DART+ (DART Expansion)

yascaoimhin · 13-05-2021 4:09pm

spacetweek wrote: »

I had a look at Google Maps. Part of the reason for not going ahead with Kylemore/Cabra may be that both future station locations are only 15 mins walk from Luas.

This is working under the assumption that all these people want to go into town.

What if someone works in Park West? What if they work in James' Hospital? Or Tallaght?

The next Dublin Transport Network has to enable fast and frequent journeys to be made from one part of the city to other parts of the city and not just to town.

bk · 13-05-2021 4:45pm

I get what you are both are saying. However how many people are making those journeys? Enough to justify the cost of an extra station? Enough to justify the extra time you add to journeys for an extra stop? Do those people have alternatives like buses, etc. for those journeys?

The reality is the vast majority of people are heading into town, if you take those out, then a business case would look much weaker.

One thing you need to be careful of is trying to squeeze in too many stations. You risk becoming like Dublin Bus then with too frequent stops and too slow a service.

I think we need to ask the question, what is DART+ supposed to be? A frequent stopping service or more a mid distance commuter service? Commuter services tend to have quiet a different stopping pattern to something like a Luas/Bus or even a Metro.

Having said that, with DU I think the cost of an extra stop would certainly be worth it, without, I can see it being somewhat marginal.

loyatemu · 13-05-2021 4:51pm

there are stops on the existing Dart line that are less than 1km apart. This line will have 10km with no stations.

Everyone is heading for the city centre because our entire transport system is focussed on that, and it's very difficult to make other journeys.

It's hare-brained to spend 10s of millions upgrading a line that has hardly any stations on it. if they're not built as part of this project, they won't be built for decades. This is up there with the original unconnected Luas lines for short-sighted penny-pinching.

Peregrine · 13-05-2021 5:00pm

Kylemore Road was absolutely part of the project until recently. If it's not in the scope of the project now then that means it was removed from the scope of the project when or after design started.

It was proposed as a station in the 2018 report which established the emerging preferred route for the Hazelhatch-Heuston section. It was costed in that report and again in the 2018 DART Expansion options report. It was specifically mentioned in the 2019 tender for the consultants who are now designing DART+ South West. Yes, it says "may" but it was important enough to name check and it means someone later decided that it should be dropped.

IE 222 wrote: »

Is the Klymore figure after the prep work been done in the us project?

Seen as Oranmore is been allocated €12 million for a new loop and second platform €7 million for a complete 4 platform Dart station in Dublin is literally peanuts.

I'm not entirely sure because they were both from cost breakdowns of the entire DART+ South West project where Kylemore Road was part of the project before this "not in the scope of the project" stuff started. So it's difficult to separate them.

One of the biggest costs for Kylemore Road is the gradient. The tracks are on a slope and will have to be stabilised for the length of the station. If they're building in provision for a future station, it's likely that they will do this part now. Otherwise, it's not really provision for a future station if you have to lower the tracks later.

cgcsb · 13-05-2021 5:04pm

bk wrote: »

I get what you are both are saying. However how many people are making those journeys? Enough to justify the cost of an extra station? Enough to justify the extra time you add to journeys for an extra stop? Do those people have alternatives like buses, etc. for those journeys?

The reality is the vast majority of people are heading into town, if you take those out, then a business case would look much weaker.

One thing you need to be careful of is trying to squeeze in too many stations. You risk becoming like Dublin Bus then with too frequent stops and too slow a service.

I think we need to ask the question, what is DART+ supposed to be? A frequent stopping service or more a mid distance commuter service? Commuter services tend to have quiet a different stopping pattern to something like a Luas/Bus or even a Metro.

Having said that, with DU I think the cost of an extra stop would certainly be worth it, without, I can see it being somewhat marginal.

On that basis we should pull all the orbital bus routes from bus connects as the don't go to town.

There's no fear of there being too many sations by adding three to this line. At present the line goes right past the country's largest intercity station and doesn't stop. :pac:

It's a 10k run without stopping, completely unsuitable for an urban rail system. Dublin is only about 12km across from Sea to M50, it's a mental proposal to have a high capacity rail system doing that, nothing short of mental. It wouldn't even happen in Tokyo, yet alone a relatively small city like Dublin.

