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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
DART+ (DART Expansion)
Comments
-
Why would it be left sit idle while Connolly struggles when there would be the option of shifting any northern, Kildare or Maynooth services to the new Spencer Dock station?
The LLB cannot handle everything that the northern, Kildare and Maynooth DART services would be capable of delivering into Dublin so there's no option except to terminate some services before the LLB.
And surely there would be advantages in terminating any DARTs coming from Kildare or Maynooth in the new Spencer Dock station rather than Connolly as they'd have an unimpeded run to Spencer Dock without having to merge with a congested northern line?
I also find the location quite attractive and it delivers people into the centre of what will be one of the densest parts of the docklands with direct access to Luas and a much shorter walk to the south docks. With ML and an interchange at Cross Guns, the connectivity options will be great - which would drive all-day demand instead of the into-town-in-the-morning, home-in-the-evening current pattern of usage in then Docklands station.
Finally, the way the current docklands station is laid out represents very inefficient use of land and if you decommissioned it, the land under it would have high value for development - it's a bigger plot than the high density Connolly Quarter development being built a block away. The land freed up would surely be worth 60-80m.
I think you've misunderstood the point I'm making. I'm not against the development and increased level of services into Spencer Dock.
If you look through the original reports and plans you will see the huge benefits Spencer Dock can deliver and how it can play a big part in the expansion of capacity and frequency throughout the Dart network. In fact I'd go further and look to add an hourly Mullingar, Carlow and Portlaise at peak times.
The points you raised in terms of Connolly and LLB congestion are well known and documented by everyone. The new Dart service was to offer a new complete overhaul of routes with Spencer Dock and Dun Laoghaire playing a big part in that although both of these have been vastly scaled down.
For whatever reason, presumably cost cutting, the NTA later requested Jacobs to revise the plans by taking the Connolly upgrade out. In order to facilitate this capacity had to be cut. This result in a reshuffle of routes and frequency levels and in favour of more through trains for Maynooth and Drogheda while also wanting to boost the BCR of Glasnevin with transfers the Kildare line was sacrificed.
The newest modelling report will clearly show you the long term vision of the network. It's not envisioned to use Spencer Dock within the next 15-20 years. What's the point of spend such a large sum of money on a purpose built station if your not going to use it for what it was intended for. Aside from that, for Spence Dock to reach it's full operating potential it actually needs Connolly to be upgraded so Maynooth and Kildare lines won't conflict at Glasnevin and North Strand while the Northern Line has now resorted back to terminating in Malahide due to route changes.
The cost of both projects are a lot closer than you may think. Connolly upgrade was €203 million while Spencer Dock was coming in at €168 million. As you say Connolly is in dire need of an upgrade to improve capacity in through running. The return benefit of upgrading Connolly for a mere €35 million extra well and truly outweighs the benefits of Spencer Dock especially when it's not going to be used as it intended for.0 -
I think you've misunderstood the point I'm making. I'm not against the development and increased level of services into Spencer Dock.
If you look through the original reports and plans you will see the huge benefits Spencer Dock can deliver and how it can play a big part in the expansion of capacity and frequency throughout the Dart network. In fact I'd go further and look to add an hourly Mullingar, Carlow and Portlaise at peak times.
The points you raised in terms of Connolly and LLB congestion are well known and documented by everyone. The new Dart service was to offer a new complete overhaul of routes with Spencer Dock and Dun Laoghaire playing a big part in that although both of these have been vastly scaled down.
For whatever reason, presumably cost cutting, the NTA later requested Jacobs to revise the plans by taking the Connolly upgrade out. In order to facilitate this capacity had to be cut. This result in a reshuffle of routes and frequency levels and in favour of more through trains for Maynooth and Drogheda while also wanting to boost the BCR of Glasnevin with transfers the Kildare line was sacrificed.
The newest modelling report will clearly show you the long term vision of the network. It's not envisioned to use Spencer Dock within the next 15-20 years. What's the point of spend such a large sum of money on a purpose built station if your not going to use it for what it was intended for. Aside from that, for Spence Dock to reach it's full operating potential it actually needs Connolly to be upgraded so Maynooth and Kildare lines won't conflict at Glasnevin and North Strand while the Northern Line has now resorted back to terminating in Malahide due to route changes.
The cost of both projects are a lot closer than you may think. Connolly upgrade was €203 million while Spencer Dock was coming in at €168 million. As you say Connolly is in dire need of an upgrade to improve capacity in through running. The return benefit of upgrading Connolly for a mere €35 million extra well and truly outweighs the benefits of Spencer Dock especially when it's not going to be used as it intended for.
I doubt too much stock could be put into those cost estimates though, even intuitively keeping Connolly operational and doing major work would be an outrageous cost.
Has Connolly upgrade been shelved in the Emerging Preferred proposal published for Maynooth? Or just it was removed for a modelling exercise?0 -
I doubt too much stock could be put into those cost estimates though, even intuitively keeping Connolly operational and doing major work would be an outrageous cost.
