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
1…237238240242243…333

Comments

  • Options
    #7172
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    Metrolink is going ahead

    I know but if for some odd reason it doesn't or it gets put on the long finger after this crisis I guess Glasnevin could be pulled. Same with Dart.


  • Options
    #7173
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    IE 222 wrote: »
    I know but if for some odd reason it doesn't or it gets put on the long finger after this crisis I guess Glasnevin could be pulled. Same with Dart.

    Well. We've lived here on square one long enough. :)


  • Options
    #7174
    Strumms
    Registered Users Posts: 24,827 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    IE 222 wrote: »
    I know but if for some odd reason it doesn't or it gets put on the long finger after this crisis I guess Glasnevin could be pulled. Same with Dart.

    Doubt Glasnevin gets pulled. It’s at the very southern tip of Glasnevin. Only a 60 second walk you are in Phibsboro the northern half and eastern segment it will serve too down by the canal. That’s a catchment area, a direct catchment area of around 30,000 plus people.

    Glasnevin and Phibsboro is a catchment area full with City AND airport workers. Add in the connectivity to other places, Swords etc and the station will be busy for the whole time it’s in operation.


  • Options
    #7175
    Dats me
    Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭Dats me


    Looking at it again it's crazy that they're choosing this Do Min option given it's €130m when Option 6B was only €198. Submissions due today for anyone who wants to mention Connolly and Loop Line Bridge capacity that needs to be prioritised. Also cycle parking at the outer stations I'd say.


  • Options
    #7176
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Dats me wrote: »
    Looking at it again it's crazy that they're choosing this Do Min option given it's €130m when Option 6B was only €198. Submissions due today for anyone who wants to mention Connolly and Loop Line Bridge capacity that needs to be prioritised. Also cycle parking at the outer stations I'd say.

    The "do minimum" was option 3 on the report. That's not been done. It's literally track renewal works on the northern throat of the station and there's not even much been renewed. The main addition is a crossover between the up and down Maynooth line before Ossory Rd. This allows a down train to use the up line to exit platform 6. See diagrams below. The faint red lines are new track the faint broken green lines are tracks been removed.

    The drop lock on Newcome curve is been done as well. That's the biggest investment been made in Connolly.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7177
    Thrashssacre
    Registered Users Posts: 1,261 ✭✭✭Thrashssacre


    Does it not make more sense to alternate services between Spencer dock and Connolly/ grand canal Dock so people can board a service that suits them rather then needlessly changing? Having all kildare survives use docklands makes little sense to me split it 50/50 then with more frequent lines like maynooth maybe have every 3rd train use Spencer Dock.


  • Options
    #7178
    Dats me
    Registered Users Posts: 333 ✭✭Dats me


    Thrashssacre wrote: »
    Does it not make more sense to alternate services between Spencer dock and Connolly/ grand canal Dock so people can board a service that suits them rather then needlessly changing? Having all kildare survives use docklands makes little sense to me split it 50/50 then with more frequent lines like maynooth maybe have every 3rd train use Spencer Dock.


    That may happen but it will depend on designs for Glasnevin station. I believe with the Connolly option they're doing it would cause too much conflict to crossover there. In fact the reason there's upset in the thread is that they set a target of 30 trains per hour for Connolly, the option they picked can deliver 23 and the report published on it repeatedly said 23 mightn't even be possible.



    So if they do a big Glasnevin interchange and crossover we may actually see more trains going to Spencer Dock


  • Options
    #7179
    Ireland trains
    Registered Users Posts: 371 ✭✭Ireland trains


    Article is a few weeks old but would anyone with a subscription be kind enough as to post the what it says:
    https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/the-man-who-went-from-tinkering-with-tractors-to-ruling-the-railways-39565051.html


  • Options
    #7180
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,486 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Ireland trains wrote: »
    Article is a few weeks old but would anyone with a subscription be kind enough as to post the what it says:
    https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/the-man-who-went-from-tinkering-with-tractors-to-ruling-the-railways-39565051.html

    Not much interesting:

    - Seems to suggest that the Dart+ project will cost 2.6 Bn
    - Doesn't see any salary cuts at IR due to the current Covid19 difficulties, 64 of his staff earning more then 100k
    - NTA plugging the 200m funding gap
    - Expects 2023 before passenger levels return to 2019 levels.


