DART+ (DART Expansion)

strassenwolf · 05-12-2009 11:54pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Eh ???

IE are ordering 400 new DART carriages , they only have about 150 at present. The cost of this order is a large part of the total cost of €3-4bn for the interconnector.

see

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/budget/news/dart-gets-8364900m-fleet--investment-for-430-new-carriages-1510815.html

Maybe you misunderstand me, Bob.

Maybe I placed my italics in the wrong place. If so, sorry. Please let me rephrase my question.

IE can order as many DART carriages as they want. If they order 400 carriages, they'll then have lots more trains. (At 8 carriages each, they'd have 50 more trains, by my reckoning).

The lead-up to my re-phrased question is this:

(a) apart from the DART, the proposed eventual situation along the Northern Line for Enterprises, Dundalk Arrows, (maybe even Drogheda Arrows if the project gets trimmed back, etc,) travelling in both directions, is still going to be exactly the same as the current layout of the Northern Line for those trains); and

(b) there is an apparent lack of any turnback facilities in the East of the city, under the current plan. (The possible use of the Clontarf siding would appear to hamper, or be hampered by, the smooth running of the services mentioned in point (a).*)

So, IE's DART will in the future have more trains than you can shake a stick at, but, under the circumstances outlined in points (a) and (b) above, how many of them will they actually be able to get into the tunnel, without causing disruption to other Northern line services?

*(To me, it is still unclear why such turnback facilities were not the default option in the planning for the proposed Spencer Dock station. It would seem to make eminent sense)

Sponge Bob · 06-12-2009 1:25am

strassenwolf wrote: »

Maybe you misunderstand me, Bob.

The lead-up to my re-phrased question is this:

(a) apart from the DART, the proposed eventual situation along the Northern Line for Enterprises, Dundalk Arrows, (maybe even Drogheda Arrows if the project gets trimmed back, etc,) travelling in both directions, is still going to be exactly the same as the current layout of the Northern Line for those trains); and

Correct, except for platform space in Connolly and the constraint of the Liffey bridge.

(b) there is an apparent lack of any turnback facilities in the East of the city, under the current plan. (The possible use of the Clontarf siding would appear to hamper, or be hampered by, the smooth running of the services mentioned in point (a).*)

You are confusing me now. The turnback would appear to be more important to send trains back into the tunnel than back north. North to me is simply 'not enough capacity long term' ...even with the interconnector

So, IE's DART will in the future have more trains than you can shake a stick at, but, under the circumstances outlined in points (a) and (b) above, how many of them will they actually be able to get into the tunnel, without causing disruption to other Northern line services?

The improvement northwards will be less than the improvements south of the river on the Tunnel>Hazelhatch and the Bray > Maynooth routes or indeed Bray > Hazelhatch.

If you live in Skerries and feel a tad swizzed by the whole project then you are absolutely correct. It will not do anything dramatic for you.

Interconnector will get you out of everyone elses way...simply put. Only quad tracking north of Sutton will make a big difference to you.

*(To me, it is still unclear why such turnback facilities were not the default option in the planning for the proposed Spencer Dock station. It would seem to make eminent sense)

Not thinking like a southsider is a crime against humanity in this country

armada104 · 06-12-2009 4:12am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You are confusing me now. The turnback would appear to be more important to send trains back into the tunnel than back north. North to me is simply 'not enough capacity long term' ...even with the interconnector

The fact that trains can't turn back at Spencer Dock means that any train travelling eastbound through the tunnel HAS to continue on to the Northern line. This limits the tunnel's capacity.

The improvement northwards will be less than the improvements south of the river on the Tunnel>Hazelhatch and the Bray > Maynooth routes or indeed Bray > Hazelhatch.

Bray -> Hazelhatch? What?

If you live in Serries and feel a tad swizzed by the whole project then you are absolutely correct. It will not do anything dramatic for you.

Interconnector will get you out of everyone elses way...simply put. Only quad tracking north of Sutton will make a big difference to you.

North of Sutton? What?

Not thinking like a southside is a crime against humanity in this country

Again... What?

