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

Sam Russell

Ireland trains wrote: »

Any time lost from additional stops (pelletstown, glasnevin) will b more than compensated by faster acceleration by EMU trains. Look at journey planner between pearse and connolly, dart is about 2 min faster than diesel

Are there different speed limits for diesels? I know there are for locomotives.

Ireland trains

Sam Russell wrote: »

Also, if the train (Dart) has more stops, it is going to take longer. And while every Dart train stops at every station, and no train can pass another, then average journey times will be slow. They need to build in, where possible, passing loops so they can introduce the 'fast' Dart service that gets past the 'slow' Dart in front.

Any time lost from additional stops (pelletstown, glasnevin) will b more than compensated by faster acceleration by EMU trains. Look at journey planner between pearse and connolly, dart is about 2 min faster than diesel

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

I remember going from Heuston to Ennis, change at Limerick Junction. Lovely smooth comfortable trip to LJ, then change onto the rattle wagon to Limerick, and reverse out to go onto Ennis. You are right, the 29000 trains are woeful.

Also, if the train (Dart) has more stops, it is going to take longer. And while every Dart train stops at every station, and no train can pass another, then average journey times will be slow. They need to build in, where possible, passing loops so they can introduce the 'fast' Dart service that gets past the 'slow' Dart in front.

The connecting train at Limerick Junction would have been a 2800 DMU. They serve a purpose on the network where loads are lighter or for relatively shorter journeys. The track from Limerick Junction to Limerick is entirely relaid as CWR so “rattles” should be minimal.

The question about journey times was in relation to the Maynooth line.

The faster acceleration of EMUs over DMUs will compensate for the additional stops on that line.

Now the northern line is a different kettle of fish, but we will have to wait to see the proposals there.

Sam Russell

SeanW wrote: »

You'll also have a dramatically more comfortable ride, the difference between travelling on just about any EMU versus the 29000 Class eardrum splitting, bone-jarring rattleboxes is night and day.

I remember going from Heuston to Ennis, change at Limerick Junction. Lovely smooth comfortable trip to LJ, then change onto the rattle wagon to Limerick, and reverse out to go onto Ennis. You are right, the 29000 trains are woeful.

Also, if the train (Dart) has more stops, it is going to take longer. And while every Dart train stops at every station, and no train can pass another, then average journey times will be slow. They need to build in, where possible, passing loops so they can introduce the 'fast' Dart service that gets past the 'slow' Dart in front.

SeanW

MattS1 wrote: »

So the only benefit then is slightly more frequent trains then?

You'll also have a dramatically more comfortable ride, the difference between travelling on just about any EMU versus the 29000 Class eardrum splitting, bone-jarring rattleboxes is night and day.

Pete_Cavan

LXFlyer wrote: »

Well I really meant that none of them clearly were budgeted for in this project.

As for Kilcock, well project scopes can change - politics is not black and white!

The Dublin Inquirer article which forms the basis of the recent discussion states;

In the DART Expansion Options Assessment Report, a station at Kylemore was included as part of the full expansion, and in thetender for DART+ South West design consultants, Kylemore station was included as a possible element of the works.

The Options Assessment Draft Report from 2018 shows €8.5m in the Cost Breakdowns for both Bundles 2 and 6.

They have to replace the existing Kylemore Road bridge, widen the trackbed to accommodate two additional tracks, install electrical infrastructure, new signalling, etc. It would be mad to not also build at the same time two platforms or even a single island platform (assuming only DARTs will stop there).

LXFlyer

Peregrine wrote: »

A Ballybough station would make much more sense after DART Underground. Right now it would only allow one stop journeys to the Docklands and outward journeys to the Glasnevin interchange and Maynooth.

I don't think Kilcock is comparable to Kylemore, Kilmainham and Cabra. Firstly, an extension to Kilcock is about more than just a station. There's the need to dual track along a tight corridor and electrification before you even think about the work needed for a station there including possible replacement of the only bridge in town. Secondly, it isn't in the GDA Transport Strategy and isn't part of the project scope. DART+ West was always going to terminate at Maynooth. It just so happened that the site they chose for a depot is close to Kilcock. I'd say the collective reaction from Irish Rail/IDOM when people called for an extension to Kilcock was "What?? Oh, I suppose it is nearby...didn't realise.". I'm not against it or anything but it was never going to happen under this project.

Well I really meant that none of them clearly were budgeted for in this project.

As for Kilcock, well project scopes can change - politics is not black and white!

PukkaStukka

spacetweek wrote: »

No clue but it's guaranteed the DART+ engineering boffins must have considered this.

