nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

DART+ (DART Expansion)

murphaph

New propoganda here but it really whets the appetite.....who knows if we'll have the nerve to do it though....

Find more posts tagged with

dublin

train

track

underground

rail

tunnel

interconnector

dart

suburban rail

transport 21

emu

electrification

ride me sideways

Quick Links

Comments

MJohnston

IE 222 wrote: »

What's so special about it.

I just googled it there. Is it the mathematician who wrote a formula there your referring to?

Yeah, it’s hugely famous for that, probably about as famous as a bridge can get for non-architectural reasons!

It’s also been recently converted to be a two-way bus route (and cycle route) so it’s going to be hard to close for a long duration. Let’s see what the NTA have in mind here.

IE 222

MJohnston wrote: »

Yeah, it’s hugely famous for that, probably about as famous as a bridge can get for non-architectural reasons!

It’s also been recently converted to be a two-way bus route (and cycle route) so it’s going to be hard to close for a long duration. Let’s see what the NTA have in mind here.

Fair enough. Well given its more the location than the architecture it wouldn't impose too much on its special status if they where to put a flat deck in.

D15er

MJohnston wrote: »

Yeah, it’s hugely famous for that, probably about as famous as a bridge can get for non-architectural reasons!

It’s also been recently converted to be a two-way bus route (and cycle route) so it’s going to be hard to close for a long duration. Let’s see what the NTA have in mind here.

Whatever is planned, there's a lot more work needed that then has to go for two public consultations and an EIS. There are going to be thousands of observations to wade through given you're dealing with protected structures and environmentally sensitive areas.

There's no way they can stick to their timeline of a Railway Order in q2 2021.

beauf

Glass Prison 1214 wrote: »

I was handed this NIMBY letter in Coolmine over the weekend. Does anyone know if this is a widely held view in the area?

From what I've hear. Most of the objections have nothing to do with closing the level crossing. Most are fine with that.

Most of the objection is to another bridge 500m from an existing bridge and the resulting traffic. Which then gets into a circular argument about it won't cause traffic, but it's needed because of all the traffic. Which then becomes a discussion why people need to drive everywhere and nothing about the trains.

Which then returns to why do you need to close it anyway if the frequency is the same as the existing dart line which retained level crossing. Then a while bunch of smaller arguments about a bunch of issues with the process.

I'm guessing most locals (obviously not all) would avoid that crossing even off peak as there are better options to cross the railway then taking a chance of getting caught by a train for a long delay.

Most of the arguments for the bridge are mostly from people who don't live in the immediate vicinity of it, but drive through the area commuting. Many seem unfamiliar with the area or indeed the plans, or indeed any of the webinars.

Traffic complaining about traffic, mostly.

IE 222

beauf wrote: »

Most of the arguments for the bridge are mostly from people who don't live in the immediate vicinity of it, but drive through the area commuting. Many seem unfamiliar with the area or indeed the plans, or indeed any of the webinars.

Traffic complaining about traffic, mostly.

It's more like rail complaining about traffic.

Most of the arguments, on here anyway, is for the railway not the road.

The residents association group and Leo have both clearly stated they want the crossing to remain open and with reduced closures.

It's clear that the best solution for everyone is a closed crossing with only a footbridge. It's up to the locals to accept that and push for it.

IE 222

https://kfmradio.com/news/26082020-1635/kildare-td-welcomes-opening-dart-extension-consultation

https://kfmradio.com/news/20092020-1043/population-analysis-and-forecast-requested-maynooth-and-kilcock

Seems some councillors and TD's are banging the Kilcock drum anyway. If they're penny pinching on Kilcock they can forget about Sallins.

Looking at the latest passenger numbers Kilcock has fairly good ridership numbers given it population of 6000ish. It has just shy of 800 journeys with only 8 of the 21 trains at peak times. It has more a higher number passengers than Dunboyne who also fair better with more services and higher population.

Victor

Does this work?

* Double track Newcomen curve. Electric trains should be able to get up it OK.

* Electrify Glasnevin-Heuston. Add two high-level platforms at Platform 9 in Heuston. Northsiders had previously complained DART Underground would deprive them of a direct service to Connolly. It would also keep a proportion of people off the busiest section of Luas.

* Use the reversing manoeuvre at Connolly / Spencer Dock for driver changes.

* Potentially the only crossing trains are those from Kildare / Hazelhatch. That said, they seem to be proposing a diamond crossover at Glasnevin Junction.