  • Options
    #7181
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,223 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    IE 222 wrote: »
    The "do minimum" was option 3 on the report. That's not been done. It's literally track renewal works on the northern throat of the station and there's not even much been renewed. The main addition is a crossover between the up and down Maynooth line before Ossory Rd. This allows a down train to use the up line to exit platform 6. See diagrams below. The faint red lines are new track the faint broken green lines are tracks been removed.

    The drop lock on Newcome curve is been done as well. That's the biggest investment been made in Connolly.

    Have they ever looked at an interchange at Connolly with a platform on the line passing underneath to Spencer Dock?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7182
    sdanseo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,233 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Have they ever looked at an interchange at Connolly with a platform on the line passing underneath to Spencer Dock?

    It's nowhere near the station. Docklands station itself is only <50m further away.
    In fact, Kilbarrack and Howth Junction are closer than the Docklands line is to Connolly (ticket barrier)


  • Options
    #7183
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Have they ever looked at an interchange at Connolly with a platform on the line passing underneath to Spencer Dock?

    They did look into a Connolly North station but this was related to one of the alternative DU routes. I can't remember exactly but it might of been Spencer Dock - Pearse turn back tunnel and using the PPT for Kildare line. I think it would've been on the North Strand Jct. line rather than the Newcome and would be a train transfer rather than an extension of Connolly.

    There is no real alternative but to upgrade Connolly. The Connolly area/approach is been hampered with DU plans still pretty much been at the forefront of the plans there. Not upgrading Connolly, disconnecting Newcome Curve, Spencer Dock and routing Kildare services into Docklands via Newcome is planning focused around DU been implemented at a later date.

    They need to complete the additional modelling tests to see if this is actually doable and I'd presume that's why there is very little regarding Glasnevin. Whatever they choose to do with Connolly will dictate what happens with Glasnevin Jct and Newcome Curve. Personally I think they'll need to keep Newcome Curve and upgrade North Strand. I'm sure when Dart South West is released for consultation there will be massive pressure put on them for direct services through Connolly. It would be a right mess and very costly trying to do the upgrades at that point imo.


  • Options
    #7184
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    There should be better access to Connolly, the old dart entrance or an entrance off Seville Place, and access between platforms over the northern end of the platforms.


  • Options
    #7185
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,852 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Should be access from up around Five Lamps too.

    Somebody needs to take a look at the access to Copenhagen Central to see how to maximise access/footfall.


  • Options
    #7186
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    That's some station alright.


  • Options
    #7187
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    There should be better access to Connolly, the old dart entrance or an entrance off Seville Place, and access between platforms over the northern end of the platforms.

    The drawings show potential new exits from platforms 4-7 under the arches onto Preston St. or Amiens St. beside the old garage and possibly another into the new Connolly Quarter via the current subway. These seem to be an alternative to widening the platforms if the additional modelling determines widening is required rather than sensible addition.


  • Options
    #7188
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,771 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    I think there's also supposed to be a bridge connecting the platforms so not everyone has to dog-leg through the underpass to make connections.


  • Options
    #7189
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    loyatemu wrote: »
    I think there's also supposed to be a bridge connecting the platforms so not everyone has to dog-leg through the underpass to make connections.

    That was part of the upgrade. The bridge was to replace the subway been closed due to the platforms been moved northwards.


  • Options
    #7190
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Victor wrote: »
    Splitting transfers between Glasnevin and Drumcondra would mean some passengers would need to unnecessarily transfer an extra time.

    Victor, I've been meaning to reply to this for some time, but other things have unfortunately got in the way.

    I'm still not entirely sure what the IE plans for Glasnevin Junction are, but it does seem to me that they are planning to continue to have rail services on both the current Maynooth line through Drumcondra station and on the Midland line (beside the canal).

    Is it indeed the case that this is what is going to happen, for the foreseeable future?

