Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

DART underground - options

11213141618

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,991 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    I agree that the correct way round would be DU first or in parallel but well, that doesn't seem likely now. 4N will however allow IC services to proceed at speed out of and into Connolly shed without being caught up behind DARTs, so there is a clear benefit even without DU in place.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,557 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,396 ✭✭✭gjim


    I'm not sure. Don't get me wrong, any new rail is good but doing 4N first would be a poor decision - particularly if the only benefit would be for IC passengers given that there's more than a 15-1 ratio of DART to IC passengers on the northern line.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if 4N could turn out to be more expensive than DU - not just CPOing houses and all the station upgrades. The big issue is managing the construction of the new tracks and station upgrades while allowing trains services to continue - a complex and expensive and, worst of all, a very slow process. DU doesn't have this issue.

    And that's if they don't do the completely daft thing of suspending all services during construction - something, given how paranoid about safety IE are might even be seriously proposed.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,991 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    It's possible. Our commuter line in to Berlin which also happens to be the mainline to Hamburg is being completely closed down for 9 months starting in August. It's gonna be hellish.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,396 ✭✭✭gjim


    Thanks for the link.

    Given Davy's based their 90k guess on an estimated current shortfall of 230k units, then I can confidently say it's bs as I've looked at the source of the 230K number and its derivation is completely flawed. And Davy's prediction has a big logical hole - claiming that the shortfall will be driven by immigration but people can't immigrate if they've nowhere to live - these variables are not independent.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 271 ✭✭PlatformNine


    Both are needed for their own reasons, and they are far from dependent on each other, although I do believe the two projects will be at their greatest when they are both delivered.

    4North by itself will be massively benificial to the IC and outer commuter networks, allowing them to speed into Connolly on the four-tracked section rather than being stuck behind DARTs. It can additionally open track capacity for additional IC and even allow for express commuter services. Even if it doesn't allow for additional DART capacity, the overall fast-line improvements are more than needed for the future of the network. Also while not part of 4N, the project is what will make the airport link possible, as currently even if built there wouldn't be the track capacity.

    DU will just add a large amount of DART capacity and connectivity to the network, by adding a high capacity corridor through some of the busiest areas of the city. Also, while I don't think potentially using it for outer commuters is the best use of the capacity, if that is the direciton IE go it would free a decent amount of space at Heuston and Connolly for additional IC services. However I don't think it depends on 4N either as it would instead be replacing the various SD terminating services (assuming the route picked is the SD route, not another option).

    While I don't think that either project is dependent on the other, imo if they are I think its the otherway around. DU is dependent on 4N because of track capacity limitations that could limit the number of services capable of using the tunnel.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,358 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Only last night, RTE News should the first people moving into their brand new 3D printed homes - just three houses though.

    So, using new technology, we could build many more homes using that new technology just as the construction industry has over the generations. No longer do plumbers use wiped joints to join lead pipes. Now we extensively use plastic parts to make plumbing quick and easy as parts just click together or screw together - leak free.

    An example would be using sheet material for roofs rather than tiles or slates as we already do with plasterboard. We could use ready assembled bathrooms and other plumbing requirements. Also, standardise on house designs so that they can be built quickly with less labour.

    Can we afford to commit the amount of land that will permit 90,000 homes per year without going high rise? And then we need the infrastructure to allow these residents to get to work, shop and play.

    A century ago, cars were built by assembling them from the chassis up on bricks. Now they are assembled by robots. Why not the same approach for houses?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,143 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    We are building basically no infrastructure. Just houses/apartments.

    Houses/apartments are not immune to court action and judicial reviews but some is getting through.

    Absolutely no infrastructure seems to get through without being fought from all sides.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Sustainability goals mean it is no longer possible to avoid building high-rise.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,396 ✭✭✭gjim


    Both are needed for their own reasons, and they are far from dependent on each other, although I do believe the two projects will be at their greatest when they are both delivered.

    Agree with the latter point.

    The issue is that after DART+ is done, that's it in terms of capacity of the DART system.

    There is simply nowhere for any extra DARTs to go - all the terminal capacity in the centre will be maxed out even when including the new Spencer Dock station. Similar for through-running capacity - the loop-line will be completely maxed out.

    That means DART capacity increases will not be possible. Proposals like an extension to Navan will struggle in a CBA because adding any Navan to centre service will require taking away a slot from DART+W.

    So if we start with 4N, we can say goodbye to any increased DART capacity in Dublin for the foreseeable future.

    Both together of course would be marvelous - the new DW/DN alignment would be fully segregated with no-LCs, theoretically supporting RER type frequencies 20 to 30 trains/hour.

    But for me starting with 4N would be a blunder in terms of strategic planning.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26 DrivingSouth


    Where are people getting the order of 4N vs DU from?

