DART+ (DART Expansion)

BonnieSituation

LXFlyer wrote: »

High frequency rail and large P & R facilities could encourage reasonably large numbers of car users - that doesn't seem to be in any of the discussion above.

Clondalkin and Kishogue could become major P & R hubs.

They could and they were designed to accommodate a large amount of cars.

I mean, if I can walk to Kishoge in 10min or a 151 in 5min and then get to Pearse in 20min of course I'd take that over the 25A/B.

Ben D Bus

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Those stats above, Pessimistic is one word alright.

I'm assuming the stats are from this document, produced in 2010?

http://nationaltransport.ie/downloads/dart_underground_business_case.pdf

This was a dire time for the Irish economy and the document clearly states it's being very cautious with it's projections. It did look like Ireland's economic world was coming to an end and even with a cautious approach in those circumstances the case was marginally positive.

The transport benefits are derived from NTA (National Transport Authority) modelling of the DART Underground scheme using their multi-modal transport model. The results are based on a cautious planning scenario which takes account of the impact of the current downturn and assumes a
permanent fall in central Dublin employment.

I'd expect the numbers would be much more positive now. The permanent fall in central Dublin employment surely didn't pan out? The resulting road traffic growth would surely encourage more people to consider taking a train.

LXFlyer

BonnieSituation wrote: »

They could and they were designed to accommodate a large amount of cars.

I mean, if I can walk to Kishoge in 10min or a 151 in 5min and then get to Pearse in 20min of course I'd take that over the 25A/B.

Both stations are on arterial routes with reasonably close proximity to both the N4 and N7 and should take traffic off both.

lucernarian

And this is what's annoying with the bogus studies carried out by AECOM before and now happening with DU. A new cost benefit analysis is needed and proper data using the latest census figures and existing aadt counts on the N3, N4 and N7. If anything, the census seems to underestimate population growth and house occupation, as a recent Fingal Co. Co. revealed. I suspect a lot of people have ignored the census forms and the house was marked as "unoccupied" by census evaluators who maybe couldn't have been arsed chasing people up.

antoinolachtnai

lucernarian wrote: »

I suspect a lot of people have ignored the census forms and the house was marked as "unoccupied" by census evaluators who maybe couldn't have been arsed chasing people up.

Do you have any evidence for this?

lucernarian

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Do you have any evidence for this?

No, that's why I called it a suspicion. I'm happy to have alternative reasons for the discrepancies between census-derived occupancy rates and direct council inspections, and the consequences this would have on planning and demand forecasting for major infrastructural projects like these.

Idbatterim

And this is what's annoying with the bogus studies carried out by AECOM before and now happening with DU. A new cost benefit analysis is needed and proper data using the latest census figures and existing aadt counts on the N3, N4 and N7. If anything, the census seems to underestimate population growth and house occupation, as a recent Fingal Co. Co. revealed. I suspect a lot of people have ignored the census forms and the house was marked as "unoccupied" by census evaluators who maybe couldn't have been arsed chasing people up.

Its total and utter bull****, the findings no doubt represent what the government tell them that they want to find before proceeding with giving them the tender :rolleyes:

how much more of this bull**** do we need, housing crisis and traffic worse than ever. Forecasts that were made when DU originally being planned, probably even behind where demand is now and forecast to be :rolleyes:

bk

Deedsie wrote: »

BS. Enumerators have to check every single property. It is extensive and accurate despite what you may think.

It absolutely is, the poor person called to my house a dozen times as I wasn't around at the time!

AsianDub

Sorry if this has been asked already but does

"Electrification of the Sligo Line from Connolly to Maynooth, together with removal of level crossings and re-signalling"

result in more frequent services on that line?

marno21

AsianDub wrote: »

Sorry if this has been asked already but does

"Electrification of the Sligo Line from Connolly to Maynooth, together with removal of level crossings and re-signalling"

result in more frequent services on that line?

Yes, this in addition to the removal of congestion at Connolly would mean a substantial increase in capacity on the Maynooth line (extra trains).

AsianDub

marno21 wrote: »

Yes, this in addition to the removal of congestion at Connolly would mean a substantial increase in capacity on the Maynooth line (extra trains).

Thanks for that. Do we know how this is going or a timeline for completion?

LXFlyer

AsianDub wrote: »

Thanks for that. Do we know how this is going or a timeline for completion?

It isn't happening at the moment.

It would happen either as part of the electrification of the line, or as a separate project, together with the final part of the City Centre Resignalling Project at Connolly.

Additional rolling stock would also need to be ordered to deliver improvements in service levels.

lucernarian

Deedsie wrote: »

BS. Enumerators have to check every single property. It is extensive and accurate despite what you may think.