BonnieSituation · 13-05-2021 5:45pm

bk wrote: »

Which kind of shows why it might not make sense to build a station here yet, at least until DART Underground comes along.

The 79/a will already get you into town from there pretty fast with no changes. A DART station there wouldn't be any faster either and likely quiet a bit slower. DART from there into Heuston, then the long walk out to change onto the Luas (if you can get on it, already well overcrowded by Heuston). I can't see it being a particularly popular option.

Of course with DU, that would all change and would be well worth it then.

That's "An Lár-ism" of the highest order.

Kylemore opens and all of a sudden commuting to Naas is viable from Ballyfermot etc. It's not all about the city.

Opening stations is never a bad idea especially one that is in such a prime spot.

Pete_Cavan · 13-05-2021 5:46pm

IE 222 wrote: »

The plans show station platforms will run under the bridge. An island won't work due to bridge design and the proximity of Inchicore. It will be a 4 platform station. The bridge is also designed to be widened for future Luas line which I'd suspect is where a station entrance/building would be located.

Which document shows platforms will run under the bridge? The Consultation Brochure shows a section through the bridge with the central tracks very close to the intermediate bridge support. Lots of space outside the outer tracks so certainly doesn't look like platforms will run under the bridge.

The documents also state "a potential future railway station to the west of the bridge", so to one side rather than under.

BonnieSituation · 13-05-2021 5:55pm

bk wrote: »

I get what you are both are saying. However how many people are making those journeys? Enough to justify the cost of an extra station? Enough to justify the extra time you add to journeys for an extra stop? Do those people have alternatives like buses, etc. for those journeys?

The reality is the vast majority of people are heading into town, if you take those out, then a business case would look much weaker.

One thing you need to be careful of is trying to squeeze in too many stations. You risk becoming like Dublin Bus then with too frequent stops and too slow a service.

I think we need to ask the question, what is DART+ supposed to be? A frequent stopping service or more a mid distance commuter service? Commuter services tend to have quiet a different stopping pattern to something like a Luas/Bus or even a Metro.

Having said that, with DU I think the cost of an extra stop would certainly be worth it, without, I can see it being somewhat marginal.

I'm sure you'd have no issue with Sandymount closing given the proximity of Sydney Parade and Lansdowne Road.

The removal of the stop from the plans didn't bother me that much as I figured it would be a separate project and would streamline Dart+SW overall. But I have a feeling that it was merely classist. It makes no sense to remove it if the works being done at the bridge are happening anyway. Not a lick of sense.

The fact is, the people of Ballyfermot have put up with the air and noise pollution given their proximity to the line and the Works and have had no station.

A station between Le Fanu Road and Kylemore Road with entrances at both ends would revolutionise the area and completely open up the light industrial area to the south of the line to development. And are you telling me if you told people in the area that they could be in Heuston in 4min or Drumcondra within 20 that they wouldn't use it?

If a station in Cabra and Ballyfermot isn't viable then you need to tell me why we have Kishoge and Fonthill on the line.

Tomrota · 13-05-2021 6:51pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That's "An Lár-ism" of the highest order.

Kylemore opens and all of a sudden commuting to Naas is viable from Ballyfermot etc. It's not all about the city.

Opening stations is never a bad idea especially one that is in such a prime spot.

Naas isn’t getting DART. Despite the Dublin Suburban Rail Strategic Review recommended electrification of the line as far as Sallins/Naas or Kildare. And a platform for change - an integrated transportation strategy for the greater Dublin area recommending four tracking from Cherry orchard to Sallins. The area already lacks public transport infrastructure and has some the largest amounts of housing developments in the entire country. As Kildare’s largest metropolitan area/commuter town, I think it’s scandalous it is not included with this project.

The government really isn’t serious about getting cars off the N7.

IE 222 · 13-05-2021 9:03pm

bk wrote: »

I get what you are both are saying. However how many people are making those journeys? Enough to justify the cost of an extra station? Enough to justify the extra time you add to journeys for an extra stop? Do those people have alternatives like buses, etc. for those journeys?