Has Connolly upgrade been shelved in the Emerging Preferred proposal published for Maynooth? Or just it was removed for a modelling exercise?
Well there not plucked out of thin air either. They would be fairly reasonable and close estimates. NTA pay top dollar for these reports which begs the question as to why they ignore the advise and waste more resources on commissioning new reports. The key to Connolly upgrade was that the vast majority of it was within the railway boundary and didn't require altering the arches. There was many other estimates done such as digging under the arches or double decking the loop line. Its was the best plan that met most of the requirements at a reasonable cost. The key ingredient for Connolly is separation of Maynooth and Northern lines and 4 through platforms with the ability to turn back on the western side, it's just alternating rather than a complete rebuild.
Shelved, to get the full picture you'd need to read through the annexes. You'll need to read them in order or you'll loose track as to what's happening. It was a slashing exercise from the beginning. Considering the willingness to disregard the Connolly upgrade I've no doubt other major works will be shelved. You'll see in the 2020 modelling report Jacob's are against scaling it back and not convinced it will generate the results their looking for. When they seek to launch the "unlimited rail" plan which could be closer to 2043 they'll have no option but to upgrade Connolly which will come at a great expense along with colossal disruption.0 -
Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,398 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 10269
To be honest IE 222, I still think that the NTA are going down my route. I.e. Build Spencer Dock, and then use it and Docklands as a replacement for Connolly Station during its upgrade.
This avoids the pain of having to upgrade Connolly without being able to maintain a good level of service, which is probably their main concern. They probably believe that if they announce that there'll be significant, lengthy disruption to service on all lines that currently use Connolly, then opposition to the plan will be much higher.
The extra cost involved is a bargain when you consider that this will significantly reduce opposition.
Also, the NTA seemingly have a show, don't tell policy, whereby they wait until the problem is staring politicians in the face, and then produce their preferred solution. I can well imagine them saying to politicians "yes, we've finished the Dart+ project, but now to unlock all the extra potential, we've only got to spend €200 million, and no, there won't be much much disruption to services"0 -
On the website under main infrastructure elements though "capacity enhancements at Connolly station (modifications of platforms, junctions and station) to facilitate increased train numbers" is down whereas Spencer Dock is "subject to further assessment".0
-
What was the Connolly upgrade going to involve? The plans seem to be changing so fast it's hard to keep up. Any chance of a quick summary to avoid wading through technical annexes?The cost of both projects are a lot closer than you may think. Connolly upgrade was €203 million while Spencer Dock was coming in at €168 million. As you say Connolly is in dire need of an upgrade to improve capacity in through running. The return benefit of upgrading Connolly for a mere €35 million extra well and truly outweighs the benefits of Spencer Dock especially when it's not going to be used as it intended for.
I suppose, I don't understand how upgrading Connolly can improve the situation if the choke point is the LLB?
And if it's to allow more terminations in Connolly, then surely terminating Kildare/Maynooth trains in Spencer Dock would be much better as they can completely avoid any interaction with the trains going through Connolly?
The money calculations are interesting. But they don't seem to take into account that removing Docklands station releases nearly 4 hectares of what is now valuable development land.
City block 3 across the street is only around half the size of the Docklands station plot (although in a slightly more desirable location) and it sold for 110m last year. Selling the Docklands station land could probably pay for the Spenser Dock station.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19528
Mod: I've moved the Coolmine Level crossing posts to a new thread.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058122299
0 -
What was the Connolly upgrade going to involve? The plans seem to be changing so fast it's hard to keep up. Any chance of a quick summary to avoid wading through technical annexes?
I suppose, I don't understand how upgrading Connolly can improve the situation if the choke point is the LLB?
And if it's to allow more terminations in Connolly, then surely terminating Kildare/Maynooth trains in Spencer Dock would be much better as they can completely avoid any interaction with the trains going through Connolly?
The money calculations are interesting. But they don't seem to take into account that removing Docklands station releases nearly 4 hectares of what is now valuable development land.
City block 3 across the street is only around half the size of the Docklands station plot (although in a slightly more desirable location) and it sold for 110m last year. Selling the Docklands station land could probably pay for the Spenser Dock station.
I've looked at the reports quickly there, sorry IE222 it was all there. Looks like very little at Connolly alright.
In terms of the modelling it looks like there's a lot of alighting at Glasnevin with the metro and Connolly so planning for Connolly terminations seems reasonable. In terms of routing Kildare line all to Docklands I'm not sure that's the case is it? Even the modelling report says that this service structure mightn't be the last one and that was just a few months ago, and the Connolly reports seem very occupied with a crossover either at Newcomen Chord or at Glasnevin. So I don't think that Kildare line will all necessarily end up at Docklands.
And then I agree with the comment I'm replying to here, Loop Line is surely still a choke point and more than 16tph per direction is impossible right? Or not? If it is still the choke point we need Docklands either as a terminus or through route with Dart Underground, if the station is designed with DU in mind then a terminus that's high quality and connects to the Luas and plonks you right in the Docklands seems like a good option.
