nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

DART+ (DART Expansion)

murphaph

New propoganda here but it really whets the appetite.....who knows if we'll have the nerve to do it though....

Find more posts tagged with

dublin

train

track

underground

rail

tunnel

interconnector

dart

suburban rail

transport 21

emu

electrification

ride me sideways

Quick Links

Comments

murphaph

Sponge Bob wrote: »

I don't think they took enough land to retrofit the foundations without disturbing the express tracks!!! Period.

While they may remedy this oversight when relaying the southern pair the problem is unresolved with the northern pair.

More chronic dicking around with long term speed restrictions for Inter City and Kildare commuters may be expected.

Intercity will be long dead by then, fear not. The motorways are already destroying the train for speed and IE are doing nothing much to eliminate the myriad of speed restrictions on the IC network. I'd focus my energies there if I were you and I wanted IC services to survive at all.

xper

BluntGuy wrote: »

http://www.dartundergroundrailwayorder.ie/
All documents are up.

Wonderfull colour scheme on the website's links - can hardly read them.

Couple of things jump out at me after a brief scan through several drawings:
- only one street entrance for Pearse buried away in the back streets, the proposed second one from Merrion Sq North has been dropped. Oops!
- much reorganisation of the sidings at East Wall. Is this to be effectively an extension of the capacity of the Fairview Depot or will it continue in its current use? (Haven't trawled through any text documents yet ).

BluntGuy

From reading, it appears no connection to the mainline will take place as part of the DART Underground contract. It mentions Kildare Route Project Phase 2, but there has been absolutely no mention of that anywhere else.

I have a sneaking suspicion they have no intention of running DARTs to Hazelhatch from day one.

Edit, Suspicion Confirmed:

A turnback and stabling facility is also provided at Inchicore within a retained cut to facilitate the operational requirements of DART Underground.

The grade-seperated tie-in to the main line would be constructed as part of the future Kildare Route Project. In the interim, DART Underground trains would terminate and turn back at Inchicore.

ilovegermany

BluntGuy wrote: »

From reading, it appears no connection to the mainline will take place as part of the DART Underground contract. It mentions Kildare Route Project Phase 2, but there has been absolutely no mention of that anywhere else.

I have a sneaking suspicion they have no intention of running DARTs to Hazelhatch from day one.

Edit, Suspicion Confirmed:

Ah this is brutal, the drawings show that the scope of the works will only stretch as far as the proposed Inchicore station with a turnback:

a. No tie in with the existing lines just to the west of Inchicore station;
b. No four track west of Inchicore at all - not even as far as the Kylemore Road bridge let alone as far as Le Fanu Road.

Probably another 20 years before money is available for "Phase 2"........

KC61

One good piece of news is that there is provision for a connection at the eastern end of the interconnector to the line to Drumcondra and Maynooth as can be seen in the plan below, which makes some sense.

http://www.dartundergroundrailwayorder.ie/assets/files/downloads/Railway_Works_Drawings/Area_106-RIVER_LIFFEY_TO_EAST_WALL/RO_Alignment_Details/DU-RO_106_B-C.PDF

Sponge Bob

BluntGuy wrote: »

From reading, it appears no connection to the mainline will take place as part of the DART Underground contract. It mentions Kildare Route Project Phase 2, but there has been absolutely no mention of that anywhere else.

Firstly the good news is that Inter City disruption will not take place as part of the Underground works which terminate at the station in Inchicore. It does mean that there is no possibility of having a depot in Inchicore at this time because there is no surface connection.

The bad news is that electricification and the missing quad track and a Dart depot and resignalling are pushed back years....and of course that tunneling spoil needs to be trucked out through Inchicore and Ballyfermot with materials coming in by road.

And we now have "Future Kildare Route Project" or fKRP as an acronym for the Missing Link

Sponge Bob

OH...and if there is nowhere to store the trains in Inchicore where the hell are they supposed to go then??? Fairview is packed. A full service in the tunnel at peak will require 12 x 8 car sets...crudely...running from Malahide to Inchicore via Fairview and the Tunnel .

monument

BluntGuy wrote: »

From reading, it appears no connection to the mainline will take place as part of the DART Underground contract. It mentions Kildare Route Project Phase 2, but there has been absolutely no mention of that anywhere else.