This is why I posed this very question because it's something that shouldn't be assumed as a given, plus I am keen to learn if others in the know may have heard or be aware of the points I've highlighted

Peregrine

A Ballybough station would make much more sense after DART Underground. Right now it would only allow one stop journeys to the Docklands and outward journeys to the Glasnevin interchange and Maynooth.

I don't think Kilcock is comparable to Kylemore, Kilmainham and Cabra. Firstly, an extension to Kilcock is about more than just a station. There's the need to dual track along a tight corridor and electrification before you even think about the work needed for a station there including possible replacement of the only bridge in town. Secondly, it isn't in the GDA Transport Strategy and isn't part of the project scope. DART+ West was always going to terminate at Maynooth. It just so happened that the site they chose for a depot is close to Kilcock. I'd say the collective reaction from Irish Rail/IDOM when people called for an extension to Kilcock was "What?? Oh, I suppose it is nearby...didn't realise.". I'm not against it or anything but it was never going to happen under this project.

Rashers72 wrote: »

Funny despite pages of facts, there is zero mention of any improvement to journey times. From my local station, steam trains stopping could make it to Connolly in 20 minutes. That's more like 40 minutes in 2021. Wonder after this billion EUR investment, what will the improvement be like.

This is something that is often brought up. The focus of modern public transport projects tends to be on increasing frequency and capacity of the service, rather then overall speed.

The modern Dublin rail network carries dozens of times more passengers per day then your old steam engine.

Carrying more people is more important then outright speed. Specially as the congestion on the roads gets worse and worse and the rail journey is quiet competitive anyway.

As for a station at East Wall, to be honest, I don't think there is would be much real demand for it. The area is so close to the city anyway, within easy walking distance and it is so well served by buses, with buses passing every minute or so, that I don't think many people would use the DART anyway to get into town from there even if there was a closer station.

The buses are so much more frequent then the DART and have multiple stops in the area, so more likely to be closer to most people in the area.

I suppose we need to figure out what the DART really is, is it a more suburban type longer distance commuter type service or more frequent local mass transit system like buses and Luas?

Both types have their place of course, but you might want to be careful in watering the DART down too much and trying to make it fit every need. It could end up badly serving everyone instead.

LXFlyer

I suspect that, like Kilcock not being included, additional stations on the southwest line not being included boils down to the funding available and the budget for the project.

I'm not saying it's right to leave them out, anything but, but new stations can be costly, particularly where they require lifts and a footbridge to be installed, as they would on the southwest line, and they don't come cheap.

Now, that being said, you would hope that the responses to the forthcoming consultation may force the issue somewhat and focus political minds.

Many initial consultations are done on that basis - present proposals that people find unacceptable, and therefore force the budget to be increased and include the additions that people want.

spacetweek

Had a read of the Inquirer article, shocking that they want to subject everyone between Parkwest and Drumcondra to the negatives (noise, construction disturbance etc.) but no new stations.
The Kylemore station is a no-brainer (the only constraint on delivering it that I can think of is that they need to leave room for the Lucan Luas stop at the same location) so if they won't commit to that what hope for Islandbridge and Cabra stations.

spacetweek

PukkaStukka wrote: »

If true, what impact does this have on DART+ ?

No clue but it's guaranteed the DART+ engineering boffins must have considered this.

PukkaStukka

I'll throw this one out there for opinion. I'm told there's a big deficit in electricity supply in North County Dublin that's a problem for DART electrification north of Malahide. My sources tell me there's no 38kv supply north of there and possibly as far as Skerries, and what supply is available elsewhere is very limited. My source estimates the engineering effort required to make the required supply available is going to take 5+ years as the higher capacity networks backbones (110kv avd possibly 220kv) all need to be upgraded to cascade the supply down to the 38kv networks. If true, what impact does this have on DART+ ?

cgcsb

MattS1 wrote: »

So the only benefit then is slightly more frequent trains then?

The increase in frequency is massive though and the journey time is still better than and a lot more dependable than road journeys.

spacetweek

Plus with extra stations there would be more places you could go to by train, and more opportunities to change lines.

Qrt

MattS1 wrote: »

So the only benefit then is slightly more frequent trains then?

A lot more frequent actually, every five minutes at peak I believe.

0gac3yjefb5sv7

cgcsb wrote: »

The electric trains give Better acceleration but with new stations the gains could be eaten up and it could be no net improvement in journey time. If expect the answer is little or nothing

So the only benefit then is slightly more frequent trains then?

cgcsb

MattS1 wrote: »

How much faster will the Dart+ make the journey from Maynooth to Dublin City or will it bring any time saving benefit?