Am I misunderstanding what the potential Connolly upgrades could do though? Would it be possible to get, say, 25tph per direction over the Loop Line and the real choke point is actually Connolly?0 -
Just to point out that the final phase of the city centre resignalling project which is Connolly Station and yard is due at long last for completion this year.
That will deliver improvements in its own right in terms of capacity through the station.0 -
To be honest IE 222, I still think that the NTA are going down my route. I.e. Build Spencer Dock, and then use it and Docklands as a replacement for Connolly Station during its upgrade.
This avoids the pain of having to upgrade Connolly without being able to maintain a good level of service, which is probably their main concern. They probably believe that if they announce that there'll be significant, lengthy disruption to service on all lines that currently use Connolly, then opposition to the plan will be much higher.
The extra cost involved is a bargain when you consider that this will significantly reduce opposition.
Also, the NTA seemingly have a show, don't tell policy, whereby they wait until the problem is staring politicians in the face, and then produce their preferred solution. I can well imagine them saying to politicians "yes, we've finished the Dart+ project, but now to unlock all the extra potential, we've only got to spend €200 million, and no, there won't be much much disruption to services"
It would make sense to do it this way but there is not even a slight mentioned of it. I would've expected this to be highlighted into the reason for building it. I believe Docklands platforms are reusable and I'd suspect that these will be used in the construction of Spencer Dock. I'm not sure if it would be possible to keep Docklands connected when Spencer Dock is constructed.
There is no avoiding disruption. Personally I think people would be more accommodating to the idea of disruption at the beginning before they gain the service. It'll also impact on far less now than doing it after expansion on the network. I don't think Connolly would need to be shut for any long periods. The plans should allow them to do it in sections. It will probably lead to a reduction in capacity and maybe services running through without stopping during platform works.0 -
Advertisement
-
What was the Connolly upgrade going to involve? The plans seem to be changing so fast it's hard to keep up. Any chance of a quick summary to avoid wading through technical annexes?
I suppose, I don't understand how upgrading Connolly can improve the situation if the choke point is the LLB?
And if it's to allow more terminations in Connolly, then surely terminating Kildare/Maynooth trains in Spencer Dock would be much better as they can completely avoid any interaction with the trains going through Connolly?
The money calculations are interesting. But they don't seem to take into account that removing Docklands station releases nearly 4 hectares of what is now valuable development land.
City block 3 across the street is only around half the size of the Docklands station plot (although in a slightly more desirable location) and it sold for 110m last year. Selling the Docklands station land could probably pay for the Spenser Dock station.
Well if you look at annex 4.3a and look for option 6b, that's what was to be implemented. Then 4.3b will show you what's now been implemented. Just look for the capacity maps and the bundle 6 option2 in the modelling annex and then compare with the new modelling report dated 2020, again the maps plus the 1-3 scenario bundle while the expected dates of implementation of the "unlimited rail" will show you the long term vision. That should give you a good idea without reading the whole lot the level of slashing.
While In summary,
The key aim is maximizing the number of people rather than trains across the LLB. Once you get the trains into the city they can transfer over and thats where Spence Dock and Glasnevin come in. To gain maximized capacity on each line the Connolly operation needs to handle 44 trains or thereabouts. Connolly would take 30 and Spencer Dock had capacity to take 18. The re-signalling project would allow 18 of the 30 Connolly trains to run through on the LLB. The best way of maximizing the LLB was to run most Northern line through. Northen line terminating in Connolly and Spencer Dock allowed Maynooth and Kildare services to run through the LLB.
The Connolly upgrade also allowed for better transfers between services and basically turned platform 4 into a through platform which allowed for separation between Maynooth and Northern lines and for terminating on the new platforms 6&7. The Newcome Jct. upgrade, part of the Connolly upgrade, allowed separation between Kildare and Maynooth line. In theory this allowed up to 5 arrivals/departures to happen simultaneously, LLB departure and arrival, Newcome line departure, Northern line terminating and North Strand Jct arrival. The turn back options of GCD and Dun Laoghaire avoided congestion at Bray and also offered a better and more balanced variety of services.
A good portion if not all of Docklands will need to be retained for the tunnel portal of DU. Prioritising the sale of land will only lead to draw backs on operational potential. Let's build what we need first and look at selling any remaining land afterwards. Land sales will fund very little of this project.0 -
I've looked at the reports quickly there, sorry IE222 it was all there. Looks like very little at Connolly alright.
In terms of the modelling it looks like there's a lot of alighting at Glasnevin with the metro and Connolly so planning for Connolly terminations seems reasonable. In terms of routing Kildare line all to Docklands I'm not sure that's the case is it? Even the modelling report says that this service structure mightn't be the last one and that was just a few months ago, and the Connolly reports seem very occupied with a crossover either at Newcomen Chord or at Glasnevin. So I don't think that Kildare line will all necessarily end up at Docklands.
