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

strassenwo!f

Victor wrote: »

Do you mean Whitworth Place?

Yes, Victor, I beg your pardon.

Whitworth Place was what I meant.

strassenwo!f

And, of course, I beg the pardon of other readers of the board. It was a stupid mistake, and my only defence is that there are quite a number of 'Parade's around that part of the city.:o

strassenwo!f

And it's not a cul-de-sac, as I originally said:o - it leads into Whitworth Avenue, though that shouldn't affect anything about what I wrote above.

Pete_Cavan

strassenwo!f wrote: »

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 Metro station is going to be at Glasnevin and that will have far better access to both DART lines and be infinitely easier and cheaper to construct than a DART station squeezed in along Whitworth Road and a Metro station which would have to be mined out under multiple roads and buildings. Any station along Whitworth Road would be 150m+ horizontally from Drumcondra station plus a significant vertical level difference, nobody in their right minds would choose that over putting the station which the tracks are practically side by side less than 1km away.

At Glasnevin Junction, CPOing a couple of parcels of land, when combined with IE lands there, creates a significant area to do the works entirely off public roads and minimal impact on the canal. A station along Whitworth Road will impact both public roads and canal and fcuk knows how you would build a metro station there linking existing Drumcondra and new stations. In any case, significant track reworkings are required at Glasnevin junction, it makes sense to incorporate the station as part of this rather than having multiple large work sites for different purposes and then trying to tie it all together.

You seem to set yourself challenges of taking some illogical and impractical idea and desperately arguing for it.

gjim

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.

I've can't see why would you want to do this? What exactly would be the advantages of such a configuration?

Both GSWR and MGWR should carry both east and westbound trains - the Midlands line can carry "express" trains while the other will have stops in Drumcondra and maybe in future a new station around Ballybough/North Strand. What's the problem with this set-up?

Using the GSWR for all eastbound trains and MGWR for all westbound trains, requires the tricky construction of a new station near to Drumcondra, makes the existing westbound platform in Drumcondra useless, requires re-configuring platforms not only in Glasnevin but also in Connolly or Docklands/Spenser Dock or else introducing new conflicting track works on the approach to Connolly or Docklands/Spensor dock.

The Newcomen curve would have to be rebuilt and you also need to funnel both lines into Docklands/Spenser dock so that any terminating trains could do the return trip.

It would double the cost of any future stations/stops - for example, providing a stop in Ballybough/North Strand would require constructing TWO stations about 400m apart - one of which, again, would require tricky cut n' cover/culverting a canal/etc.

Why would you wilfully introduce all this cost, complexity and disruption?

IE 222

strassenwo!f wrote: »

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.

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?

That's a colossal amount of work and you would still have access problems on Whitworth Road. Whitworth Place offers a suitable location for a station but would still require the banks to rebuilt and slightly widened. The large yard behind the Croke Park hotel could allow enough space for access and footbridge ect. and install a walkway up to the IE access gate on Whitworth Place. Clonmore Terrace is another location for a possible station.

MJohnston

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

You seem to set yourself challenges of taking some illogical and impractical idea and desperately arguing for it.

I've never seen said poster more eloquently described!

marno21

Tender out for topographical survey of the the Kildare line for DART+ South West

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/177297/0/0?returnUrl=ctm/Supplier/publictenders&b=ETENDERS_SIMPLE

SeanW

I spent some time in Drumcondra and I don't think a new Midland line station by Whitworth Road will happen. It is theoretically possible, but it would involve moving the line a little to the North and doing some work underground cut-and-cover. At minimum, it would mean digging up Whitworth Road and likely the front gardens and driveways of the houses along the road near Drumcondra Road. A station at Whitworth Place, where the line is out in the open, would be more likely.

That said, if expansion plans were really ambitious, one could dig up that part of Whitworth Road to have a Midland-Drumcondra station, build an underground passage linking it with the current Drumcondra elevated station, and make the whole thing one big 'station' with 4 tracks/platforms. That would be nice, but I suspect the odds of something like that happening are a number rhyming with Nero.

BTW I think Victor above talked about the plans for Glasnevin Junction? Could someone post those? I haven't seen them.

Victor

SeanW wrote: »

BTW I think Victor above talked about the plans for Glasnevin Junction? Could someone post those? I haven't seen them.

I'm not sure they have explained a whole lot about Glasnevin station or junction. The junction on one of the drawings is shown as two tracks crossing two tracks with diamond crossings. I iwoner if there is space to grade separate it. The supports to the canal will need to be impressive.

