DART+ (DART Expansion)

MJohnston · 03-04-2021 1:55pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

Look it’s a 26 minute journey from Limerick Junction to Limerick.

That kind of short journey is fine for a 2800 set.

Let’s not get carried away here.

I think you’re missing the original tree a bit here for the woods. A poster was originally just pointing out that the DART is a more pleasant ride.

LXFlyer · 03-04-2021 3:24pm

MJohnston wrote: »

I think you’re missing the original tree a bit here for the woods. A poster was originally just pointing out that the DART is a more pleasant ride.

And someone digressed from that to talk about a DMU from Limerick Junction, to which I replied as I disagreed.

It’s a brief digression.

MyLove4Satan · 04-04-2021 7:25pm

CatInABox wrote: »

Once again, the Dublin Inquirer asking questions that the national newspapers don't. Where other, larger, newspapers are spending their time questioning why we need this project, or why we need to close roads to do it, the Inquirer has the imagination to go out and ask why the project isn't better.

Have to admit, Ballyfermot is getting short shrift here. Same with the North Strand area, two areas of Dublin that are currently deprived and would benefit greatly from having a Dart station as part of these plans.

Stinks of the old 'Bus for the working class - DART for the middle class' mentality. Not building a station at either Ballyfermot or Cabra West defies logic if you want to maximize commuting potential. It is not like any major engineering obstacles would rule these out.

cgcsb · 05-04-2021 12:28am

MyLove4Satan wrote: »

Stinks of the old 'Bus for the working class - DART for the middle class' mentality. Not building a station at either Ballyfermot or Cabra West defies logic if you want to maximize commuting potential. It is not like any major engineering obstacles would rule these out.

At 400k a pop for a two bed I'd call into question how 'working class' Cabra can be considered to be anymore. I think it's simple corner cutting

marno21 · 06-04-2021 5:29pm

Tender out for ground investigations for DART+ Southwest for the 2 to 4 track widening

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/186166/0/0?returnUrl=ctm/Supplier/publictenders&b=ETENDERS_SIMPLE

MyLove4Satan · 06-04-2021 9:06pm

marno21 wrote: »

Tender out for ground investigations for DART+ Southwest for the 2 to 4 track widening

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/186166/0/0?returnUrl=ctm/Supplier/publictenders&b=ETENDERS_SIMPLE

I am assuming this is for four tracks from Hueston?

MyLove4Satan · 06-04-2021 9:07pm

cgcsb wrote: »

At 400k a pop for a two bed I'd call into question how 'working class' Cabra can be considered to be anymore. I think it's simple corner cutting

Either way a station on the old cement yard is a no brainer.

IE 222 · 08-04-2021 9:04pm

I wonder is a lack of stations at Kylmore, Carba and Hueston West down to the fact IE still want DU.

Kylmore can take a station but not a quad station. The current UP lines will go to Dart meaning platforms would need to be on UP side. If DU ever gets the go ahead with a portal in Inchicore the running lines would need to reverse which would render the platforms useless. The other 2 would see serious reduction in level of services as they wouldn't have the capacity to run PPT and DU services west of Inchicore and would of obviously lead to a conflict with IC services at Island Bridge.

Pete_Cavan · 08-04-2021 9:23pm

Measuring Parkwest station on Google Maps, it is less than 30m wide. 30m could be achieved at Kylemore by removing the vegetation and embankments and having a vertical retaining wall instead. The road bridge needs to be placed anyway so the width can be provided there. Less space would be required if only two platforms were provided, and less again if they were combined in an island.

If quad-tracking is completed into Heuston, DU tunnel will not extend to Inchicore. Ending the tunnel at Heuston has already been mentioned as a cost cutting measure. With quad-tracking in place there would be little benefit for the considerable cost of tunnelling to Inchicore.

IE 222 · 08-04-2021 11:32pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Measuring Parkwest station on Google Maps, it is less than 30m wide. 30m could be achieved at Kylemore by removing the vegetation and embankments and having a vertical retaining wall instead. The road bridge needs to be placed anyway so the width can be provided there. Less space would be required if only two platforms were provided, and less again if they were combined in an island.