And then I agree with the comment I'm replying to here, Loop Line is surely still a choke point and more than 16tph per direction is impossible right? Or not? If it is still the choke point we need Docklands either as a terminus or through route with Dart Underground, if the station is designed with DU in mind then a terminus that's high quality and connects to the Luas and plonks you right in the Docklands seems like a good option.
Am I misunderstanding what the potential Connolly upgrades could do though? Would it be possible to get, say, 25tph per direction over the Loop Line and the real choke point is actually Connolly?
You're missing the point that Newcome will only be used by Connolly - M3 services. Using the cord allows them to turn back on Platform 7 resulting in only P5&6 been through platforms. This means the remaining Maynooth services will have to operate via North strand and Ossory Rd which infringes onto the Northern line. The impact of all this means Kildare line needs to be reduced and can only operate into Spencer Dock. Also as a result of this clonflict between Northern and Maynooth lines at Ossory road maximum capacity of the LLB is not reached. Jacob's have highlighted clearly that although this may work in simulation it may not be achievable in practice. Another point which I feel hasn't been completely factored in is the extra stop at Glasnevin and level of transfers. Not only will trains be required to stop but more emphasis needs to be put onto the length of time all these transfers are going to take especially with 3 lines converging at Glasnevin and with the close proximity of North Strand. It could be better operationally to transfer at Drumcondra.
As outlined, Spencer Dock is a purpose built station and will be hugely beneficial but I can't see how to justify the cost of it if it's not going to be used for what it's designed for. Docklands is more than capable of providing the planned capacity. If and when its decided to use Spencer Dock as it was intended for then build it otherwise it will be left sitting idly in the back round while Connolly continues to struggle.
If it is a reason of cost then use the Spencer Dock cost to install the Connolly upgrade and revisit Spencer Dock later. The Connolly upgrade would allow more through services including from the Kildare line while Docklands could maintaine its M3 services and even some Kildare line with some minor track renewal works. Connolly upgrade is the only way of unlocking LLB maximum capacity.0 -
Another point which I feel hasn't been completely factored in is the extra stop at Glasnevin and level of transfers. Not only will trains be required to stop but more emphasis needs to be put onto the length of time all these transfers are going to take especially with 3 lines converging at Glasnevin and with the close proximity of North Strand. It could be better operationally to transfer at Drumcondra.
I've been broadly following this discussion as best I can, but there are a few curious things about this part of the earlier post.
Firstly: 'Not only will trains be required to stop (at Glasnevin)' - it is normal that trains stop at an interchange if the system is designed so that passengers on those trains have the ability to change to other trains at that location.
Secondly: 'but more emphasis needs to be put onto the length of time all these transfers are going to take' - I'm surprised by this. An interchange is a location X which is designed for interchange between line A--B and line C--D (and possibly others). If someone gets off line C--D and wants to go to B, they get off at X and they wait for the next train. The train doesn't wait for them. So the trains on both lines stick to their timetable and the length of time for transfers is irrelevant.
Thirdly: 'especially with 3 lines converging at Glasnevin': as with the second point, it is hard to see that this is an issue. On all three of the lines which are proposed to serve a station at Glasnevin the frequency is very high. Changing between these trains should really be quite seamless and quick.
Fourthly: 'It could be better operationally to transfer at Drumcondra': but how would this be done, given that there is currently no proposal for a rail interchange of any sort at Drumcondra?
(In relation to the fourth point, especially, I restate that I have long been in favour of a Drumcondra route for the metrolink, something similar to what was proposed in the original metronorth proposal, but with a bit of tweaking, so that there could be a full 'DART'-metro interchange at Drumcondra. PPT/Maynooth/Dunboyne train passengers could then do all 'non-metro' transferring at Glasnevin).0 -
Splitting transfers between Glasnevin and Drumcondra would mean some passengers would need to unnecessarily transfer an extra time.strassenwo!f wrote: »(In relation to the fourth point, especially, I restate that I have long been in favour of a Drumcondra route for the metrolink, something similar to what was proposed in the original metronorth proposal, but with a bit of tweaking, so that there could be a full 'DART'-metro interchange at Drumcondra. PPT/Maynooth/Dunboyne train passengers could then do all 'non-metro' transferring at Glasnevin).0 -
Will be interesting to see how glasnevin station is built. Presumably there'll be construction on maynooth DART long before there's metro construction. Assuming the projects are actually delivered and too their current programmes0
-
You're missing the point that Newcome will only be used by Connolly - M3 services. Using the cord allows them to turn back on Platform 7 resulting in only P5&6 been through platforms. This means the remaining Maynooth services will have to operate via North strand and Ossory Rd which infringes onto the Northern line. The impact of all this means Kildare line needs to be reduced and can only operate into Spencer Dock. Also as a result of this clonflict between Northern and Maynooth lines at Ossory road maximum capacity of the LLB is not reached. Jacob's have highlighted clearly that although this may work in simulation it may not be achievable in practice. Another point which I feel hasn't been completely factored in is the extra stop at Glasnevin and level of transfers. Not only will trains be required to stop but more emphasis needs to be put onto the length of time all these transfers are going to take especially with 3 lines converging at Glasnevin and with the close proximity of North Strand. It could be better operationally to transfer at Drumcondra.