Aside from some of the confusing (and confused) above, I think we're all generally in agreement about the Northern line thing, which was raised a long time ago. The problem is that IÉ are citing 21tpdph on the northern line when the interconnector is built. That is not possible and therefore not true. This could damage the case for the interconnecor. Perhaps rightly so?

strassenwolf · 06-12-2009 10:41am

armada104 wrote:

The fact that trains can't turn back at Spencer Dock means that any train travelling eastbound through the tunnel HAS to continue on to the Northern line. This limits the tunnel's capacity.

Thank you for summing up the problem so succinctly.:)

Sponge Bob · 06-12-2009 11:34am

armada104 wrote: »

The fact that trains can't turn back at Spencer Dock means that any train travelling eastbound through the tunnel HAS to continue on to the Northern line. This limits the tunnel's capacity.

Can it not switchover and come back down ( just north of the tunnel shown in brown here). That would mean it never enters the curtilage of the existing Northern line but stays entirely on the new track.

http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/DartUnderGround/4%20East%20Wall%20Tie-In%20and%20New%20Ossary%20Road.pdf

Bray -> Hazelhatch? What?

Change at Pearse required, but from one high frequency to another meaning a short wait in comfort.

The problem is that IÉ are citing 21tpdph on the northern line when the interconnector is built. That is not possible and therefore not true. This could damage the case for the interconnecor. Perhaps rightly so?

It will, the other damaging thing for ages was that they were not going to Quad track from Heuston to Ballyfermot ...2.5-3 miles. They sorted that serious credibility gap out by bring it underground to Inchicore not Heuston. I was completely anti the project in that form.

They have yet to admit the 1 mile of existing quad to tunnel mouth will have to be Quad track ...or what they intend to do with the 100 Ballyfermot houses that line that 1 mile section of track . It would be farcical to have a short section of Dual track meaning there is still a complete bottleneck just sw of Inchicore.

It is very much a matter of do it properly or not at all so they must quad that section ...although I am not that personally interested in the Northern section being quadded in its entirety and would countenance fractional quadding at intervals where stations exist to about Laytown and Bettytown.

strassenwolf · 06-12-2009 12:40pm

Sponge Bob wrote:

Can it not switchover and come back down ( just north of the tunnel shown in brown here). That would mean it never enters the curtilage of the existing Northern line but stays entirely on the new track.

http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf...ary%20Road.pdf

Maybe they could. And it would be good to see IE's proposals with regard to that.

I think three/four platforms in the station would make more sense, but it would also be good to look at what you suggest.

However, it does have to be said that the layout shown in the map clearly illustrates that, in terms of capacity and actual throughput, what is currently being planned is a long way away from that which is being presented to the public.

Sponge Bob · 06-12-2009 1:11pm

strassenwolf wrote: »

However, it does have to be said that the layout shown in the map clearly illustrates that, in terms of capacity and actual throughput, what is currently being planned is a long way away from that which is being presented to the public.

Correct. Only extensive quad sections and separation of fast and slow services will deliver anything over about 16 trains max per direction per hour on ANY section of line...be that west of Heuston or north of Connolly. 20 trains an hour on the northern section is pure BS absent quad tracking

Continual quad allows 12 trains each way on the slow stopping bit and up to 15 each way on the fast bit . Heuston has 8 usable platforms so 15 into 8 means you clear each platform once every half hour. Very do-able even with speed restrictions as far as Inchicore ...but you will have to speed the commuter trains up from the arrow speeds.

The tunnel _itself_ could handle 20 per hour . As the peak demand will be in the centre of the tunnel ( Heuston-Pearse) an extra pair of platforms will be required at both ends of it to buffer these extra trains , not only in docklands but in inchicore too from the looks of it.

These can be parking only platforms right now with provision for upgrades to passenger platforms in future.

My main concern is that the 1 mile Ballyfermot dual section seems to be part of the revised scheme and I will personally not support the scheme at all unless it is continual quad from Heuston to Hazelhatch...the only decision to be made is how much is overground and how much underground.

Spending billions of euros , leaving obvious bottlenecks in situ and having to revisit the mess again in 10 - 15 years is simply unacceptable .

My personal preference is to have the tunnel mouth just east of Parkwest Station , plan B is to continue the quad east of there , under the Kylemore road and to have the tunnel mouth on the NORTH side of the track just west of the Inchicore works and to cross the main track underground. And why is there no station in Kilmainham somewhere, it would not have to be a large one either.