The reality is the vast majority of people are heading into town, if you take those out, then a business case would look much weaker.

One thing you need to be careful of is trying to squeeze in too many stations. You risk becoming like Dublin Bus then with too frequent stops and too slow a service.

I think we need to ask the question, what is DART+ supposed to be? A frequent stopping service or more a mid distance commuter service? Commuter services tend to have quiet a different stopping pattern to something like a Luas/Bus or even a Metro.

Having said that, with DU I think the cost of an extra stop would certainly be worth it, without, I can see it being somewhat marginal.

You seem to be forgetting this ain't just a little jaunt into Hueston. The PPT is the difference here and we've seen just how much demand the PPT has created in the rural areas already with restricted capacity.

Dart+ will be a blend of both frequent stoppers and mid range commuting trains. The longer distance trains will run semi express with pick up points at terminal stops for the skipped stations.

IE 222 · 13-05-2021 9:10pm

Peregrine wrote: »

Kylemore Road was absolutely part of the project until recently. If it's not in the scope of the project now then that means it was removed from the scope of the project when or after design started.

It was proposed as a station in the 2018 report which established the emerging preferred route for the Hazelhatch-Heuston section. It was costed in that report and again in the 2018 DART Expansion options report. It was specifically mentioned in the 2019 tender for the consultants who are now designing DART+ South West. Yes, it says "may" but it was important enough to name check and it means someone later decided that it should be dropped.

I'm not entirely sure because they were both from cost breakdowns of the entire DART+ South West project where Kylemore Road was part of the project before this "not in the scope of the project" stuff started. So it's difficult to separate them.

One of the biggest costs for Kylemore Road is the gradient. The tracks are on a slope and will have to be stabilised for the length of the station. If they're building in provision for a future station, it's likely that they will do this part now. Otherwise, it's not really provision for a future station if you have to lower the tracks later.

I'd imagine it's a cost of just putting the actual station structure in. The bridge works and associated clearance and ground works would've driven that way up.

Yeah the gradient is been leveled out. It didn't seem to bad but it will be well within the limits as it needs to be done for the bridge either way.

IE 222 · 13-05-2021 9:18pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Which document shows platforms will run under the bridge? The Consultation Brochure shows a section through the bridge with the central tracks very close to the intermediate bridge support. Lots of space outside the outer tracks so certainly doesn't look like platforms will run under the bridge.

The documents also state "a potential future railway station to the west of the bridge", so to one side rather than under.

I can't seem to link it but it's well and truly detailed and explained in the Annex 3.5 technical klymore area. Page 41 shows diagram of platforms ect and then there is also details regarding this and how the station will be built.

MyLove4Satan · 13-05-2021 11:44pm

IE 222 wrote: »

I can't seem to link it but it's well and truly detailed and explained in the Annex 3.5 technical klymore area. Page 41 shows diagram of platforms ect and then there is also details regarding this and how the station will be built.

The Ballyfemot Station issue is gaining serious traction in the mainstream media and like Cabra (old cement terminal) isn't going to go away.

cgcsb · 14-05-2021 9:32am

Solidarity and SF could make this a class war of attrition and to be honest, I wouldn't usually side with them but on this occasion will back them 100%

yascaoimhin · 14-05-2021 10:34am

MyLove4Satan wrote: »

The Ballyfemot Station issue is gaining serious traction in the mainstream media and like Cabra (old cement terminal) isn't going to go away.

We (Dublin Commuter Coalition) sent a tip to Dublin Inquirer a few weeks back and they did a big story about it and then a press release to all the major outlets and all the local councillors and TDs the morning it was announced.

It's a good thing we did because most outlets didn't even report that the Consultation was open never mind consider any of the pushback.

we had a load of requests for comment late yesterday as they all seem to picking up the story now that others are reporting it.

Pete_Cavan · 14-05-2021 12:50pm

Anyone else not getting into the Consultation Room site now?