The electric trains give Better acceleration but with new stations the gains could be eaten up and it could be no net improvement in journey time. If expect the answer is little or nothing

Rashers72

MattS1 wrote: »

How much faster will the Dart+ make the journey from Maynooth to Dublin City or will it bring any time saving benefit?

Funny despite pages of facts, there is zero mention of any improvement to journey times. From my local station, steam trains stopping could make it to Connolly in 20 minutes. That's more like 40 minutes in 2021. Wonder after this billion EUR investment, what will the improvement be like.

0gac3yjefb5sv7

How much faster will the Dart+ make the journey from Maynooth to Dublin City or will it bring any time saving benefit?

Pete_Cavan

A station between Connolly and Clontarf Road is unlikely to be possible with the multiple junctions and all the crossing of tracks that happens there.

The only option for moving Clontarf Road station north would have to see it moved across to the other side of the bridge. I don't think there is enough space there, it would be opposed by many residents there and would move the station further from East Point with no space for the buses. It would be interesting to see if creating a third platform at the station on the gym side would bring much benefit, it should be possible to do it relatively easily. Ideally an underpass would be provided under the tracks to allow access to the northbound platform rather than having to go up and over, although getting stairs/lifts up on the other side would be very difficult.

Killester station should definitely be moved south which would be more convenient for more people and would make interchanging with buses more attractive.

L1011

LXFlyer wrote: »

Clontarf Road Station had to fit alongside the pre-existing Fairview DART Depot - which requires access to/from the depot for trains in both directions to facilitate stock arriving and departing.

I don't see how you're going to manage direct access to the northbound platform directly from Clontarf Road any more easily than right now, as there are two sidings and a connection to the running lines from the depot to get across.

One thing that might just about work for platform accces would be an access route under the tracks and replace the existing lift with one that goes to ground level plus a compact staircase up maybe just NE of the lift tower.

Would it be sufficient to deal with demand in peaks when Eastpoint is at full desk capacity again? Probably not. And it wouldn't give access closer to Fairview either, you'd still have to access via the existing entrance.

LXFlyer

AngryLips wrote: »

See, this is the type of attitude that ignores the reality of urban commuting. It should be about convenience, and every little inconvenience is amplified every time a journey becomes shorter and more frequent. That's the reason commuter travel requirements differ from other forms of travel by public transport, they are always the shortest and most frequent journeys being made.

So yes it is important to have more convenient access - have you even used the station at all? There's countless flights of stairs to navigate, that's something that would also be eliminated if there was roadside access because the height to the platform is less from the road than it is from the current entrance. Also, users wouldn't need to climb the extra overhead bridge to cross platforms if they can do it from underneath the tracks. Given the station is closest to Fairview and Marino, I'd say that the current entrance is also on the wrong side for most journeys starting or ending at that location.

Of course, IR would have to abandon their post-apocalyptic and budget approach to station design and fit-out if anything were to change.

Clontarf Road Station had to fit alongside the pre-existing Fairview DART Depot - which requires access to/from the depot for trains in both directions to facilitate stock arriving and departing.

I don't see how you're going to manage direct access to the northbound platform directly from Clontarf Road any more easily than right now, as there are two sidings and a connection to the running lines from the depot to get across.

LXFlyer

Sam Russell wrote: »

Look no further the Connolly Dart Station. The entrance is beside the Luas terminal, and requires a walk all the way along the Station, and through the arch to platform 5, and then and underpass to platforms 7 and 7, which takes you past the Dart pedestrian entrance from Amiens St - firmly closed.

That entrance will not be reopening either as it is being converted to office space.

There was far too much anti-social behaviour at that entrance, and numerous serious attacks on IE staff, together with drug dealing and drug taking which is why it was ultimately closed. The close proximity to the street didn't help in that regard.

Sadly that area is blighted with social deprivation and the anti-social issues that come with that. As someone who works close by, that's something I can readily attest to from experience sadly.

I think that the suggested new entrance from Preston Street is probably the best option.

AngryLips

highdef wrote: »

Can you explain in more detail how you would envisage the ideal set-up for ingress and egress at Clontarf Road railway station, taking into account the current track layout, etc? I'm looking at an aerial view of the station and I just figure out how you would get a staircase from the street to the northbound platform without needing to also go over the sidings that are present.