Not this bollix shown below which is points crossover east of parkwest to a dual section and a crossover again at Inchicore . It will take a Dart 5 minutes to safely clear that section and reset the points for an express to head in to Heuston.

http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/DartUnderGround/20A%20Proposed%20Layout%20of%20Completed%20Station%20at%20Inchicore.pdf

OH, a recent picture of the Clongriffin Dart station ( opening 2008

) shows at least the possibility of a passing loop there ( quad platforms)

Aard · 06-12-2009 9:09pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

My personal preference is to have the tunnel mouth just east of Parkwest Station , plan B is to continue the quad east of there , under the Kylemore road and to have the tunnel mouth on the NORTH side of the track just west of the Inchicore works and to cross the main track underground. And why is there no station in Kilmainham somewhere, it would not have to be a large one either.

I'd like to see a station around Le Fanu Road - having Inchicore as the only station in the west inner-city is not enough imo, and Le Fanu Rd would have a larger catchement area. A small station in Kilmainham by the SCR would be good too.

In fact, station density on the "new" Dart routes is much lower than that of the existing Dart. I think there could do with new stations at the Ballybough Rd, and at Phibsboro on the Maynooth line, as well as Kishogue and the mysterious Pelletstown Station.

armada104 · 06-12-2009 9:27pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Can it not switchover and come back down ( just north of the tunnel shown in brown here). That would mean it never enters the curtilage of the existing Northern line but stays entirely on the new track.

http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/DartUnderGround/4%20East%20Wall%20Tie-In%20and%20New%20Ossary%20Road.pdf

Can it? You seem to understand this a lot better than I do.

Change at Pearse required, but from one high frequency to another meaning a short wait in comfort.

Ah. See what you mean. Apologies.

Sponge Bob · 06-12-2009 10:53pm

armada104 wrote: »

Can it? You seem to understand this a lot better than I do.

Look at that map again .

http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/DartUnderGround/4%20East%20Wall%20Tie-In%20and%20New%20Ossary%20Road.pdf

The brown section is north of the tunnel entrances and has enough space for switching points so that a train can transfer from the eastbound/northbound track over to the westbound/southbound track and then back down the tunnel.

Importantly it need not interfere with the northern line while it does so because that section of overground track north of the tunnel is c.1000ft long, longer than a train or an underground platform which is c.500 foot long.

HTH

strassenwolf · 06-12-2009 11:43pm

So, an eastbound train will move onto the westbound/southbound track.

Then we have the driver closing down one cabin, walking to the other end of an eight carriage train, setting things up, etc?

And be able to do all of this without interfering with DART trains from Howth/Malahide heading into the 20 tph tunnel?:D

Sponge Bob · 07-12-2009 12:02am

This would not apply to every train strassenwolf but it is part of balancing out the 20tph tunnel as against a more likely 16 tph northern section of which many will originate in Connolly as now. I only expect 6 trains an hour from Northern to Interconnector given the overall capacity of the Northern Line post electrification.

I would prefer to have extra platforms/underground sidings at the two stations at either end of the core as well of which there is no sign.

Incidentally we cannot have a Kilmainhams station. Here is the complete line map at its current stage of development ( no continual quad) , only a week ago.

http://www.irishrail.ie/projects/pdf/DartUnderGround/2C%20Stations%20and%20Track%20Alignment.pdf

I also expect continual quad track from Hazelhatch to Heuston ...at a minimum. 2 tracks underground on the eastern bit of it. Some rather confused quaddage is now showing on that map east of the Kylemore road but the Kylemore bridge and points west are twin track

WTF ?? An underpass shows at Inchicore depot .

Finish that lads or there will be a huge ****storm all over the South and West about our roads budgets being culled to fund a low capacity turkey.

Aard · 07-12-2009 12:25am

Perhaps, in order to maximise the use of the tunnel, the Navan line Darts can go via Drumcondra, avoid Docklands, use the interconnector, and terminate at Inchicore?

armada104 · 07-12-2009 2:40am

That's interesting. I was under the impression that the extension to Inchicore solved the 4-track problem entirely. I feel silly now but that was the impression I was given, somewhere.

