Iarnrod Eireann plans DART extension to Inchicore

DWCommuter

ihatewallies wrote: »

Nothing illustrates more graphically the relentless unmitigated codswallop spouted here then the simple fact that after a million posts of waffle on the IC nobody was aware that the main part of the project will be a PPP.



Nothing else needs to be said.

Actually a few things need to be said.

1. Put up one piece of media coverage that said the project was PPP.

2. I attended the information days and there was absolutely no mention of PPP, unlike similar Metro North info days.

3. Whether its PPP or not makes absolutely no difference to anything Ive said here or many others for that matter.

4. Enjoy the glory of being apparently correct on this ocassion and I hope you are just as quick if you are wrong about anything in the future. But I doubt it.

DWCommuter

MYOB wrote: »

The Dartford Crossing owners might have something to say on that one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dart-tag.png

I knew I was onto a winner with that idea. But I neglected to say that we should have two tags. Northside - DIRT. Southside - DORT. This should leave the way clear with the Dartford Crossing lads. Or maybe the Dartford crew have already submitted a tender. A money saving route.:D

DWCommuter

This PPP aspect to the IC looks like a recent idea. Online there appears to be potentially conflicting information. Links above suggest its gone to tender, while IE's info suggests that they are still looking at the PPP options with the DOT.

Calina

ihatewallies wrote: »

Nothing illustrates more graphically the relentless unmitigated codswallop spouted here then the simple fact that after a million posts of waffle on the IC nobody was aware that the main part of the project will be a PPP.



Nothing else needs to be said.

One more post like this and you will be taking a holiday from this forum. It's one thing to know a bit more than a lot of people about something but it's another thing entirely to be insulting about it.

ihatewallies

Calina wrote: »

One more post like this and you will be taking a holiday from this forum. It's one thing to know a bit more than a lot of people about something but it's another thing entirely to be insulting about it.

your whole forum is an insult to common sense.

Calina

ihatewallies is on holidays from C&T for seven days.

__________________

kona

youll probably see dart maintenance shifted to inchicore too.

Nostradamus

kona wrote: »

youll probably see dart maintenance shifted to inchicore too.

Makes a lot of sense as Fairview looks packed and there are going to need plenty of sidings and I can't think of anywhere on the maynooth like other than Liffy Jct were they would find the space. Be pretty ironic if they electrified the PPT for this reason.

dazberry

kona wrote: »

youll probably see dart maintenance shifted to inchicore too.

There was talk floating around here about the works being sold off and redeveloped (like the OPW site etc), thankfully all the madness ended before they got the chance (if it was indeed true)...

D.

strassenwolf

So, if it is indeed to be a PPP, one wonders why the current route via St. Stephen's Green, and the two-platform arrangement at Spencer Dock, were the selected options.

The "looping route" via St. Stephen's Green should make construction of the tunnel more expensive than a straightforward cross-city route, via the city centre.

The cost will inevitably be a factor for a potential private partner.

The proposed layout at Spencer Dock - with just two platforms - would seem to rule out Irish Rail's proposed 20 trains per hour. The frequency in the tunnel still seems to be very much constrained by the achievable frequencies along the northern line.

Should it be the case that the interconnector is to be developed under a PPP scheme, two factors seem to stand out:

the frequencies which IE can realistically put through the tunnel, and thus generate revenue with which to pay the developer; and

the extra cost for a developer of building a longer route than appears to be necessary.

silverside

interesting thread so far, thanks.

my naive impression as to why it goes via stephen's green is
1) it needs to go by north centre city, connolly being the obvious place for a stop (integrates with luas / busarus)
2) the tunnel can't turn on a button to go westwards so lets bring it across the river -> integrate with pearse and the business district
3) once your underground from pearse, differences in the exact route dont cost much - so lets integrate with stephen's green (green luas, can build a station opening cheaply) - and throw in a stop at james's gate too, there are already a lot of people living on thomas st / oliver bond area who shouldnt be left out of the whole DART thing.

kingshankly

kona wrote: »

youll probably see dart maintenance shifted to inchicore too.

cant see this happening tbh after them spending crazy money on the new sidings in fairview.would be handy save the company from sendimg darts to inchicore for repairs on a weekly basis

Nostradamus

dazberry wrote: »

There was talk floating around here about the works being sold off and redeveloped (like the OPW site etc), thankfully all the madness ended before they got the chance (if it was indeed true)...

