere along there is an issue. South of Killester to Connolly would be relatively easy to add track but of lesser benefit.

Pete_Cavan · 27-08-2020 12:07pm

lucernarian wrote: »

There would not be 25 metres needed for a third track, and a lot of space is available to one side (clontarf golf course as an obvious example).

I assume his 25m corridor includes the existing trackbed so space for 3/4 tracks, electrical/signalling infrastructure, embankments, etc. In reality it would probably have to be even wider at the stations though.

Brian CivilEng · 27-08-2020 12:09pm

lucernarian wrote: »

There would not be 25 metres needed for a third track, and a lot of space is available to one side (clontarf golf course as an obvious example).

It's not that there is 25m needed, it's that you need to check the full corridor to allow for curves to avoid obstacles. I'm just doing the 5no. 2.5m offsets either side of the centreline so I can quickly see this when I zoom in. So let's say we need 16m for three tracks, then I can look at 6 lines on one side etc. Apologies that I cant upload in enough detail for everyone to do the same exercise.

A 1km passing loop through Clontarf Golf Club is feasible. Would need to rebuild the bridge over the Howth Rd. and possibly still need to demolish a couple of houses, or else you are getting down to about a 600m passing loop.

lucernarian · 27-08-2020 12:12pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I assume his 25m corridor includes the existing trackbed.

It does, but firstly the land take for a third track is necessarily lower, and there are easy pickings for that to happen (like along Clontarf golf club). Assuming there's an even 5-8 metres each side of the centerline gobbled up by the plan wouldn't be a realistic prediction.

crushproof · 27-08-2020 12:15pm

I really don't see the point in fussing over quad tracking the northern line because ultimately it is fantasy. Unless Ireland suddenly falls under a dictator infatuated with public transport there is zero political willpower to CPO goodness knows how many homes and properties.

The current concept of DART upgrade, DART+ (what a genius marketing move) is a step in the right direction and as someone else mentioned makes do with what we currently have. Therefore I'm more hopefully of this being done in comparison to other large infrastructure projects that are rehashed every 5 years.

ted1 · 27-08-2020 12:17pm

bk wrote: »

Not if it looks to make little difference in the numbers of people using the service.

Afterall it isn't like people sitting in Malahide and who want to go to Stephens Green are going to say, nah, I won't use this service because it is 5 minutes slower versus some theoretical service that hasn't been built.

They'll still take it because it is still much faster ...

Not necessarily, I wouldn’t buy in area if the commute is to long. People might say, no I won’t move to Malahide and further out as it takes to long to get in.

That 5 minutes is a an hour a week which equates to about 1.5 extra work weeks sitting on a train per year.

Brian CivilEng · 27-08-2020 12:22pm

Good video here explaining curves on railway tracks. I assumed 400m minimum radius for design. Which means that even though the width of the track bed may only be 16m, a building 15m off the track centreline on one side and another building 10m off the track on the other side but 200m away will still form a pinch point.

https://youtu.be/a3DahvjOBa4?t=538

cgcsb · 27-08-2020 2:46pm

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.

To be honest I don't like the service patterns. I'd prefer to have 3 lines interconnected with well defined terminii. Eg:

- Docklands to Maynooth/M3
- Hazelhatch to GCD
- Drogheda to Greystones
- Howth to Howth junct

I think this is much easier for commuters to get their head around and easy to represent on a colour codded map. The high frequencies of 16 to 19 trains per hour on each line make any destination convenient even with 2 changes, it's a turn up and go service.

cgcsb · 27-08-2020 2:49pm

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.

The recently announced high speed rail study will likely superceed quad tracking the northern line by moving intercity service to a whole new line. In this scenario the existing Drogheda-Connolly line becomes DART only.

AngryLips · 27-08-2020 2:51pm

cgcsb wrote: »

The recently announced high speed rail study will likely superceed quad tracking the northern line by moving intercity service to a whole new line. In this scenario the existing Drogheda-Connolly line becomes DART only.