If quad-tracking is completed into Heuston, DU tunnel will not extend to Inchicore. Ending the tunnel at Heuston has already been mentioned as a cost cutting measure. With quad-tracking in place there would be little benefit for the considerable cost of tunnelling to Inchicore.

Even if they can squeeze in a quad station I don't see the need or benefit of doing so. Would the fact the line is in a cutting there not require a different approach in terms of a bridge where as all the others are raised over the line, not sure if that would make a difference in terms of remaining space.

Quad tracking into Hueston was always apart of the Kildare route plan either way.

It was put forward alright but can't remember what the pros and cons where on it, was it a turn back or portal at Hueston? Having future DU notions lingering in the background seems to be hampering and taking precedence over current infrastructure needs.

Peregrine · 09-04-2021 12:37am

A Kylemore Road station for DART services isn't incompatible with DART Underground.

The DART Underground tunnel portal isn't planned to be at Inchicore anymore. It will be north of the line between Sarsfield Road and Con Colbert Road. So the track alignment will be slow, slow, fast, fast. In fact, Kylemore Road was proposed in 2017 instead of the underground Inchicore station by the same engineers who recommended moving the DU tunnel portal away from Inchicore to Con Colbert Road. That's where Kylemore Road came from.

Pete_Cavan · 09-04-2021 6:30am

IE 222 wrote: »

Having future DU notions lingering in the background seems to be hampering and taking precedence over current infrastructure needs.

I don't think that's true, if a station at Kylemore Road isn't being provided it will be down to penny pinching. It's also possible that people are jumping the gun in relation to Kylemore so we need to see the DART+ South West proposals before we know what the intentions are.

brownbinman · 09-04-2021 9:23am

MyLove4Satan wrote: »

Either way a station on the old cement yard is a no brainer.

there's apartments going in there now unless there's a station in the plans or there's room left for one

LXFlyer · 09-04-2021 10:02am

brownbinman wrote: »

there's apartments going in there now unless there's a station in the plans or there's room left for one

There is room for the station beside the development.

Bsharp · 09-04-2021 6:55pm

Peregrine wrote: »

A Kylemore Road station for DART services isn't incompatible with DART Underground.

The DART Underground tunnel portal isn't planned to be at Inchicore anymore. It will be north of the line between Sarsfield Road and Con Colbert Road. So the track alignment will be slow, slow, fast, fast. In fact, Kylemore Road was proposed in 2017 instead of the underground Inchicore station by the same engineers who recommended moving the DU tunnel portal away from Inchicore to Con Colbert Road. That's where Kylemore Road came from.

There's a study ongoing looking at various DU portal options

0gac3yjefb5sv7 · 09-04-2021 6:57pm

Is the DART to Maynooth definitely going ahead or is it still in the planning may/may not happen phase?

Bsharp · 09-04-2021 6:59pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I don't think that's true, if a station at Kylemore Road isn't being provided it will be down to penny pinching. It's also possible that people are jumping the gun in relation to Kylemore so we need to see the DART+ South West proposals before we know what the intentions are.

I think it would be some form of penny pinching. We need to put stations where's there's demand and engineerour way to provide efficient services.
A station close to Kylemore road makes a lot of sense for public transport integration between red luas, orbital bus services and DART+. It would serve existing development as well as the scale of development that is ongoing around Naas Road which Red Luas and BusConnects don't have capacity for; royal liver site, southwest gateway etc.

LXFlyer · 09-04-2021 7:00pm

MattS1 wrote: »

Is the DART to Maynooth definitely going ahead or is it still in the planning may/may not happen phase?

Second public consultation is due in Q2.

Next phase after that is Railway Order application.

L1011 · 09-04-2021 7:01pm

MattS1 wrote: »

Is the DART to Maynooth definitely going ahead or is it still in the planning may/may not happen phase?

Its at an advanced stage of planning and going to go for a Railway Order (railway version of planning permission) soon.

However, until there's actually diggers in the ground and poles going up, it could end up not happening.