D.

I would imagine that whole idea went down with the Celtic Tiger.

There was even talk of building a skyscraper across the yard at Heuston ala Grand Gentral NY, Birmingham New Street etc...but that ain't happening now.

Nostradamus

silverside wrote: »

interesting thread so far, thanks.

my naive impression as to why it goes via stephen's green is
1) it needs to go by north centre city, connolly being the obvious place for a stop (integrates with luas / busarus)

Not really. It integrates with Luas and Busaras via the Point Luas Line and Hueston Red Line and if the Luas BX line is ever built that's an option too.

Connolly I think will be downgraded to just a DART/Suburban station in time and I would not be surprised if the Enterprise/Sligo services terminates at Pearse when the DART Underground is built.

DWCommuter

Okay, mystery solved.

This extract is from a speech by Noel Dempsey at the "building Irelands infrastructure conference" in February 2008.

The rail interconnector is another major flagship Transport 21 project. Once in place (by 2015 at the latest) it will quadruple the numbers of rail users on the network from 25 million per year to 100 million and will fully integrate the rail network in the GDA. In order to expedite the delivery of this vital project I recently asked Irish Rail to engage with the PPP community with a view to building the tunnel section of this project. Given the very positive experiences that the NRA has enjoyed in its partnerships with private construction companies on road building projects I have no doubt that the Interconnector project will similarly benefit from the involvement of the PPP community. I look forward to rapid progress on this project in the near future.

This would suggest that the PPP route was advocated in late 2007. This aspect of the project didn't receive much media coverage and I must admit I missed it completely.

So its official. They are looking to a private venture to actually build the tunnel. Sounds like desperation to me and confirmation that they never really had the supposed "ringfenced" money to begin with. Its the strangest PPP Ive ever heard of.

murphaph

They use shadow tolling on sections of UK trunk roads which are built by PPP. The end user has no idea that they are in fact on a toll road because the toll comes out of general taxation.

DWCommuter

murphaph wrote: »

They use shadow tolling on sections of UK trunk roads which are built by PPP. The end user has no idea that they are in fact on a toll road because the toll comes out of general taxation.

So what are you saying? Its workable? We just pay it from exchequer funds?

murphaph

DWCommuter wrote: »

So what are you saying? Its workable? We just pay it from exchequer funds?

It "works" insofar as the roads get built but I know the UK has been turning away from PPPs in general because ultimately as we all know they are more expensive than just paying for the works directly. It's used over there for the same reason as here; to keep projects off balance sheet. Perhaps the EU as a whole needs to closely examine the 3% of GDP rule given the benefits of large scale infrastructural projects during recessions.

Zebra3

Nostradamus wrote: »

Connolly I think will be downgraded to just a DART/Suburban station in time and I would not be surprised if the Enterprise/Sligo services terminates at Pearse when the DART Underground is built.

Why would they do that and clog up the line even further?

Nostradamus

Zebra3 wrote: »

Why would they do that and clog up the line even further?

There should not be any clogging as the paths will be there most of the day with the city centre resignalling and the interconnector. I am just speculating on what could happen as it is becoming apparent that Connolly will just be another Tara Street and I would just making the point that all kinds of options would open up to the poster who claimed the IC would be useless because it does not serve Connolly.

strassenwolf

Noel Dempsey, and introduced to this board by Derek Wheeler wrote:

The rail interconnector is another major flagship Transport 21 project. Once in place (by 2015 at the latest) it will quadruple the numbers of rail users on the network from 25 million per year to 100 million and will fully integrate the rail network in the GDA. In order to expedite the delivery of this vital project I recently asked Irish Rail to engage with the PPP community with a view to building the tunnel section of this project. Given the very positive experiences that the NRA has enjoyed in its partnerships with private construction companies on road building projects I have no doubt that the Interconnector project will similarly benefit from the involvement of the PPP community. I look forward to rapid progress on this project in the near future

So, thus far I was only aware that we had the gay community and the travelling community in our midst.

Now, apparently, we have the PPP community as well.

Before I say anything out of line, could some kind poster let me know what offends the PPP "community", and what we can and can't say about them.:D

L1011

Seeing as the PPP community are mostly bankers; it appears that suggesting you'll take their pensions off them offends them greatly...