If they're really serious about a high speed line Belfast-Dublin-Cork then there's really no need to bring it into the city centre. Just bypass the whole city and build a station out at Dublin Airport, this would be a similar approach to what's done in Paris and other parts of France.

cgcsb · 27-08-2020 2:55pm

bk wrote: »

Not if it looks to make little difference in the numbers of people using the service.

Afterall it isn't like people sitting in Malahide and who want to go to Stephens Green are going to say, nah, I won't use this service because it is 5 minutes slower versus some theoretical service that hasn't been built.

They'll still take it because it is still much faster then the alternatives.

And 2 billion extra is a ton of extra money to have in your pocket. With that extra money you could do the more expensive Green Line Metro upgrade and say a second South-West Metro branch line.

I mean that would get you far more extra people into the city, then just taking a few minutes off a DART journey.

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.

DARTU provides relief for the central part of the luas red line which is under enormous and growing pressure. That capacity is still needed.

cgcsb · 27-08-2020 2:59pm

bk wrote: »

To be clear, you are talking about spending 2 Billion extra just to reduce a journey time by a few minutes!

15 to 20 thousand people an hour saving 5 minutes for 100 years is a massive win. In economic terms that's € billions

cgcsb · 27-08-2020 3:14pm

AngryLips wrote: »

If they're really serious about a high speed line Belfast-Dublin-Cork then there's really no need to bring it into the city centre. Just bypass the whole city and build a station out at Dublin Airport, this would be a similar approach to what's done in Paris and other parts of France.

I expect an airport station will be included but there will almost certainly also be a central station also. Whether that's Heuston or somewhere else, who knows. French high speed terminates at the traditional central Paris stations. It's China where the high speed stations are suburban.

riddlinrussell · 27-08-2020 3:31pm

cgcsb wrote: »

To be honest I don't like the service patterns. I'd prefer to have 3 lines interconnected with well defined terminii. Eg:

- Docklands to Maynooth/M3
- Hazelhatch to GCD
- Drogheda to Greystones
- Howth to Howth junct

I think this is much easier for commuters to get their head around and easy to represent on a colour codded map. The high frequencies of 16 to 19 trains per hour on each line make any destination convenient even with 2 changes, it's a turn up and go service.

I think you'll still want a few an hour Hazelhatch to Heuston, but apart from that I'd agree

eguiney · 27-08-2020 3:41pm

cgcsb wrote: »

To be honest I don't like the service patterns. I'd prefer to have 3 lines interconnected with well defined terminii. Eg:

- Docklands to Maynooth/M3
- Hazelhatch to GCD
- Drogheda to Greystones
- Howth to Howth junct

I think this is much easier for commuters to get their head around and easy to represent on a colour codded map. The high frequencies of 16 to 19 trains per hour on each line make any destination convenient even with 2 changes, it's a turn up and go service.

Except that each required change is still likely to add at least 5 mins to the journey.
Given that they appear to be planning to do almost nothing at Connolly, the best operational solution would be to move closer to the Maynooth-Bray service planned under DU.

Sam Russell · 27-08-2020 3:57pm

cgcsb wrote: »

To be honest I don't like the service patterns. I'd prefer to have 3 lines interconnected with well defined terminii. Eg:

- Docklands to Maynooth/M3
- Hazelhatch to GCD
- Drogheda to Greystones
- Howth to Howth junct

I think this is much easier for commuters to get their head around and easy to represent on a colour codded map. The high frequencies of 16 to 19 trains per hour on each line make any destination convenient even with 2 changes, it's a turn up and go service.

I would have thought:

- Bray to Maynooth
- Greystones or Dun Laoghaire to Drogheda
- Howth to Howth Junction
- Hazelhatch to GCD or Docklands

Frequency would be driven by demand. Four coach trains off peak.

IE 222 · 27-08-2020 4:11pm

Quad tracking between Connolly and Brookwood Ave (Harmonstown) and Grange rd - Malahide should avoid most of the CPO's and curved sections of the line while releasing most of the capacity issues.