    What I understood was there is a 4N project underway now which is the first proper comprehensive study on what can be done North of connolly. But it's only a design project. There is no plan or funding for construction at all at this point.

    Am I right or wrong in that?

    So yeah it might end up just on the shelf for now. But id rather have the study done and have the options for IE to chew on.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,399 ✭✭✭Consonata


    Partly because the business case for Dart U has become a lot poorer since they've reopened the PPT



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,991 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    The red line Luas loadings between Heuston and Connolly even mid-morning, never mind at rush hour, tell a different story to be honest. DU will be built. Public transport infrastructure for slow learners. That's how we do it in Ireland.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,399 ✭✭✭Consonata


    Unclear as to why this should be heavy rail though.

    It's been discussed fairly frequently but look at what we're doing with Metrolink, with high capacity segregated rail that doesn't have to share track with slower intercity services. If we want to develop a high capacity connection between the two stations it probably should be done like that?

    Besides you could probably count less than 100 people who are travelling each day from Heuston to Connolly each day from one intercity service to another.

    This craic of Dart Underground trying to be both an intercity and Dart tunnel seems to be trying to be too much of both and failing at both as a result. This is ignoring how massively costly it's going to be, for the addition of likely as not only 2 new stations.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,396 ✭✭✭gjim


    This craic of Dart Underground trying to be both an intercity and Dart tunnel seems to be trying to be too much of both and failing at both as a result.

    There isn't and never was a plan for anything except DART trains to run through the interconnector, DU, tunnel or whatever you want to call it. So your "failing at both" claim makes little sense.

    DU is modeled on other heavy-rail metro systems - like the RER, various S-Bahn systems, Madrid's Cercanias, the S lines in Milan, the Elizabeth line/crossrail, etc, etc. - all metro systems which use heavy rail and where the tunneled sections are dedicated to high-frequency metro services.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,991 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Don't forget the Stammstrecke in Munich, possibly the first "Interconnector" type project in Europe. It's such a no brainer to do it. In Munich they are building a second parallel one for heaven's sake.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,399 ✭✭✭Consonata


    Every iteration of this plan has pinned the merits of it being an interconnector for all rail systems DART, Commuter, and Intercity. Heck, half the benefit of it is to free up terminating capacity for Connolly as it's quickly running out of/ran out of room.

    I don't know where you've gotten this idea that it is simply only for DART trains. It isnt borne out in any of the plans/countless studies there have been into this link.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,396 ✭✭✭gjim


    Sorry, you're simply mistaken. Read the original DRRTS studies from the 1970s which described the original idea - there was never an intention to run "all rail systems" through the tunnel - it was always going to be exclusively for an electrified metro service.

    And you couldn't do it even if you wanted to as diesel trains are incompatible with underground stations unless you want to poison your passengers with particulates and NOx.

    There's a reason why it's has been called the DART Interconnector, DART underground and the DART tunnel. Look at the RO granted in 2011 - it was for a DART-only tunnel.

    You're simply imagining "plans/countless studies" that have diesel commuters and intercities running through it.

    As @murphaph points out, these types of tunnels have been and continue to be built all over Europe, they all have the same traits - they are used for electrified metro services only. The reason everyone else is doing it is because it makes sense when you already have a bunch of legacy heavy rail alignments that terminate at the edge of the city - the typical pattern of 19th century rail development.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Yes, the DART Underground plan had only DARTs using the tunnel. Having said that with DART+ the distance DARTs travel is greatly extending into further commuter distances. So you could call it almost Elizabeth Line like service.

    However the confusion comes from some posters over the years dreaming of routing newly electrified intercity trains operating through the tunnel and up to Dublin Airport.

    In fairness the AIRR adds to this confusion by including an East to West tunnel for intercity trains!

    Now it really isn’t clear what the plan is. Mix both intercity trains and DART in the same tunnel, a terrible idea IMO. Build two separate tunnels, one for intercity and one for DART. Better capacity, but would be horribly expensive with a terrible CBA.

    The overall strategy of what they want to do isn’t clear to me at all anymore and I believe it really hurts the project.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    It would be vastly cheaper to solve that issue by just building a second Luas line down the quays. Doubles the capacity and it will likely need to be done anyway with the planned new Luas lines.

    DU needs more then the Red line being packed to justify itself.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,399 ✭✭✭Consonata


    Dart Undrground given the scale of it and likely will require mined out stations, is probably going to be an equivalent cost to building a second Metrolink, to areas where there is no rail at all.

    This is why I struggle with this project. Who is the commuter that this is targeted at that isn't being served well by Dart+, Luas and Metrolink



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26 DrivingSouth


    All of the commuters will benefit from DU.

