Phoenix Park tunnel: 4 trains per hour from 2016

The reason for electrification to HH is to enable DART service from Inchicore, I don't think it was ever planned to electrify the Heuston area(but maybe a platform for operational flexibility). Remember the point of DU is to create two DART lines, one NE->SW(Hazelhatch) via the tunnel(surfacing at Inchicore) and one NW->SE via the existing Maynooth/Bray line. Electrifying the Cabra line is not part of that. As lxflyer says, any enabling electrification work will be on Maynooth or extending the Norther nline. There's no point doing Hazelhatch until there is a commitment to build the tunnel.

I'm not sure what you're proposing cgcsb, but I don't see any point in electrifying the PPT and Cabra line. The layout makes it impractical to serve Heuston and if you ran a DART service on the line, where would it operate to and from? There is not enough capacity on the network for a DART service Hazelhatch->Heuston/Connolly without building the tunnel. You would be better off electrifying the Maynooth line first, it has much higher usage than the Kildare line out of Heuston (and electrifying the Maynooth line is a direct enabling work for DU). Or another enabling work would be KRP2, extending the 4-tracking to Inchicore.

MrMorooka wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're proposing cgcsb, but I don't see any point in electrifying the PPT and Cabra line. The layout makes it impractical to serve Heuston and if you ran a DART service on the line, where would it operate to and from? There is not enough capacity on the network for a DART service Hazelhatch->Heuston/Connolly without building the tunnel. You would be better off electrifying the Maynooth line first, it has much higher usage than the Kildare line out of Heuston (and electrifying the Maynooth line is a direct enabling work for DU). Or another enabling work would be KRP2, extending the 4-tracking to Inchicore.

I'm not saying it makes any sense. I'm saying if it's the plan to electrify the HH line anyway regardless of a lack of DART underground, surely that necessitates electrifying the PPT at some point in the future.

cgcsb wrote: »

I'm saying if it's the plan to electrify the HH line anyway regardless of a lack of DART underground

It's not.

If it was, then sure, you would probably want to electrify PPT, but it's just a complete non-runner of an idea. You're better off electrifying the Maynooth line, as it has higher usage, and it will not be made obsolete by the DU tunnel if built(as an electrified PPT/Cabra line would be).

MrMorooka wrote: »

It's not.

Then why announce it in the capital spending plan?

cgcsb wrote: »

Then why announce it in the capital spending plan?

Did they? Your link just says "Planning will begin on extending the Dart to Maynooth and to Hazelhatch.".

I dug out this document, and it says this.

The first phase of a multi-phase DART
expansion programme will also begin, with
the extension of the DART line to Balbriggan
and with design and planning to progress for
expansion of DART services to Maynooth in
the west and Hazelhatch in the southwest. The
Dart Underground Project, which remains a key
element of integrated transport for the GDA over
the longer term, will be redesigned to provide a
lower cost technical solution, whilst retaining the
required rail connectivity

If you then look at the 'lower cost technical solution' they propose, it's to do with tunnel length and stations, and nothing to with electrification.

Basically, the idea that there is a plan to electrify Hazelhatch without the DU tunnel is something you seem to have made up entirely on your own. All that's been said is that planning for electrification on the line will be progressed, and given the tunnel(in some form) seems to still be the long term ambition, they must mean electrification into a tunnel portal, not to a Heuston terminus or through PPT.

ClovenHoof wrote: »

The PPT does not need to be electrified. Maynooth needs it more.

I disagree. If, when or whatever....DU becomes a possible reality, the electrification of this route would be a benefit. That said, it has taken over 12 years since the PPT route was first highlighted by ordinary people (in modern times ) for it to become a near reality. It was mooted many years before that too. Add on an Oireachtas Committee hearing in 2003. That's a shocking statistic for a basic improvement to rail transport in Dublin.

alias no.9 wrote: »

Is electrification possible in the PPT? Is there enough head height for the power lines?

It is possible. They lower the level of the track. If Im not mistaken this is what happened on the Dart extension around Bray head.

Big bucks though and Im just happy to see the PPT being utilised for now. DU is the real big gamechanger.

alias no.9 wrote: »

The PPT has a man made arch structure, not sure how feasible lowering the track bed would be, the existing foundations may be minimal.

Some pics here
https://www.flickr.com/photos/8661925@N05/sets/72157624577147566/

A cut and cover rebuild would probably be cheaper.

A cut and cover rebuild? Existing foundations? Sorry but we are miles apart.

Study Bray Head.

alias no.9 wrote: »

Bray Head tunnel is cut through a substantial body of rock, PPT is a brick built structure not far below the surface

Apologies, but I'm not sure you know what you are talking about. There are a number of tunnels built around Bray head and nearly all of them were built before the PPT. Number 4 tunnel was built in 1917. You are talking about arches and brick built like you are trying to prove a point. Bottom line, I really don't think electrifying the PPT would be a feat of engineering excellence and I have never heard anything to the contrary.

lxflyer wrote: »

Late 2016 - the city centre resignalling has to be completed first.

Not to mention freeing up stock to run the service.