Cant see treble tracking been a major saving. It would still require a lot of work such as station rebuilding, clearance works and over head line replacements.

Has the issue of capacity on the Maynooth line been looked into. Did they look into any quad or loop sections on the line. They really need to look into adding a bay at Maynooth or they'll create another Malahide problem with Sligo.

cgcsb · 27-08-2020 4:23pm

eguiney wrote: »

Except that each required change is still likely to add at least 5 mins to the journey.
Given that they appear to be planning to do almost nothing at Connolly, the best operational solution would be to move closer to the Maynooth-Bray service planned under DU.

Nope. At 16 trains an hour you're talking a train every 4 minutes or less. That's an average wait time under 2 minutes.

cgcsb · 27-08-2020 4:24pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

I would have thought:

- Bray to Maynooth
- Greystones or Dun Laoghaire to Drogheda
- Howth to Howth Junction
- Hazelhatch to GCD or Docklands

Frequency would be driven by demand. Four coach trains off peak.

Also good but you get the idea. I'd rather have it as well defined lines like the RER in Paris rather than the mess of suburban rail doing all sorts of routes in London.

lucernarian · 27-08-2020 5:18pm

AngryLips wrote: »

If they're really serious about a high speed line Belfast-Dublin-Cork then there's really no need to bring it into the city centre. Just bypass the whole city and build a station out at Dublin Airport, this would be a similar approach to what's done in Paris and other parts of France.

Similar except for the most important part, TGVs still mostly serve central Parisian stations.

lucernarian · 27-08-2020 5:33pm

How will Dart+ work with the envisioned train station in the northern part of Drogheda?

bk · 27-08-2020 6:18pm

cgcsb wrote: »

To be honest I don't like the service patterns. I'd prefer to have 3 lines interconnected with well defined terminii. Eg:

- Docklands to Maynooth/M3
- Hazelhatch to GCD
- Drogheda to Greystones
- Howth to Howth junct

I think this is much easier for commuters to get their head around and easy to represent on a colour codded map. The high frequencies of 16 to 19 trains per hour on each line make any destination convenient even with 2 changes, it's a turn up and go service.

That is from a 2018 report and they now seem to be considering different options.

From what others have said, they seem to be now considering:
- Hazelhatch to Spencer Dock (All trains except the 4 that go to Hueston).
- Maynooth/M4 - All trains go to Connolly, either terminate at Connolly or cross river.
- Northern Line - All trains go to Connolly, either terminate at Connolly or cross river.

Of course that may change again before the project all goes live.

Equium wrote: »

A small point in the grand scheme of things, but I would hope and imagine that a higher standard of station design will be forthcoming. The Option B location in particular offers IE/IR a fantastic opportunity to make use of air rights above the tracks for commercial/residential development right in the heart of the Docklands.

Yes, I agree. The Spencer Dock station looks quiet different in the pictures shown on the current DART+ site, versus the pics in the 2018 report. So I think it will possibly be more substantial. Bigger station building, 3 platform islands, etc.

LXFlyer · 27-08-2020 7:26pm

cgcsb wrote: »

The recently announced high speed rail study will likely superceed quad tracking the northern line by moving intercity service to a whole new line. In this scenario the existing Drogheda-Connolly line becomes DART only.

That does not solve the issue of inner stopping DART services holding up outer semi-fast DART services between Connolly and Clongriffin and forcing them to crawl.

You still need the ability to overtake on the northern line between Connolly and Howth Junction in either direction as I outlined above.

LXFlyer · 27-08-2020 7:37pm

bk wrote: »

That is from a 2018 report and they now seem to be considering different options.

From what others have said, they seem to be now considering:
- Hazelhatch to Spencer Dock (All trains except the 4 that go to Hueston).
- Maynooth/M4 - All trains go to Connolly, either terminate at Connolly or cross river.
- Northern Line - All trains go to Connolly, either terminate at Connolly or cross river.

Of course that may change again before the project all goes live.

