Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

DART underground - options

11718192022

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭gjim


    The interconnector/DART-U or whatever you want to call it - going back to the original 1970s DRRTS proposal - was NEVER intended to carry intercity traffic.

    None of the designs then or since - whether detailed or just studies - would have been capable of carrying intercity traffic. Just like every other heavy rail metro tunnel in Europe. This article - https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-magic-of-through-running/ - explains the theory and background to DART-U. There’s no need to bastardize the concept.

    Really can we start a separate discussion on through-running intercity services? Because it has nothing to do with DART-U - except that the rolling stock uses the same gauge. It reminds me of the complaints against the first Luas proposals back in the day - that their tracks should be able to accommodate DARTs.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,880 ✭✭✭AngryLips


    I'm not advocating for it. I'm just discussing the possibilities …such as, if the NTA wants to radically reimagine what a city centre interconnector would look like (which they might, given that the existing project is dead in the water), they might look at a connection that facilitates both IC and commuter services, one that accounts for both Dublin Airport and AIRR recommendations. A connection to Dublin Airport would improve the business case for a second northern line massively.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 500 ✭✭✭PlatformNine


    I would argue that it is really both that will cause capacity restricitons. Adding DU without 4N may increase capacity a little, but without flyover junctions to reduce conflicts, the total capacity of the line is going to be heavily limited before 4N.

    Where does the 20tph figure come from? The highest TSS I have seen from IE for it was 15tph from some D+ reports, but that was DARTs only with Rosslare services terminating at Greystones. I fully believe the loop line can handle that but I would assume that is as a metro-like service operating between the Maynooth/Navan lines and southern line.

    While I wouldn't fully agree that a four-tracked northern line would only be limited to 12tph, I have never argued that it would increase DART capacity, they would still be limited to 9tph due to capacity restrictions south of Connolly. Even then I am aware that if the northern line capacity is increased it's not going to be by a significant amount, likely only 1 or 2 services.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    That one platform for on, one for off system is called “Spanish boarding”, as it was first used in Madrid.

    Munich S-Bahn trains stop at platform for 30 seconds, even at Marienplatz, one of the busiest stations in the tunnel section (count for yourself in the video here: https://youtu.be/9MGDyRjXoao?t=775 ). Marienplatz is only “elaborate” because the station box had to have a very small footprint: as a result, the eastbound tube is above the westbound, and some movements between platforms are not possible (as every tourist finds out once as the escalator takes them inexorably down past the train they wanted to catch). Karlsplatz (next station west) is a far more traditional design with three platforms (two regular, one wide central) for two tracks, as is Hauptbahnhof (next again).

    The other two tunnel stations in Munich, Isartor and Rosenheimer Platz, are quieter and do not use the Spanish boarding system , and none of the outer stations use it. Ostbahnhof (the first surface station on the eastern end of the tunnel) is a regular arrangement, although complicated because there are multiple S-Bahn platforms here for the diverging lines.

    DART trains typically stop for 40-50 seconds at platforms, and this seems to be more due to scheduling than capacity. That’s my own limited experience, and I’d love to find video evidence of this, but all the train nerds edit out the time at platform from their videos... Acceleration of the rolling stock is a major determiner in how much time you can spend at station for a given headway, and the new DART+ trains are a tiny bit faster than the stock running in Munich.

    The DART Underground was proposed as a twin-bore tunnel, which would not prohibit “Spanish boarding” being used on the underground stations: all of the proposed stations in Dublin are likely to be busy. I wouldn’t see a huge difficulty in achieving the same level of service, which in itself is actually far more than Dublin will need for a couple of decades.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 8,387 ✭✭✭plodder


    That's interesting. I didn't know that's what it was called. I knew that at least one of those stations had the one on top of the other configuration, but wasn't sure which. The fact that you can't exit the station if you get off the wrong side of the train, and can't even access the wrong one for boarding (as the escalators only go one direction) maybe was just a side effect of the design, but it must help to keep passengers that don't need to be in conflict, segregated.

    I knew Rosenheimer Platz was an ordinary layout as it doesn't have any interchange with U-bahn. I remember it well, as I worked up the road from there a long time ago.

    “Fanaticism is always a sign of repressed doubt” - Carl Jung



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭gjim


    Where does the 20tph figure come from?

    DART+ will have 10-12 DART coastal plus 8-10 slots split between DART+W and SW plus a couple of non-DART trains traversing the loop line last I heard. Signaling was upgraded a few years ago in advance of DART+ to allow 23 tph. Also 23 tph is the DART capacity of DART+SW.