* Alternatively, use the MGWR line for westbound trains and the GSWR line for eastbound trains, thereby allowing overtaking.

IE 222

Victor wrote: »

Does this work?

* Double track Newcomen curve. Electric trains should be able to get up it OK.

* Electrify Glasnevin-Heuston. Add two high-level platforms at Platform 9 in Heuston. Northsiders had previously complained DART Underground would deprive them of a direct service to Connolly. It would also keep a proportion of people off the busiest section of Luas.

* Use the reversing manoeuvre at Connolly / Spencer Dock for driver changes.

* Potentially the only crossing trains are those from Kildare / Hazelhatch. That said, they seem to be proposing a diamond crossover at Glasnevin Junction.

* Alternatively, use the MGWR line for westbound trains and the GSWR line for eastbound trains, thereby allowing overtaking.

* Doubling Newcome jct was part of the Connolly upgrade plan that doesn't seem to be going ahead now in favour of route changes and cost cutting. The drop lock is still been installed to allow them replace the opening bridge with a non opening one. To install a double line also required work to be done on Newcome bridge, this was expensive but if they're to achieve the 23tphpd in future it would need to be doubled although they'll have no option but to upgrade Connolly at that point.

* Dart South West will bring electrification via PPT. It will use platform 10. Giving the new plan will require transfer at Glasnevin I can't see people opting to use this over Luas. I think this plan will also take numbers away from the GCD services in favour of Luas at Hueston especially if Lucan Luas is built.

* No lines will use or operate on both Connolly and Spencer Dock. Glasnevin could be used if this option was to be needed.

* The option was and as far as I can tell it's still the plan to run Maynooth services via Newcome and Kildare via North Strand. I'm pretty sure the updated Connolly report has a section regarding North Strand Jct upgrades in order to facilitate this. Doing this removes the need of a diamond at Glasnevin. The Glasnevin diamond was proposed in a number of options but none passed stage 1 as they were totally opposed to this idea.

(This is wrong, I believe only the 5 terminating services on platform 7 will use the curve. The rest will operate via Ossary Rd.)

* If I'm reading you right you don't remove the conflict. At that point of the line overtaking would have very limited benefits.

You'd have to question if it's really necessary or worth the cost of replacing Docklands with Spencer Dock. I personally don't see the value in that expense which will essentially just be a glorified turn back facility for Kildare services, Docklands would be more than capable to provide this as well as handle the expected passenger capacity. For me the benefit of Spencer Dock was like having a mini Connolly with a range of routes to Kildare, Maynooth and Drogheda.

The other issues are Drumcondra been vastly reduced and I don't really buy into the vision of forcing transfers at Glasnevin to drive up the BCR. I think Bus Connects shows people are not in favour of transfers and would rather avoid them. You run a high risk of losing passengers from GCD - Kildare services which has seen large growth over the last couple of years. It also decreases the benefits of SDZs such as Clonburris been built along the line by not having direct city centre trains.

Pete_Cavan

IE 222 wrote: »

You'd have to question if it's really necessary or worth the cost of replacing Docklands with Spencer Dock. I personally don't see the value in that expense which will essentially just be a glorified turn back facility for Kildare services, Docklands would be more than capable to provide this as well as handle the expected passenger capacity. For me the benefit of Spencer Dock was like having a mini Connolly with a range of routes to Kildare, Maynooth and Drogheda.

If the cloth has to be cut, I'd rather see them focusing investment on Connolly at the expense of Spencer Dock. This is probably a once in a century opportunity to upgrade Connolly and that needs to be done right. So much hinges on Connolly and having four through platforms there would be hugely beneficial. The Spencer Dock station could be created at any point in the future and would ideally be done with at least some level of design completed on DU to minimise disruption and costs when it actually goes ahead. Obviously first choice is both to be done but I'd hate to see them cheap out on Connolly to pay for Spencer Dock, as you say, Docklands can do a job for now with Spencer Dock remaining a possibility in future.

IE 222

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

If the cloth has to be cut, I'd rather see them focusing investment on Connolly at the expense of Spencer Dock. This is probably a once in a century opportunity to upgrade Connolly and that needs to be done right. So much hinges on Connolly and having four through platforms there would be hugely beneficial. The Spencer Dock station could be created at any point in the future and would ideally be done with at least some level of design completed on DU to minimise disruption and costs when it actually goes ahead. Obviously first choice is both to be done but I'd hate to see them cheap out on Connolly to pay for Spencer Dock, as you say, Docklands can do a job for now with Spencer Dock remaining a possibility in future.