I have a sneaking suspicion they have no intention of running DARTs to Hazelhatch from day one.

Edit, Suspicion Confirmed:

I did happen* across some drawing in the documents showing different options from Inchicore to the Kildare Route Project.

* I was just browsing the drawing, so finding it again among all of them and the green text may be a problem

BluntGuy

monument wrote: »

I did happen* across some drawing in the documents showing different options from Inchicore to the Kildare Route Project.

That is correct, I saw some drawings too (though it'll take me a while to familiarise myself with them). But it is explicitly stated several times that all considerations are for a "future provision" of a tie-in to the mainline.

I read, I think in Chapter 3 that upon opening there will be two DART lines, from Inchicore and Maynooth, so clearly electrification, at least as far as Maynooth, is still on the cards, most likely to be undertaken as a smaller seperate railway order. Electrification to Drogheda and Hazelhatch, I've yet to see mentioned.

These issues must be addressed at the oral hearing if they are not in the railway order. We must know EXACTLY what service we will be getting should this open in 2018 as they propose.

BrianD

Would it not be better that the electrification to Drogheda excluded for the DART and be serviced by an outer suburban diesel service?

This means that those living in Dublin can enjoy a higher standard of service. The distance by road between to locations is 50km (presume less by rail) and it seems a long stretch of low density population to serve by what the public expectation of a high frequency service.

KC61

BrianD wrote: »

Would it not be better that the electrification to Drogheda excluded for the DART and be serviced by an outer suburban diesel service?

This means that those living in Dublin can enjoy a higher standard of service. The distance by road between to locations is 50km (presume less by rail) and it seems a long stretch of low density population to serve by what the public expectation of a high frequency service.

Well given that rolling stock orders have yet to be placed, I would think that there could me a mix of outer and inner electric multiple units.

I would have thought that if the electification were to extend to Drogheda you would need a long distance spec EMU with toilets on board, with these trains operating on a limited stop basis similar to the current diesel service once they reach Malahide/Howth Junction.

Cool Mo D

BrianD wrote: »

Would it not be better that the electrification to Drogheda excluded for the DART and be serviced by an outer suburban diesel service?

This means that those living in Dublin can enjoy a higher standard of service. The distance by road between to locations is 50km (presume less by rail) and it seems a long stretch of low density population to serve by what the public expectation of a high frequency service.

Electric trains have much better acceleration than diesel though, so that would make up a bit of time. I'd imagine that Drogheda DARTS would not stop between Docklands and Howth Junction, so that would only add on a couple of stops on a typical service - it could even improve on the Drogheda - Dublin commuter speed.

Something like 8 DARTS per hour off-peak would be ideal - 4 to Howth, 2 to Malahide, and 2 to Drogheda, serving Inchicore to Docklands, then Howth Junction to Drogheda would be about right.

That pattern would allow scheduling of an hourly Enterprise too, without trains getting in each others way, running a Drogheda DART 8 minutes after a Howth DART lets it go full speed non-stop to Howth Junction.

On the other line, 6 per hour from Bray/Greystones would be adequate, splitting between Maynooth and Pace.

murphaph

To be honest, I'm glad the outer electrifications are not included in the RO application: it means there is a slight chance the crucial piece (the tunnel) will be built. Don't be surprised if govt. "directed" IE to package it this way, so it looks cheaper and doesn't provide a target for public sector unions and welfare recipients to attack. Once the tunnel makes it through, everything else will follow. That was always the beauty of the Interconnector tbh, it can be divided up into bits, each offering some benefit but together offering massive benefit.

Sponge Bob

Fig 5.16 and Fig 5.19

http://www.dartundergroundrailwayorder.ie/environmental-impact-statement/volume-3-eis-figures/

Show spoil removal along the missing link and a special internal roadway system to the tunnel mouth. So the spoil is to be trained out over a ( largely) existing siding to the main line and not by road through Inchicore and Ballyfermot. I assume they can bring stuff in this way too, eg bulk cement and tunnel sections precast in concrete.

