Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
DART+ (DART Expansion)
Options
Comments
-
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.
That's old news. The reason for moving it is to increase capacity overall with the number of trains and routes using it and to better accommodate Dart Underground while also making use of Luas. It allows frequency increases on all 3 lines by avoiding Connolly.
The question now is whether this move is required with the scaled back services. The new routes downgraded the need for it and Docklands can suffice with Kildare. Although the number of trains using it will increase passenger numbers are expected to pretty much remain the same or even drop at peak time given Docklands only operates at peak times currently.0 -
That's old news. The reason for moving it is to increase capacity overall with the number of trains and routes using it and to better accommodate Dart Underground while also making use of Luas. It allows frequency increases on all 3 lines by avoiding Connolly.
The question now is whether this move is required with the scaled back services. The new routes downgraded the need for it and Docklands can suffice with Kildare. Although the number of trains using it will increase passenger numbers are expected to pretty much remain the same or even drop at peak time given Docklands only operates at peak times currently.
What do you mean by scales back services? What are the services now and what are they scales back compared to? Sorry if this has been said already0 -
What do you mean by scales back services? What are the services now and what are they scales back compared to? Sorry if this has been said already
Firstly current service will remain in place until Dart+ changes.
Dart+ is to see Spencer Dock developed which allowes a number of trains from Maynooth, Kildare and Drogheda to serve it along with increasing its platform capacity and to later become part of Dart Underground. This was needed in order to increase the frequency level on each line by avoiding Connolly. It also gave each line a number of through services on the LLB.
This has since been revised and only Kildare lines will serve it in favour of running most Maynooth and Drogheda service through the LLB. Kildare line services will focus on passengers transferring at Glasnevin or Hueston for city centre. The current M3 service will move to Connolly. Spencer Dock will effectively just be used as a turn back facility and DU is still nothing more than a pipe dream really at the moment. With the €165 million price tag and the fact Docklands will be capable of handling the revised services, minor works are needed, you'd have to ponder if this should be taking precedence over more vitality important projects such as Connolly upgrade. Connolly upgrade would offer immediate benefits to all Connolly services while Spencer Dock will sit idly under used as Connolly continues to struggle with capacity limits.
Essentially, why build something designed and planned on a system you don't tend use in the medium - long term.0 -
The counterpoint to that is that perhaps Docklands/Spencer Dock is in a location that's much more oriented towards where the majority of Dubliners will be working in the near future.0
-
The counterpoint to that is that perhaps Docklands/Spencer Dock is in a location that's much more oriented towards where the majority of Dubliners will be working in the near future.
I appreciate possible future proofing that this offers, but given just how integral to the operation of the entire network Connolly appears to be until DU comes around, I think it should probably still get priority...0 -
Advertisement
-
-
The counterpoint to that is that perhaps Docklands/Spencer Dock is in a location that's much more oriented towards where the majority of Dubliners will be working in the near future.
There is nothing wrong with the location and the plan itself is a good idea and worth the investment imo but it's a purpose built station and it's meaningless if they dont tend to use it for that purpose within the next 15-20 years.
If something needs to give, you'll get more bang from you're buck with a Connolly upgrad than a Spencer Dock one, the price difference between them is rather small for the scale of works. There is clearly doubts that if all Dart+ projects will be funded so I think it would be better to get Connolly done while its possible.
The remodelling and BEMUs should be fall back/gap filler plan for if future projects are to be deferred not the leading specified plan. Once they complete the Maynooth line they can still achieve everything they wanted to without doing it.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 7724
I wonder how much of companies around that area are WFH. A lot I would imagine.
It's mostly finance and tech, so working from home is pretty straightforward. I work in a tech company by the point. We've found that a lot of the younger staff want to go back to the office because they mostly live in small apartments or shares. There isn't really enough room for them to work from home on a permanent basis.0 -
-
Why would it be left sit idle while Connolly struggles when there would be the option of shifting any northern, Kildare or Maynooth services to the new Spencer Dock station?This has since been revised and only Kildare lines will serve it in favour of running most Maynooth and Drogheda service through the LLB. Kildare line services will focus on passengers transferring at Glasnevin or Hueston for city centre. The current M3 service will move to Connolly. Spencer Dock will effectively just be used as a turn back facility and DU is still nothing more than a pipe dream really at the moment. With the €165 million price tag and the fact Docklands will be capable of handling the revised services, minor works are needed, you'd have to ponder if this should be taking precedence over more vitality important projects such as Connolly upgrade. Connolly upgrade would offer immediate benefits to all Connolly services while Spencer Dock will sit idly under used as Connolly continues to struggle with capacity limits.