Sam Russell

Is this not covered in the Metrolink documentation?

strassenwo!f

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The Metro station is going to be at Glasnevin and that will have far better access to both DART lines and be infinitely easier and cheaper to construct than a DART station squeezed in along Whitworth Road and a Metro station which would have to be mined out under multiple roads and buildings.

You are certainly right that it would be much easier to construct a metro station at Glasnevin Junction. But a metro station at Drumcondra would really only need to be built under one road - Drumcondra Road Lower - with probably only peripheral work under other roads.

The number of cities which have built metro stations under roads must, at this stage, be in the hundreds. There should be considerable expertise about how to do something like this.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Any station along Whitworth Road would be 150m+ horizontally from Drumcondra station plus a significant vertical level difference, nobody in their right minds would choose that over putting the station which the tracks are practically side by side less than 1km away.

I make it that it is about 164 metres between the two outside 'DART' lines, in a situation where those lines were, say, at the current Drumcondra station and a station at Whitworth Place.

So it would almost certainly involve a longer walk to get between the metro and a DART: if a metro train is 60m long, then it should be about 50 m from the back or front of one to a 'DART' line, if a station were built at Drumcondra. Escalators between levels would also effectively reduce this, but it would not be a poor interchange by the standards of other cities.

A major flaw with the Glasnevin Junction plan - quite apart from my worry that it would eat into the catchment of the LUAS Green Line and whatever successors that line might have - is that the local population, and the population density, is much higher at Drumcondra than it is at Glasnevin Junction.

To illustrate this, if you take the 7 electoral districts broadly around Glasnevin Junction (Botanic A, B and C, Cabra East A and B, Cabra West B and Inns Quay A), these have a total area of 4.759 sq.km, the total population is 24,760 and the density is 5,203 people per sq.km. (2016 census figures).

Against this, if you take the 8 electoral districts broadly around a possible metro station at Drumcondra, with connections to both 'DART' lines (Drumcondra South A, B and C, Botanic B and C, Inns Quay A, Ballybough B and Mountjoy

, these have a total area of 3.814 sq.km. (i.e. smaller than the above), a total population of 27,561 (i.e. higher than above) and a density of 7,226 per sq.km (i.e. around 40% higher than at Glasnevin Junction).

Somebody with greater technology would probably be able to come up with exact figures about the catchments within 5 minutes, 10 minutes walk, etc., of the two possible stations, but the basic message has, I hope, been outlined above: it is not only the people changing to and from the metro which should matter, but also those who would use it without changing.

I think a metro station under Drumcondra Road Lower could be very fine: connections at both ends to a 'DART', a much better local catchment, long -term, compared to Glasnevin Junction, and - since the metro would still have to go under the canal - the possibility for a mezzanine level with even more shops and other stuff in what is already a busy area. It could be great.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

At Glasnevin Junction, CPOing a couple of parcels of land, when combined with IE lands there, creates a significant area to do the works entirely off public roads and minimal impact on the canal. A station along Whitworth Road will impact both public roads and canal and fcuk knows how you would build a metro station there linking existing Drumcondra and new stations. In any case, significant track reworkings are required at Glasnevin junction, it makes sense to incorporate the station as part of this rather than having multiple large work sites for different purposes and then trying to tie it all together.

Yes, it's easy to build all this at Glasnevin Junction. But if you're not going to significantly increase the population around that area - by around 40% or so - it's hard to see how the metrolink would be as effective (in terms of picking up and delivering people) as a metrolink through Drumcondra. Think of the above as a proposed tweaking of the original metronorth route, to take account of the new reality that Dublin now has trains running through both ends of Drumcondra Road Lower - which it didn't have when the RPA went for their railway order.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

You seem to set yourself challenges of taking some illogical and impractical idea and desperately arguing for it.

My feeling would be that there is a point to short-term pain - in this case in Drumcondra - if there is to be a long-term gain in overall efficiency in passenger uptake and delivery.

donvito99

Can we set up another "I think this major piece of infrastructure should be built differently for no discernable benefit" thread for Strassenwolf please.

strassenwo!f

donvito99 wrote: »

Can we set up another "I think this major piece of infrastructure should be built differently for no discernable benefit" thread for Strassenwolf please.

I was replying to a post on this thread. I can't really help it if you don't agree with my views, but I don't see how I could have done it any other way.

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we keep this thread on topic, and refrain from attacking posters.

specialbyte

One of the disadvantages of a Drumcondra MetroLink interchange station is that it would also create a worse interchange between the two DART lines. The proposed Glasnevin station will have both DART lines and stations in one place. It would make interchange easy for someone trying to do a journey like Coolmine to Glasnevin on the Maynooth line, then change onto the Hazelhatch Line to Park West.

strassenwo!f

specialbyte wrote: »

One of the disadvantages of a Drumcondra MetroLink interchange station is that it would also create a worse interchange between the two DART lines. The proposed Glasnevin station will have both DART lines and stations in one place. It would make interchange easy for someone trying to do a journey like Coolmine to Glasnevin on the Maynooth line, then change onto the Hazelhatch Line to Park West.

