Always a good sign when someone jumps repeatedly to NIMBY.
Most accurate way to judge future performance is to look at past past experiences. If they (IE ) are dishonest or disingenuous or economical with information in the past its logical that everything else they do going forward will be treated with skepticism.
IMO The Dart+ west always gets least priority. Therefore you can expect the same going forward. I'm not sure what you hoping for. There will be no guarantee the plan will get get implemented as imagined.
This is the full section, discussing the totality of the DART + project - in a document that is specifically about DART Expansion and is clearly referencing the entire proposed network. You asked for this and I provided it.
The DART Expansion Programme is a transformative railway project, which will modernise and improve the existing rail network, which radiates from Dublin City Centre. It will provide a sustainable, electrified, faster, reliable and user friendly rail system, which increases train frequencies and customer carrying capacity.
It will create a full metropolitan area DART network for Dublin, with all of the lines linked and connected. This will transform the rail system in the Greater Dublin Area, delivering new DART services between the City Centre and Drogheda, Maynooth - M3 Parkway and Hazelhatch - Celbridge. DART Expansion will enable an increase in capacity network-wide from the Regions to the GDA.
Customer capacity and train service frequency on these lines will be significantly increased as a result of the programme. This will help to deliver a more efficient transport system, allowing more people to make sustainable travel choices that reduce their carbon footprint and prevent chronic road congestion helping to meet the goals set out in the state’s Climate Action Plan.
Our ambition is to increase train frequency from the current ten minute frequency to a five minute all day frequency and to lengthen all trains to eight carriages. The cumulative network effect of DART Expansion, subject to Government authorisation and funding, will increase customer capacity from circa 26,000 customers per hour per direction (2019) to circa 50,000-60,000 (peak) passengers per hour per direction under the National Development Plan investment and future growth capacity potential to 70,000-80,000 (peak) passengers per hour per direction thereafter, subject to further fleet procurement.
EDIT
As an FYI
You can the exact same wording in the options selection report on the DART West project site (page 13)
https://www.dartplus.ie/getattachment/1130c5dd-5a59-4dea-bcee-d093f6e85a4a/Option-Selection-Report-Volume-2-Technical-Report.pdf
1. Train service is over crowded, in frequent. Lack of trains, lack of appropriate railway infrastructure (signalling, permanent way) prevents improvement to situation.
2. Transport planners and railway operator proposes detailed plans to double frequency via large increase to fleet and major reconfiguration of signalling, routes, power supply, depots and stations. This includes requirement to close at grade crossings, in line with international best practice.
3. NIMBY doesn't trust railway operators "commitment" because service they propose to dramatically improve hasn't been improved.
4. Go back to step 1.
Our ambition is to increase train frequency from the current ten minute frequency to a five minute all day frequency and to lengthen all trains to eight carriages.
At the risk of upsetting people again, I would say that anyone who thinks IE's "ambition" means anything in terms of end user services does not get the train on a regular basis.
The above statement clearly does not refer to Dart+ West either.
If you google "DART plus ten minute frequency" the fourth result is a presentation from Irish Rail called DART Expansion.
On the 3rd slide, you will find the following.
I hope this makes you a lot less bolshie about the whole thing.
It took me 10 minutes to find...
EDIT: Not here long enough to post links but you can find it here
https:// www.irishrail.ie/ Admin/ IrishRail/ media/ Content/projects-and-investments/DART-brochure.PDF
Have you looked at the TSS?
I think you'd need to know the capacity of the trains on the route vs the occupancy.
Because in my limited and inexpert opinion they shorten carriages on one route to give to another route, and change the schedule.
Then they use total passenger numbers to skew the picture when they've capped the capacity on a line through the above.
Ah look, there's no need to be like that.
OK, look at the bigger picture, forget the locals of Coolmine or Sandymount or Ashtown or wherever.
In February 2020, the Dart expansion was estimated to cost €2.6 billion. Given the massive increase in construction costs since then and the consistent underestimates for state infrastructure projects, the final bill will not be less than €5 billion and I'll bet anyone on this forum that by 2028 or whenever it's finished, it will be even higher than that. As borrowing costs rise, this is not going to be free money.
I don't think it's unreasonable to say that, for an enormous investment of that scale, and with all the knock-on effects on buses, motorists, landowners, local residents and environmentally sensitive areas, we should get some sort of commitment to a given service level.
I've asked multiple times for someone, anyone, to point to a firm statement from IE that they WILL run trains to the frequency that this sort of infrastructure demands and no one has been able to provide it.
That's my concern.
Mod: Can we leave Coolmine LC discussion to the thread dedicated to it.
Any further mentions of it here will be deleted.
Thankyou.
We seem fond of criticizing the past with benefit of hindsight.
Let's get the crystal ball out Jump ahead 25yrs. Where do you predict the demand for high frequency rail will be then in terms of hot spots that are not obvious now.
You can remove the LC and facilitate rail improvements. You don't have to build the bridge. If your sole interest is rail improvements, you've got all you need once the LC is closed.
The arguments for the bridge are almost entirely to facilitate more cars. Thats a discussion that's got nothing to do with rail.
IE haven't been provided with the trains or the infrastructure to run more trains that they already do. You just don't get it, or choose not to. I suspect a bit of both.
There's a very apt & relevant question to be asked in this discussion when we are trying to apply logic to this context when talking about Coolmine. And that relevant question being asked is.............