Yes, I agree. The Spencer Dock station looks quiet different in the pictures shown on the current DART+ site, versus the pics in the 2018 report. So I think it will possibly be more substantial. Bigger station building, 3 platform islands, etc.

I am probably being a bit pedantic here, but in all of your recent posts, you are misspelling the name of Dublin Heuston Station.

It is not Hueston, but rather Heuston, named after Seán Heuston.

I wouldn't normally pull anyone up on grammar/misspelling, but getting a location name right is a little bit more important.

bk · 27-08-2020 7:59pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

I am probably being a bit pedantic here, but in all of your recent posts, you are misspelling the name of Dublin Heuston Station.

It is not Hueston, but rather Heuston, named after Seán Heuston.

I wouldn't normally pull anyone up on grammar/misspelling, but getting a location name right is a little bit more important.

LOL, no worries at all, thanks for the correction.

I have Philips Hue (Smart lights) on the brain at the moment, most be bleeding over!

cgcsb · 27-08-2020 8:10pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

That does not solve the issue of inner stopping DART services holding up outer semi-fast DART services between Connolly and Clongriffin and forcing them to crawl.

You still need the ability to overtake on the northern line between Connolly and Howth Junction in either direction as I outlined above.

I wasn't aware of any proposal to run limited stop darts to Drogheda. Is that in the consultation document? I had assumed every DART from Drogheda would stop at every stop.

SeanW · 27-08-2020 8:20pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

That does not solve the issue of inner stopping DART services holding up outer semi-fast DART services between Connolly and Clongriffin and forcing them to crawl.

You still need the ability to overtake on the northern line between Connolly and Howth Junction in either direction as I outlined above.

I would imagine that express services could use the "new" line.

LXFlyer · 27-08-2020 8:27pm

cgcsb wrote: »

I wasn't aware of any proposal to run limited stop darts to Drogheda. Is that in the consultation document? I had assumed every DART from Drogheda would stop at every stop.

You've making the basic error that DART means stopping everywhere.

Just think about what you are saying for a minute.

Leaving aside the CoVid situation, DART is overloaded as it is coming from Malahide/Howth, as are the outer suburban services before they reach Malahide.

There wouldn't be a hope of anyone from inner stations getting on if you stopped them everywhere.

That's even before you think of the extended journey times that you would be imposing on outer suburban passengers. It would be a journey from hell.

There will be separate DART services - inner suburban and outer suburban like they are now - it is just that the outer services are going to be electrified. There has never been a suggestion that the 10 minute DART would operate to/from Drogheda.

That has always been the plan.

The consultation is only on the Western line right now.

LXFlyer · 27-08-2020 8:30pm

SeanW wrote: »

I would imagine that express services could use the "new" line.

I'm not talking about express services here.

I am talking about the outer suburban services on the Northern Line which will be electrified.

There will be a mix of inner stopping services, and outer suburban services. To deliver effective operations you need the ability to overtake between Connolly and Howth Junction. Extra tracks between north of Clontarf Road and Raheny really are a necessity.

Pete_Cavan · 27-08-2020 9:09pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

You've making the basic error that DART means stopping everywhere.

Just think about what you are saying for a minute.

Leaving aside the CoVid situation, DART is overloaded as it is coming from Malahide/Howth, as are the outer suburban services before they reach Malahide.

There wouldn't be a hope of anyone from inner stations getting on if you stopped them everywhere.

That's even before you think of the extended journey times that you would be imposing on outer suburban passengers. It would be a journey from hell.

There will be separate DART services - inner suburban and outer suburban like they are now - it is just that the outer services are going to be electrified. There has never been a suggestion that the 10 minute DART would operate to/from Drogheda.

That has always been the plan.

The consultation is only on the Western line right now.

It's fine now as a project name but I really hope they don't call the limited stop outer services DART as well. It would just cause confusion with people having to check they are getting on the right DART train. Imagine someone hoping on a DART to go to Killester, then the train doesn't stop until Clongriffin or further north. DART should stay as is as far as Malahide (or a station or two further north if they provide better turnback facilities there) and leave the limited stop trains as commuter or some other name. It needs to be kept simple.