But I don't think anybody has suggested that there would be a DART-DART interchange at Drumcondra. As far as I know, everyone here is in favour of a DART-DART interchange at Glasnevin Junction, which makes considerable sense and should be quite simple to build, and everybody - at least everybody on this thread - is in favour of such a change.

There should be no worries there for your change.

Sam Russell

strassenwo!f wrote: »

But I don't think anybody has suggested that there would be a DART-DART interchange at Drumcondra. As far as I know, everyone here is in favour of a DART-DART interchange at Glasnevin Junction, which makes considerable sense and should be quite simple to build, and everybody - at least everybody on this thread - is in favour of such a change.

There should be no worries there for your change.

Any interchange Dart/Dart or Metro/Dart will be at Cross Guns (Glasnevin). Look at the Metrolink documentation.

CatInABox

EDIT: I thought better of my post. Moving on.

marno21

Tender out for ground investigations along the Kildare line for DART+ South West

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/179177/0/0?returnUrl=ctm/Supplier/publictenders&b=ETENDERS_SIMPLE

marno21

IE have filed a Railway Order Pre-Application Consultation with An Bord Pleanala for DART+ South West

http://pleanala.ie/casenum/308826.htm

For reference, they filed with ABP for the Maynooth line project on 12th February last.

roadmaster

I see Irish Rail have re advertised for full engineering/construction team for these projects

https://www.irishrail.ie/en-IE/about-us/company-information/career-opportunities-at-iarnrod-eireann/Capital-Investments-Recruitment

Fiddle Castro

IR have updated the FAQs for Dart+ West, not sure how long ago but they appear to take into account some concerns that would have been raised.

https://www.irishrail.ie/contact-us/faqs/DART_West

CatInABox

Fiddle Castro wrote: »

IR have updated the FAQs for Dart+ West, not sure how long ago but they appear to take into account some concerns that would have been raised.

https://www.irishrail.ie/contact-us/faqs/DART_West

That looks like it's still being worked on, such as this:

We will endeavour to maintain weekday passenger services during the construction phase. However, there this will require construction works during night time periods. There may be a Q. I regularly travel on the Maynooth line/M3 Parkway, what will DART+ West do for me after the project is finished and the line is electrified? Q. I regularly travel on the Maynooth line/ M3 Parkway Line to & from the city centre, what will change for me when the project is being constructed? 29 September 2020 Page 2 requirement for specific daytime works on the railway corridor, but where such works occur we will endeavour to limit these disruptions to weekends and off-peak times as much as possible. The public will be advised in advance of any planned disruptions to services and alternative services/connections that will be bus provided. Details of the likely phasing and any potential disruptions to services will be identified as the project progresses.

Maybe they pushed it live before it was meant to, either way it still needs some more work.

spacetweek

Dart+ West (maynooth) due to apply for PP in mid-2021. Does anyone know when DART+ Southwest is due for the same?

Peregrine

spacetweek wrote: »

Dart+ West (maynooth) due to apply for PP in mid-2021. Does anyone know when DART+ Southwest is due for the same?

Q3..so probably Q4. The public consultation for DART+ Southwest will start very soon.

1huge1

spacetweek wrote: »

Dart+ West (maynooth) due to apply for PP in mid-2021. Does anyone know when DART+ Southwest is due for the same?

Assuming its granted (would a 6month timeline be realistic for that to happen?), could we expect construction to start on this in c. 12months time?

blinkins0n

Regarding Dart+ West will there be more public consultations or are the current preferred options already confirmed for planning permission?

No updates on Irish rail site since Q3 2020.

Thanks.

spacetweek

1huge1 wrote: »

Assuming its granted (would a 6month timeline be realistic for that to happen?), could we expect construction to start on this in c. 12months time?

I'd love to think so - I'd even hope for less than 6 months for the decision.

yascaoimhin

just reading Iarnród Éireann's 2027 Strategy and I noticed a difference in language used for the proposals for DART+. On the Maynooth Part of DART + they make specific reference to level Crossing REMOVAL, whereas on the Bray/Greystoneas Branch the only mention Level Crossing CLOSURE.

I was thinking ti would be fairly impossible to close all 4 level crossings in Sandymount without expensive engineering changes, maybe they're considering just closing them at peak hours?