VeryOwl · 14-05-2021 1:19pm

I agree that the stations should have been included and IE/NTA are rightly being blasted in the media for taking half a decade to cook up a plan for an urban railway that doesn't include any new stations in dense parts of the city. What were they thinking??

If we're going to be doing these upgrades we need to get the most out of the infrastructure. The project is good and necessary, but decisions like that really undermine it, and make the optics poor too.

Hopefully the public consultation response will make them see sense.

AngryLips · 14-05-2021 4:15pm

bk wrote: »

While the line is there, the services currently servicing it certainly do not have the capacity to take on 10's of thousands of extra passengers that massive new developments would bring.

DART+ is needed to bring the needed capacity and it also tends to increase the attractiveness for both developers and buyers.

DART has been extremely successful and DART+ will open up West Dublin in much the same way.

There's capacity for 12 trains per hour - is there even close to that many services towards Docklands/Grand Canal Dock at the minute in addition to other Heuston services? You could provide a clockface service through the PPT without hitting that capacity.

bk · 14-05-2021 5:36pm

Maybe this is all a really smart plan by IR to get the government parties, plus SF all riled up about this and then get them to throw extra money at the project to build extra stations

In particular if they can get SF to make a big deal on it, that could be very helpful to keep the project going in future if they end up in government.

IE 222 · 14-05-2021 6:44pm

bk wrote: »

Maybe this is all a really smart plan by IR to get the government parties, plus SF all riled up about this and then get them to throw extra money at the project to build extra stations

In particular if they can get SF to make a big deal on it, that could be very helpful to keep the project going in future if they end up in government.

I think this could be part of it alright. The whole project, well parts that have been publicly confirmed and released so far, all seem to just fall short in one way or another. Connolly upgrade, extensions, new stations not been in the scope ect. I feel it's all purposely been done to get more money for a revised and cheaper DU.

Adding the likes of Cabra, Klymore, Kilcock into a DU project will add very little cost to but drive the ridership numbers way up. There will be plenty of capacity to run a PPT service to Bray or Dun Laoghaire with DU.

Oddly, SF have been sticking their ore in on rail projects over last few years. They've been somewhat vocal in Galway, Navan ect the last few years.

Bsharp · 14-05-2021 9:33pm

IE 222 wrote: »

I think this could be part of it alright. The whole project, well parts that have been publicly confirmed and released so far, all seem to just fall short in one way or another. Connolly upgrade, extensions, new stations not been in the scope ect. I feel it's all purposely been done to get more money for a revised and cheaper DU.

Adding the likes of Cabra, Klymore, Kilcock into a DU project will add very little cost to but drive the ridership numbers way up. There will be plenty of capacity to run a PPT service to Bray or Dun Laoghaire with DU.

Oddly, SF have been sticking their ore in on rail projects over last few years. They've been somewhat vocal in Galway, Navan ect the last few years.

Sadly it's with a view to get any money at all. There's a firm belief that money won't be available for anything above what's already allocated, if even. The initial NDP budget allocations aren't achievable and never were.

I don't necessarily agree with removing key elements for this purpose but I understand why. Irish Rail is aware that the price will be way over original proposed if everything is included.

Politicians announce projects at lower prices to get them off the ground and be able to give one to everyone in the room. Project lifecycle means they're rarely held to account. It's like MetroLink costing 4bn, be closer to 10bn all going well.

Cyndaquil · 14-05-2021 11:03pm

IE 222 wrote: »

I think this could be part of it alright. The whole project, well parts that have been publicly confirmed and released so far, all seem to just fall short in one way or another. Connolly upgrade, extensions, new stations not been in the scope ect. I feel it's all purposely been done to get more money for a revised and cheaper DU.

Adding the likes of Cabra, Klymore, Kilcock into a DU project will add very little cost to but drive the ridership numbers way up. There will be plenty of capacity to run a PPT service to Bray or Dun Laoghaire with DU.

Oddly, SF have been sticking their ore in on rail projects over last few years. They've been somewhat vocal in Galway, Navan ect the last few years.

And Galway rail is in plans for Oranmore etc.

