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

tnegun

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The no brainer location for a P&R is west of Kilcock beside Musgraves, directly off the M4 J8;

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.407587,-6.6844645,542m/data=!3m1!1e3

Could have four platforms there, only about 2km of extra double track beyond the depot.

That's actually almost where the original Kilcock station was and I think that land was cattle pens/sidings for the railway originally too, so access should be simple enough.

Jamie2k9

IE 222 wrote: »

Kilcock makes the most sense but it will effect Sligo/Longford services further.

Why?

If it was extended to Killcock, they would not run the 4 trains an hour there. Proablly one maybe two per hour in addition to the 9 Sligo/Longford.

Edit - Bi-directional signilling between Maynooth/Kilcock would allow Sligo overtake on this section, 4 DARTs per hour Sligo gets a clear run.

Pete_Cavan

L1011 wrote: »

There's a turnback siding West of Maynooth as it is; albeit currently without the right points work to address the Eastbound platform I believe. But anyway, the correct submission in my eyes is to extend to Kilcock when they're already nearly there.

Wouldn't it be better though to terminate at a station and then depart from there heading the other direction? Moving to a siding to come back would be a hassle.

L1011

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Wouldn't it be better though to terminate at a station and then depart from there heading the other direction? Moving to a siding to come back would be a hassle.

Yes, but you would have to demolish either:

* the listed station masters house and an Irish Rail CE/Telecoms building
or
* the station building and the listed signal cabin

+ rather a lot of the carpark, as it goes both sides

Depending on which side you picked to widen.

And it'd still be tight, the station is between a canal and a housing estate.

lucernarian

L1011 wrote: »

Yes, but you would have to demolish either:

* the listed station masters house and an Irish Rail CE/Telecoms building
or
* the station building and the listed signal cabin

+ rather a lot of the carpark, as it goes both sides

Depending on which side you picked to widen.

And it'd still be tight, the station is between a canal and a housing estate.

If it was built as dual track, why would the older listed buildings need to be demolished?

L1011

lucernarian wrote: »

If it was built as dual track, why would the older listed buildings need to be demolished?

I'm quoting someone discussing a third turnback platform at Maynooth.

lucernarian

L1011 wrote: »

I'm quoting someone discussing a third turnback platform at Maynooth.

Ahhh okay, I interpreted "terminate at a station" to mean Kilcock.

IE 222

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Why?

If it was extended to Killcock, they would not run the 4 trains an hour there. Proablly one maybe two per hour in addition to the 9 Sligo/Longford.

Edit - Bi-directional signalling between Maynooth/Kilcock would allow Sligo overtake on this section, 4 DARTs per hour Sligo gets a clear run.

It will be more than 4 trains an hour. The line is being upgraded to handle 16 trains per hour.

Kilcock is a 6 min run from Maynooth and is being suggested as being a better option than Maynooth for turn back facilities. It wouldn't make sense to terminate the bulk of services in Maynooth in this scenario. 15 miles in 35 mins is a pretty poor return for a non stop service currently. The Dart frequency will bunch trains closer together resulting in slower speeds for Sligo services. Running to Kilcock extends this bunching period.

With crossings, speed restrictions and Connolly conflicts being removed services should see a considerable journey time reduction but I can't see Sligo services reaping the benefits with the increased movements.

loyatemu

IE 222 wrote: »

With crossings, speed restrictions and Connolly conflicts been removed services should see a considerable journey time reduction but I can't see Sligo services reaping the benefits with the increased movements.

Sligo services will have the same issues Wexford services currently have, albeit the Maynooth line isn't as slow as Bray-Pearse.

lucernarian

IE 222 wrote: »

It will be more than 4 trains an hour. The line is been upgraded to handle 16 trains per hour.

Kilcock is a 6 min run from Maynooth and is been suggested as been a better option than Maynooth for turn back facilities. It wouldn't make sense to terminate the bulk of services in Maynooth in this scenario. 15 miles in 35 mins is pretty poor return for a non stop service currently. The Dart frequency will bunch trains closer together resulting in slower speeds for Sligo services. Running to Kilcock extends this bunching period.