Bsharp · 09-04-2021 7:06pm

MattS1 wrote: »

Is the DART to Maynooth definitely going ahead or is it still in the planning may/may not happen phase?

It is all good for now, should at least get to the pre-construction phase and then it's a funding issue as always.

I hope the need to meet climate 2050 targets will help push it along. The business case for rail projects has been a challenge due to the costs involved and appraisal guidance that is not fit for purpose. This shortcoming has been recognised at department level and a jaspers report on the WRC highlighted it too. So in this context the case for electrified rail expansion is better than its ever been.

IE 222 · 10-04-2021 1:01am

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I don't think that's true, if a station at Kylemore Road isn't being provided it will be down to penny pinching. It's also possible that people are jumping the gun in relation to Kylemore so we need to see the DART+ South West proposals before we know what the intentions are.

I agree about jumping the gun but imo I think some DU aspects of the project are taking precedence over major infrastructural parts of the Dart+ project. I think the DU plan will be somewhat outdated after Dart+ and needs to be refreshed around Dart+ rather than fitting Dart plus around previous DU plans.

It would be interesting to see If provisions are been made or included for DU in Dart S/W plans. It would be hard to justify penny pinching with Kylmore and Cabra especially on a high frequency, high capacity in highly populated areas. Is Kylmore not apart of rezoning plans?

yascaoimhin · 10-04-2021 1:15am

The NTA and TII have started feasibility and exploratory studies for DART Underground, (rebranded to DART+ Tunnel).

IE 222 · 10-04-2021 1:31am

Peregrine wrote: »

A Kylemore Road station for DART services isn't incompatible with DART Underground.

The DART Underground tunnel portal isn't planned to be at Inchicore anymore. It will be north of the line between Sarsfield Road and Con Colbert Road. So the track alignment will be slow, slow, fast, fast. In fact, Kylemore Road was proposed in 2017 instead of the underground Inchicore station by the same engineers who recommended moving the DU tunnel portal away from Inchicore to Con Colbert Road. That's where Kylemore Road came from.

How will this work? Is this part is the latest plans or pre Dart+ ?

My understanding is that the current UP lines will become Dart lines and Down will be IC lines which removes conflict. I'd presume, in previous DU plans it would've been reverse if Inchicore was been used for a portal. I could be wrong but I doubt they where planning on keeping the current flow diagram and crossing UP trains over the down lines.

Unless the portal is in the centre of the track bed F/S - S/F isn't possible. The portal been located here would surely see the end of PPT. Unless the tunnel tracks branch off the quad tracking into the portal there will conflicting traffic and a major reduction in capacity into Hueston and PPT.

yascaoimhin · 10-04-2021 1:36am

IE 222 wrote: »

How will this work? Is this part is the latest plans or pre Dart+ ?

These plans are now longer current. The NTA and TII have started a new alignment study just yesterday taking in Metrolink, BusConnects and DART+ (New Docklands Station) The alignment could very well change,

Peregrine · 10-04-2021 1:38am

Bsharp wrote: »

There's a study ongoing looking at various DU portal options

The DU portal options study finished in 2017 in advance of DART+. The image is from that study. The study that's ongoing is a feasibility and route alignment study and it assumes the tunnel portal will be on the site east of Sarsfield Road (pictured above) as chosen by the 2017 study.

Going forward, we can assume the tunnel portal will be on that site.

IE 222 · 10-04-2021 1:47am

yascaoimhin wrote: »

The NTA and TII have started feasibility and exploratory studies for DART Underground, (rebranded to DART+ Tunnel).

I didn't know this. Makes sense as the PPT is ultimately fulfilling the DU purpose albeit in a slightly different manner with alternative routes. I'm not saying DU is obsolete and could be part of a bigger project such as a future airport spur for example rather than simply allowing Northen line trains run through to Hueston via SSG.

It's good that these are been revisited as a whole system. Maybe Tara St. will be favoured over Pearse.

I wonder would they look at building a new underground hub station at Tara St. and just route all the Hueston services to terminate down there. Belfast and Sligo services could even terminate there as well.