I'll go back to one of my other community niches now.

Sponge Bob

strassenwolf wrote: »

Before I say anything out of line, could some kind poster let me know what offends the PPP "community", and what we can and can't say about them.:D

Hard to say strassenwolf , Ihatewallies objects to everything that everybody says all the time . Be careful out there .

icdg

Nostradamus wrote: »

Not really. It integrates with Luas and Busaras via the Point Luas Line and Hueston Red Line and if the Luas BX line is ever built that's an option too.

Connolly I think will be downgraded to just a DART/Suburban station in time and I would not be surprised if the Enterprise/Sligo services terminates at Pearse when the DART Underground is built.

Not really possible, since two of the three terminal platforms that existed in Pearse are now closed permanently (filled in - Platforms 3 and 5) and the remaining one (Platform 4) is in no state to host services at present. Even if they were still there, they all face southbound so trains would have to reverse out if they were using them to go to Sligo or Belfast.

You would not be able to leave an Enterprise train sitting in Platforms 1 or 2 at Pearse for the amount of time typically allowed for boarding. It would mean the DART line through Pearse would be blocked for half an hour. Wheras Connolly has four terminal platforms you can leave trains sitting in without blocking the DART line.

BluntGuy

Not sure if it's been mentioned already, but I read in today's Sunday Tribune that the DART is being extended to Drogheda.

Typewriter

BluntGuy wrote: »

Not sure if it's been mentioned already, but I read in today's Sunday Tribune that the DART is being extended to Drogheda.

From the Sunday Tribune:

Dart line to connect Drogheda with Dublin under Transport 21
Ken Griffin


Drogheda: "much more sense"

THE Dart looks set to arrive in Drogheda after the government decided to extend Iarnród Éireann's Northern Line electrification project to the Co Louth town.

The move is the second major change to the government's plans for the Dublin commuter rail network under Transport 21 confirmed in the run-up to June's local elections.

Last week, transport minister Noel Dempsey announc ed the proposed Dart under ground tunnel, which was originally meant to run between Heuston and Docklands stations, was to be extended westwards to Inchicore.

Under the government's original plans, Balbriggan was to be the northern terminus of the new Dart line running to Hazelhatch, Co Kildare.

Although Iarnród Éireann has long held ambitions to extend the Dart to Drogheda, the government had previously refused to sanction funding for the project.

But the government has now decided to allow the company to extend the electrification project by a further 10 miles to encompass Drogheda.

"The line will be electrified to Drogheda and the town will be a Dart terminus," said an Iarnród Éireann spokes man. "We also plan to partially convert the current commuter railcar depot in Drogheda into a Dart depot."

Drogheda-based TD Fergus O'Dowd, who has mounted a long-running campaign to get the Dart extended to the town, said the news was fantastic. "Drogheda has really become a suburb of Dublin in recent years and the Dart's arrival should improve transport links between the two towns," he said.

The move has also been welcomed by rail passenger representatives who believe the extension will add little to the overall cost of the project as it removes the need to build new terminus facilities at Balbriggan.

"Balbriggan was a far from ideal choice for a terminus due to the lack of land available. Drogheda makes much more sense," said Mark Gleeson of Rail Users Ireland.

Gleeson said the move would necessitate a review of the Dublin region's fares structure. Currently, a train ticket from Balbriggan to Dublin costs €4.30 whereas the equivalent fare from Drogheda is €13.50.

April 12, 2009

http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news...blin-under-tr/

Nostradamus

icdg wrote: »

Not really possible, since two of the three terminal platforms that existed in Pearse are now closed permanently (filled in - Platforms 3 and 5) and the remaining one (Platform 4) is in no state to host services at present. Even if they were still there, they all face southbound so trains would have to reverse out if they were using them to go to Sligo or Belfast.

You would not be able to leave an Enterprise train sitting in Platforms 1 or 2 at Pearse for the amount of time typically allowed for boarding. It would mean the DART line through Pearse would be blocked for half an hour. Wheras Connolly has four terminal platforms you can leave trains sitting in without blocking the DART line.

Yes you are right. I am just having flashback to the the Rosslare train sitting in the middle of rush hour on Platform 4(?) at Connolly.