The LLB cannot handle everything that the northern, Kildare and Maynooth DART services would be capable of delivering into Dublin so there's no option except to terminate some services before the LLB.
And surely there would be advantages in terminating any DARTs coming from Kildare or Maynooth in the new Spencer Dock station rather than Connolly as they'd have an unimpeded run to Spencer Dock without having to merge with a congested northern line?
I also find the location quite attractive and it delivers people into the centre of what will be one of the densest parts of the docklands with direct access to Luas and a much shorter walk to the south docks. With ML and an interchange at Cross Guns, the connectivity options will be great - which would drive all-day demand instead of the into-town-in-the-morning, home-in-the-evening current pattern of usage in then Docklands station.
Finally, the way the current docklands station is laid out represents very inefficient use of land and if you decommissioned it, the land under it would have high value for development - it's a bigger plot than the high density Connolly Quarter development being built a block away. The land freed up would surely be worth 60-80m.0 -
Advertisement
-
Why would it be left sit idle while Connolly struggles when there would be the option of shifting any northern, Kildare or Maynooth services to the new Spencer Dock station?
The LLB cannot handle everything that the northern, Kildare and Maynooth DART services would be capable of delivering into Dublin so there's no option except to terminate some services before the LLB.
And surely there would be advantages in terminating any DARTs coming from Kildare or Maynooth in the new Spencer Dock station rather than Connolly as they'd have an unimpeded run to Spencer Dock without having to merge with a congested northern line?
I also find the location quite attractive and it delivers people into the centre of what will be one of the densest parts of the docklands with direct access to Luas and a much shorter walk to the south docks. With ML and an interchange at Cross Guns, the connectivity options will be great - which would drive all-day demand instead of the into-town-in-the-morning, home-in-the-evening current pattern of usage in then Docklands station.
Finally, the way the current docklands station is laid out represents very inefficient use of land and if you decommissioned it, the land under it would have high value for development - it's a bigger plot than the high density Connolly Quarter development being built a block away. The land freed up would surely be worth 60-80m.
I think you've misunderstood the point I'm making. I'm not against the development and increased level of services into Spencer Dock.
If you look through the original reports and plans you will see the huge benefits Spencer Dock can deliver and how it can play a big part in the expansion of capacity and frequency throughout the Dart network. In fact I'd go further and look to add an hourly Mullingar, Carlow and Portlaise at peak times.
The points you raised in terms of Connolly and LLB congestion are well known and documented by everyone. The new Dart service was to offer a new complete overhaul of routes with Spencer Dock and Dun Laoghaire playing a big part in that although both of these have been vastly scaled down.
For whatever reason, presumably cost cutting, the NTA later requested Jacobs to revise the plans by taking the Connolly upgrade out. In order to facilitate this capacity had to be cut. This result in a reshuffle of routes and frequency levels and in favour of more through trains for Maynooth and Drogheda while also wanting to boost the BCR of Glasnevin with transfers the Kildare line was sacrificed.
The newest modelling report will clearly show you the long term vision of the network. It's not envisioned to use Spencer Dock within the next 15-20 years. What's the point of spend such a large sum of money on a purpose built station if your not going to use it for what it was intended for. Aside from that, for Spence Dock to reach it's full operating potential it actually needs Connolly to be upgraded so Maynooth and Kildare lines won't conflict at Glasnevin and North Strand while the Northern Line has now resorted back to terminating in Malahide due to route changes.
The cost of both projects are a lot closer than you may think. Connolly upgrade was €203 million while Spencer Dock was coming in at €168 million. As you say Connolly is in dire need of an upgrade to improve capacity in through running. The return benefit of upgrading Connolly for a mere €35 million extra well and truly outweighs the benefits of Spencer Dock especially when it's not going to be used as it intended for.0 -
I think you've misunderstood the point I'm making. I'm not against the development and increased level of services into Spencer Dock.
If you look through the original reports and plans you will see the huge benefits Spencer Dock can deliver and how it can play a big part in the expansion of capacity and frequency throughout the Dart network. In fact I'd go further and look to add an hourly Mullingar, Carlow and Portlaise at peak times.