As outlined, Spencer Dock is a purpose built station and will be hugely beneficial but I can't see how to justify the cost of it if it's not going to be used for what it's designed for. Docklands is more than capable of providing the planned capacity. If and when its decided to use Spencer Dock as it was intended for then build it otherwise it will be left sitting idly in the back round while Connolly continues to struggle.
If it is a reason of cost then use the Spencer Dock cost to install the Connolly upgrade and revisit Spencer Dock later. The Connolly upgrade would allow more through services including from the Kildare line while Docklands could maintaine its M3 services and even some Kildare line with some minor track renewal works. Connolly upgrade is the only way of unlocking LLB maximum capacity.
What's the cost of the other elements of the project then? Looks like they very possibly won't do Spencer Dock and surely there's massive hunger in IÉ to do Connolly, are they short €200m? Surely they'd rather get Maynooth and Kildare right than worry about Drogheda0 -
strassenwo!f wrote: »I've been broadly following this discussion as best I can, but there are a few curious things about this part of the earlier post.
Firstly: 'Not only will trains be required to stop (at Glasnevin)' - it is normal that trains stop at an interchange if the system is designed so that passengers on those trains have the ability to change to other trains at that location.
Secondly: 'but more emphasis needs to be put onto the length of time all these transfers are going to take' - I'm surprised by this. An interchange is a location X which is designed for interchange between line A--B and line C--D (and possibly others). If someone gets off line C--D and wants to go to B, they get off at X and they wait for the next train. The train doesn't wait for them. So the trains on both lines stick to their timetable and the length of time for transfers is irrelevant.
Thirdly: 'especially with 3 lines converging at Glasnevin': as with the second point, it is hard to see that this is an issue. On all three of the lines which are proposed to serve a station at Glasnevin the frequency is very high. Changing between these trains should really be quite seamless and quick.
Fourthly: 'It could be better operationally to transfer at Drumcondra': but how would this be done, given that there is currently no proposal for a rail interchange of any sort at Drumcondra?
(In relation to the fourth point, especially, I restate that I have long been in favour of a Drumcondra route for the metrolink, something similar to what was proposed in the original metronorth proposal, but with a bit of tweaking, so that there could be a full 'DART'-metro interchange at Drumcondra. PPT/Maynooth/Dunboyne train passengers could then do all 'non-metro' transferring at Glasnevin).
I get your point and agree if this is done correctly it should work seamlessly but I think it needs a lot to go right and some concrete timetabling. The potential issues I see here is conflicts rather than ease of transfer. Transfer from a passengers perspective will be simple as it will be the same platform unless their moving between M3 and Kildare or changing east to west bound or vice versa. Besides Connolly this will become the busiest section of the network.
Maybe I'm missing something but here's my take on it. The original plan for Glasnevin was Maynooth would use Newcome Line and Kildare would use North Strand. This has changed and now both will use North Strand while M3 will use Newcome. With the level of frequency on both lines, including the DMU services on Sligo line, that will result in something like 30 movements across the junction. Althought Maynooth bound services won't cross the junction the M3 will narrow the gap and limit the number of paths available. The main platforms are going to handle a train every 1.5mins. The junction itself will have a train use it every 2 mins. They would need to make sure Up and Down Kildare trains cross the junction at pretty much the same time.
To me anyway, that's a very tight squeeze. The stations location will also extend the timeframe that it takes a train to clear the junction. On top of all that its envisoned most of the PPT passengers will transfer here. Depending on the time of day and the spread of demand but that could be anywhere up to 600 people on a 4 car train. Obviously the larger the crowd to move the longer it will take.
On top of all that the same process is repeated twice again at North Strand and Ossory road. I estimate there could be up 10 trains at any given time between signalling blocks of Ossory road - North Strand and Glasnevin. To avoid a build up they'll need to ensure paths are available and not having to wait for a path especially on approach to Connolly. I just feel that it puts an awful lot of pressure on such a small but critical part of the network.
I can't see anyway of avoiding this but maybe if they moved the tie in of the Glasnevin jct. to the eastern end of the station it could reduce it. This would allow eastbound arrivals to enter the station simultaneously. It would be very tight to fit this in and would likely result in a very sharp cross over.0 -
Will be interesting to see how glasnevin station is built. Presumably there'll be construction on maynooth DART long before there's metro construction. Assuming the projects are actually delivered and too their current programmes
Presumably if Metro doesn't go ahead the station will be scrapped. Have they bought the land yet.0 -
Metrolink is going ahead0
-
Advertisement
-
What's the cost of the other elements of the project then? Looks like they very possibly won't do Spencer Dock and surely there's massive hunger in IÉ to do Connolly, are they short €200m? Surely they'd rather get Maynooth and Kildare right than worry about Drogheda
I don't know if it's a case of been short as such. I'd guess it's to present a figure that's palatable. They haven't released what each individual Dart+ project will cost but they've included a cost list on what was deemed necessary key infrastructure installations or upgrades but seem to be skimming them back a bit. It was still saving nearly €2 billion compared to DU so trying to scale it down more is a bit needless.