You could however combine the Sligo and Rosslare serivce into one and just have drivers change in Dublin. This would also avoid the train from Sligo crossing over and blocking the DART approaches into Connolly as they do with most services.

Run the Enterprise to Dun Leary?

It's all blowing smoke I know but I still see Connolly becoming a far less important station when the IC comes on stream. Another Tara Street really.

Typewriter

They should reopen the old bay platforms at Pearse and terminate all of the Rosslare services there.

BendiBus

Nostradamus wrote: »

Run the Enterprise to Dun Leary?

Sharing Connolly-Dun Laoghaire with DARTs & 5 mad busy level crossings? To what advantage? What's wrong with Connolly?

From Connolly, Enterprise passengers can change onto DART, Luas, bus or shank's mare.

kingshankly

Nostradamus wrote: »

Yes you are right. I am just having flashback to the the Rosslare train sitting in the middle of rush hour on Platform 4(?) at Connolly.

You could however combine the Sligo and Rosslare serivce into one and just have drivers change in Dublin. This would also avoid the train from Sligo crossing over and blocking the DART approaches into Connolly as they do with most services.

Run the Enterprise to Dun Leary?

It's all blowing smoke I know but I still see Connolly becoming a far less important station when the IC comes on stream. Another Tara Street really.

connolly will always be the major station as trains are fuelled and stored there plus you have nearly 100 train drivers all based here

BrianD

BluntGuy wrote: »

Not sure if it's been mentioned already, but I read in today's Sunday Tribune that the DART is being extended to Drogheda.

This article is a typical example of how poor infrastructure planning happens in Ireland. No doubt sole local councillors and TDs will have the "DART to Dropheda" added to their manifesto to garner a view votes.

Should the DART (as we know it) be extended to Drogheda? In my view absolutely not. It is simply not a priority. A train is a train. It doesn't matter if it has a diesel or electric power. Do people in Drogheda think that they will get a better service because they have an electric train instead of a diesel one? Some politicans seem to think so.

Let's say they do from tomorrow. They will still have the same level of service to Dublin as capacity on the line is still restricted for a variety of reasons. If extra capacity was available it would be far better if diesel rail cars were put on it immediately. There is damn all difference in real terms between a DART and many of the Arrow trains in use once you're inside. People perceive that the DART has a higher service level then arrow but unfortunately that won't be delivered bu erecting overhead gantries.

Extending the DART service is as much a waste of resources as the (shorter) extension to Greystones was. If investment funds for the DART service are available they would be best served as follows:
- Interconnector
- Electrification of Maynooth line
- Electrification of part of the Kildare line
- Resignalling of the infamous Connolly stretch.

If the above was implemented they we would have a small well formed rapid rail system covering a reasonable part of Dublin using existing infrastructure. We would also see an increase in population density along these lines justifying their existence and reducing urban sprawl.

DWCommuter

Ah yes, FF target Louth in the upcoming elections. They must be cock sure in Kildare as the original plan had the DART terminating in Kildare town, not Hazelhatch. But no mention of that yet.

I note RUIs comments in the article fail to mention Kildare commuters lack of a DART service.What a pity. Of course if Drogheda is now getting it, then Kildare should get it. Its a free for all.:D

Sponge Bob

Hazelhatch station is about 100m from the Dublin border but inside Kildare . It ain't Kildare town of course , over 20 miles away .

L1011

DWCommuter wrote: »

Ah yes, FF target Louth in the upcoming elections. They must be cock sure in Kildare as the original plan had the DART terminating in Kildare town, not Hazelhatch. But no mention of that yet.

I note RUIs comments in the article fail to mention Kildare commuters lack of a DART service.What a pity. Of course if Drogheda is now getting it, then Kildare should get it. Its a free for all.:D

I believe FF control Louth CC; but Kildare CC is already a lost cause - FG/LAB coalition and not a hope in hell of anything but being returned this summer.

Nostradamus

Amazing to think how far the electric overhead is going, is there are plans for a Regional DART units for Drogheda services with nice seating?

Victor

strassenwolf wrote: »

I've been posting on this board for some time, and - now, I may have to go back over some things - but I'm fairly sure that the idea the interconnector would be built under a PPP scheme is a reasonably new one.