The points you raised in terms of Connolly and LLB congestion are well known and documented by everyone. The new Dart service was to offer a new complete overhaul of routes with Spencer Dock and Dun Laoghaire playing a big part in that although both of these have been vastly scaled down.
For whatever reason, presumably cost cutting, the NTA later requested Jacobs to revise the plans by taking the Connolly upgrade out. In order to facilitate this capacity had to be cut. This result in a reshuffle of routes and frequency levels and in favour of more through trains for Maynooth and Drogheda while also wanting to boost the BCR of Glasnevin with transfers the Kildare line was sacrificed.
The newest modelling report will clearly show you the long term vision of the network. It's not envisioned to use Spencer Dock within the next 15-20 years. What's the point of spend such a large sum of money on a purpose built station if your not going to use it for what it was intended for. Aside from that, for Spence Dock to reach it's full operating potential it actually needs Connolly to be upgraded so Maynooth and Kildare lines won't conflict at Glasnevin and North Strand while the Northern Line has now resorted back to terminating in Malahide due to route changes.
The cost of both projects are a lot closer than you may think. Connolly upgrade was €203 million while Spencer Dock was coming in at €168 million. As you say Connolly is in dire need of an upgrade to improve capacity in through running. The return benefit of upgrading Connolly for a mere €35 million extra well and truly outweighs the benefits of Spencer Dock especially when it's not going to be used as it intended for.
I doubt too much stock could be put into those cost estimates though, even intuitively keeping Connolly operational and doing major work would be an outrageous cost.
Has Connolly upgrade been shelved in the Emerging Preferred proposal published for Maynooth? Or just it was removed for a modelling exercise?0 -
I doubt too much stock could be put into those cost estimates though, even intuitively keeping Connolly operational and doing major work would be an outrageous cost.
Has Connolly upgrade been shelved in the Emerging Preferred proposal published for Maynooth? Or just it was removed for a modelling exercise?
Well there not plucked out of thin air either. They would be fairly reasonable and close estimates. NTA pay top dollar for these reports which begs the question as to why they ignore the advise and waste more resources on commissioning new reports. The key to Connolly upgrade was that the vast majority of it was within the railway boundary and didn't require altering the arches. There was many other estimates done such as digging under the arches or double decking the loop line. Its was the best plan that met most of the requirements at a reasonable cost. The key ingredient for Connolly is separation of Maynooth and Northern lines and 4 through platforms with the ability to turn back on the western side, it's just alternating rather than a complete rebuild.
Shelved, to get the full picture you'd need to read through the annexes. You'll need to read them in order or you'll loose track as to what's happening. It was a slashing exercise from the beginning. Considering the willingness to disregard the Connolly upgrade I've no doubt other major works will be shelved. You'll see in the 2020 modelling report Jacob's are against scaling it back and not convinced it will generate the results their looking for. When they seek to launch the "unlimited rail" plan which could be closer to 2043 they'll have no option but to upgrade Connolly which will come at a great expense along with colossal disruption.0 -
Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,263 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 10134
To be honest IE 222, I still think that the NTA are going down my route. I.e. Build Spencer Dock, and then use it and Docklands as a replacement for Connolly Station during its upgrade.
This avoids the pain of having to upgrade Connolly without being able to maintain a good level of service, which is probably their main concern. They probably believe that if they announce that there'll be significant, lengthy disruption to service on all lines that currently use Connolly, then opposition to the plan will be much higher.
The extra cost involved is a bargain when you consider that this will significantly reduce opposition.
Also, the NTA seemingly have a show, don't tell policy, whereby they wait until the problem is staring politicians in the face, and then produce their preferred solution. I can well imagine them saying to politicians "yes, we've finished the Dart+ project, but now to unlock all the extra potential, we've only got to spend €200 million, and no, there won't be much much disruption to services"0 -
On the website under main infrastructure elements though "capacity enhancements at Connolly station (modifications of platforms, junctions and station) to facilitate increased train numbers" is down whereas Spencer Dock is "subject to further assessment".0
-
What was the Connolly upgrade going to involve? The plans seem to be changing so fast it's hard to keep up. Any chance of a quick summary to avoid wading through technical annexes?The cost of both projects are a lot closer than you may think. Connolly upgrade was €203 million while Spencer Dock was coming in at €168 million. As you say Connolly is in dire need of an upgrade to improve capacity in through running. The return benefit of upgrading Connolly for a mere €35 million extra well and truly outweighs the benefits of Spencer Dock especially when it's not going to be used as it intended for.