Zaney · 10-04-2021 1:57am

I can’t see Dart+ tunnel progressing ahead of MetroLink. Not sure the country can afford two major tunnelling projects progressing in parallel. Wouldn’t hold out much hope for either to be honest, big cheques to sign.

But Dart+ Maynooth Line, Kildare Line and Northern Line are almost certainties - we have to electrify our railways and there is so much land use development planned on the back of these.

IE 222 · 10-04-2021 2:08am

Zaney wrote: »

I can’t see Dart+ tunnel progressing ahead of MetroLink. Not sure the country can afford two major tunnelling projects progressing in parallel. Wouldn’t hold out much hope for either to be honest, big cheques to sign.

But Dart+ Maynooth Line, Kildare Line and Northern Line are almost certainties - we have to electrify our railways and there is so much land use development planned on the back of these.

Maybe not running exactly parallel but surely there is big savings to be made by keeping the TBMs in the ground and getting started on the next tunnel rather than waiting for one project to be up and running before approving the next. It would reduce a serious number of years off the timeframe as well. Id imagine even if it meant getting the tunnels bored and finishing one at later date would still deliver big savings.

Peregrine · 10-04-2021 2:16am

Zaney wrote: »

I can’t see Dart+ tunnel progressing ahead of MetroLink. Not sure the country can afford two major tunnelling projects progressing in parallel. Wouldn’t hold out much hope for either to be honest, big cheques to sign.

It won't. Even if it was funded for construction in the National Development Plan — which it isn't — it's still at least 3 years behind MetroLink. As it stands, construction of the tunnel is still envisaged to be between 2027 and 2035. But the route will be chosen and the corridor protected. That much is planned before 2027 in the National Development Plan.

MyLove4Satan · 10-04-2021 1:37pm

https://www.railwaygazette.com/infrastructure/arup-awarded-dart-coastal-lines-contract/58883.article

The upgrade involves not only providing electrified services from Dublin city centre to as far north as Drogheda in County Louth but also improving services along the entire length of the south-eastern line to Greystones in County Wicklow.

Arup director Peter Adams said: “This is rail’s time: as a user-friendly and sustainable travel mode, DART+ unlocks the potential for rail to become the key to Ireland’s sustainable mobility. Our multidisciplinary team is passionate about creating an efficient and seamless passenger experience.”

A mixed team of civil, rail, structural, bridge, traffic and transport engineers, digital advisors and environmental consultants will come together to design and upgrade 80km of new rail connections.

The design and planning phase will commence in early 2021, extending until 2024, while the tendering and construction will go on until 2027.

Bsharp · 16-04-2021 8:01am

Peregrine wrote: »

The DU portal options study finished in 2017 in advance of DART+. The image is from that study. The study that's ongoing is a feasibility and route alignment study and it assumes the tunnel portal will be on the site east of Sarsfield Road (pictured above) as chosen by the 2017 study.

Going forward, we can assume the tunnel portal will be on that site.

Appreciate that, although the latest study has that one-liner, similar to 'plans to date should not be considered conclusive and all potential options should be assessed'.

It will be good if they concurrently look at how Inchicore lands could be developed around a future station. Has the potential to generate a lot of funding for the project given the scale of CIE lands.

AngryLips · 16-04-2021 9:45am

Bsharp wrote: »

'plans to date should not be considered conclusive and all potential options should be assessed'.

This is why we can't have nice things

riddlinrussell · 16-04-2021 9:53am

I will be interested in the stated cost for 'Dart+ Tunnel' as compared to the previous costings for the interconnector when it included the rest of Dart+ as one big project

Victor · 16-04-2021 6:35pm

IE 222 wrote: »

Kylmore can take a station but not a quad station.

Would a Kylemore station need four platform faces? I don't think it would. Sure, have four tracks, but just have two with platforms.

IE 222 wrote: »

Maybe not running exactly parallel but surely there is big savings to be made by keeping the TBMs in the ground and getting started on the next tunnel rather than waiting for one project to be up and running before approving the next. It would reduce a serious number of years off the timeframe as well. Id imagine even if it meant getting the tunnels bored and finishing one at later date would still deliver big savings.