Exactly, the whole project and Intercity services completely relies on Connolly's ability to function. Apart form train movements Connolly won't be able to cope with the future increased number of passengers. Even Jacob's report suggests this is a bad idea. It will be a big ask to fund it at a later date and the level of disruption it will create will be immense. It's a massive gamble with the potential for a even bigger backlash. It seriously hampers growth, service level increases and heavily relies on peoples willingness to accept transfers over direct services on both Wexford and Kildare lines. The Glasnevin transfer is another potential mess. Wait times and possibly trains already full when arriving.

Spencer Dock will just become a big white elephant if it's limited to Kildare services and will be seen as €100 million plus wasted. Putting Connolly aside that €100million would be better spent on the likes of Kilcock and overtaking loops on the Northern line. In this case I'd rather see them reduce the number of Kildare Darts into Spencer Dock to 6 and operate it as a small regional terminal at peak times using the high capacity ICRs sets for Dundalk, Mullingar, Portlaoise, Carlow and Athlone.

The conflict issues haven't gone away either. Using platform 7 for terminating forces everything else into 5 and 6. Sligo trains and 2 other Dart services are also going to need to cross over into platforms 1-4. Clonflict will also remain at Glasnevin and will be a lot worse with increased frequencies and the need to stop. It also cripples Intercity services on the Northern line. The timetable isn't exactly straightforward either from a passengers perspective. Maynooth line will offer 5 different routes all along the same stretch of line. Northern line is the same with Northbound Darts running to either Clongriffin or Malahide.

I would imagine it also means whatever was planned for Dun Laoghaire will be drastically scaled back as well to make use of the current turn back bay. The opening of Glasnevin could potentially be deferred for preference of transfer at Drumcondra.

CatInABox

Could they be planning on building Spencer Dock, keeping Docklands, and then using these two as a replacement for Connolly while it's being upgraded?

D15er

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That's exactly what's going on here. You've cracked it.

I mean, you're all for not planning for future expansion "to save money" sure.

No, couldn't give a shyte about saving money. The actual spend on this will be multiples of the projected budget so they may as well shoot for the stars.

IE 222

CatInABox wrote: »

Could they be planning on building Spencer Dock, keeping Docklands, and then using these two as a replacement for Connolly while it's being upgraded?

No, although possible that's not within their sights. They believe the remodelling of routes will deliver the capacity needed until the "unlimited rail" plan is required. They don't expect that to be needed for another 15-20 years. My reading of it is that on their predictions Connolly will suffice until the "unlimited rail" plan is needed. Its beggars believe to go to the expense of this project only to delay implementing the core part of it for 15-20 years at a even greater expense and massive disruption. The Connolly works were costed at €200 million while Spencer Dock €160 million, it doesn't take much to figure out which one offers a better return.

IE 222

D15er wrote: »

No, couldn't give a shyte about saving money. The actual spend on this will be multiples of the projected budget so they may as well shoot for the stars.

Your right, having to jump through hurdles to satisfy a few will undoubtedly drive the costs up.

Cost doesn't seem to be the only thing multiplying. I see in your previous post one demolished house has now turned into a few.

liamog

Folding bikes are allowed on the regular dart, so should still be allowed, I imagine the same will be true of e-scooters. I used to see them on the metro alot in Paris and there was never an issue.

liamog

beauf wrote: »

Being allowed on and having a facilities for them is very different. Especially when it's packed.

Generally you stand over a folding bike or scooter, what facilities do you need for them exactly?

Sam Russell

Off peak, full sized bikes would appear to be OK, but not at peak.

I would think the other passengers might not let you on if it is crowded in any way. It might be difficult getting of a crowded train with a bike as well.

IE 222

Off peak, bikes shouldn't be an issue. It would be wise to allocate an area around the toilet area with a dedicated door with a retractable ramp that can provide multiple wheelchair spacing and prams/luggage. It could double up as add standing room when not in use or carry bikes off peak.

The question of bikes/folding bikes/scooters seems more suited to the C&T forum. No reason to think Dart+ will be any different to the rules for the current Dart and Commuter services which are the same as one another and are well explained here:

https://www.irishrail.ie/travel-information/bicycle-information-for-rail-travel

Sam Russell

Mod: I'll move the Coolmine level crossing discussion to a new thread (when I get time).

The question of bikes etc on trains is off topic for this thread as it has nothing to do with Dart Expansion.