How constructive. The reporting I read about the Fingal study was here. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/number-of-vacant-homes-may-be-grossly-overstated-1.3220063?mode=amp

The article doesn't go into the whys of this, but the census person for where I live didn't seem to keep track of the form at any point. It was held by someone else in the house, and wasn't picked up or sent off until I enquired about it 2 months later. In any case, my suspicion is simply my opinion and you can take it or leave it. The real issue here is that census data on home occupancy is inaccurate according to a body of the state and that should raise alarm bells.

Feel free to continue missing the point though...

bk wrote: »

It absolutely is, the poor person called to my house a dozen times as I wasn't around at the time!

Ah, so your anecdotal evidence somehow is more relevant to this than a Dept of Housing circular? Although one may want to ridicule them, the Govt itself is questioning the accuracy of Census data. My added opinion doesn't change the point that you seem to have completely missed.

marno21

Funding outlines for DART Expansion out to 2021:

DTTAS wrote:

Over €80m was allocated under the Capital Plan for the first phase of the DART Expansion
Programme to include: extension to Balbriggan (by 2022), progress of design and planning
for expansion of DART to Maynooth in the west and Hazelhatch in the southeast and for the
redesign of the DART Underground Tunnel. There may be scope for acceleration of
extensions to Balbriggan and/or Maynooth. Latter would require significant additional
funding over and above that provided for in the Capital Plan (see submission). €80m will be
fully spent with potential for scaling this project upwards with additional resources.

LeinsterDub

http://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/5/39794/18th_October_2017_-_Newstalk_Breakfast_Part_1/ discussion on MN and DU . Almost at the end of the hour

CatInABox

LeinsterDub wrote: »

http://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/5/39794/18th_October_2017_-_Newstalk_Breakfast_Part_1/ discussion on MN and DU . Almost at the end of the hour

The ESRI guy is so frustrating. He ignores political reality to suggest a point that Metro North isn't a "Whole of Dublin" solution, and that population density is a major problem along the route.

DU isn't going to be out of planning for years and years, if ever(at least in one big project), and population density is down to our planning aversion to high rise development in any location other than Cork.

So frustrating that any proposal that's suggested in Ireland is subjected to round after round of whataboutery.

marno21

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1020/913807-iarnrod-eireann-dispute/

Ah but lets give them €4bn for a new box of chess pieces

sdanseo

marno21 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1020/913807-iarnrod-eireann-dispute/

Ah but lets give them €4bn for a new box of chess pieces

Fire every last one of them. Living in lala land. The company they work for is as near as makes no difference to insolvent and they want more, got offered 1.75% and want more again.

F*ck. Off. Turn a profit and earn it. Then we'll talk.

LuckyLloyd

marno21 wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1020/913807-iarnrod-eireann-dispute/

Ah but lets give them €4bn for a new box of chess pieces

let's give ourselves as a state an infrastructure build that future proofs our capital city for people moving for the next few decades. Getting caught up in a short term union dispute as a reason not to do it is cutting our nose off to spite our face territory.

scouserstation

Irish rail today announces they will be looking to acquire new "Bi-mode" dart trains within the next four years, this will replace the old rolling stock and increase the amount of fleet available for the dart expansion, the new trains will be able to run on both electrified lines and on regular commuter routes allowing expansion out to Drogheda, Maynooth and Hazelhatch much sooner than the long anticipated "Dart Expansion" plan

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/rolling-stock/irish-rail-plans-bi-mode-train-order-for-dart-expansion.html

donvito99

scouserstation wrote: »

Irish rail today announces they will be looking to acquire new "Bi-mode" dart trains within the next four years, this will replace the old rolling stock and increase the amount of fleet available for the dart expansion, the new trains will be able to run on both electrified lines and on regular commuter routes allowing expansion out to Drogheda, Maynooth and Hazelhatch much sooner than the long anticipated "Dart Expansion" plan

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/rolling-stock/irish-rail-plans-bi-mode-train-order-for-dart-expansion.html

The rationale is lacking from reading that article. Buy bi modal because electrification might not proceed as planned. So if it goes as planned, we have unnecessarily complicated trains.

What are the day to day expenditure savings (acceleration, maintenance etc) of EMUs and should we be expanding the EMU fleet now when the DMU fleet is relatively young and further electrification is only at a broad strokes stage?

Sam Russell

scouserstation wrote: »

Irish rail today announces they will be looking to acquire new "Bi-mode" dart trains within the next four years, this will replace the old rolling stock and increase the amount of fleet available for the dart expansion, the new trains will be able to run on both electrified lines and on regular commuter routes allowing expansion out to Drogheda, Maynooth and Hazelhatch much sooner than the long anticipated "Dart Expansion" plan

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/rolling-stock/irish-rail-plans-bi-mode-train-order-for-dart-expansion.html

Are they not diesel rail cars - they can run on Dart lines and non dart lines?

scouserstation

Sam Russell wrote: »

Are they not diesel rail cars - they can run on Dart lines and non dart lines?