IE are still dead set on DU happening and I've a feeling they'll go with Spencer Dock at the expense of Connolly to keep that alive.0 -
BonnieSituation wrote: »Metrolink is going ahead
I know but if for some odd reason it doesn't or it gets put on the long finger after this crisis I guess Glasnevin could be pulled. Same with Dart.0 -
-
I know but if for some odd reason it doesn't or it gets put on the long finger after this crisis I guess Glasnevin could be pulled. Same with Dart.
Doubt Glasnevin gets pulled. It’s at the very southern tip of Glasnevin. Only a 60 second walk you are in Phibsboro the northern half and eastern segment it will serve too down by the canal. That’s a catchment area, a direct catchment area of around 30,000 plus people.
Glasnevin and Phibsboro is a catchment area full with City AND airport workers. Add in the connectivity to other places, Swords etc and the station will be busy for the whole time it’s in operation.0 -
Looking at it again it's crazy that they're choosing this Do Min option given it's €130m when Option 6B was only €198. Submissions due today for anyone who wants to mention Connolly and Loop Line Bridge capacity that needs to be prioritised. Also cycle parking at the outer stations I'd say.0
-
Looking at it again it's crazy that they're choosing this Do Min option given it's €130m when Option 6B was only €198. Submissions due today for anyone who wants to mention Connolly and Loop Line Bridge capacity that needs to be prioritised. Also cycle parking at the outer stations I'd say.
The "do minimum" was option 3 on the report. That's not been done. It's literally track renewal works on the northern throat of the station and there's not even much been renewed. The main addition is a crossover between the up and down Maynooth line before Ossory Rd. This allows a down train to use the up line to exit platform 6. See diagrams below. The faint red lines are new track the faint broken green lines are tracks been removed.
The drop lock on Newcome curve is been done as well. That's the biggest investment been made in Connolly.0 -
Advertisement
-
Does it not make more sense to alternate services between Spencer dock and Connolly/ grand canal Dock so people can board a service that suits them rather then needlessly changing? Having all kildare survives use docklands makes little sense to me split it 50/50 then with more frequent lines like maynooth maybe have every 3rd train use Spencer Dock.0
-
Thrashssacre wrote: »Does it not make more sense to alternate services between Spencer dock and Connolly/ grand canal Dock so people can board a service that suits them rather then needlessly changing? Having all kildare survives use docklands makes little sense to me split it 50/50 then with more frequent lines like maynooth maybe have every 3rd train use Spencer Dock.
That may happen but it will depend on designs for Glasnevin station. I believe with the Connolly option they're doing it would cause too much conflict to crossover there. In fact the reason there's upset in the thread is that they set a target of 30 trains per hour for Connolly, the option they picked can deliver 23 and the report published on it repeatedly said 23 mightn't even be possible.
So if they do a big Glasnevin interchange and crossover we may actually see more trains going to Spencer Dock0 -
Article is a few weeks old but would anyone with a subscription be kind enough as to post the what it says:
https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/the-man-who-went-from-tinkering-with-tractors-to-ruling-the-railways-39565051.html0 -
Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,986 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 22582
Ireland trains wrote: »Article is a few weeks old but would anyone with a subscription be kind enough as to post the what it says:
https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/the-man-who-went-from-tinkering-with-tractors-to-ruling-the-railways-39565051.html
Not much interesting:
- Seems to suggest that the Dart+ project will cost 2.6 Bn
- Doesn't see any salary cuts at IR due to the current Covid19 difficulties, 64 of his staff earning more then 100k
- NTA plugging the 200m funding gap
- Expects 2023 before passenger levels return to 2019 levels.0 -
The "do minimum" was option 3 on the report. That's not been done. It's literally track renewal works on the northern throat of the station and there's not even much been renewed. The main addition is a crossover between the up and down Maynooth line before Ossory Rd. This allows a down train to use the up line to exit platform 6. See diagrams below. The faint red lines are new track the faint broken green lines are tracks been removed.
The drop lock on Newcome curve is been done as well. That's the biggest investment been made in Connolly.
Have they ever looked at an interchange at Connolly with a platform on the line passing underneath to Spencer Dock?0 -
Advertisement
-
Have they ever looked at an interchange at Connolly with a platform on the line passing underneath to Spencer Dock?
It's nowhere near the station. Docklands station itself is only <50m further away.
In fact, Kilbarrack and Howth Junction are closer than the Docklands line is to Connolly (ticket barrier)0 -
Have they ever looked at an interchange at Connolly with a platform on the line passing underneath to Spencer Dock?