"Why not just build a bridge and get over it?".
When we are looking at all of the dynamics of this discussion; this sort of question being asked right now is the perfect icebreaker to try and address these apparent self created issues regarding the LC at Coolmine.
If the NIMBYs at Coolmine are so concerned with this LC at Coolmine. What is the main issue with getting rid of it while trying to prevent the betterment of others by attempting to use other means of transport to help get them to simply get to their place of work/place of leisure on time?
If a bridge was eventually built over that LC at Coolmine. Both car owners and rail passengers will see huge improvements in their quality of life in getting to their destinations on time if that were possible during the working week.
If the LC at that location was kept as normal while no bridge was built over it; what do you think would be the desired outcome in the future? To quote The Fat Controller from Thomas The Tank Engine if you create no proper solution for people who want to use either keep using the LC with no changes applied to it with no improvements being provided the other infrastructure; you are just going to have to face up to a reality of going through confusion and delay while maintaining one side of the argument to keep themselves ignorant of the other obstacles placed around them.
You have the biggest gift imaginable of having one major solution being provided to you by a major semi state rail operator in this country. And you're faced with the grim reality of one side wanting to see that solution to keep their and the quality of life much more bearable. However the other side apparently does not want to see those benefits realised at all just to keep themselves and those on the other side miserable because they just say...........I don't know...........reasons!
Why does level of infighting actually happen all the time in Ireland? It frustrates the hell of me that such a small and simple issue like a LC in Coolmine can much so much outcry among certain people on a major rail infrastructure project that will be providing a major increase in rail services on critically important railway lines all across the GDA.
I had to read about 40 posts on this very thread that was discussing this current hot potato issue about the LC at Coolmine. It just boggles my mind for the want of a better word. Why is this is such an important issue at this current time for so many people on this thread? It's utter madness tbh.
I'm going to state that creating both solutions of constructing the bridge while closing down the level crossing would be the easiest solution possible to me. It actually provides some certainty in maintaining the maximum level of rail service provision to keep the other parts of the DART+ ticking over for the rail lines in Dublin as intended.
not any more, IE don't dictate service levels now, that is the NTA'S remit.
On the contrary, the Luas was tendered out to private operators who faced financial penalties if promised service levels were not achieved.
If IE decide that 1-2 trains per hour is enough or it's all they can manage, then that's exactly what they'll provide and anyone who doesn't like it will just have to suck it up.
Yeah that's a fair point. Plan for success and all that.
Equally though, you know what they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
What station would you have built Blanch Center at. Considering it was built in the mid 90s. Most of old Blanch/Castleknock was built 60/70s. So was well established by that point. Villages predate the railway and canals.
I think might need a time machine to get the density Tetris you're thinking of.
Blanch SC for sure built in a odd location with odd links to infrastructure, even the links to the M3 are poor and cause congestion.
Where is this spur exactly?
This exact argument has been done to death and was even given its own thread because it completely enveloped this thread;
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058122299/dart-coolmine-lc-closure-issues#latest
If we're to follow his logic, the Luas doesn't exist because the RPA had no committment prior to construction
Just for those posters who aren't familiar, the above is absolutely untrue.
So we’re at the chicken and egg level of debate.
Because something was ran badly in the past, that should inform the future?
The only lie is the local politicians who told local residents that the road shape gaps in development either side of the canal were just parks and were never intended to be a bridge.
The goal is to provide trains every 10 minutes all day every day as per the current DART service
See, this is at the core of my confusion. I cannot see it stated anywhere in the Dart+ plan that they are actually going to do this. I see references to putting in capacity which isn't the same.
If someone can point me to the relevant statement, I'd probably be a lot less bolshie about the whole thing.
You are asking for something that neither the Irish or British railway networks do anywhere else.
I am asking you why you think you should be entitled to that?
Well the obvious answer is that trains are not going to be operating more frequently at rush hour. The goal is to provide trains every 10 minutes all day every day as per the current DART service, the only variable being more irregular long distance services. So you'd have the crossing effectively closed 18 hours per day plus whatever night time freight movements and rolling stock transfers are happening.
In fairness, I asked for a reasonable reason why it can't be done. "They aren't a thing" isn't quite what I had in mind. You drop the crossing at 7 am and you raise it at 9, you drop it again at 5pm and you raise it at 7pm. Those are the only times when frequency on the Maynooth line will demand a total closure and for the other 20 hours they go up and down as needed.
I know LCs add complexity to the signal management. That's exactly why IE don't want them but there's no technical impediment to keeping them.
Maybe I misunderstood your point, I thought you meant that traffic over the remaining bridges will somehow flow freely. My mistake, apologies.
If there are no trains to halt traffic, it flows freely. What is the difficulty you're having here, other than being blinded by self interest.
I cannot find any location where there are full level crossings that only open at certain times across the Irish and GB railway networks. They aren’t a thing. You either close them or you don’t.
Every level crossing adds significant complexity to the railway signalling system and therefore adds unnecessary cost to the project and maintenance costs going forward.
Level crossings are inherently a safety risk for the railway and current practice is to eliminate them where ever possible. Why should these be special cases? Closing them means reduced risk of potential incidents and therefore improved reliability of the railway. All of these crossings have had incidents at one time or another that have caused significant delays to the railway.