TBMs tend to be project specific, not least because of tunnel diameter. It's not about keeping the TBMs going, it's about keeping a railway construction industry going.

IE 222 · 16-04-2021 9:59pm

Victor wrote: »

Would a Kylemore station need four platform faces? I don't think it would. Sure, have four tracks, but just have two with platforms.TBMs tend to be project specific, not least because of tunnel diameter. It's not about keeping the TBMs going, it's about keeping a railway construction industry going.

No, I can't see any reason why it would need to be.

marno21 · 17-04-2021 1:27am

Jacobs appointed for DART+ Tunnel route selection

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/nta-revives-dart-underground-plan-1.4539533

highdef · 17-04-2021 1:44am

marno21 wrote: »

Jacobs appointed for DART+ Tunnel route selection

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/nta-revives-dart-underground-plan-1.4539533

That's just Crackers..... Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'll accept a yellow card.

MyLove4Satan · 17-04-2021 12:20pm

marno21 wrote: »

Jacobs appointed for DART+ Tunnel route selection

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/nta-revives-dart-underground-plan-1.4539533

Well this is a surprise I must say. Perhaps the penny is dropping with Irish politicians and bureaucrats that this is the most effective means of reaching climate targets rather than taxing barbecues, statues of Greta Thunberg or other nonsense.

If they actually built Metro and DART Underground that would be the emissions levels massively obliterated and we would actually have infrastructure to show for it. To me it is a no-brainier.

MyLove4Satan · 17-04-2021 12:24pm

I wonder if they are going to drop some of the underground stations? Realistically - assuming connectivity with the Metro - what is the minimum number of stations they could get away with between Hueston and Spencer Dock?

Sam Russell · 17-04-2021 12:42pm

MyLove4Satan wrote: »

I wonder if they are going to drop some of the underground stations? Realistically - assuming connectivity with the Metro - what is the minimum number of stations they could get away with between Hueston and Spencer Dock?

Why cheapen it. It will cost a lot more to add them later. Infrastructure is cheap in comparison with HASP, Social Welfare, HSE, etc. Covid will cost more than all the Infrastructure over the next decade, and that cost is in one or two years, while the lifetime of the rail infrastructure will last a lifetime or two.

It would make sense with the original plan of Christchurch, SSG and Pearse. It made sense when they last looked, and it will still make sense now - little has changed. The PPT increases connectivity, as does Metrolink, but it does not reduce the need for connectivity in other parts of the network.

I would like to see the Metrolink extension to Sandyford decided now, so it can be built now.

The Green Line should go from SSG down Adelaide Road at least as far as Leeson St, and possible as far as GCD. This would give Dart connection to the Green Line and then the Metrolink at Charlemont.

I would like to see a Luas line going from GCD to Golden Bridge or St James along the SCR to link with the Red line, so there is a network of Luas lines rather than two that just pass each other like ships in the night.

Dart Expansion should be about more connectivity throughout the greater Dublin area.

MJohnston · 17-04-2021 1:31pm

MyLove4Satan wrote: »

I wonder if they are going to drop some of the underground stations? Realistically - assuming connectivity with the Metro - what is the minimum number of stations they could get away with between Hueston and Spencer Dock?

Imo the bare minimum is one - and if the curve tolerances are doable, imo that should be Tara Street.

But I think that’d be a waste to have just 1 station, so I’d put at least one more underground station in between - I think Wood Quay would be ideal. Public land, serves Christchurch, Temple Bar, and a lot of the Liberties.

gjim · 17-04-2021 4:10pm

IE 222 wrote: »

I wonder would they look at building a new underground hub station at Tara St. and just route all the Hueston services to terminate down there. Belfast and Sligo services could even terminate there as well.

God no. Building new terminal rail platforms in the city would be nuts. They're a disaster in terms of capacity, efficiency and operations. Cities all over Europe have been spending billions trying to fix the problems associated with historical terminal stations over the last 50 years with variants of interconnectors.

If you're going to the expense of bringing a rail line into a city - particularly if it involves tunnelling - then you make sure you continue the line and have it emerge from the city in a different direction.