I suppose, I don't understand how upgrading Connolly can improve the situation if the choke point is the LLB?
And if it's to allow more terminations in Connolly, then surely terminating Kildare/Maynooth trains in Spencer Dock would be much better as they can completely avoid any interaction with the trains going through Connolly?
The money calculations are interesting. But they don't seem to take into account that removing Docklands station releases nearly 4 hectares of what is now valuable development land.
City block 3 across the street is only around half the size of the Docklands station plot (although in a slightly more desirable location) and it sold for 110m last year. Selling the Docklands station land could probably pay for the Spenser Dock station.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19092
Mod: I've moved the Coolmine Level crossing posts to a new thread.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058122299
0 -
What was the Connolly upgrade going to involve? The plans seem to be changing so fast it's hard to keep up. Any chance of a quick summary to avoid wading through technical annexes?
I suppose, I don't understand how upgrading Connolly can improve the situation if the choke point is the LLB?
And if it's to allow more terminations in Connolly, then surely terminating Kildare/Maynooth trains in Spencer Dock would be much better as they can completely avoid any interaction with the trains going through Connolly?
The money calculations are interesting. But they don't seem to take into account that removing Docklands station releases nearly 4 hectares of what is now valuable development land.
City block 3 across the street is only around half the size of the Docklands station plot (although in a slightly more desirable location) and it sold for 110m last year. Selling the Docklands station land could probably pay for the Spenser Dock station.
I've looked at the reports quickly there, sorry IE222 it was all there. Looks like very little at Connolly alright.
In terms of the modelling it looks like there's a lot of alighting at Glasnevin with the metro and Connolly so planning for Connolly terminations seems reasonable. In terms of routing Kildare line all to Docklands I'm not sure that's the case is it? Even the modelling report says that this service structure mightn't be the last one and that was just a few months ago, and the Connolly reports seem very occupied with a crossover either at Newcomen Chord or at Glasnevin. So I don't think that Kildare line will all necessarily end up at Docklands.
And then I agree with the comment I'm replying to here, Loop Line is surely still a choke point and more than 16tph per direction is impossible right? Or not? If it is still the choke point we need Docklands either as a terminus or through route with Dart Underground, if the station is designed with DU in mind then a terminus that's high quality and connects to the Luas and plonks you right in the Docklands seems like a good option.
Am I misunderstanding what the potential Connolly upgrades could do though? Would it be possible to get, say, 25tph per direction over the Loop Line and the real choke point is actually Connolly?0 -
Just to point out that the final phase of the city centre resignalling project which is Connolly Station and yard is due at long last for completion this year.
That will deliver improvements in its own right in terms of capacity through the station.0 -
To be honest IE 222, I still think that the NTA are going down my route. I.e. Build Spencer Dock, and then use it and Docklands as a replacement for Connolly Station during its upgrade.
This avoids the pain of having to upgrade Connolly without being able to maintain a good level of service, which is probably their main concern. They probably believe that if they announce that there'll be significant, lengthy disruption to service on all lines that currently use Connolly, then opposition to the plan will be much higher.
The extra cost involved is a bargain when you consider that this will significantly reduce opposition.
Also, the NTA seemingly have a show, don't tell policy, whereby they wait until the problem is staring politicians in the face, and then produce their preferred solution. I can well imagine them saying to politicians "yes, we've finished the Dart+ project, but now to unlock all the extra potential, we've only got to spend €200 million, and no, there won't be much much disruption to services"
It would make sense to do it this way but there is not even a slight mentioned of it. I would've expected this to be highlighted into the reason for building it. I believe Docklands platforms are reusable and I'd suspect that these will be used in the construction of Spencer Dock. I'm not sure if it would be possible to keep Docklands connected when Spencer Dock is constructed.
There is no avoiding disruption. Personally I think people would be more accommodating to the idea of disruption at the beginning before they gain the service. It'll also impact on far less now than doing it after expansion on the network. I don't think Connolly would need to be shut for any long periods. The plans should allow them to do it in sections. It will probably lead to a reduction in capacity and maybe services running through without stopping during platform works.0 -
Advertisement
-
What was the Connolly upgrade going to involve? The plans seem to be changing so fast it's hard to keep up. Any chance of a quick summary to avoid wading through technical annexes?
I suppose, I don't understand how upgrading Connolly can improve the situation if the choke point is the LLB?