We definitely need more infrastructure in north Dublin . Airport line was IEs plan and should never have stopped

IE 222 · 14-05-2021 11:50pm

Bsharp wrote: »

Sadly it's with a view to get any money at all. There's a firm belief that money won't be available for anything above what's already allocated, if even. The initial NDP budget allocations aren't achievable and never were.

I don't necessarily agree with removing key elements for this purpose but I understand why. Irish Rail is aware that the price will be way over original proposed if everything is included.

Politicians announce projects at lower prices to get them off the ground and be able to give one to everyone in the room. Project lifecycle means they're rarely held to account. It's like MetroLink costing 4bn, be closer to 10bn all going well.

Even if been held back by budget limits the minor no brainer exclusions such as Klymore, Carbra are absolute pittance to the overall project. Other big ticket items like Connolly rebuild you'd understand been sidelined if that's the case but there is other aspects of the project like Spencer Dock going ahead which will remain under utilized for a very long time and would free up large sums to be spent elsewhere and capitalised on immediately.

I agree €4 billion for MN is been extremely optimistic and will likely result in another NCH.

IE 222 · 15-05-2021 12:01am

Cyndaquil wrote: »

And Galway rail is in plans for Oranmore etc.

We definitely need more infrastructure in north Dublin . Airport line was IEs plan and should never have stopped

Pretty sure it's still on their radar although I think it would require quad tracking of the northern line.

Was putting a station box in the airport stop for heavy rail looked into with MN?

Cyndaquil · 15-05-2021 4:09pm

IE 222 wrote: »

Pretty sure it's still on their radar although I think it would require quad tracking of the northern line.

Was putting a station box in the airport stop for heavy rail looked into with MN?

You would think. We stand out badly by other European countries by not having rail connection. Ideally both metro and heavy.

cgcsb · 15-05-2021 4:27pm

The main Dub-Bel line should be moved closer to the M1 between Drogheda and Dublin with a stop at the airport and then let the existing northern line run as DART only. It would also mean Dundalk and Drogheda commuters could have a fast service to Dublin without stopping everywhere along the North Dublin coast.

BonnieSituation · 15-05-2021 4:29pm

cgcsb wrote: »

The main Dub-Bel line should be moved closer to the M1 between Drogheda and Dublin with a stop at the airport and then let the existing northern line run as DART only. It would also mean Dundalk and Drogheda commuters could have a fast service to Dublin without stopping everywhere along the North Dublin coast.

You're not suggesting building "NEW" railways are you?

What is this, Victorian times?

Consonata · 15-05-2021 4:37pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

You're not suggesting building "NEW" railways are you?

What is this, Victorian times?

god forbid, I remember when the Sinkansen High Speed Railway was uncovered in the 17th century, naturally eroded from rock.

IE 222 · 15-05-2021 7:23pm

Cyndaquil wrote: »

You would think. We stand out badly by other European countries by not having rail connection. Ideally both metro and heavy.

I haven't heard anything about it. Was there any preliminary options studies done on putting one in?

Having the station put in with MN would surely knock 25-30% of the cost off a Dart airport link.

bk · 15-05-2021 8:07pm

IE 222 wrote: »

I haven't heard anything about it. Was there any preliminary options studies done on putting one in?

Having the station put in with MN would surely knock 25-30% of the cost off a Dart airport link.

The Metro Station is being built on the edge of a car park. There is plenty of space next to it to easily build a future DART station if needed.

Pete_Cavan · 15-05-2021 9:12pm

It would be mad to build an underground station for a tunnel which you don't know the approach angle, diameter, depth or even the number of tunnels. Far from saving money, it would likely end up costing more.

Zaney · 15-05-2021 9:18pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

It would be mad to build an underground station for a tunnel which you don't know the approach angle, diameter, depth or even the number of tunnels. Far from saving money, it would likely end up costing more.

You mean this sort of thing?

https://www.thejournal.ie/mater-metrolink-metro-north-nta-dublin-4585274-Apr2019/

Pete_Cavan · 15-05-2021 9:32pm

Zaney wrote: »

You mean this sort of thing?

https://www.thejournal.ie/mater-metrolink-metro-north-nta-dublin-4585274-Apr2019/

No, that was built to a specific design (full RO) and MN was part of national policy at the time. A station box for a DART station would be a pure shot in the dark and would likely create more problems when it comes to designing the connection, not to mention unnecessarily adding to the cost of Metrolink.