The happy hum of locos that can't be turned off returns to Inchicore

Sponge Bob

We also have this visualisation of the fKRP ( aka the Missing Link) clearly showing part of the proposed new express trackage in peoples gardens in Landen Road. It looks like ALL the Odd number houses from numbers 289 to 439 are going to lose their back gardens with 120kph express trains outside the bedroom window :eek:

Frankly I feel this is sloppy but this is what gets you in trouble at an oral hearing.
Volume 1 – EIS Non Technical Summary Sheet 1 of 6

http://www.dartundergroundrailwayorder.ie/assets/files/downloads/Environmental_Impact_Statement-EIS_and_Environmental_Impact_Statement_Non-Technical_Summary-NTS/Volume_1%E2%80%93EIS_Non_Technical_Summary/Figure%20NTS_02.pdf

Schematic from EIS July 2010

Same from public consultation phase map , May 2010

xper

Sponge Bob wrote: »

We also have this visualisation of the fKRP ( aka the Missing Link) clearly showing part of the proposed new express trackage in peoples gardens in Landen Road. It looks like ALL the Odd number houses from numbers 289 to 439 are going to lose their back gardens with 120kph express trains outside the bedroom window :eek:

Frankly I feel this is sloppy but this is what gets you in trouble at an oral hearing.

Yes, I saw that screw up in the EIS document's map. It's clearly a document error. The works drawing for the same area still shows the same indicative layout for the tie-in but correctly aligned with the existing track:
DU-RO 101 O-A (IE INCHICORE WORKS SHEET 1)

I presume that error won't as serious consequences as Eirgrid's little snafu on their interconnector planning application.:eek:

BrianD

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Electric trains have much better acceleration than diesel though, so that would make up a bit of time. I'd imagine that Drogheda DARTS would not stop between Docklands and Howth Junction, so that would only add on a couple of stops on a typical service - it could even improve on the Drogheda - Dublin commuter speed.

Something like 8 DARTS per hour off-peak would be ideal - 4 to Howth, 2 to Malahide, and 2 to Drogheda, serving Inchicore to Docklands, then Howth Junction to Drogheda would be about right.

That pattern would allow scheduling of an hourly Enterprise too, without trains getting in each others way, running a Drogheda DART 8 minutes after a Howth DART lets it go full speed non-stop to Howth Junction.

On the other line, 6 per hour from Bray/Greystones would be adequate, splitting between Maynooth and Pace.

There is no compelling arguement to extend the service to Drogheda and it would be a bad move to do so. Bringing the DART to Drogheda would create a passenger expectation of a frequent high speed service which just isn't realistic, viable or a sensible allocation of public transport resources.

Far better to create a high frequency service within the bounds of the Dublin suburbs and have greater frequency of direct/express services from Drogheda to Dublin.

Sponge Bob

While there may be merit in terminating the DU project 'as is' there is nowhere to store all the extra trains they will need to deliver it ( plus uncontended Connolly- Greystones) in the current plan. They need to add 1 more phase including a sizeable depot.

Extending from Connolly to Broombridge comes to mind in the spirit of your post, plenty of space there for a depot and we can stop the DU project then without reaching Clonsilla, Park West or Skerries never mind further afield.

Hungerford

BrianD wrote: »

There is no compelling arguement to extend the service to Drogheda and it would be a bad move to do so.

Apart from the fact that it's the one location on the Northern Line which has a significant depot and ample stabling facilities, which can easily be converted for Dart use?

Where else would you suggest terminating it? There's insufficient room to do so in Balbriggan and Skerries would be pretty tight too. Extending the Dart to Drogheda removes the potential for the creation of a Malahide-style bottleneck [a terminus with no real room to position trains] on the line.

Aard

BrianD wrote: »

Far better to create a high frequency service within the bounds of the Dublin suburbs and have greater frequency of direct/express services from Drogheda to Dublin.

Exactly. We should be modelling the DART on the Paris RER. By and large, the RER doesn't leave the contiguous urban area of Paris. The DART to Drogheda, OTOH, would be going through fields more often than urban areas. Like you said, an express commuter would make more sense for all concerned.

monument

Aard wrote: »

Exactly. We should be modelling the DART on the Paris RER. By and large, the RER doesn't leave the contiguous urban area of Paris. The DART to Drogheda, OTOH, would be going through fields more often than urban areas. Like you said, an express commuter would make more sense for all concerned.