Zebra3 · 27-08-2020 9:54pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

It's fine now as a project name but I really hope they don't call the limited stop outer services DART as well. It would just cause confusion with people having to check they are getting on the right DART train. Imagine someone hoping on a DART to go to Killester, then the train doesn't stop until Clongriffin or further north. DART should stay as is as far as Malahide (or a station or two further north if they provide better turnback facilities there) and leave the limited stop trains as commuter or some other name. It needs to be kept simple.

You just give each service a different route number.

Works fine in the Copenhagen area.

cgcsb · 27-08-2020 10:18pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

You've making the basic error that DART means stopping everywhere.

Just think about what you are saying for a minute.

Leaving aside the CoVid situation, DART is overloaded as it is coming from Malahide/Howth, as are the outer suburban services before they reach Malahide.

There wouldn't be a hope of anyone from inner stations getting on if you stopped them everywhere.

That's even before you think of the extended journey times that you would be imposing on outer suburban passengers. It would be a journey from hell.

There will be separate DART services - inner suburban and outer suburban like they are now - it is just that the outer services are going to be electrified. There has never been a suggestion that the 10 minute DART would operate to/from Drogheda.

That has always been the plan.

The consultation is only on the Western line right now.

I'm just curious have you read this information somewhere regarding express DARTS from further stations or is it something you think will happen? I'm not saying it's a bad thing or anything just want to clarify where this comes from.

If there were a separate high speed line for Dublin to Belfast then commuter trains that do Dundalk-Drogheda-Airport-Heuston would use the high speed line, in fact all Dublin to Belfast trains may use this stopping pattern, so in that scenario it's only Balbriggan to Dublin that would be relying on stopping DART services and even then if you lived in Balbriggan you'd probably take the DART out to Drogheda and an express train to Dublin. Extending metrolink to interchange with the DART at some point north east of Swords would further alleviate the capacity situation on the existing northern line.

spacetweek · 27-08-2020 10:20pm

At Ashtown wouldn't an overbridge from the new developments north of the line connecting with Martin Savage Park to the south be easier?

LXFlyer · 27-08-2020 10:32pm

cgcsb wrote: »

I'm just curious have you read this information somewhere regarding express DARTS from further stations or is it something you think will happen? I'm not saying it's a bad thing or anything just want to clarify where this comes from.

If there were a separate high speed line for Dublin to Belfast then commuter trains that do Dundalk-Drogheda-Airport-Heuston would use the high speed line, in fact all Dublin to Belfast trains may use this stopping pattern, so in that scenario it's only Balbriggan to Dublin that would be relying on stopping DART services and even then if you lived in Balbriggan you'd probably take the DART out to Drogheda and an express train to Dublin. Extending metrolink to interchange with the DART at some point north east of Swords would further alleviate the capacity situation on the existing northern line.

Various talks given at various times by senior IE management including the CEO have always clarified that there would be inner stopping and outer semi-fast services. It is also best operational practice.

A high speed line is nothing to do with this project, and is only a vague notion, so let's leave that to another thread. This is about DART +.

DART + needs the appropriate infrastructure in place to allow it to happen and operate effectively. That will require additional infrastructure in the form of extra tracks. That penny has already sunk in with the IE CEO.

IE 222 · 27-08-2020 10:40pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

It's fine now as a project name but I really hope they don't call the limited stop outer services DART as well. It would just cause confusion with people having to check they are getting on the right DART train. Imagine someone hoping on a DART to go to Killester, then the train doesn't stop until Clongriffin or further north. DART should stay as is as far as Malahide (or a station or two further north if they provide better turnback facilities there) and leave the limited stop trains as commuter or some other name. It needs to be kept simple.

What??

Come on now, Dart is a brand not a route.