And if it's to allow more terminations in Connolly, then surely terminating Kildare/Maynooth trains in Spencer Dock would be much better as they can completely avoid any interaction with the trains going through Connolly?
The money calculations are interesting. But they don't seem to take into account that removing Docklands station releases nearly 4 hectares of what is now valuable development land.
City block 3 across the street is only around half the size of the Docklands station plot (although in a slightly more desirable location) and it sold for 110m last year. Selling the Docklands station land could probably pay for the Spenser Dock station.
Well if you look at annex 4.3a and look for option 6b, that's what was to be implemented. Then 4.3b will show you what's now been implemented. Just look for the capacity maps and the bundle 6 option2 in the modelling annex and then compare with the new modelling report dated 2020, again the maps plus the 1-3 scenario bundle while the expected dates of implementation of the "unlimited rail" will show you the long term vision. That should give you a good idea without reading the whole lot the level of slashing.
While In summary,
The key aim is maximizing the number of people rather than trains across the LLB. Once you get the trains into the city they can transfer over and thats where Spence Dock and Glasnevin come in. To gain maximized capacity on each line the Connolly operation needs to handle 44 trains or thereabouts. Connolly would take 30 and Spencer Dock had capacity to take 18. The re-signalling project would allow 18 of the 30 Connolly trains to run through on the LLB. The best way of maximizing the LLB was to run most Northern line through. Northen line terminating in Connolly and Spencer Dock allowed Maynooth and Kildare services to run through the LLB.
The Connolly upgrade also allowed for better transfers between services and basically turned platform 4 into a through platform which allowed for separation between Maynooth and Northern lines and for terminating on the new platforms 6&7. The Newcome Jct. upgrade, part of the Connolly upgrade, allowed separation between Kildare and Maynooth line. In theory this allowed up to 5 arrivals/departures to happen simultaneously, LLB departure and arrival, Newcome line departure, Northern line terminating and North Strand Jct arrival. The turn back options of GCD and Dun Laoghaire avoided congestion at Bray and also offered a better and more balanced variety of services.
A good portion if not all of Docklands will need to be retained for the tunnel portal of DU. Prioritising the sale of land will only lead to draw backs on operational potential. Let's build what we need first and look at selling any remaining land afterwards. Land sales will fund very little of this project.0 -
I've looked at the reports quickly there, sorry IE222 it was all there. Looks like very little at Connolly alright.
In terms of the modelling it looks like there's a lot of alighting at Glasnevin with the metro and Connolly so planning for Connolly terminations seems reasonable. In terms of routing Kildare line all to Docklands I'm not sure that's the case is it? Even the modelling report says that this service structure mightn't be the last one and that was just a few months ago, and the Connolly reports seem very occupied with a crossover either at Newcomen Chord or at Glasnevin. So I don't think that Kildare line will all necessarily end up at Docklands.
And then I agree with the comment I'm replying to here, Loop Line is surely still a choke point and more than 16tph per direction is impossible right? Or not? If it is still the choke point we need Docklands either as a terminus or through route with Dart Underground, if the station is designed with DU in mind then a terminus that's high quality and connects to the Luas and plonks you right in the Docklands seems like a good option.
Am I misunderstanding what the potential Connolly upgrades could do though? Would it be possible to get, say, 25tph per direction over the Loop Line and the real choke point is actually Connolly?
You're missing the point that Newcome will only be used by Connolly - M3 services. Using the cord allows them to turn back on Platform 7 resulting in only P5&6 been through platforms. This means the remaining Maynooth services will have to operate via North strand and Ossory Rd which infringes onto the Northern line. The impact of all this means Kildare line needs to be reduced and can only operate into Spencer Dock. Also as a result of this clonflict between Northern and Maynooth lines at Ossory road maximum capacity of the LLB is not reached. Jacob's have highlighted clearly that although this may work in simulation it may not be achievable in practice. Another point which I feel hasn't been completely factored in is the extra stop at Glasnevin and level of transfers. Not only will trains be required to stop but more emphasis needs to be put onto the length of time all these transfers are going to take especially with 3 lines converging at Glasnevin and with the close proximity of North Strand. It could be better operationally to transfer at Drumcondra.
As outlined, Spencer Dock is a purpose built station and will be hugely beneficial but I can't see how to justify the cost of it if it's not going to be used for what it's designed for. Docklands is more than capable of providing the planned capacity. If and when its decided to use Spencer Dock as it was intended for then build it otherwise it will be left sitting idly in the back round while Connolly continues to struggle.