Sponge Bob · 07-12-2009 9:07am

That was what the IE PR bunnies wanted you to believe but they were wrong as always. These are the same old CIE who promise a sub 3 hour reliable service to Galway every year or two. 130 miles away. The same old CIE who promised this wonderland periodically since about 1960 and never delivered it. 50 years of broken promises and crap excuses on the subject. As soon as I know who is talking I plug this in .

Nothing short of full separation south and west will work because far more express trains use that section than do the northern line section. They would have to go back, do it again and disrupt everybody for years.

Not quadding now would be muppetry akin to the short sighted decision not to build freeflow junctions on the M50 and then having to build them 12 years later in some cases anyway ...with all the disruption and chaos that caused for so many.

The northern line must handle 1 express train per direction per hour , although it really should handle 1 every half hour at peak. Logically, if you have 20 tph or 10 trains per half hour on dual track , then an express train WILL pass 9 SLOWER trains on its way to Drogheda meaning that there must be 9 opportunities to GTF out of the way between Connolly and Drogheda.

The northern section will not run 20tph initially but an express should be able to cope with 5 slower trains up ahead for a capacity of 1 express /5 slow trains per half hour meaning 12 tph and with more quad sections planned longer term. This also requires 5 sections of quad track be built on day one ...between Drogheda and Connolly and at least 4 between Balbriggan and Dublin and counting the terminus in each case.

There is, in fact , seemingly only one of these . That in Clongriffin. Many more need to be built in order that one may even pretend that the Belfast train is an express.

On the Southern section full separation means that trains to Cork/Galway/Limerick/Waterford/Commuter Trains west of Kildare or so/Westport/Diesel commuter trains to Kildare....ALL need to be separated from Darts which is why full quad track is vital at ALL points to Hazelhatch and in a few more locations further out across Kildare too not just Kildare town.

I never believed in Interconnector and IE when they planned to share the track all the way from Heuston to around the old Cherry Orchard Bunker Station for over 3 miles. It would have been a monumental piece of wasteful idiocy that would have killed Inter City Rail stone dead in most of Ireland.

They have now got as far as the Kylemore Road bridge and with a missing link of slightly less than a mile. I look forward to seeing their solution to that missing link. Solve it they must.

HTH

Hungerford · 07-12-2009 11:48am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Incidentally we cannot have a Kilmainhams station. Here is the complete line map at its current stage of development ( no continual quad) , only a week ago.

Erm, the track layouts on the map are obviously incomplete - look at the western part of the map and you'll see that the two upper lines come from the middle of nowhere.

The overbridge seems to make the boundary of that particular map - the Western edge shows that the layout is already four-track by that point.

Sponge Bob · 07-12-2009 12:01pm

Hungerford wrote: »

Erm, the track layouts on the map are obviously incomplete -

Erm but if they are complete why does the complete map not show a complete track...would that be because the northern/eastbound express track has to cross the darts on a large overbridge further west that will be overlooking half of Ballyfermot through their bedroom windows perchance ???

At this stage we are entitled to see and comment upon the whole lot ...if it does indeed exist west of Kylemore Road. For Intercity Users like me the key part of the Interconnector project is the Exclusive Track from Hazelhatch into Heuston ....not the Dart Track.

Sponge Bob · 07-12-2009 12:29pm

People don't really see where I am coming from on the interconnector so I will explain it a bit.

One year ago, Dempsey rode a train and told a pack of lies on behalf of himself ( as usual) and IE .

http://www.transport21.ie/MEDIA/Press_Releases/New_station_at_Clondalkin_Fonthill.html

Commuters in Clondalkin will see a dramatic increase in service on completion of the Kildare Route Project, in early 2010.

This was a complete lie. As soon as the new tracks are tied into the old ones in Ballyfermot/Cherry Orchard then IE WILL CLOSE THE OLD TRACKS for the rest of 2010 and will replace them. Net new capacity , 0 in 2010 , some in 2011 maybe.

My attitude is that Munster , south and west Leinster and Connacht have a population of around 2m . Nearly half the population of the state are served by Intercity or Commuter from Heuston and living south and west of Hazelhatch.