No, its been like that for at least 5 years. I think strictly speaking the RPA were meant to build it.

strassenwolf wrote: »

The "looping route" via St. Stephen's Green should make construction of the tunnel more expensive than a straightforward cross-city route, via the city centre.

Well, lots of peopel want to head to that part of town.

ukraine_orange

Would it cost less if it was a single bore tunnel with two tracks, like most of the Paris Metro?

I would have thought a twin bore would cost more and be more complicated, no?

Excuse my n00bness.

Victor

It will depend on the particular requirements of any particular project. For a very short tunnel, single bore may make sense. Tunnelling the Alps means you really, really want a separate tunnel in the event of an incident. In between, particular circumstances will dictate.

I asked if they would go with a single tunnel on Metro North and was told a single tunnel (possibly with a deviding wall), while slightly cheaper, would have had slight operation drawbacks, so they decided to go for two separate tunnels.

On a construction and operational risk level, two is better than one.

ukraine_orange

Victor wrote: »

It will depend on the particular requirements of any particular project. For a very short tunnel, single bore may make sense. Tunnelling the Alps means you really, really want a separate tunnel in the event of an incident. In between, particular circumstances will dictate.

I asked if they would go with a single tunnel on Metro North and was told a single tunnel (possibly with a deviding wall), while slightly cheaper, would have had slight operation drawbacks, so they decided to go for two separate tunnels.

On a construction and operational risk level, two is better than one.

That makes better sense than what I had going around in my head. Thanks.

DWCommuter

MYOB wrote: »

I believe FF control Louth CC; but Kildare CC is already a lost cause - FG/LAB coalition and not a hope in hell of anything but being returned this summer.

Im nearly right so. Protect what you have and to hell with what you haven't. At the end of the day its a political move and thats what has always dogged the development of public transport.

Sponge Bob

Dont forget that this northward push will allegedly bring the DART to Bettystown which is in County Meath , home of the Noel and home of many stressed out FFers looking to de Noel for de good news to canvass with

Bluetonic

DWCommuter wrote: »

Ah yes, FF target Louth in the upcoming elections. They must be cock sure in Kildare as the original plan had the DART terminating in Kildare town, not Hazelhatch. But no mention of that yet.

I note RUIs comments in the article fail to mention Kildare commuters lack of a DART service.What a pity. Of course if Drogheda is now getting it, then Kildare should get it. Its a free for all.:D

Of course Drogheda station is at best few 100 meters into Louth.

dowlingm

The following two points may be related, or not.

Is 1.5kV DC, i.e. extension of the existing DART infrastructure, a reasonable mode to operate electric trains of the 160-240km/h class between Dublin, Cork and Belfast, and if not should we be looking at electrification through past Interconnector-KRP and north of Malahide being a different voltage using dual-system trains?

If high frequency suburban is envisaged along the coastal route all the way to Drogheda, should we be looking at a new direct line between Rush and Drogheda for Enterprise, engineered for >160km/h? Obviously this doesn't help the problems south of Rush but every little helps...

BrianD

dowlingm wrote: »

The following two points may be related, or not.

Is 1.5kV DC, i.e. extension of the existing DART infrastructure, a reasonable mode to operate electric trains of the 160-240km/h class between Dublin, Cork and Belfast, and if not should we be looking at electrification through past Interconnector-KRP and north of Malahide being a different voltage using dual-system trains?

If high frequency suburban is envisaged along the coastal route all the way to Drogheda, should we be looking at a new direct line between Rush and Drogheda for Enterprise, engineered for >160km/h? Obviously this doesn't help the problems south of Rush but every little helps...

It's a good point. All things being equal and with funds available it would make more sense to look at electrification of intercity lines such as Dublin-Belfast and even Dublin-Cork. Rather than stretching a DART line for no apparent or strategic reason other than keeping a few voters happy. Here's your shiny new DART and oh, by the way, it will be running less frequently than your existing services. But, hey, it's the same as the ones that the Killiney people get!

Cool Mo D

dowlingm wrote: »

The following two points may be related, or not.

Is 1.5kV DC, i.e. extension of the existing DART infrastructure, a reasonable mode to operate electric trains of the 160-240km/h class between Dublin, Cork and Belfast, and if not should we be looking at electrification through past Interconnector-KRP and north of Malahide being a different voltage using dual-system trains?