With crossings, speed restrictions and Connolly conflicts been removed services should see a considerable journey time reduction but I can't see Sligo services reaping the benefits with the increased movements.

Sure they can't even sort out the northern line with a lot of space for a 3rd track along much of it and it has a lot of commuter and intercity traffic potential. I feel sorry for anyone living further out than Maynooth.

dublinman1990

The Sligo services from Connolly have been in my mind since this consultation was unveiled a few weeks ago.

I would have thought that with the substantial increase of Darts being offered to passengers under this plan that will be used on the Maynooth line; there will be a inevitable reduction in reliability for the Sligo trains going out to Dublin if they are to remain stuck in-between the Darts while using the same track.

If all of the Darts were officially allowed to use the Maynooth/M3 Parkway line for their services & encounter major delays on it with either a signal failure or points failure; what does that tell us about the reliability of the service from that point onwards? The Sligo train going into Connolly, in this case, may lose out a lot in not being able to keep the train to schedule if did not make it to Connolly on time while there were other Darts being stuck on the line. While these Darts up ahead of the ICR also head into Dublin & then continue heading down into Bray/Greystones. What would happen next in this situation?

Trains could probably slow to a crawl if they try to run services in/out of Dublin at this point times because of causing increased heavy congestion on it's rail network until the delays on it are all fully rectified. The Darts in this case would probably struggle in getting out of the Maynooth/M3 Parkway line if they try their best to maintain their frequent schedule while they get a signal clearance in continuing to run the train at a very slow pace while it goes further out to either Dún Laoghaire/Bray/Greystones.

Two questions could be very important to answer here & address when encountering this situation.

Does the idea of double tracking the Maynooth line actually solve this problem of major delays later on if the Darts encounter them in future?

Would double tracking to Maynooth help to ease the pressure a lot if IÉ intend to run so many Dart trains on that line per hour?

Trains operating services on the other side of the Maynooth line coming out of Dublin could be delayed as other Dart drivers & passengers will start to notice an increased amount of rolling stock traffic on the other side of the line while they head to Dublin & beyond. That situation does have knock on effects for services because it does delay other Darts when they are going from Dún Laoghaire/Bray/Greystones & encounter that huge bottleneck when the trains arrive at Connolly & then try to get to Maynooth.

While incidents like this should be rare & few and far between; people should be mindful of these situations when they get the chance to use these services. I have been in similar situations before even when seeing the commuters and Darts getting heavily hit with huge delays & cancellations occurring in the timetables when rail services in Dublin were operating at a standstill during the unfortunate period of the peak hours. With the increased load of trains being offered for DART+; it does increase the likelihood of having a lot more rolling stock being stuck on the Dart line because of increased issues being noticed by rail staff who do notice them instantly & work hard to try and maintain services to normality.

People are going to be offered increased numbers of trains every hour when they use DART+ in Dublin. And that won't just occur within a peak time situation while in Dublin. The increased frequency from DART+ would be offered to you at any time within it's timetable while using on any part of the line. 15 trains an hour would be a train every 4 minutes on the Maynooth line once DART+ West goes live. And that frequency would be in place for every hour that is run on the timetable for probably every single day of the week if we're lucky. That is why a project like this is a major benefit to us if we use the train a lot while being a frequent rail passenger. If you encounter problems like big delays while using DART+ frequently; you could have no choice but by having to use other services to get you to your destination sooner.

It's something to keep an eye on when you make that choice later on in future.

Pete_Cavan

dublinman1990 wrote: »

If all of the Darts were officially allowed to use the Maynooth/M3 Parkway line for their services & encounter major delays on it with either a signal failure or points failure; what does that tell us about the reliability of the service from that point onwards?

Surely a signal/points failure affects Sligo trains as much as DARTs and those trains would suffer the consequences of such a failure regardless of whether there are higher frequency DARTs on the line or not? You try to avoid such failures with proper maintenance regimes and minimise the effects of them by having plans in place and ideally some redundancy built in. I'm not really sure what the point you are making is.

ncounties

What are the operating speeds on the Sligo line outside of Dublin?

cgcsb

Track works on the Sligo line outside of Dublin could shave a lot of time off the Sligo Journey, more than enough to compensate for the delay dues to DART.