The catchment of the Dart from Hazelhatch to Heuston is 300,000 , a mere fraction of the Intercity catchment . I want these people OUT OF MY WAY, guaranteed. Otherwise I do not support Interconnector and feel it is a waste of money.

I would be perfectly happy with an 'interconnector' that goes underground east of Park West station here and swings by Le Fanu road as suggested and then over to Inchicore and Heuston ...terminating there.

That is because themselves and their slow Dart trains are out of my way and that of nearly half the population of the state

In fact going underground east of Park West woud be the optimum solution to my mind.

I simply don't care about the rest of it. It would serve far fewer people than Intercity does now ( badly and expensively)

But first IE got to design the bloody thing out all the way and then the campaign can really start.

strassenwolf · 07-12-2009 12:38pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

This would not apply to every train strassenwolf but it is part of balancing out the 20tph tunnel as against a more likely 16 tph northern section of which many will originate in Connolly as now. I only expect 6 trains an hour from Northern to Interconnector given the overall capacity of the Northern Line post electrification.
I would prefer to have extra platforms/underground sidings at the two stations at either end of the core as well of which there is no sign.

Sorry for changing a bit of your post, Robert, by emboldening it, but I felt it was necessary for the purposes of clarification.

You expect that 6 trains an hour from the Northern Line will travel into the tunnel.

So, the other 14 trains which will travel westward through the tunnel - as part of this 20 train per direction per hour scenario - will be those which have previously travelled through the tunnel from the west, moved onto the westbound/southbound tracks (driver changing ends, etc).

Is that what you envisage?

Sponge Bob · 07-12-2009 12:45pm

strassenwolf wrote: »

So, the other 14 trains which will travel westward through the tunnel - as part of this 20 train per direction per hour scenario - will be those which have previously travelled through the tunnel from the west, moved onto the westbound/southbound tracks (driver changing ends, etc).

Is that what you envisage?

Not quite but yes, some trains will have to start around Docklands and go west from there and not every westbound train from Docklands will have come from 'the north' . I am lowballing at 6 mind, consider it an EG.

The key to enhanced capacity is really the number and location of quad track sections installed north of Connolly at least to Balbriggan so that faster trains can pass slower trains. Only Darting to Balbriggan means that slow diesel railcar trains will operate from Drogheda to Balbriggan at a minimum and likely further in as well as Dart and Enterprise.

The lack of information on these necessary quad sections at this late stage makes me rather nervous as to the viability of the plan.

strassenwolf · 07-12-2009 1:02pm

But Rob, you seem to know quite a bit about all of this, so could you explain why they don't just put an extra platform (or two) at the proposed Spencer Dock station?

That would seem to render the whole capacity issue independent of what is going on with the Northern Line.

Sponge Bob · 07-12-2009 1:13pm

strassenwolf wrote: »

But Rob, you seem to know quite a bit about all of this, so could you explain why they don't just put an extra platform (or two) at the proposed Spencer Dock station?

I cannot explain the muppetry of IE, I can only explain what I will seek to do if the muppetry continues and that only in respect of the Park West to Heuston section about which I care.

Northern line people must fight their own battles.

That would seem to render the whole capacity issue independent of what is going on with the Northern Line.

That and quad sections both. Frankly they will also need turnaround capacity at or west of Heuston but that will have to be underground unless they use overground storage at Inchicore...as they easily could.

The demand will be heaviest between Heuston and Pearse I think we all agree on that.

07-12-2009 1:41pm

Hungerford wrote: »

I'm an interloper from the C&T forum but I think I can provide a few of the answers. Basically, the plan is for Northern Line trains to terminate at Connolly/Pearse as before. There won't be that many diesel trains on the line as IE now plan to electrify up to Drogheda.

In terms of diesels terminating at Spencer Dock, only Navan line trains will and there would only be about four to six per hour.

In terms of the wider capacity issue, I think a few posters may be getting confused by the fact that the Loop Line [Connolly to Pearse] will remain in operation.

So, in addition to the 20 new train paths per hour provided by the Interconnector, there will still be a slightly lower number (16 if I recall) going through the Loop Line.

Basically, the Interconnector will more than double rail capacity through the city centre.