They did look into a Connolly North station but this was related to one of the alternative DU routes. I can't remember exactly but it might of been Spencer Dock - Pearse turn back tunnel and using the PPT for Kildare line. I think it would've been on the North Strand Jct. line rather than the Newcome and would be a train transfer rather than an extension of Connolly.
There is no real alternative but to upgrade Connolly. The Connolly area/approach is been hampered with DU plans still pretty much been at the forefront of the plans there. Not upgrading Connolly, disconnecting Newcome Curve, Spencer Dock and routing Kildare services into Docklands via Newcome is planning focused around DU been implemented at a later date.
They need to complete the additional modelling tests to see if this is actually doable and I'd presume that's why there is very little regarding Glasnevin. Whatever they choose to do with Connolly will dictate what happens with Glasnevin Jct and Newcome Curve. Personally I think they'll need to keep Newcome Curve and upgrade North Strand. I'm sure when Dart South West is released for consultation there will be massive pressure put on them for direct services through Connolly. It would be a right mess and very costly trying to do the upgrades at that point imo.0 -
There should be better access to Connolly, the old dart entrance or an entrance off Seville Place, and access between platforms over the northern end of the platforms.0
-
Should be access from up around Five Lamps too.
Somebody needs to take a look at the access to Copenhagen Central to see how to maximise access/footfall.0 -
That's some station alright.0
-
Carawaystick wrote: »There should be better access to Connolly, the old dart entrance or an entrance off Seville Place, and access between platforms over the northern end of the platforms.
The drawings show potential new exits from platforms 4-7 under the arches onto Preston St. or Amiens St. beside the old garage and possibly another into the new Connolly Quarter via the current subway. These seem to be an alternative to widening the platforms if the additional modelling determines widening is required rather than sensible addition.0 -
I think there's also supposed to be a bridge connecting the platforms so not everyone has to dog-leg through the underpass to make connections.0
-
-
Splitting transfers between Glasnevin and Drumcondra would mean some passengers would need to unnecessarily transfer an extra time.
Victor, I've been meaning to reply to this for some time, but other things have unfortunately got in the way.
I'm still not entirely sure what the IE plans for Glasnevin Junction are, but it does seem to me that they are planning to continue to have rail services on both the current Maynooth line through Drumcondra station and on the Midland line (beside the canal).
Is it indeed the case that this is what is going to happen, for the foreseeable future?
If so, then a station on the Midland line in Drumcondra should make sense anyway, to serve that area, with the section around Whitworth Parade being an obvious location for station construction. There seems to be ample space either side of the tracks to put in platforms, perhaps with some relocation of the trees there - if that is deemed necessary. (I'd favour relocation of the wall as the major change, as I quite like having trees on station platforms).
Even if that's not possible, there would seem to be considerable scope for building another Drumcondra Station - though with more expense, of course - along Whitworth Road. That would probably require narrowing the canal in that area, and considerable earthworks there, but it's hard to see that it would be a major engineering project.
In any case, either of those projects could tee up construction of a suitable underground location under Drumcondra Road for a very effective metro station with connections to both 'DART' lines.
The major problem I see with bringing the metro through Glasnevin Junction is that it is a north-south corridor into/out of the city which is very close to the LUAS Green line (also a north-south corridor).
I think the quality of the line into/out of Broadstone - unimpeded by traffic for several kilometres - offers enormous scope for this line to eventually be improved even beyond the current plans for a LUAS to/from Finglas; diverting the metrolink plans toward Drumcondra - much like in the original metronorth plan, and about halfway between the current DART and the LUAS Green line - would offer less overlap and also provide a better spread of rail transport for the city.0 -
I think a decision will need to be taken on what platform layout will be done at Glasnevin station - the proposed three platform layout (two lateral and one island platforms) or two island platforms. Two island platforms would mean all eastbound trains could use the GSWR line and all westbound trains could use the MGWR, allowing there to be fast and slow tracks. However, this would mean conflicting train movements at Glasnevin Junction, unless one puts in grade separation.strassenwo!f wrote: »Victor, I've been meaning to reply to this for some time, but other things have unfortunately got in the way.
I'm still not entirely sure what the IE plans for Glasnevin Junction are, but it does seem to me that they are planning to continue to have rail services on both the current Maynooth line through Drumcondra station and on the Midland line (beside the canal).
About the only place for a Drumcondra station on the MGWR line is between the locks at Drumconra Road and St. Brigid's Road Lower. Further east is impractical as the adjacent properties are too close and further west interferes too much with the canal locks and is too close to Glasnevin.If so, then a station on the Midland line in Drumcondra should make sense anyway, to serve that area, with the section around Whitworth Parade being an obvious location for station construction. There seems to be ample space either side of the tracks to put in platforms, perhaps with some relocation of the trees there - if that is deemed necessary. (I'd favour relocation of the wall as the major change, as I quite like having trees on station platforms).
Even if that's not possible, there would seem to be considerable scope for building another Drumcondra Station - though with more expense, of course - along Whitworth Road. That would probably require narrowing the canal in that area, and considerable earthworks there, but it's hard to see that it would be a major engineering project.