The ultimate solution to this is a third track passing loop between Kilcock and Maynooth and a new rural line between some point East of Maynooth and some point North of Hazelhatch, have all Sligo services use the 4 track line into Heuston and keep Maynooth-Connolly/Docklands for DART only. Longford and Mullingar commuter trains could also use this route and terminate at Heuston. Then you could have as many DARTs to Kilcock as you like.

loyatemu

cgcsb wrote: »

Track works on the Sligo line outside of Dublin could shave a lot of time off the Sligo Journey, more than enough to compensate for the delay dues to DART.

The ultimate solution to this is a third track passing loop between Kilcock and Maynooth and a new rural line between some point East of Maynooth and some point North of Hazelhatch, have all Sligo services use the 4 track line into Heuston and keep Maynooth-Connolly/Docklands for DART only. Longford and Mullingar commuter trains could also use this route and terminate at Heuston. Then you could have as many DARTs to Kilcock as you like.

presumably in your plan Sligo passengers could change at Kilcock if they want to go to Connolly? Wouldn't the majority of passengers end up changing which would make the new line slightly pointless? I mean it might depend on whether Kilcock-Heuston+Luas was quicker than Kilcock-Connolly on the Dart, but there probably wouldn't be much in it.

cgcsb

loyatemu wrote: »

presumably in your plan Sligo passengers could change at Kilcock if they want to go to Connolly? Wouldn't the majority of passengers end up changing which would make the new line slightly pointless? I mean it might depend on whether Kilcock-Heuston+Luas was quicker than Kilcock-Connolly on the Dart, but there probably wouldn't be much in it.

Depends where in Dublin your destination was. A direct train to Heuston + luas to the Smithfield/Liberties/Henry Street/Temple Bar/O'Connell Street area and if you're going to the docklands, changing onto the metro to the airport or taking a DART to the South East of the city then changing to DART at Maynooth would probably be quicker. Dublin is now poly-centric in terms of trip attractions.

GerardKeating

dublinman1990 wrote: »

Does the idea of double tracking the Maynooth line actually solve this problem of major delays later on if the Darts encounter them in future?

Would double tracking to Maynooth help to ease the pressure a lot if IÉ intend to run so many Dart trains on that line per hour?

Line is already double track to Maynooth, or do you mean Mullingar?

IE 222

loyatemu wrote: »

Sligo services will have the same issues Wexford services currently have, albeit the Maynooth line isn't as slow as Bray-Pearse.

Yeah and the fact M3 will run as a shuttle means Sligo services will need to run all the way to Maynooth behind at least 2 Darts.

IE 222

ncounties wrote: »

What are the operating speeds on the Sligo line outside of Dublin?

Various limits but max line speed is 75mph. Connolly - Maynooth is 70mph but with the number of restrictions you'd be doing well to get over 60mph. There is a lot of restrictions beyond Maynooth as well.

IE 222

cgcsb wrote: »

The ultimate solution to this is a third track passing loop between Kilcock and Maynooth and a new rural line between some point East of Maynooth and some point North of Hazelhatch, have all Sligo services use the 4 track line into Heuston and keep Maynooth-Connolly/Docklands for DART only. Longford and Mullingar commuter trains could also use this route and terminate at Heuston. Then you could have as many DARTs to Kilcock as you like.

I think it would be cheaper, quicker and easier to quad part of the line and use the 2 lines out Connolly should over come the worst of it. Ideally quad a section between Lexlip and Coolmine.

AngryLips

Would it be necessary to double track out to Kilcock for Dart services? Couldn't they provide a similar service as Dart between Bray and Greystones which is only single track.

loyatemu

AngryLips wrote: »

Would it be necessary to double track out to Kilcock for Dart services? Couldn't they provide a similar service as Dart between Bray and Greystones which is only single track.

in the current proposed plans, they're going to double as far as the depot right?

IE 222

AngryLips wrote: »

Would it be necessary to double track out to Kilcock for Dart services? Couldn't they provide a similar service as Dart between Bray and Greystones which is only single track.