A terminus at Tara even with 4 platforms would support a fraction of the capacity of a pair of through-platforms and cost almost the same. It could even turn out to be more expensive.

roadmaster · 17-04-2021 4:23pm

In a time when we are apparently all feeling eco friendly i can not understand how the tunnel is not a certainty . There is no point in having bits of infrastructure you need a fully integrated system of roads, rail and cycling to complete the circle. We need to simply build the infrastructure if we want less traffic in Dublin city. Money is not an issue we can borrow for an underground and pay it back over 100 years if needs be as it will be a good investment as it will still be operational in 100 years

MyLove4Satan · 17-04-2021 4:34pm

Can anyone foresee some main line services using the tunnel and not just DART?

AngryLips · 17-04-2021 4:46pm

gjim wrote: »

God no. Building new terminal rail platforms in the city would be nuts. They're a disaster in terms of capacity, efficiency and operations. Cities all over Europe have been spending billions trying to fix the problems associated with historical terminal stations over the last 50 years with variants of interconnectors.

If you're going to the expense of bringing a rail line into a city - particularly if it involves tunnelling - then you make sure you continue the line and have it emerge from the city in a different direction.

And yet, that's all we seem to do. We did it with the original Green line, we did it with Metro North and now we're doing it with the current version of Metrolink. Terminating PT of any kind in the city centre is kind of nuts and it doesn't make sense but we keep doing it.

gjim · 17-04-2021 5:45pm

AngryLips wrote: »

And yet, that's all we seem to do. We did it with the original Green line, we did it with Metro North and now we're doing it with the current version of Metrolink. Terminating PT of any kind in the city centre is kind of nuts and it doesn't make sense but we keep doing it.

Yeah - I was going to include a mini-rant about ML but decided to stick to heavy rail to make my point. But I agree with you; the same principle applies to any sort of rail and in fact to any sort of PT including buses. It's just more critical with rail as the cost of correcting the issue subsequently can be immense.

Zebra3 · 17-04-2021 5:49pm

roadmaster wrote: »

In a time when we are apparently all feeling eco friendly i can not understand how the tunnel is not a certainty . There is no point in having bits of infrastructure you need a fully integrated system of roads, rail and cycling to complete the circle. We need to simply build the infrastructure if we want less traffic in Dublin city. Money is not an issue we can borrow for an underground and pay it back over 100 years if needs be as it will be a good investment as it will still be operational in 100 years

Political cowardice.

"Dublin gets everything" brigade. Politicians terrified of them.

L1011 · 17-04-2021 5:51pm

MyLove4Satan wrote: »

Can anyone foresee some main line services using the tunnel and not just DART?

Only after main line electrification. Diesel haulage through the tunnel will not happen.

bk · 17-04-2021 6:59pm

L1011 wrote: »

Only after main line electrification. Diesel haulage through the tunnel will not happen.

Even then, it is a terrible idea to mix different type of services like this.

We have seen from the success of the Luas the benefit of keeping things "simple" and operating just one type of service on a line and hopefully we will repeat that with Metrolink.

We have seen the issues of trying to cheap out and combine services on a line with the issues between DART, commuter and intercity rail, the complexities this brings and how they interfere with one another.

You really don't see this sort of obsession with crippling infrastructure by overloading it with different type of services in other countries. Instead in other countries you see that they realise you need to keep services separate, with different lines for different services or quad tracking or even six tracks to keep different types of services completely separate.

Look at London, you don't see them trying to run long distance commuter trains in the London Underground, instead they are building a separate tunnel for those, the Crossrail.

Dart Tunnel will just be for "Dart" and frequency through the tunnel is likely to be so high anyway, that there won't be any room for intercity services.

LXFlyer · 17-04-2021 7:15pm

There isn't a hope that Intercity trains would use the tunnel.

Remember that DART will increase in frequency - there simply won't be slots for Intercity services.

In any case, extending Intercity trains beyond Heuston means that you eat into the turnaround times and then you need even more trains to operate the same basic timetable.

A bit of common sense is needed here.

DART+ (DART Expansion)

Comments