    Adding DU without 4N may increase capacity a little, but without flyover junctions to reduce conflicts, the total capacity of the line is going to be heavily limited before 4N.

    It’s not a “little” - DU will double the North-South capacity of the system allowing up to 20 tph both for N-SW and 20 tph for W-S.

    DU itself removes a large number of conflicts - specifically those between DART+W and DART+N entering Connolly from the North and those between DART+W and phoenix park tunnel DART+SW trains.

    The primary benefits of 4N are supporting a decent IC service instead of having IC trains crawling behind stopping DARTs adding 20 minutes or more to journey times, providing improved reliability and operational simplicity - its contribution to DART capacity is very limited. Without DU it would provide NO extra DART capacity at all. With DU, you’ll get 3 extra slots per hour maybe.

    While I wouldn't fully agree that a four-tracked northern line would only be limited to 12tph, I

    How? Where are any extra 4N DARTs going to go? They either terminate in Connolly - an conflict nightmare - and very limited in terms of capacity - or else displace a DART W or SW crossing the loop line.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58 ✭✭thosewhoknow


    Would it be worth looking at making the tunnel big enough for double-decker trains if 4North doesn’t work out? (Or even if it does, just to allow for more capacity) I know that the current network isn’t suited for double-decker trains but I feel like it shouldn’t be too expensive if they’re just lowering tracks under bridges and platforms that only DARTs call at.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 57 ✭✭spark23


    Are the stations not being future proofed anyway with the platform length to allow for 2 five car Dart+ sets joined together as is possible, would be very foolish not to build some future capacity into the line. I can see the benefits of having Stephens Green as a larger future city center interchange even if not initially but future proofed to allow the possibility.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Inter city trains will never run on this tunnel. From the very first mention of a tunnel, it has been for commuter services. The costs are too high, the benefits too low.

    And it's off topic here. Go to the "Cross Border Review of Rail Network" thread if you want to continue advocating for it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 500 ✭✭✭PlatformNine


    DART+ will have 10-12 DART coastal plus 8-10 slots split between DART+W and SW plus a couple of non-DART trains traversing the loop line last I heard. Signaling was upgraded a few years ago in advance of DART+ to allow 23 tph. Also 23 tph is the DART capacity of DART+SW.

    I don't believe that is correct. From the TSS diagrams I have seen, D+ Coastal South will support 15tph on the Loop line to GCD, with 12tph going to Bray. That is 3tph HH-GCD, 3tph to Maynooth-Bray, and 9tph (all DARTs) from the Northern line to Bray and Greystones. I will note I have seen two slightly different versions for services south of Bray. The first is from the D+W EAIR, Volume 2, Chapter 4 (link), and shows 2tph to Greystones with one service either continuing further south or as a shuttle (it doesn't specify). The second is attacthed to the D+N PC materials, Annex 3.3, Appendix C (link), shows 3/4tph to Greystones and a shuttle service from Rosslare to Greystones.

    Also the DART+SW total capacity is 23tph, not the DART capacity. 12tph is from all the various fast line services, so ICs, regionals, and likely a few outer commuters as well. Then D+SW will support 11tph DARTs on the slow line, 4 terminating at Heuston, 4 terminating at SD via Drumcondra, and 3 terminating at GCD. I believe there isn't a 12th service due to terminal capacity.

    It’s not a “little” - DU will double the North-South capacity of the system allowing up to 20 tph both for N-SW and 20 tph for W-S.

    DU itself removes a large number of conflicts - specifically those between DART+W and DART+N entering Connolly from the North and those between DART+W and phoenix park tunnel DART+SW trains.

    The primary benefits of 4N are supporting a decent IC service instead of having IC trains crawling behind stopping DARTs adding 20 minutes or more to journey times, providing improved reliability and operational simplicity - its contribution to DART capacity is very limited. Without DU it would provide NO extra DART capacity at all. With DU, you’ll get 3 extra slots per hour maybe.

    Again, while I don't disagree that the tunnel will eventually allow for 20tph frequency eventually, I think it is going to have a hard time doing that without full grade seperation from non-DART services. It's not just that the IC services are getting slowed down, their different stopping pattern and fleet's physical characteristics also has an effect on DART services too. I think 15tph might be more realistic (12 DARTs + 2 Dundalk + 1 Enterprise) for a DU only network, but that comes back to my main critisism of DU before 4N, that I don't believe such a minimal increase in service would warrant the CBA.