    If so, then a station on the Midland line in Drumcondra should make sense anyway, to serve that area, with the section around Whitworth Parade being an obvious location for station construction. There seems to be ample space either side of the tracks to put in platforms, perhaps with some relocation of the trees there - if that is deemed necessary. (I'd favour relocation of the wall as the major change, as I quite like having trees on station platforms).

    Even if that's not possible, there would seem to be considerable scope for building another Drumcondra Station - though with more expense, of course - along Whitworth Road. That would probably require narrowing the canal in that area, and considerable earthworks there, but it's hard to see that it would be a major engineering project.

    In any case, either of those projects could tee up construction of a suitable underground location under Drumcondra Road for a very effective metro station with connections to both 'DART' lines.

    The major problem I see with bringing the metro through Glasnevin Junction is that it is a north-south corridor into/out of the city which is very close to the LUAS Green line (also a north-south corridor).

    I think the quality of the line into/out of Broadstone - unimpeded by traffic for several kilometres - offers enormous scope for this line to eventually be improved even beyond the current plans for a LUAS to/from Finglas; diverting the metrolink plans toward Drumcondra - much like in the original metronorth plan, and about halfway between the current DART and the LUAS Green line - would offer less overlap and also provide a better spread of rail transport for the city.


  • Options
    #7191
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,267 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    Victor, I've been meaning to reply to this for some time, but other things have unfortunately got in the way.

    I'm still not entirely sure what the IE plans for Glasnevin Junction are, but it does seem to me that they are planning to continue to have rail services on both the current Maynooth line through Drumcondra station and on the Midland line (beside the canal).
    I think a decision will need to be taken on what platform layout will be done at Glasnevin station - the proposed three platform layout (two lateral and one island platforms) or two island platforms. Two island platforms would mean all eastbound trains could use the GSWR line and all westbound trains could use the MGWR, allowing there to be fast and slow tracks. However, this would mean conflicting train movements at Glasnevin Junction, unless one puts in grade separation.
    If so, then a station on the Midland line in Drumcondra should make sense anyway, to serve that area, with the section around Whitworth Parade being an obvious location for station construction. There seems to be ample space either side of the tracks to put in platforms, perhaps with some relocation of the trees there - if that is deemed necessary. (I'd favour relocation of the wall as the major change, as I quite like having trees on station platforms).

    Even if that's not possible, there would seem to be considerable scope for building another Drumcondra Station - though with more expense, of course - along Whitworth Road. That would probably require narrowing the canal in that area, and considerable earthworks there, but it's hard to see that it would be a major engineering project.

    In any case, either of those projects could tee up construction of a suitable underground location under Drumcondra Road for a very effective metro station with connections to both 'DART' lines.
    About the only place for a Drumcondra station on the MGWR line is between the locks at Drumconra Road and St. Brigid's Road Lower. Further east is impractical as the adjacent properties are too close and further west interferes too much with the canal locks and is too close to Glasnevin.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7192
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Victor wrote: »
    I think a decision will need to be taken on what platform layout will be done at Glasnevin station - the proposed three platform layout (two lateral and one island platforms) or two island platforms. Two island platforms would mean all eastbound trains could use the GSWR line and all westbound trains could use the MGWR, allowing there to be fast and slow tracks. However, this would mean conflicting train movements at Glasnevin Junction, unless one puts in grade separation.

    About the only place for a Drumcondra station on the MGWR line is between the locks at Drumconra Road and St. Brigid's Road Lower. Further east is impractical as the adjacent properties are too close and further west interferes too much with the canal locks and is too close to Glasnevin.

    You couldn't fit a station along Whitworth Rd.


  • Options
    #7193
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Victor wrote: »
    About the only place for a Drumcondra station on the MGWR line is between the locks at Drumconra Road and St. Brigid's Road Lower. Further east is impractical as the adjacent properties are too close and further west interferes too much with the canal locks and is too close to Glasnevin.