    Dart+ will leave all of the dart west and dart north trains fighting for space heading towards connolly platforms 5 to 7.

    Dart U will take all of the Dart north trains out of that equation, relieving the bulk of the congestion between connolly and ossary road junction. Thus relieving the biggest congestion point in the network, and therefore opening up every branch to its full potential.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,623 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Yes I have also struggled with that too and it is basically what the DART+ tunnel options report found. I can’t remember the exact figure, but it found only a single digit increase in passenger numbers versus Metrolink/DART+ combination!

    Clearly gaining such a small number of passenger numbers on a project that will cost billions is not going to pass any CBA.

    I totally get that there are nice operational improvements and it would certainly make life easier for some of the travelling public, but that usually isn’t enough to justify such an expensive project.

    That is why I think Irish Rail and the AIRR now talk about intercity trains in a tunnel, etc. They are looking for ways to improve it’s CBA, but that has the danger of repeating the mistakes of DART.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,399 ✭✭✭Consonata


    Both Dart West and Dart North can go to Spencer Dock after the changes though? A lot of the Belfast services can also terminate in Spencer Dock. It's not just going to be the two platforms.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 97 ✭✭The Mathematician


    I think the problem is that DART+ will not give the sort of frequency that is claimed due to the flat junction between the Northern line and the Maynooth line. While it might work on paper (like the timetable change last Autumn), it won't work in practice, and there will have to be a much lower frequency.

    For it to have a chance of working, the conflicting movements between the Eastbound Maynooth trains and the Northbound Northern trains would have to be removed. This could be done by some sort of flying/burrowing junction, but maybe the DART undeground would not be much more expensive.

    Anyway, we will see what happens when DART+ is completed. I would love to be proved wrong, but I suspect not. Then the CBA of the DART underground would increase substantially since it would include the increase in frequency on the current lines. Perhaps even this is the plan by Irish Rail.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,410 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    If you put IC trains through this tunnel, then they cannot stop at an intermediate location - there simply is not space to build an inter-city rail station anywhere along the proposed route - it's not just platforms, it's the additional space for passengers, plus luggage to wait, board and disembark needed for a longer-distance service.

    The other problem with an IC Tunnel that there is no feasible routing for the tunnel that would connect with Connolly station. Even if there were, a direct connection between Heuston and Connolly would end up overloading Connolly, thanks to that station being closer to the business centre of the city. (Putting this IC stop at Pearse would be even worse on this score) So, if the Inter City tunnel effectively makes Connolly a dead-end spur, then Inter City services would only call at Heuston over time, with a changeover to DART provided at, say, Clongriffin, on the northern approach, or Maynooth on the Western.

    Now, that might not be a bad option, and it could be achieved with a centre pair of "fast" tracks through the tunnel that do not stop at any DART station, but it does make both the stations and the mainline tunnel (or tunnels) more expensive.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,991 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Ah come on. I wasn't for a moment suggesting that DU is a "Heuston to Connolly" connection. Where are we here? I would hope that everyone on this forum knows that DU is much more than that but we clearly need more capacity than red line Luas. IMO building red line on street from Heuston to Connolly was a mistake. Compounding that error by building another parallel route is not something I can get on board with at all. The solution to large parts of Dublin's problems lies in DU and the vast capacity it would unlock, especially combined with 4north.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,991 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    DU brings rail to vast numbers of commuters who presently couldn't really dream of it, but it requires us to change modes. Just look at a map of west and north Dublin. Plenty of orbital roads with continuous bus lanes or the space to build them, which could easily funnel vast numbers of passengers in to the DART network, but the capacity needs to be there in the DART network to take them. DU unlocks that enormous capacity. It multiplies the investment in the quad tracking and station facilities already made and likely yet to be made. Look at the likes of Adamstown station. It's massive. It handles far fewer passengers than it could, because there are hardly any trains stopping there because there's no onward capacity in Heuston and no capacity to terminate and turn trains around in Heuston anyway. DU solves all these problems.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 271 ✭✭PlatformNine


    I see where you are coming from, and most of what you are saying about 4N and the DART network is correct and are points I agree with. But I think you are focusing too much on the DART network when looking at 4N, and not enough on the northern line IC and outer commuter services. If you are only looking at the DART benifits of 4N it was probably never going to look very good.

    The primary benifit of 4N was always allowing the seperation of commuter and IC services, allowing both to be more consistent, and most importantly preventing passing services getting stuck behind DARTs. 4N was always going to primarily benifit longer distance services more than it was the DARTs.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Compulsory purchases on Ossory Road combined with building platforms at grade could allow for an interchange with Connolly for far less than DU and allow Dart West and Dart SouthWest to terminate at Spencer Dock all the time.



Advertisement