If this was to be the case we would need to rename every train service in the country. How do people manage to get on the right commuter trains in Connolly or differentiate between a Howth or Malahide service.

IE 222 · 27-08-2020 11:13pm

This high speed line is not going to happen nor is it necessary. Your looking at a figure of around €15 billion (plus whatever € to purchase land) to serve a line that's already served. That €15 billion would upgrade the current network to "high speed" along with opening more new lines both north and south.

All the northern line needs is quad track out of Dublin and Belfast. Upgrade the line and stock for 125mph running and the journey time would be stripped to about 75mins allowing for stops along the way.

125mph throughout would be a perfect "high speed" for Ireland. We don't need anything fancy and it can be laid on the current permanent way with relatively minor upgrades in comparison to an actual high speed network. Most routes are 175 miles or less over here. That's 90 mins or less for most intercity journeys to or form Dublin.

Geuze · 27-08-2020 11:17pm

Yes, I don't think our size or population will justify 300 kph routes.

200kph is fine, with average speeds including stops at least 130-150 kph.

Dublin-Cork 266km = 2hrs incl stops
Dublin-Belfast 1h30

Geuze · 27-08-2020 11:21pm

A query about the planned DART+ to Maynooth and M3.

Is there enough planned capacity for:

Sligo diesels 1 tph
Maynooth DART - is it 4tph?
Navan - future EMU, say 2tph, with 4tph after Dunboyne?

That's 9tph arriving into Glasnevin, excl the PPT services.

All possible?

L1011 · 27-08-2020 11:23pm

Geuze wrote: »

A query about the planned DART+ to Maynooth and M3.

Is there enough planned capacity for:

Sligo diesels 1 tph
Maynooth DART - is it 4tph?
Navan - future EMU, say 2tph, with 4tph after Dunboyne?

That's 9tph arriving into Glasnevin, excl the PPT services.

All possible?

The plan is for 16tph peak coming through Glasnevin from the Maynooth side and 12tph from the PPT as far as I remember.

All the basic service pattern stuff is in the annexes

Effects · 27-08-2020 11:40pm

lucernarian wrote: »

There would not be 25 metres needed for a third track, and a lot of space is available to one side (clontarf golf course as an obvious example).

What are the chances of getting land from a golf club though?

L1011 · 27-08-2020 11:41pm

Easier than CPOing housing.

IE 222 · 28-08-2020 12:56am

Geuze wrote: »

A query about the planned DART+ to Maynooth and M3.

Is there enough planned capacity for:

Sligo diesels 1 tph
Maynooth DART - is it 4tph?
Navan - future EMU, say 2tph, with 4tph after Dunboyne?

That's 9tph arriving into Glasnevin, excl the PPT services.

All possible?

Getting into Connolly is the problem. I'm not so such altering track work around Connolly is going to be sufficient enough.

They really need an 8th platform maybe they have a way of including it as part of the plans but it doesn't seem to be specifically mentioned. IE want to build it so don't see why they wouldn't ask for it to be included if their going to the bother of upgrading Connolly.

Pete_Cavan · 28-08-2020 7:02am

IE 222 wrote: »

What??

Come on now, Dart is a brand not a route.

If this was to be the case we would need to rename every train service in the country. How do people manage to get on the right commuter trains in Connolly or differentiate between a Howth or Malahide service.

Yes, DART is the brand for regular stop services in the Dublin area. It already covers multiple routes, as with Howth and Malahide. Two more regular stop services in the Dublin area are to be added to west Dublin, putting those routes under the DART brand is consistent and makes sense. Adding an intermittent stopping service travelling 50km out from Dublin city centre doesn't make sense. Imagine explaining to someone to take the DART but make sure to get the inner stopping DART not the outer semi-fast DART. Is DART just the brand name for electrified lines now? Or can we put all commuter services into Dublin under DART as well, regardless of the service pattern they operate? Keeping DART in the Dublin area (as per the name) with regular stops and having another name for intermittent stop services from further out would make more sense.

DART+ (DART Expansion)

Comments