Yeah it would. If Bray head was double track I'm sure all services would run through to Greystones. It doesn't make sense to have 2 terminating stations so close to each other. It's been doubled regardless.

Pete_Cavan

DART+ West Emerging Preferred Option shows a new bridge at Barberstown replacing the existing Level Crossing. I thought it was worth mentioning that Fingal County Council last week started a Non-Statutory Public Engagement on Kellystown Road which will provide a link from the Diswellstown Road to the new Barberstown bridge;

https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/kellystown-road-%E2%80%93-non-statutory-public-engagement

They have also opened consultation on Draft Local Area Plan for Kellystown for developing the area south of the rail line between Clonsilla station and Porterstown Road and providing over 1,000 homes;

https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/draft-local-area-plan-kellystown-dublin-15

CatInABox

https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1311710052059881472

p_haugh

IE have put out an explainer as to why the Maynooth line upgrades won't go out as far as Kilkock:

https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1312053606032568321

IE 222

p_haugh wrote: »

IE have put out an explainer as to why the Maynooth line upgrades won't go out as far as Kilkock:

https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1312053606032568321

That's a rather lame excuse for not extending further out. The bridge can take a double track without modifications. If platforms were to be built on the western side of the bridge there would be enough room for a turn back on the canal side.

It's really loose change in the grand scheme of things to develop a new station here. Unless it's a ploy to squeeze the government to dig deeper into the purse for extra funding.

I think the political pressure is still yet to come. Catherine Murphy will definitely stick her oor in and make a song and dance about it. She is on the transport committee so would be odd for her not to jump in on this although I think her main purpose on that committee was to go after John Delaney.

Zebra3

For the benefits it would bring and with all the other work going on, it seems to be a missed opportunity, and as we all know in Ireland "future commitment" means nothing of the sort.

Not sure if Jackson's Bridge would need any work (that's about 2.5km west of Maynooth station), but given the difficulties that were overcome with providing a second platform at Louisa Bridge, it's hard to believe that Kilcock is not feasible for what's needed.

They do cite there would be a lot of difficulties involved. Maybe they want the residents and elected officials to come begging for it as opposed to them planning it and everyone complaining about the disruption.

It's probably a little over 10km to the next station at Enfield, so Kilcock being the end of the electrification of the line would sort the line out there for a generation, maybe more.

EDIT - Just to add in, if the depot is going to be west of Maynooth, the cost of adding extra electrification itself won't be that much.

IE 222

Zebra3 wrote: »

For the benefits it would bring and with all the other work going on, it seems to be a missed opportunity, and as we all know in Ireland "future commitment" means nothing of the sort.

Not sure if Jackson's Bridge would need any work (that's about 2.5km west of Maynooth station), but given the difficulties that were overcome with providing a second platform at Louisa Bridge, it's hard to believe that Kilcock is not feasible for what's needed.

They do cite there would be a lot of difficulties involved. Maybe they want the residents and elected officials to come begging for it as opposed to them planning it and everyone complaining about the disruption.

It's probably a little over 10km to the next station at Enfield, so Kilcock being the end of the electrification of the line would sort the line out there for a generation, maybe more.

EDIT - Just to add in, if the depot is going to be west of Maynooth, the cost of adding extra electrification itself won't be that much.

The bridge has a platform running under it. Remove the platform and the double track fits.

The fact they see it as been part of electrification to Sligo tells you just how much into the future their talking about.

specialbyte

I personally would like to see the electrification expanded to Mullingar and then Sligo, though I recognise we are in a country that has underinvested in rail infrastructure for decades.

I can completely understand why the NTA might be worried about scope creep. DART+ West is already a significant infrastructure project with enough problems to work through. The real danger with a project like DART+ West is that it doesn't move quickly enough through the design, planning, procurement and construction phases before the project funding is pulled because of another recession. The funding wheels are still on the track for now. That's not guaranteed into the future if recovery from COVID isn't reasonably quick and smooth. Adding more elements to the project adds more complexity and makes it more likely the whole project will be delayed and ultimately fail. I think not extending to Kilcock is probably the right choice for now.