If it is a reason of cost then use the Spencer Dock cost to install the Connolly upgrade and revisit Spencer Dock later. The Connolly upgrade would allow more through services including from the Kildare line while Docklands could maintaine its M3 services and even some Kildare line with some minor track renewal works. Connolly upgrade is the only way of unlocking LLB maximum capacity.0 -
Another point which I feel hasn't been completely factored in is the extra stop at Glasnevin and level of transfers. Not only will trains be required to stop but more emphasis needs to be put onto the length of time all these transfers are going to take especially with 3 lines converging at Glasnevin and with the close proximity of North Strand. It could be better operationally to transfer at Drumcondra.
I've been broadly following this discussion as best I can, but there are a few curious things about this part of the earlier post.
Firstly: 'Not only will trains be required to stop (at Glasnevin)' - it is normal that trains stop at an interchange if the system is designed so that passengers on those trains have the ability to change to other trains at that location.
Secondly: 'but more emphasis needs to be put onto the length of time all these transfers are going to take' - I'm surprised by this. An interchange is a location X which is designed for interchange between line A--B and line C--D (and possibly others). If someone gets off line C--D and wants to go to B, they get off at X and they wait for the next train. The train doesn't wait for them. So the trains on both lines stick to their timetable and the length of time for transfers is irrelevant.
Thirdly: 'especially with 3 lines converging at Glasnevin': as with the second point, it is hard to see that this is an issue. On all three of the lines which are proposed to serve a station at Glasnevin the frequency is very high. Changing between these trains should really be quite seamless and quick.
Fourthly: 'It could be better operationally to transfer at Drumcondra': but how would this be done, given that there is currently no proposal for a rail interchange of any sort at Drumcondra?
(In relation to the fourth point, especially, I restate that I have long been in favour of a Drumcondra route for the metrolink, something similar to what was proposed in the original metronorth proposal, but with a bit of tweaking, so that there could be a full 'DART'-metro interchange at Drumcondra. PPT/Maynooth/Dunboyne train passengers could then do all 'non-metro' transferring at Glasnevin).0 -
Splitting transfers between Glasnevin and Drumcondra would mean some passengers would need to unnecessarily transfer an extra time.strassenwo!f wrote: »(In relation to the fourth point, especially, I restate that I have long been in favour of a Drumcondra route for the metrolink, something similar to what was proposed in the original metronorth proposal, but with a bit of tweaking, so that there could be a full 'DART'-metro interchange at Drumcondra. PPT/Maynooth/Dunboyne train passengers could then do all 'non-metro' transferring at Glasnevin).0 -
Will be interesting to see how glasnevin station is built. Presumably there'll be construction on maynooth DART long before there's metro construction. Assuming the projects are actually delivered and too their current programmes0
-
You're missing the point that Newcome will only be used by Connolly - M3 services. Using the cord allows them to turn back on Platform 7 resulting in only P5&6 been through platforms. This means the remaining Maynooth services will have to operate via North strand and Ossory Rd which infringes onto the Northern line. The impact of all this means Kildare line needs to be reduced and can only operate into Spencer Dock. Also as a result of this clonflict between Northern and Maynooth lines at Ossory road maximum capacity of the LLB is not reached. Jacob's have highlighted clearly that although this may work in simulation it may not be achievable in practice. Another point which I feel hasn't been completely factored in is the extra stop at Glasnevin and level of transfers. Not only will trains be required to stop but more emphasis needs to be put onto the length of time all these transfers are going to take especially with 3 lines converging at Glasnevin and with the close proximity of North Strand. It could be better operationally to transfer at Drumcondra.
As outlined, Spencer Dock is a purpose built station and will be hugely beneficial but I can't see how to justify the cost of it if it's not going to be used for what it's designed for. Docklands is more than capable of providing the planned capacity. If and when its decided to use Spencer Dock as it was intended for then build it otherwise it will be left sitting idly in the back round while Connolly continues to struggle.
If it is a reason of cost then use the Spencer Dock cost to install the Connolly upgrade and revisit Spencer Dock later. The Connolly upgrade would allow more through services including from the Kildare line while Docklands could maintaine its M3 services and even some Kildare line with some minor track renewal works. Connolly upgrade is the only way of unlocking LLB maximum capacity.