Lads, i've watched the video, finally, and am still confused. It seems to show that ALL Dart trains coming from Malahide and Howth will feed into the tunnel and go to Hueston and beyond. All Dart's from Bray will travel on the existing line to Connelly and then on to Maynooth. It looks as though you will no longer be able to travel from Bray to Howth without changing trains.

Also, I still cannot see any reason from the video why IE cannot use the Phoenix Park Tunnel to link to Docklands.

markpb · 07-12-2009 2:16pm

foreign wrote: »

It looks as though you will no longer be able to travel from Bray to Howth without changing trains.

Yes, you're right The new system will have three main lines running through Dublin:

- Maynooth to Bray (via Connolly and Pearse)
- Howth/Malahide to Hazlehatch (via Clontarf, Docklands, Pearse, St Stephens Green and Heuston)
- Swords to Stephens Green (via Airport, Santry and O'Connell st)

The new lines will serve new areas and by reducing conflicts on the existing dart lines, will increase the number of trains through the city centre. It will be a little more awkward for people who would have travelled from northside to southside but the increased frequency should go a long way to making up for it.

I've attached a schematic showing what it will look like.

armada104 · 07-12-2009 2:26pm

foreign wrote: »

Also, I still cannot see any reason from the video why IE cannot use the Phoenix Park Tunnel to link to Docklands.

They probably could, but it would not solve the capacity problems they have at Connolly and would probably worsen them. The biggest benefit of the interconnector is that it removes the conflict between Northern Line and Maynooth trains at Connolly. This means that Maynooth line can have much higher-frequency services.

As I said above, the purpose of the interconnector is not to link Heuston and Connolly. Likewise it's not to bring Kildare line commuters to the Docklands (they already have the Luas for that). Its purpose is to separate two lines that are limiting each other's capacity (and using the opportunity to have a DART station in St. Stephen's Green). Notwithstanding some of the issues outlined above, it will broadly achieve this.

Sponge Bob · 07-12-2009 2:34pm

Hmm. I have my reservations overall.

These do not apply to the 'other' line, out to Maynooth and Greystones where there will indeed be an uplift in capacity. The reason why is because they are slow twisty lines where an express train will not be able to travel at express speeds anyway .....hypothetically to Sligo or to Wexford.

The nature of the track will limit their speeds more than any DART in their way would.

Furthermore the catchment from Sligo > Connolly > Wexford is at a considerable stretch 1m people all in where the North and West tracks serve 2m each.

Theta · 07-12-2009 2:50pm

foreign wrote: »

Also, I still cannot see any reason from the video why IE cannot use the Phoenix Park Tunnel to link to Docklands.

Maybe it might make more sense if you see it,

Phoenix park tunnel is in black and the interconnector is in red (My tracing is pretty poor)

It makes more sense to dig the tunnel to attach to the existing network.

It serves splits the lines more equally across the city and links up with the luas at stephens green!

BluntGuy · 07-12-2009 4:15pm

Very interesting stuff. I plan to contribute my two cents on the whole plan a little later, but can I ask if anyone was able to make it to the public consultations? I planned to, but I sadly was not able to - work got in the way.

Hungerford · 07-12-2009 8:43pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Erm but if they are complete why does the complete map not show a complete track...would that be because the northern/eastbound express track has to cross the darts on a large overbridge further west that will be overlooking half of Ballyfermot through their bedroom windows perchance ???

I suspect that the answer is on the KRP maps, which Irish Rail have helpfully removed from their website. I think the 'complete' map is using the pre-KRP scenario as its baseline for some bizarre reason known only to CIE.

By the way, the huge overbridge is represented on the map below:

As you see, one of the cyan intercity tracks runs across an overbridge along with a branch off one of the commuter lines to form the current three-track layout to Heuston. The other Dart lines go under the bridge and head off into the tunnel.

Sponge Bob · 07-12-2009 10:02pm

Hungerford wrote: »

By the way, the huge overbridge is represented on the map below:

That is the second track Westbound) crossing the Dart .

I was referring to

because the northern/eastbound express track has to cross the darts on a large overbridge further west

where Dart crosses the Eastbound track ( or vice versa)...who knows !

DART+ (DART Expansion)

Comments