    And Whitworth Place, Victor, with entrances from the bridge and from underground? Of course you might lose the trees, but that shouldn't be a problem for an organisation which got ABP approval to remove large numbers of very mature trees from St. Stephen's Green.
    IE 222 wrote: »
    You couldn't fit a station along Whitworth Rd.

    It seems pretty obvious that a station along Whitworth Road would be easy to build, but it would probably require realignment of the tracks, significant earthworks, and temporary closure and eventual narrowing of the canal in that area - but who would be inconvenienced by that? Is there a lot of boat traffic on that stretch?


  • Options
    #7194
    MJohnston
    Registered Users Posts: 10,515 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    **** that — if you want to widen the tracks there for some mad reason, fight it out for space with the motorists on the road. Leave the canal alone.


  • Options
    #7195
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    I don't see any reason why the canal along Whitworth Road couldn't go back to its current size - if it needs to - once a station is built with that prospect in mind. Any experienced civil engineer could come up with a plausible plan for this in an hour or so.

    And it wouldn't be for a mad reason - it would be to provide a direct service for trains on the Midland Line to serve Drumcondra and, if the metro is built, to enable it to be built via Drumcondra for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post: to provide more efficient uptake of north-south traffic across the north city and not to encroach on the catchment area of the current LUAS Green line and its successor(s).

    I am unfortunately reduced to Google Maps because of the virus.


  • Options
    #7196
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,267 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    IE 222 wrote: »
    You couldn't fit a station along Whitworth Rd.
    You could fit it **under** the road.
    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    And Whitworth Place
    Too narrow.
    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    It seems pretty obvious that a station along Whitworth Road would be easy to build, but it would probably require realignment of the tracks, significant earthworks, and temporary closure and eventual narrowing of the canal in that area
    Leave the tracks alone. Put the eastbound platform under the road and the westbound one where the canal bank is now. Perhaps, shift the canal slightly south.
    MJohnston wrote: »
    **** that — if you want to widen the tracks there for some mad reason, fight it out for space with the motorists on the road. Leave the canal alone.
    I'm not suggesting much encroachment on the canal itself.


  • Options
    #7197
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,852 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Why not put a station at Summerhill/Ballybough instead?

    People can change at Glasnevin for Drumcondra if needs be.

    Let's serve as many areas as possible.


  • Options
    #7198
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,267 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Why not put a station at Summerhill/Ballybough instead?
    I am advocating that on the GSWR line. There is plenty of space on the wide embankment west of Ballybough Road. However, the platform curvature would need to be examined.

    With the MGWR line, you are still dealing with the canal, the adjacent roads / properties and curvature.
    People can change at Glasnevin for Drumcondra if needs be.
    Sure, but it adds time and likely means changing platforms in most scenarios.


  • Options
    #7199
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Victor wrote: »
    Too narrow.

    I can't see that. There are houses on Whitworth Parade - which seems to be a cul-de-sac about 110 metres long - then there's the road, and then there's a row of about 13 trees, and then there's a wall separating the trees from the railway track, which is a bit below the level of the trees.

    Move the wall to a position adjacent to the street, dig down to the level of the track and remove any trees which it is necessary to remove (or even replant them at a slightly lower level), and build an eastbound platform. A westbound platform would be even easier.

    In that scenario, the residents of Whitworth Parade would experience very little disruption except during construction, and no long-term change to their quiet street, and would still see trees out of their front window, but just at a lower level.
    Victor wrote: »
    Leave the tracks alone. Put the eastbound platform under the road and the westbound one where the canal bank is now. Perhaps, shift the canal slightly south.

    I'm not suggesting much encroachment on the canal itself.

    This should also be very doable, but I would favour Whitworth Parade because of cost.


  • Options
    #7200
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Why not put a station at Summerhill/Ballybough instead?

    People can change at Glasnevin for Drumcondra if needs be.

    Let's serve as many areas as possible.

    I am in favour of this, but I wouldn't see it as an 'instead' option. It seems to make considerable sense, and as a way of helping to develop that area of Dublin it could be very significant.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7201
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,267 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    This should also be very doable, but I would favour Whitworth Parade because of cost.
    Do you mean Whitworth Place?


Advertisement