RER doesn't leave the contiguous urban area of Paris because Paris is bloody massive compared to Dublin.

Ok in Paris you have Metro and RER, and in Berlin you have UBan, SBan, and Regional Express trains, etc etc, but none of these are directly comparable to what Dart is or even what it will be after the projects all come together.

Cool Mo D

Aard wrote: »

Exactly. We should be modelling the DART on the Paris RER. By and large, the RER doesn't leave the contiguous urban area of Paris. The DART to Drogheda, OTOH, would be going through fields more often than urban areas. Like you said, an express commuter would make more sense for all concerned.

The line to Drogheda already has very large usage by commuters. Electrifying it makes sense. The DART is an express commuter train anyway, so I don't see what the difference is? The route could certainly support a half hourly service.

And the RER goes far outside Paris's continuous urban area - the ends of lines C, D and E serve many suburban towns that are not continuous with the bulk of Paris, like Melun, Malesherbes, Tournan,and Saint-Rémy-lès-Chevreuse - not unlike towns on the northern commuter route.

monument

Aard wrote: »

Yes, they are not directly comparable, not least because of Paris's scale. Nonetheless, I don't think it's justified to have an "urban" rail line running mostly through fields.

The Dart has always been called a suburban service.

Aard

Apologies for screwing up the thread a little. I deleted that post with the hopes of writing a better one, but I see I was too late! :$

Aard

TBH, I think I'm confusing myself. On reflection, I have come to agree with you. A 30 minute interval DART service to Drogheda makes sense.

KC61

Cool Mo D wrote: »

The line to Drogheda already has very large usage by commuters. Electrifying it makes sense. The DART is an express commuter train anyway, so I don't see what the difference is? The route could certainly support a half hourly service.

And the RER goes far outside Paris's continuous urban area - the ends of lines C, D and E serve many suburban towns that are not continuous with the bulk of Paris, like Melun, Malesherbes, Tournan,and Saint-Rémy-lès-Chevreuse - not unlike towns on the northern commuter route.

The DART as it currently is is anything but an express - it stops everywhere!

What is likely is a two-tiered DART service - an outer semi-fast service to/from Drogheda and the existing stopping DART service.

Cool Mo D

A little off topic, but if anyone wants to easily download all the documents from the railway order to look at in their own time, then the DownThemAll Firefox extension works perfectly. It even lets you name the files after the descriptive link on the website, rather than IE's naming system. It works well for Metro Norths website too.

murphaph

Just thinking a bit further about why everything stops at Inchicore and east Wall....it's probably the simple fact that IE don't need a railway order to do the neccessary works from Inchicore to Hazelhatch: it's already a live railway, so no railway order is needed to simply improve it, electrify it etc. It would actually be idiotic to include the section from Inchicore to Hazelhatch. The only new railway is the tunnel section, so that is all that needs to be in the railway order application.

ilovegermany

murphaph wrote: »

Just thinking a bit further about why everything stops at Inchicore and east Wall....it's probably the simple fact that IE don't need a railway order to do the neccessary works from Inchicore to Hazelhatch: it's already a live railway, so no railway order is needed to simply improve it, electrify it etc. It would actually be idiotic to include the section from Inchicore to Hazelhatch. The only new railway is the tunnel section, so that is all that needs to be in the railway order application.

But surely they will have to get planning permission as they will need extra land take for the extra tracks and for altering the existing road overbridges at Kylemore and Le Fanu?

murphaph

ilovegermany wrote: »

But surely they will have to get planning permission as they will need extra land take for the extra tracks and for altering the existing road overbridges at Kylemore and Le Fanu?

That's not certain by any means. I don't believe any more land will be needed than is already in CIE ownership and even if bridges need altering, they are existing railway bridges and may not require a railway order (the railway equivalent of PP). The bridges already exist: I very much doubt a railway order would be the mechanism of choice used by IE to widen an existing bridge. They might just apply to DCC for PP, if they even have to legally. Railways are treated specially under our planning laws, for example IE can demolish 150 year old railway bridges without asking anyone's permission while a similar looking (and age) canal bridge is likely to be a protected structure...go figure.