Look I'm happy to disagree with you, so you think the current set-up is sufficient, that's fine. I don't agree, that's also fine, I don't need to come up with an alternative solution to this very specific problem just to validate my broader point. But if you look at progress of public transport in this country, and if you look at the climate targets the country has signed up to, it's very much been about making public transport accessible for everyone and more convenient. Relying on what worked for us before isn't going to get us there and I was just pointing out the problem of this station as an example of a broader problem that's symbolic of something that's worked for us before, but which probably isn't adequate for future needs. The first step probably isn't to fix Clontarf, but to make sure we don't continue building new stations like Clontarf.

highdef

AngryLips wrote: »

So yes it is important to have more convenient access - have you even used the station at all? There's countless flights of stairs to navigate, that's something that would also be eliminated if there was roadside access because the height to the platform is less from the road than it is from the current entrance. Also, users wouldn't need to climb the extra overhead bridge to cross platforms if they can do it from underneath the tracks.

Yes, used it very frequently in the past when I attended the adjacent gym several days a week.

The difference in height from surface level to platform height differs by <1m between the road and the current entrance to the ticket hall. That is absolutely negligible. Or are you talking about an additional entrance/exit dedicated to the northbound platform? If so, I don't see how that would work as you would still need a footbridge to get over the sidings?

If steps are a problem for you (which I'm assuming they are not because you would like them installed at Maynooth), then there is an option of using the elevators. Sure it takes longer but chances are if you can't handle a few steps then you probably don't move about terribly quickly anyway.

Can you explain in more detail how you would envisage the ideal set-up for ingress and egress at Clontarf Road railway station, taking into account the current track layout, etc? I'm looking at an aerial view of the station and I just figure out how you would get a staircase from the street to the northbound platform without needing to also go over the sidings that are present.

AngryLips

highdef wrote: »

The entrance to the station building is pretty much as much east as it can be, taking into account the entrance to the gym plus the positioning of points and sidings amongst other factors.

See, this is the type of attitude that ignores the reality of urban commuting. It should be about convenience, and every little inconvenience is amplified every time a journey becomes shorter and more frequent. That's the reason commuter travel requirements differ from other forms of travel by public transport, they are always the shortest and most frequent journeys being made.

So yes it is important to have more convenient access - have you even used the station at all? There's countless flights of stairs to navigate, that's something that would also be eliminated if there was roadside access because the height to the platform is less from the road than it is from the current entrance. Also, users wouldn't need to climb the extra overhead bridge to cross platforms if they can do it from underneath the tracks. Given the station is closest to Fairview and Marino, I'd say that the current entrance is also on the wrong side for most journeys starting or ending at that location.

Of course, IR would have to abandon their post-apocalyptic and budget approach to station design and fit-out if anything were to change.

loyatemu

highdef wrote: »

I will agree with this. The infrastructure is there, it has been used in the past (I remember it well) and it is of benefit being such a large and sprawling railway station with many different roads and directions to go depending on which place you enter/exit from/to.

is Connolly Platform 8 still on the plans? Access from Seville Place could be designed into that maybe...

CatInABox

L1011 wrote: »

North Strand has very poor potential station locations and realistically the northern entrance to Connolly that is proposed as part of the DART+ West (Maynooth line) upgrades will cover much of the area that the best location would.

I get that there's issues with North Strand, but it's still insane that there's going to be two dart lines going through there with no stop. I had been thinking that a stop at the bridge over Ballybough Road was possible, the curve there is very slight. The distances involved from both Connolly and Drumcondra work out as well, just about.

Proximity to Croke Park might be an issue there though, I recall they had some kind of planning restriction on train station distances from the stadium or some such.

AngryLips wrote: »

The problem is really the location of Clontarf Road station. It is set so far off the road that it poorly serves the adjacent areas. A stop at bridge over East Wall Road would better cater to Fairview, East Wall and North Strand. And Clontarf Road itself would be better located if it was situated where the train goes over the Howth Road.

This is actually a broader problem with Irish Rail's urban stations. The fact is that Irish Rail don't know how to built commuter train stations. Most of them are so far offset from main local arteries and destination centres as to make them unappealing to the user. Getting to the station itself shouldn't involve or require a major detour - look at Maynooth Station as another example, couldn't the platform have been built under the Straffan Road or just beside it so that you have step access right from the road?

Killester station has to be one of the worst locations as well, or at least one of the worst "missed opportunities". The line goes underneath Collins Ave, which is going to be a an Orbital route, but the station itself is tucked in a tiny little estate, with paths that are so narrow it's difficult to walk on them, never mind push a buggy or wheelchair on them. The platforms are 80 metres away from Collins Avenue, but to walk to the entrance is at least 400 metres. Very frustrating.