    It also might not remove conflicts with PPT services at either end of the tunnel depending on the fate of PPT services post-DU. They aren't building two new stations just for them to be shut down when DU opens, so either some services from HH will continue to use PPT or services will start at Heuston West, possibly depending on the design of the Portal. Eitherway there will be PPT tunnels going through Glasnevin Jnc. There are a number of other conflicts not solved by DU, not all of which even have a direct effect on DU frequency (Clonsilla Jnc for example), but their limitations will start to become more noticable when DU is complete and IE tries to push for higher and higher frequencies.

    How? Where are any extra 4N DARTs going to go? They either terminate in Connolly - an conflict nightmare - and very limited in terms of capacity - or else displace a DART W or SW crossing the loop line.

    They would have to be fast line terminal services. The D+ plan is for 5 services terminating in Connolly between its 4 bay platforms. 4N will allow services to move between the fast line and bay platforms without causing congestion for the slow line, and this should allow services from those platforms to operate more flexibly and more effeciently, potentially allowing for an additional Dundalk service or an express commuter service.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭gjim


    My bored-on-Sunday, post-interconnector Dublin metro network map: includes intercities for reference but not Luas. Leaves out loads of stations (I'm not that bored)

    Dublin post interconnector.png

    Some notes:

    • DU tunnel starts behind Heuston with cut n' cover DART-U station - avoiding cost of mining under Heuston platforms and shortening the tunneled section by 2km.
    • DU tunnel emerges around Clontarf Rd (golf club or fairview park) - where there is enough room to provide a grade separated tie-in - no up/down crossings at grade around North Strand.
    • Spencer Dock now an intercity terminus for Sligo/Longford trains which would run canal side from Glasnevin completely separate to all other traffic.
    • Metrolink extended to Sandyford.
    • Grand canal dock, with the addition of an extra platform/track in the centre is the city "terminus" for Wexford/Roslare trains - the central (intercity) tracks allow trains to arrive and depart without crossing others at grade.

    This would be quite a decent system IMO. I think one more metro line (Tallaght/Centre/Coolock/Howth Inc) would make it into a very decent system.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    If I had to critique the map itself, I'd have estuary heading in the direction of the Northern DART line and its tick midway between Drogheda and Howth.

    Otherwise looks great!

    Boards is in danger of closing very soon, if it's yer thing, go here (use your boards.ie email!)

    👇️ 👇️



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58 ✭✭thosewhoknow


    Where does Cabra station fit into that map?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭gjim


    Here - if anyone wants to fiddle with it: https://tennessine.co.uk/metro/be1b14adae85c1b
    The software (I found) very easy to use compared to a few others I tried.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭gjim


    I don't know. I'm struggling to see a role for it post-DU without introducing complex service patterns - which is kinda the opposite of the way IE (and the world of metro rail in general) is trying to move to.

    I could imagine a couple of non-DART iservices being sent through the PPT to Spencer Dock that could stop at Cabra but this would require adding track work west of Glasnevin to facilitate the transfer - something like:

    Dublin post interconnector-4.png


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,425 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    Isn't the current D+ plan to have some number of SW services going via the PPT to Spencer Dock?

    Obviously with DU in the frame a lot of that would change, but maybe in that scenario, with Heuston proper suddenly free of most DARTs and the same for Spencer Dock look at a shuttle service Heuston - Cabra - Glasnevin - Spencer Dock (100% would need a curve into PPT from Heuston to be viable)

    I could see it being pretty popular and without that and the long distance services on the West line moving to the Southwestern line (Kildare interconnector) that line will be practically empty other than freight movements

    Boards is in danger of closing very soon, if it's yer thing, go here (use your boards.ie email!)

    👇️ 👇️



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    you'd imagine by the time DU is built, the Navan line will also be there. Also there's no longer a ferry at DL.

    Put your money where yer mouth is... Subscribe and Save Boards!

    https://subscriptions.boards.ie/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,331 ✭✭✭✭cgcsb


    The long term plan is to move Sligo trains to Heuston via a new Maynooth to Hazelhatch link, 4 track the northern line and end Rosslare services at Bray so the whole DART network will have it's own tracks and no mixing with intercity. That'll give us a great core DART network that can comfortably accommodate spur lines like in the original DART plan from the 1970s. We souldn't then go start mixing in intercity trains again.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,548 ✭✭✭gjim



    Yeah, I hate to see rail infrastructure go unused so would be keen to use the electrified PPT for some sort of service and a Heuston/Spencer Dock shuttle seems like an easy win with a new curve at Heuston. But besides providing a service to Cabra, it wouldn't really facilitate any trips that would be possible without it and it's quite a circuitous route so in many cases the alternatives would probably quicker. Maybe intercity passengers heading for the airport would save 5 or 10 minutes over the alternative of changing at Stephen's Green.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 305 ✭✭scrabtom


    It also provides a better service to Islandbridge with the Heuston West stop.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 237 ✭✭OisinCooke


    I think people are underestimating the curve needed to get into the PPT from Heuston… It’s near impossible in any case, but if done would be exceedingly tight, and would cut through where the NTCC is so isn’t going to be a runner at all.

