Advertisement
Boards are fundraising to help the people of Ukraine via the Red Cross at this horrific time. Please donate and share if you can, you will find the link here. Many thanks.

DART+ (DART Expansion)

1247248250252253270

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 112 ✭✭ Bsharp


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 145 ✭✭ Cyndaquil


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭ IE 222


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭ IE 222


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 145 ✭✭ Cyndaquil


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,914 ✭✭✭ cgcsb


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,727 ✭✭✭✭ BonnieSituation


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 871 ✭✭✭ Consonata


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭ IE 222


    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.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 20,886 Mod ✭✭✭✭ bk


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,104 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 160 ✭✭ Zaney


    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/


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,104 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan


    Zaney wrote: »

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,727 ✭✭✭✭ BonnieSituation


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,013 ✭✭✭ JohnC.


    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,104 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭ IE 222


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭ IE 222


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,104 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭ IE 222


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,178 ✭✭✭ lucernarian


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,052 ✭✭✭ GerardKeating


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,914 ✭✭✭ cgcsb


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,052 ✭✭✭ GerardKeating


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Way too late for that

    Why, they not started any construction yet...


  • Registered Users Posts: 143 ✭✭ yascaoimhin


    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


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,914 ✭✭✭ cgcsb


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 77,975 ✭✭✭✭ Victor


    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.


  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,149 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Peregrine


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,819 ✭✭✭ SeanW


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,149 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Peregrine




Advertisement