MJohnston

We do need to eventually start thinking about bicycle carriages in this country. They’re common in so many other countries.

Tomrota

IE 222 wrote: »

https://kfmradio.com/news/26082020-1635/kildare-td-welcomes-opening-dart-extension-consultation

https://kfmradio.com/news/20092020-1043/population-analysis-and-forecast-requested-maynooth-and-kilcock

Seems some councillors and TD's are banging the Kilcock drum anyway. If they're penny pinching on Kilcock they can forget about Sallins.

Looking at the latest passenger numbers Kilcock has fairly good ridership numbers given it population of 6000ish. It has just shy of 800 journeys with only 8 of the 21 trains at peak times. It has more a higher number passengers than Dunboyne who also fair better with more services and higher population.

Why?

IE 222

Tomrota wrote: »

Why?

Well it means extending it an extra 6 miles or so from where its planned to stop. Then your looking at the expense of quad tracking along with a rebuild of the station and that's before you starting adding up the cost of buying land and widening bridges ect. Don't forget that the quad tracking is already designed for this which makes the Kildare line cheap and easy in comparison. Its the section between Hueston - Inchicore that's driving that cost up but that's a lot more palatable than the alternative cost of DU.

I'm not against the idea but as I said if an extra 500 meters of single track and a bay platform isn't within their budget I can't see any hope for Sallins at all. Judging by other cost estimates on the project you'd be talking €100+ million to do Sallins. With that level of cost and with no intermediate towns it's a hefty price tag. At that rate your nearly just as well going all in and building a spur into Naas town to maximize the return benefit.

Pete_Cavan

IE 222 wrote: »

Exactly, the whole project and Intercity services completely relies on Connolly's ability to function. Apart form train movements Connolly won't be able to cope with the future increased number of passengers. Even Jacob's report suggests this is a bad idea. It will be a big ask to fund it at a later date and the level of disruption it will create will be immense. It's a massive gamble with the potential for a even bigger backlash. It seriously hampers growth, service level increases and heavily relies on peoples willingness to accept transfers over direct services on both Wexford and Kildare lines. The Glasnevin transfer is another potential mess. Wait times and possibly trains already full when arriving.

Spencer Dock will just become a big white elephant if it's limited to Kildare services and will be seen as €100 million plus wasted. Putting Connolly aside that €100million would be better spent on the likes of Kilcock and overtaking loops on the Northern line. In this case I'd rather see them reduce the number of Kildare Darts into Spencer Dock to 6 and operate it as a small regional terminal at peak times using the high capacity ICRs sets for Dundalk, Mullingar, Portlaoise, Carlow and Athlone.

The conflict issues haven't gone away either. Using platform 7 for terminating forces everything else into 5 and 6. Sligo trains and 2 other Dart services are also going to need to cross over into platforms 1-4. Clonflict will also remain at Glasnevin and will be a lot worse with increased frequencies and the need to stop. It also cripples Intercity services on the Northern line. The timetable isn't exactly straightforward either from a passengers perspective. Maynooth line will offer 5 different routes all along the same stretch of line. Northern line is the same with Northbound Darts running to either Clongriffin or Malahide.

I would imagine it also means whatever was planned for Dun Laoghaire will be drastically scaled back as well to make use of the current turn back bay. The opening of Glasnevin could potentially be deferred for preference of transfer at Drumcondra.

I had a quick look at the reports again, Docklands Option A (expanded station next to existing Docklands Station) is costed at €91m but Option B (relocated station at Spencer Dock) is €138m. The cost difference is much smaller than I expected. It probably doesn't make much difference to Connolly where the options are priced at >€180m. The report also states Option B does provide over €84.7 million more in terms of transport user benefits.

A new Spencer Dock Station could be built in such a way so as to limit works required should DART Underground proceed in future. The new Spencer Dock Station should be as deep as practical below ground level to minimise excavation for DART Underground. Platforms, etc. should be precast sections which could be lifted out and reused. The station building/concourse could span parallel to Mayor Street straddling the tracks/platforms rather than situated off to the side as shown in drawings. It is almost certain that the platforms from any future DART Underground station further south will stretch back under Mayor Street so this station/concourse could be retained as a northern entrance to the new station. Foundations and structural supports would have to be placed outside of future track alignment or at least station building/concourse be of composite construction so could be removed for construction and later reassembled.