    I suspect what will happen with the PPT and Cabra station is they will be served by outer suburban services. With the Maynooth - Adamstown link in place, and all Sligo/Longford/Mulingar services heading towards Heuston to keep the Maynooth line free for DARTs, platform space at Heuston which will be tight, especially during peak hours with hourly (and half-hourly in some cases) Intercity services.

    The obvious play here is to send maybe not all, but some of the Longford/Mullingar/Portlaoise/Newbridge outer commuter services into the Phoenix Park Tunnel to GCD/Connolly (no conflicting problems after DART Undergroud, as the vast majority services into Connolly will be approaching from the West anyway) or possibly to Spencer Dock. This makes huge sense as it maximises the Metrolink connection at Glasnevin and provides a link with both lines of the post-DU DART running pattern (Hazelhatch - Malahide and Maynooth - Bray) at Pearse, or at Glasnevin/Spencer Dock.

    The only trains using the line from Glasnevin Jnct to GCD post DU will be the 12 DARTs an hour from Maynooth/M3 (Navan). All northern line services then, will either being DARTs that enter the DU tunnel to the SW line at Clontarf, or Dundalk commuters and Enterprises which will terminate at Connolly or Spencer Dock anyway, so there will definitely be space to squeeze a few services from the PPT into the section.

    As well as this there will be no crossing conflicts at North Strand as all trains from Drumcondra will be heading through Connolly’s platforms 5, 6, & 7 anyway. The only crossing conflicts will be at Glasnevin Jnct but if outer commuters are ran as BEMUs or even EMUs, then pathing just a few from the PPT shouldn’t be a huge issue, as there will be more than enough headway in the timetable. It also serves the stations at Heuston West and Cabra with a viable and existing service, while relieving capacity at Heuston for Intercity services.

    Post edited by OisinCooke on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,331 ✭✭✭✭cgcsb


    No matter what way you slice it before DART Underground, Heuston is going to have to have a radical expansion to accommodate a doubling of all intercity services, DARTs every 15 mins and increased commuter service. It can go northwards over the river or southwards and tunnelize St johns road. I don't think irish rail have realised this though, they're still obsessed with selling or renting land for development not thinking how they're going to accommodate a dramatically increased service without adding more platforms.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11 smarties25


    New dart times will affect the crossings at howth and sutton



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,045 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    If/when they made the Howth Branch a shuttle service, they should move the "Junction" station slightly north a tad, and and continue the Branch under the northern line towards the Malahide Road at Coolock and onwards to link with Metro North, it would then feed passengers into the DART and Metro lines from Howth/Sutton/Bayside/Coolock/Beaumont and the like.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,547 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    I have often that that the Howth branch should be converted to Luas and then extended to the airport. If the Howth branch is already a shuttle, there is no negative for people on the branch, if anything they'd get more services. It would bring good public transport to a chunk of north Dublin, allows interchange with DART and Metrolink and obviously provides a direct link to the airport. I think it would be very successful.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    That’s a really nice idea! Luas trams would be perfect here as there’s no need for high-speed operation, and the lower-cost rolling stock could allow more frequent services.

    But rather than heading for the Airport, which already has one link in progress and another proposed (Clongriffin-Swords-Drogheda), I’d extend via a routing inside M50: Coolock, Beaumont, Collins Ave (connect to Metro for Airport and City Centre), Finglas (Green Line), with an idea of eventually extending it to the National Sports Campus, Blanchardstown and then south to Lucan to form an orbital route.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 842 ✭✭✭loco_scolo


    It's a nice idea for sure, though I don't think there's much scope to extend outside of the branch itself. Would be cheaper to keep the line (and rail gauge) as is, but add more stations with reduced platform lengths, and operate a high frequent service with a 2-car train.

    Current station spacing on the 5.4km stretch is 1200m / 1400m / 2800m, you could easily add 4 additional stops, maybe even 5.

    1000026351.jpg


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 11,105 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    I always thought that Howth Junction would be an ideal place for MetroWest, whenever it's built, to go. Then you've have a line that looked like:

    Howth

    Howth Junction

    Donaghmede

    Dardistown (Metrolink)

    Then follow the old MetroWest route out to Tallaght through Blanch, etc.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 55 ✭✭DrivingSouth


    Or from howth junction head south west towards city and then tallaght for metro 2



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,880 ✭✭✭AngryLips




Advertisement