Essentially yes, they can run on both

GerardKeating

Sam Russell wrote: »

Are they not diesel rail cars - they can run on Dart lines and non dart lines?

Perhaps this is a silly idea, but why not trains with batteries, they can use the overhead lines where present, and batteries else where, so a train could do (for example) Dublin to Wicklow/Gorey.

dublinman1990

This is not a bad idea in theory. More trains are good & needed for Dublin, however, I don't understand the rationale from IE of getting rid of the original DART rolling stock within four years. This proposal to buy 100 trains, at the very least, for the DART Expansion just sounds quite large. Could IE not update the original LHB stock to be refurbished again so it can be converted to both a diesel & electric power supply instead of being scrapped & having an added expense of extracting more money from the Irish taxpayer to pay for this project?

Furthermore; IE may have to find another new suitable depot if it is required, preferably along the DART network itself, to store all these new DART trains because the DART depot at Fairview maybe too small as a primary base for the new fleet.

If the older DART LHB rolling stock was scrapped; what is the maximum number of trains allowed at Fairview Depot at the moment?

bk

Sounds unnecessarily expensive and complicated. How much will bi-mode trains cost compared to straight EMU's and how much of that extra cost could go to actually doing the electrification?

GerardKeating wrote: »

Perhaps this is a silly idea, but why not trains with batteries, they can use the overhead lines where present, and batteries else where, so a train could do (for example) Dublin to Wicklow/Gorey.

Hybrid trains with small batteries exist and widely used, but these are more for covering short distances where there are breaks in the overhead cables, for instance under tunnels or over bridges. They aren't typically used long distance.

One or two prototype trains exist and are operation with large amounts of battery to cover longer distances, but they are just prototypes and likely very expensive, I'm not sure you would want to base Dublins core transport network to them in the short term.

Sam Russell

bk wrote: »

Sounds unnecessarily expensive and complicated. How much will bi-mode trains cost compared to straight EMU's and how much of that extra cost could go to actually doing the electrification?



Hybrid trains with small batteries exist and widely used, but these are more for covering short distances where there are breaks in the overhead cables, for instance under tunnels or over bridges. They aren't typically used long distance.

One or two prototype trains exist and are operation with large amounts of battery to cover longer distances, but they are just prototypes and likely very expensive, I'm not sure you would want to base Dublins core transport network to them in the short term.

Why would IE look for what is obviously an expensive solution - more so because of our broad gauge?

Electrification of the Maynooth line, and possibly the PPT and out to Hazelhatch would appear to be a first move. Bi-modal rolling stock would have limited use if the much needed Maynooth electrification was carried out.

More shiny trains for IE to keep polished. Why not push for Dart Underground?

vrusinov

Lots of modern heavy "diesel" vehicles are actually diesel generator + small battery + several compact electric engines. This actually saves on weight (clutch/transmissions is smaller and simpler) and fuel consumption (generator always works at the most efficient mode + regenerative breaking, etc).

If next generation of DMUs are like these, pantograph is a relatively small addition to them that brings efficiency up while on electrified track.

Since it is very unlikely that the entire network will be electrified, it may be better to order 100 of those hybrid trains rather than e.g. 50 diesel + 50 electric, as it's must easier to operate one type of train rather than multiple.

Sam Russell

vrusinov wrote: »

Lots of modern heavy "diesel" vehicles are actually diesel generator + small battery + several compact electric engines. This actually saves on weight (clutch/transmissions is smaller and simpler) and fuel consumption (generator always works at the most efficient mode + regenerative breaking, etc).

If next generation of DMUs are like these, pantograph is a relatively small addition to them that brings efficiency up while on electrified track.

Since it is very unlikely that the entire network will be electrified, it may be better to order 100 of those hybrid trains rather than e.g. 50 diesel + 50 electric, as it's must easier to operate one type of train rather than multiple.

It would make sense if they ordered 75 dual mode trains instead of 50 diesels and 50 electric trains.

bk

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why would IE look for what is obviously an expensive solution - more so because of our broad gauge?

I've no insider knowledge, but I suspect the issue is that they need the new trains pretty much today, due to increases in demand, but are aware of the upcoming electrification plans, but those electrification plans might not come fast enough or might even get cancelled if a new recession hit or government changed.

So getting bimode now allows them to cover their basis and gives them flexibility to see what happens, though at extra cost.

I can just see us 20 years from now complaining about the money IR wasted on bimode trains where the Diesel engine is never used and just dragged around, adding weight on a fully electrified network.