IE 222

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I had a quick look at the reports again, Docklands Option A (expanded station next to existing Docklands Station) is costed at €91m but Option B (relocated station at Spencer Dock) is €138m. The cost difference is much smaller than I expected. It probably doesn't make much difference to Connolly where the options are priced at >€180m. The report also states Option B does provide over €84.7 million more in terms of transport user benefits.

A new Spencer Dock Station could be built in such a way so as to limit works required should DART Underground proceed in future. The new Spencer Dock Station should be as deep as practical below ground level to minimise excavation for DART Underground. Platforms, etc. should be precast sections which could be lifted out and reused. The station building/concourse could span parallel to Mayor Street straddling the tracks/platforms rather than situated off to the side as shown in drawings. It is almost certain that the platforms from any future DART Underground station further south will stretch back under Mayor Street so this station/concourse could be retained as a northern entrance to the new station. Foundations and structural supports would have to be placed outside of future track alignment or at least station building/concourse be of composite construction so could be removed for construction and later reassembled.

It would be sensible to have as much of the DU station prepared when constructing Spencer Dock. From reading the report I think the tunnel and station area will be cut and cover so should be less complicated. Spencer Dock will offer less disruption than the Docklands site but the sounds of it.

In saying that, the needs of Spencer Docks have been drastically downgraded to a fraction of it's designed capacity and volume of passengers. It's not envisioned to expand services there within the next 20 years according to the modelling anyway. The whole basis of the station was designed and planned for all 3 Dart lines offering a frequent service throughout the day. With the level of transfers at Glasnevin the demand for Docklands doesn't warrant a new station. It will merely just become a turn back. Even the associated works outside the station to connect all 3 lines to it where a costly expense, I believe that's what is driving the €138 million price tag up to €165 million.

With a remodelling of the line to North Strand jct Docklands should be capable of serving the much reduced needs of Kildare line. Spencer Dock should be preserved for a later date and judging by the level of chopping I can't see either IE or NTA having any vision for Spencer Dock until DU goes ahead.

IE 222

Would it be wise for Dart to look at moving away from intermediate timetables when the network is developed or do people still look for the exact minute of departure on such services. Given there'll be a frequency of roughly every 5 - 15 mins with the majority been closer to 5mins and only Greystones been the exception.

Ideally trains should only have a scheduled departure time from its originated station and maybe key locations such as connecting stations and 1 city centre station. These stops could be used to ensure trains keep within their paths. Each station should just display the routes serving it and the frequency interval throughout the day. Real time info on platforms can give more precise info.

Rather than run on a stop by stop schedule trains should solely run on headway and paths within the boundary of Dart. Obviously outer regional or intercity services running on lower frequency will remain timetabled.

Would this speed services up and remove unnecessary padding, holding early arriving trains until listed departure times?

1huge1

I'm no expert but I'd imagine part of the problem with that is that the line is shared with commuter and intercity trains which do run on a timetable. Open for correction.

riddlinrussell

1huge1 wrote: »

I'm no expert but I'd imagine part of the problem with that is that the line is shared with commuter and intercity trains which do run on a timetable. Open for correction.

Would think freeing the Darts from a specific timetable would help with that? Instead of aiming to be at station x at 10am exactly they can arrive within 5 minutes, giving time if needed for an intercity to pass them out? Maybe I'm wrong on that but seems it would make this more flexible?

beauf

Moving the Docklands was always a bit dubious.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/irelands-newest-train-station-could-move-because-of-major-shortfall-in-passengers-36916197.html

They want to move it to increase numbers. But they had made that train is shorter than it used to be and numbers had exploded on it, and was dangerously overcrowded.
It also only runs at peak, and not at the weekend. Its literally a 5 min walk (400m) between the station and Spencer Dock.
It could be made quicker if they just made a walkway through from the Bus Park at the Docklands to Spencer Dock
And sign posted it. The sign to direct people leaving the station could be made a lot more obvious.
Considering the time it takes to get into Connolly and walk back out of it. Its as quick to go to the Docklands and walk back past Connolly. But most people won't be aware of that.
Spencer Docks (going city center) is/was very crowded at peak in the evenings. I wonder what are the number stats on it.

Docklands always seemed underutilised to me.

IE 222

1huge1 wrote: »

I'm no expert but I'd imagine part of the problem with that is that the line is shared with commuter and intercity trains which do run on a timetable. Open for correction.

Commuter services will become part of the Dart network. Trains will still run within paths. For example a southbound Dart from Connolly to Bray could operate freely without waiting for departure times at each station. It might only knock 2 or 3 mins off the journey time but it will encourage drivers to operate faster without been held at the next stop.