BonnieSituation · 15-05-2021 9:34pm

IE 222 wrote: »

I haven't heard anything about it. Was there any preliminary options studies done on putting one in?

Having the station put in with MN would surely knock 25-30% of the cost off a Dart airport link.

Wasn't the old Area 14 were Aer Lingus were based before T2 opened the MetroNorth Station box at the Airport.

We can't fault plans in the past of being a waste of money if they changed AFTER they were constructed. There's enough bad planning without worrying about that sort of thing.

JohnC. · 15-05-2021 9:48pm

I'm a bit curious about these station boxes. I understand their purpose and why they were built when they were, but in the case of, for example, the Mater, what exactly is there? Are we talking about a big empty space waiting to be fitted out as a station? Or is it even empty? Maybe it's just the outer walls constructed underground and the interior would be excavated at a later date (or in this case perhaps never) when there's a tunnel?

Pete_Cavan · 15-05-2021 10:08pm

JohnC. wrote: »

I'm a bit curious about these station boxes. I understand their purpose and why they were built when they were, but in the case of, for example, the Mater, what exactly is there? Are we talking about a big empty space waiting to be fitted out as a station? Or is it even empty? Maybe it's just the outer walls constructed underground and the interior would be excavated at a later date (or in this case perhaps never) when there's a tunnel?

At the Mater, all that was built was one wall (albeit an expensive wall), not an entire station box. There aren't any built station boxes in this country waiting to some day be incorporated into a mass transit system.

IE 222 · 15-05-2021 10:43pm

Its hardly going to be a case of sticking a box in the ground just on the of chance it might be used. Obviously a study would be done before hand.

It could be possible and cheaper to run it above ground on a embankment.

IE 222 · 15-05-2021 10:47pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Wasn't the old Area 14 were Aer Lingus were based before T2 opened the MetroNorth Station box at the Airport.

We can't fault plans in the past of being a waste of money if they changed AFTER they were constructed. There's enough bad planning without worrying about that sort of thing.

No that was just a basement. Its was never designed as station box. I don't think there was any way plans or talks of a metro when t1 was built.

Pete_Cavan · 16-05-2021 7:36am

IE 222 wrote: »

Its hardly going to be a case of sticking a box in the ground just on the of chance it might be used. Obviously a study would be done before hand.

It could be possible and cheaper to run it above ground on a embankment.

The Metrolink RO application should be made in the next couple of months, there is no time to do any sort of a study, nevermind one detailed enough to have considered all the complex issues around creating a DART connection to the airport. It would essentially be a concrete bunker under the ground so any slight adjustments after it has been build would be incredibly expensive, or working around whats already there would almost certainly create unnecessary problems when building the approach as many aspects have been fixed. We don't even know what diection a DART connection would be coming from, is it east-west as a spur off the existing DART line or is it north-south as a new heavy rail line which posters here have been talking about? We have waited too long for Metrolink, it doesn't need to be further complicated by adding in bits which have nothing to do with anything, a heavy rail airport link isn't even in the national infrastructure plan which covers the next two decades.

IE 222 · 16-05-2021 2:28pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The Metrolink RO application should be made in the next couple of months, there is no time to do any sort of a study, nevermind one detailed enough to have considered all the complex issues around creating a DART connection to the airport. It would essentially be a concrete bunker under the ground so any slight adjustments after it has been build would be incredibly expensive, or working around whats already there would almost certainly create unnecessary problems when building the approach as many aspects have been fixed. We don't even know what diection a DART connection would be coming from, is it east-west as a spur off the existing DART line or is it north-south as a new heavy rail line which posters here have been talking about? We have waited too long for Metrolink, it doesn't need to be further complicated by adding in bits which have nothing to do with anything, a heavy rail airport link isn't even in the national infrastructure plan which covers the next two decades.

