Yes, the most extensive disruption will be at Glasnevin station (not part of this railway order) the length of time is something that is yet to be coordinated between metrolink and IÉ but could be many months at a time. Perhaps the either the MGWR or the GSWR can be kept open at all times.
Presumably it would also be relatively easy to install a turnback at Broombridge, so people could still get to town using the Luas.
Kishoge Train Station Opening
I was listening to newstalk 10am news bulletin it was either last friday or saturday morning Aug 2nd/3rd August. They reported that Kishoge Train Station is opening the end of August 2024. I looked online but could not find any confirmation of this. Keep and eye on media so for end of August
I note that the new timetable they announced back in May is to commence on the 25th of this month, so that date would make the most sense for opening it
I was on a train from Sligo today and had that exact thought when passing Broombridge, it looks like there's disused platforms there that could be repurposed as a turn back. Mind you they are past the main station so not sure how a connection could be accommodated.
Sounds like the remnants of the old Liffey Junction station.
Assuming line is down west of Broombridge, passengers can disembark at Broombridge, then train continues a short distance to siding, the train then is brought back to Broombridge and train heads west again.
It will be interesting to see how they tender the DART+ W construction/civil works. If it will be one big contract or if they'll separate into various elements, for example line works, Spencer Dock area, Glasnevin Junction, etc.
Separated is most likely given the different specialities with one big one for electrification of the entire route and then one for Spencer Dock, one for Connolly upgrade, one for bridges etc.
Yes I think that makes a lot of sense but would involve preparing several different tender packages, assessing and awarding them. You then need all the dominos to fall one after another. Although IÉ don't seem to mind that, they have three separate contracts going on down in Cork.
This link has a presentation on their thoughts late last year
https://issuu.com/railindustry/docs/dart_presentation_-_no_videos.pptx
I notice (on Google ) that there seems to be a lot of siding at Enfield train station, be nice if they put the depot there, then they would also have to extend DART to Enfield/Kilcock :)
Ah yes, that would make sense alright.
Not big enough.
Regarding Kilcock, I think it would be fine with one platform provided there were one or two bypass tracks. Unlike Maynooth which has two universities, and so makes a good interchange between Sligo/Longford services and short haul Commuter soon-to-be-DART.
It would be perfectly fine IMHO for Kilcock to be put onto the DART network with terminal platform(s) while Sligo/Longford services bypass the town altogether.
Unless I'm seriously misreading the market presentation that Irish Rail made, there'll be multiple tenders:
They have indicative values and I can't figure out why the PW costs for South West are so damn high compared to the other lines.
South West includes four-tracking the approach to Heuston, which in turn means reworking some heavily trafficked road bridges, notably the complex where N4 meets the South Circular. Doing that work without jamming the entire western approach to Dublin will take a lot of careful, and expensive, planning.
Electrification of the PPT is also in this package, and that's going to be expensive job just as a result of the confined space.
But the bridges etc will be in civils/structure (which is also high for SW); and electrification is in signalling/electrification.
It may be an error as to which package the value was against.
Interesting that the DART+ Coastal South section mentions increasing DART frequency from 6 trains per hour per direction to 12 trains PHPD. Or to put it another way a DART every 5 minutes!
Point taken about civils, but PPT has to be the most complex tracklaying job in the project, and the four-tracking to Heuston means moving a lot of the existing track too. Widening the way here is so tight that it requires anchoring retaining walls diagonally under other properties.
The presentation said they would construct in early 2025 but that was assuming Dec 2023 for RO. That was 8 months late so looks like August 2025 is the new construction start date.
Though as outlined by someone, there will be multiple packages so they will start at different times.
Wasn’t there talk of a turnback somewhere along the line (Dún Laoighre?) so that not all 12 would go as far as Bray.
Would be amazing to see trains every 5min tho!
Initial paths per hour I read from Dart+ west plans connected to dart+ coastal south were
Yes looks likely to be about now next year, Give or take a couple of weeks, we'll know more when the D&B packa go out.
The proposal to have DART every 5 minutes between Bray and Connolly is now no longer possible due to the abandonment of the DART+ Coastal South public consultation which included the closure of 4 south city level crossings. A 5 minute frequency would mean permanent closure of those gates.
There was a 5 minute service at the rush hours when the DART was commissioned in 1984.
I have fond memories of just seeing an inbound DART at Salthill pulling away (missed by seconds) only to see the following DART a few hundred metres away. For a while it was like having a continental standard of service when there was no need to run for a train and the timetable didn't matter.
That 5 min service was eroded over time - maybe to fit more diesels in or have safety standards changed?.
Always struck me as odd that the closure of all the level crossings on the Dart+ West line was an absolute non-negotiable from the start, but for the Coastal South line, they only talked about examining the options and then just threw their hat at the entire thing.
One way or another, today or 10 years from now, they will have to come back to it.
I completely understand why they want to avoid the controversy of it for now and just get going with the other DART+ projects, but once they are well under way, I expect they will be back to it.
The threat of JR is much greater in an area with Karen's, solicitors and judges coming out of the woodwork.
Taken from the coastal north plans
The problem LCs in Coastal South are on streets that can’t easily be just turned into cul-de-sacs - often the street that DART is cutting through is the only east-west road until… the next street that the DART cuts through. Bridges will be required, but there are really only a couple of places (e.g., Sepentine Ave) where there’s good room either side for a road bridge over the railway. Unlike West, where the line is bounded by the natural barrier of the Royal Canal, the city crossings in South cut right through residential streets.
Lansdowne Road is probably the most difficult example. Here any permanent removal of the LC would require a bridge to carry traffic (even just pedestrian/bikes) over the tracks, because the stadium and the River Dodder mean that there’s no other short way between one end of the road and the other. Raising the DART over the road is impossible, as the height of the station is governed by the stadium that hangs over it - even lowering the level of the DART tracks to reduce the height of the necessary road bridge is likely to be impossible, because that would require rebuilding the station. It’s a difficult problem. Some of the commentary around this has been unhelpful too. Framing this problem as the objections of a load of old rich snobs who won’t give up their drive-everywhere lifestyle is lazy and incorrect: blocking these streets would dramatically reduce permeability for everyone and would increase congestion elsewhere, but most importantly it would put up obstacles to active travel - by forcing a long detour for any journey across the rail lines, you pretty much guarantee additional car use.
I suspect the designs may end up as a mixture of road-over-rail bridges at a couple of crossings, but at other places, the car route will be stopped, and only cycle and foot access will be provided over the rails. For instance, I think this latter idea is the only practical option available at Lansdowne Road.