If high frequency suburban is envisaged along the coastal route all the way to Drogheda, should we be looking at a new direct line between Rush and Drogheda for Enterprise, engineered for >160km/h? Obviously this doesn't help the problems south of Rush but every little helps...

The biggest problem with 1500 V is that such low voltage leads to large power transmission losses compared with say 22K AC. DC is good for short distance EMUs as there is no need for a heavy transformer to be carried on the the train.

It would be completely possible to have dual voltage intercity trains, with high voltage for long distance parts, and 1500 V on commuter lines. Personally, I think the bringing the DART to Drogheda is the right thing to do, so long as the current service patterns where Drogheda trains do not stop between Howth Junction and Conolly are maintained, as electrification is cheaper for high frequency operation, and provides better acceleration out of stations.

I would see 4-tracking of Conolly to Malahide and three tracking between Donabate and Balbriggan as necessary to maintain a good outer suburban service, and bring Enterprise times down to a reasonable 1.5 hours. I also think that electrification of the Cork line and bringing journey times down to 2 hours Dublin-Cork is the logical next step for Irish Intercity services.

murphaph

I'd leave it at 1500Vdc and if we're really serious about electrification to Belfast we should widen. There is room (with some CPO) to widen to 4 track and electrify the whole thing at 25kVac. We have more hope of seeing Dublin-Cork electrified I reckon though.

Heuston - Cork is easy to electrify to 25kVac because the tracks for DART are already going to be separate from DART. This is no different from the S-Bahn Berlin which runs on different tracks to the IC trains because the third rail (Berlin is amongst a handful of German cities with 3rd rail S-Bahn) interferes with the loading gauge for IC trains. You'll see IC with 25kVac overhead running alongside S-Bahn with third rail but never both.

ilovegermany

Lets assume its 2016 and that the following miracles have occured:

1. The Interconnector is built as planned and after the Inchicore Station it seamlessly integrates into the 4 Track Kildare Route Project; and
2. From Malahide to Drogheda the route is electrified and the DART is extended to Drogheda.

My question is: Will the above have a detrimental impact on journey times/service frequencies on Dublin - Belfast Enterprise services given that these services will be stuck between DART services from Drogheda to Dublin?

D.L.R.

ilovegermany wrote: »

Lets assume its 2016 and that the following miracles have occured:

1. The Interconnector is built as planned and after the Inchicore Station it seamlessly integrates into the 4 Track Kildare Route Project; and
2. From Malahide to Drogheda the route is electrified and the DART is extended to Drogheda.

My question is: Will the above have a detrimental impact on journey times/service frequencies on Dublin - Belfast Enterprise services given that these services will be stuck between DART services from Drogheda to Dublin?

Yes. As long as the northern line remains 2-track then there will be problems. Think of the difference between single lane road and dual carriageway.

Unfortunately the local brass of the time decided itd be dandy to develop lands right up to the edge of the tracks, almost the whole way along the route from Connolly-Howth Jn. Its a problem that doesn't have an easy or cheap solution, and a problem that the govt/IE appear to be doing nothing more than wishing away right now.

The truth is, the IC for all its benefits, will only make the northern line more congested, and delays are inevitable.

Sponge Bob

Has anyone told the denizens of North city and north county dublin that Noel Dempsey will flatten their houses to quad track and electrify the line to Drogheda. ??

Cool Mo D

murphaph wrote: »

I'd leave it at 1500Vdc and if we're really serious about electrification to Belfast we should widen. There is room (with some CPO) to widen to 4 track and electrify the whole thing at 25kVac. We have more hope of seeing Dublin-Cork electrified I reckon though.

Heuston - Cork is easy to electrify to 25kVac because the tracks for DART are already going to be separate from DART. This is no different from the S-Bahn Berlin which runs on different tracks to the IC trains because the third rail (Berlin is amongst a handful of German cities with 3rd rail S-Bahn) interferes with the loading gauge for IC trains. You'll see IC with 25kVac overhead running alongside S-Bahn with third rail but never both.

The problem with that is that there will come a time when you will want DARTs to run on the fast tracks, for maintenance reasons, or even for rush hour express services. I think it would better to have dual voltage long distance trains, as they will have the bulky AC equipment already, so the DC is easier for them to manage, rather than having dual voltage DARTs.