Ok all I asked was if it was looked into at the time and if any consideration was giving to where a station would be situated. Its easily narrowed down by route options which will also dictate depth or height of such.

The line IE want to build and where campaigning to build is a spur from Clongriffin. There is no other north south options.

lucernarian · 16-05-2021 9:00pm

cgcsb wrote: »

The main Dub-Bel line should be moved closer to the M1 between Drogheda and Dublin with a stop at the airport and then let the existing northern line run as DART only. It would also mean Dundalk and Drogheda commuters could have a fast service to Dublin without stopping everywhere along the North Dublin coast.

I don't see how that could be done without tunnelling under the hills at Bellewstown and south of Stamullen too.

GerardKeating · 16-05-2021 9:28pm

cgcsb wrote: »

The main Dub-Bel line should be moved closer to the M1 between Drogheda and Dublin with a stop at the airport and then let the existing northern line run as DART only. It would also mean Dundalk and Drogheda commuters could have a fast service to Dublin without stopping everywhere along the North Dublin coast.

Make Metro North a 4 track DART from the city to the Airport/Swords and continue on to meet the existing northern line around Rush/Lusk.

Then you have two high frequence commuter lines on the northside and seperate tracks for InterCity Services to Drogheda/Dundalk and Belfast.

cgcsb · 16-05-2021 10:11pm

GerardKeating wrote: »

Make Metro North a 4 track DART from the city to the Airport/Swords and continue on to meet the existing northern line around Rush/Lusk.

Then you have two high frequence commuter lines on the northside and seperate tracks for InterCity Services to Drogheda/Dundalk and Belfast.

Way too late for that

GerardKeating · 18-05-2021 11:18am

cgcsb wrote: »

Way too late for that

Why, they not started any construction yet...

yascaoimhin · 18-05-2021 12:08pm

GerardKeating wrote: »

Why, they not started any construction yet...

Are you being serious? Government-funded megaprojects have to go through multiple layers of research before a basic design is even released for public feedback, then it goes through high level design before being submitted for extensive scrutinisation by An Bord Pleanala.

Its a 5 year process before construction begins, changing the design half way through means you have to start the process again

cgcsb · 18-05-2021 12:45pm

GerardKeating wrote: »

Why, they not started any construction yet...

Project was announced in 2018 and will, at the earliest, go to construction in 2023. What you ate suggesting us starting again. Your idea was considered before and ruled out anyway.

Victor · 23-05-2021 9:18pm

PukkaStukka wrote: »

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+ ?

Sorry for dragging up an old post.

There is 220 kV at Belcamp (Coolock) https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/53.40967/-6.20323

There is 110 kV at Grange (Baldoyle), Balbriggan (could do with a second route in) and Drybridge (Drogheda).

There is 38 kV at Portmarnock, Malahide, Loughshinny (Skerries) and several points in Drogheda. Donabate and Laytown-Bettystown could possibly do with 38 kV, even if DART doesn't happen.

If you really want, there is 400 kV at Rush, but no substation.

Peregrine · 23-05-2021 9:50pm

They can use 20 kV but would prefer not to.

Anyway, that's what the BEMUs are for. There was a study into operating BEMUs on the Northern line with a charging station at Drogheda until electrification is finished. They can do that if they have to.

SeanW · 23-05-2021 9:51pm

cgcsb wrote: »

Project was announced in 2018 and will, at the earliest, go to construction in 2023. What you ate suggesting us starting again. Your idea was considered before and ruled out anyway.

Agreed, the current projects must go ahead as-is. In places like France and the Netherlands, their national intercity railway networks have their own "terminal" at Charles DeGaulle and Schipol airports. I'd like to have the same in Ireland, but it would be a different project to either the Metro or the DART+ upgrades.

Peregrine · 27-05-2021 7:19pm

Final DART+ South West webinar ongoing now:

https://teams.microsoft.com/_#/pre-join-calling/19:meeting_NGRmMTk5NWUtNzY2NS00ZmViLWJjYzQtMzY5ZDc1Y2UyOTQy@thread.v2

DART+ (DART Expansion)

Comments