In any case, either of those projects could tee up construction of a suitable underground location under Drumcondra Road for a very effective metro station with connections to both 'DART' lines.0 -
Advertisement
-
I think a decision will need to be taken on what platform layout will be done at Glasnevin station - the proposed three platform layout (two lateral and one island platforms) or two island platforms. Two island platforms would mean all eastbound trains could use the GSWR line and all westbound trains could use the MGWR, allowing there to be fast and slow tracks. However, this would mean conflicting train movements at Glasnevin Junction, unless one puts in grade separation.
About the only place for a Drumcondra station on the MGWR line is between the locks at Drumconra Road and St. Brigid's Road Lower. Further east is impractical as the adjacent properties are too close and further west interferes too much with the canal locks and is too close to Glasnevin.
You couldn't fit a station along Whitworth Rd.0 -
About the only place for a Drumcondra station on the MGWR line is between the locks at Drumconra Road and St. Brigid's Road Lower. Further east is impractical as the adjacent properties are too close and further west interferes too much with the canal locks and is too close to Glasnevin.
And Whitworth Place, Victor, with entrances from the bridge and from underground? Of course you might lose the trees, but that shouldn't be a problem for an organisation which got ABP approval to remove large numbers of very mature trees from St. Stephen's Green.You couldn't fit a station along Whitworth Rd.
It seems pretty obvious that a station along Whitworth Road would be easy to build, but it would probably require realignment of the tracks, significant earthworks, and temporary closure and eventual narrowing of the canal in that area - but who would be inconvenienced by that? Is there a lot of boat traffic on that stretch?0 -
**** that — if you want to widen the tracks there for some mad reason, fight it out for space with the motorists on the road. Leave the canal alone.0
-
I don't see any reason why the canal along Whitworth Road couldn't go back to its current size - if it needs to - once a station is built with that prospect in mind. Any experienced civil engineer could come up with a plausible plan for this in an hour or so.
And it wouldn't be for a mad reason - it would be to provide a direct service for trains on the Midland Line to serve Drumcondra and, if the metro is built, to enable it to be built via Drumcondra for the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post: to provide more efficient uptake of north-south traffic across the north city and not to encroach on the catchment area of the current LUAS Green line and its successor(s).
I am unfortunately reduced to Google Maps because of the virus.0 -
You could fit it **under** the road.You couldn't fit a station along Whitworth Rd.
Too narrow.strassenwo!f wrote: »And Whitworth Place
Leave the tracks alone. Put the eastbound platform under the road and the westbound one where the canal bank is now. Perhaps, shift the canal slightly south.strassenwo!f wrote: »It seems pretty obvious that a station along Whitworth Road would be easy to build, but it would probably require realignment of the tracks, significant earthworks, and temporary closure and eventual narrowing of the canal in that area
I'm not suggesting much encroachment on the canal itself.**** that — if you want to widen the tracks there for some mad reason, fight it out for space with the motorists on the road. Leave the canal alone.0 -
Why not put a station at Summerhill/Ballybough instead?
People can change at Glasnevin for Drumcondra if needs be.
Let's serve as many areas as possible.0 -
I am advocating that on the GSWR line. There is plenty of space on the wide embankment west of Ballybough Road. However, the platform curvature would need to be examined.Why not put a station at Summerhill/Ballybough instead?
With the MGWR line, you are still dealing with the canal, the adjacent roads / properties and curvature.
Sure, but it adds time and likely means changing platforms in most scenarios.People can change at Glasnevin for Drumcondra if needs be.0 -
Too narrow.
I can't see that. There are houses on Whitworth Parade - which seems to be a cul-de-sac about 110 metres long - then there's the road, and then there's a row of about 13 trees, and then there's a wall separating the trees from the railway track, which is a bit below the level of the trees.
Move the wall to a position adjacent to the street, dig down to the level of the track and remove any trees which it is necessary to remove (or even replant them at a slightly lower level), and build an eastbound platform. A westbound platform would be even easier.
In that scenario, the residents of Whitworth Parade would experience very little disruption except during construction, and no long-term change to their quiet street, and would still see trees out of their front window, but just at a lower level.Leave the tracks alone. Put the eastbound platform under the road and the westbound one where the canal bank is now. Perhaps, shift the canal slightly south.
I'm not suggesting much encroachment on the canal itself.
This should also be very doable, but I would favour Whitworth Parade because of cost.0 -
Why not put a station at Summerhill/Ballybough instead?
People can change at Glasnevin for Drumcondra if needs be.
Let's serve as many areas as possible.
I am in favour of this, but I wouldn't see it as an 'instead' option. It seems to make considerable sense, and as a way of helping to develop that area of Dublin it could be very significant.0 -
Advertisement
-
Do you mean Whitworth Place?strassenwo!f wrote: »This should also be very doable, but I would favour Whitworth Parade because of cost.0
Advertisement