What's the cost of the other elements of the project then? Looks like they very possibly won't do Spencer Dock and surely there's massive hunger in IÉ to do Connolly, are they short €200m? Surely they'd rather get Maynooth and Kildare right than worry about Drogheda0 -
strassenwo!f wrote: »I've been broadly following this discussion as best I can, but there are a few curious things about this part of the earlier post.
Firstly: 'Not only will trains be required to stop (at Glasnevin)' - it is normal that trains stop at an interchange if the system is designed so that passengers on those trains have the ability to change to other trains at that location.
Secondly: 'but more emphasis needs to be put onto the length of time all these transfers are going to take' - I'm surprised by this. An interchange is a location X which is designed for interchange between line A--B and line C--D (and possibly others). If someone gets off line C--D and wants to go to B, they get off at X and they wait for the next train. The train doesn't wait for them. So the trains on both lines stick to their timetable and the length of time for transfers is irrelevant.
Thirdly: 'especially with 3 lines converging at Glasnevin': as with the second point, it is hard to see that this is an issue. On all three of the lines which are proposed to serve a station at Glasnevin the frequency is very high. Changing between these trains should really be quite seamless and quick.
Fourthly: 'It could be better operationally to transfer at Drumcondra': but how would this be done, given that there is currently no proposal for a rail interchange of any sort at Drumcondra?
(In relation to the fourth point, especially, I restate that I have long been in favour of a Drumcondra route for the metrolink, something similar to what was proposed in the original metronorth proposal, but with a bit of tweaking, so that there could be a full 'DART'-metro interchange at Drumcondra. PPT/Maynooth/Dunboyne train passengers could then do all 'non-metro' transferring at Glasnevin).
I get your point and agree if this is done correctly it should work seamlessly but I think it needs a lot to go right and some concrete timetabling. The potential issues I see here is conflicts rather than ease of transfer. Transfer from a passengers perspective will be simple as it will be the same platform unless their moving between M3 and Kildare or changing east to west bound or vice versa. Besides Connolly this will become the busiest section of the network.
Maybe I'm missing something but here's my take on it. The original plan for Glasnevin was Maynooth would use Newcome Line and Kildare would use North Strand. This has changed and now both will use North Strand while M3 will use Newcome. With the level of frequency on both lines, including the DMU services on Sligo line, that will result in something like 30 movements across the junction. Althought Maynooth bound services won't cross the junction the M3 will narrow the gap and limit the number of paths available. The main platforms are going to handle a train every 1.5mins. The junction itself will have a train use it every 2 mins. They would need to make sure Up and Down Kildare trains cross the junction at pretty much the same time.
To me anyway, that's a very tight squeeze. The stations location will also extend the timeframe that it takes a train to clear the junction. On top of all that its envisoned most of the PPT passengers will transfer here. Depending on the time of day and the spread of demand but that could be anywhere up to 600 people on a 4 car train. Obviously the larger the crowd to move the longer it will take.
On top of all that the same process is repeated twice again at North Strand and Ossory road. I estimate there could be up 10 trains at any given time between signalling blocks of Ossory road - North Strand and Glasnevin. To avoid a build up they'll need to ensure paths are available and not having to wait for a path especially on approach to Connolly. I just feel that it puts an awful lot of pressure on such a small but critical part of the network.
I can't see anyway of avoiding this but maybe if they moved the tie in of the Glasnevin jct. to the eastern end of the station it could reduce it. This would allow eastbound arrivals to enter the station simultaneously. It would be very tight to fit this in and would likely result in a very sharp cross over.0 -
Will be interesting to see how glasnevin station is built. Presumably there'll be construction on maynooth DART long before there's metro construction. Assuming the projects are actually delivered and too their current programmes
Presumably if Metro doesn't go ahead the station will be scrapped. Have they bought the land yet.0 -
Metrolink is going ahead0
-
Advertisement
-
What's the cost of the other elements of the project then? Looks like they very possibly won't do Spencer Dock and surely there's massive hunger in IÉ to do Connolly, are they short €200m? Surely they'd rather get Maynooth and Kildare right than worry about Drogheda
I don't know if it's a case of been short as such. I'd guess it's to present a figure that's palatable. They haven't released what each individual Dart+ project will cost but they've included a cost list on what was deemed necessary key infrastructure installations or upgrades but seem to be skimming them back a bit. It was still saving nearly €2 billion compared to DU so trying to scale it down more is a bit needless.
IE are still dead set on DU happening and I've a feeling they'll go with Spencer Dock at the expense of Connolly to keep that alive.0
Advertisement