DART+ (DART Expansion)

Sam Russell

SeanW wrote: »

Compared to the 29000s yes, they are not noisy. But that's a low bar.

Compared to the coaches they replaced, not so much.

It is the vibration of the engines and compressors under foot that is so discomforting.

Beta Ray Bill

Sam Russell wrote: »

They are noisy both inside and outside. Loco pulled trains are smoother, quieter and more comfortable. Just look at the Belmond Grand Hibernian and what it can charge for a real train!

I'd love a weekend away on that Train!

I've always wondered what sexy time would be like a on train, defo one that needs ticking off the list!

LXFlyer

murphaph wrote: »

But IE replaced many of the mkIIIs with new coaching stock, the so called mkIVs. Absolutely no operational benefit whatsoever in that. MkIIIs are still providing perfectly adequate service in the UK to this day.

Actually the Mark IV stock did not replace any Mark III stock.

They resulted in the withdrawal of the older Mark II stock that was well past its sell by date.

LXFlyer

SeanW wrote: »

Compared to the 29000s yes, they are not noisy. But that's a low bar.

Compared to the coaches they replaced, not so much.

Ah come on - compared to virtually any DMU stock in these islands, the ICRs are probably the quietest of all. That’s not a low bar among modern rolling stock.

Stand lineside anywhere and you can barely hear an ICR until it’s beside you, and even then it’s pretty quiet.

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is the vibration of the engines and compressors under foot that is so discomforting.

With respect you must have a very fragile existence - how do you cope in a car or on a bus or in an aircraft? It is hardly that significant.

The Mk III stock had compressors too by the way.

This is getting way off the topic of DART but to suggest that they’re particularly noisy is farcical.

murphaph

LXFlyer wrote: »

Actually the Mark IV stock did not replace any Mark III stock.

They resulted in the withdrawal of the older Mark II stock that was well past its sell by date.

Then where are all the MkIIIs that used to be on Dublin-Cork? You can argue the order makes a difference, but it doesn't really. Where once MkIIIs ran (and could still be running), now MkIVs run->no operational improvement for the money spent.

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we return to discussing Dart.


I will look to move discussion of Irish Rail rolling stock to a new thread when I get time.

SeanW

This is getting way off the topic of DART but to suggest that they’re particularly noisy is farcical.

For me no - because the EMU cars of today are being scrapped to be replaced with "tri mode" railcars that will have diesel engines. I seriously hope the diesel operation of these "New DARTs" is closer to the 22ks than the 29ks, because frankly there are times that a boxcar must be more comfortable to ride than these heaps of ****.

LXFlyer wrote: »

Ah come on - compared to virtually any DMU stock in these islands, the ICRs are probably the quietest of all. That’s not a low bar among modern rolling stock.

Stand lineside anywhere and you can barely hear an ICR until it’s beside you, and even then it’s pretty quiet.

They're not bad, to be sure. But coaches are quieter. That's just a fact.

With respect you must have a very fragile existence - how do you cope in a car or on a bus or in an aircraft? It is hardly that significant.

The 29000s are something special for noise and vibration, I've never been in anything that is as bad, anywhere. It depends on things that vary between journeys, e.g. how bad a condition the 29k car is in, where in the car you are etc. But there have been times that I've been standing in a 29k and found the vibration from the floor so bad it was almost painful. Not to mention the interior engine noise, which (again depending on things like where you are in the car) can be borderline deafening.

LXFlyer

SeanW wrote: »

For me no - because the EMU cars of today are being scrapped to be replaced with "tri mode" railcars that will have diesel engines. I seriously hope the diesel operation of these "New DARTs" is closer to the 22ks than the 29ks, because frankly there are times that a boxcar must be more comfortable to ride than these heaps of ****.

They're not bad, to be sure. But coaches are quieter. That's just a fact.

The 29000s are something special for noise and vibration, I've never been in anything that is as bad, anywhere. It depends on things that vary between journeys, e.g. how bad a condition the 29k car is in, where in the car you are etc. But there have been times that I've been standing in a 29k and found the vibration from the floor so bad it was almost painful. Not to mention the interior engine noise, which (again depending on things like where you are in the car) can be borderline deafening.

To be clear - every single comment that I made above about noise levels (and the lack of them) was in relation to 22000 ICRs. They were the trains that Sam Russell was complaining about. Not the 29000s (unless he got confused).

tubbs26

I commute from Hazelhatch every day.

One thing that has always puzzled me. What is the purpose of the outside platforms (IE platforms on the fast lines) on all stations from Hazelhatch into Hueston?

I have never seen them used and am wondering what they could/should be used for? Will the DART expansion project bring them into use?

specialbyte

tubbs26 wrote: »

I commute from Hazelhatch every day.

One thing that has always puzzled me. What is the purpose of the outside platforms (IE platforms on the fast lines) on all stations from Hazelhatch into Hueston?

I have never seen them used and am wondering what they could/should be used for? Will the DART expansion project bring them into use?

Yup the DART expansion is exactly why we upgraded the section of track between Hazelhatch and Inchicore to 4 tracks. (We haven't done the section of Inchicore into Heuston yet - the DART underground tunnel was supposed to go to Inchicore so the last section wasn't necessary with that plan but is probably necessary now) There are a ton of intercity and long-distance commuter trains coming into Heuston so we don't want them getting stuck behind the frequent stopping DART trains.

This might make you wonder why we for the stations that only have slow trains (DARTs) stopping at them why would you have 4 platforms on all tracks (fast and slow) instead of just the slow tracks. The reason is operational flexibility. If/when the is some issue like a broken down train or something like then IE have much more options. They can try to route around the problem while still running services.

Hopefully we get our act together and get the DART expansion rolled out to Kildare sometime soon. When we do then expect to see more platforms being used. Full details on the DART expansion plan are due out 'soon'. I've heard varying estimates from a few weeks to a few months.

D.L.R.

specialbyte wrote: »

Full details on the DART expansion plan are due out 'soon'. I've heard varying estimates from a few weeks to a few months.

Usually just before an election. Irish political parties are quite cynical like that.

LXFlyer

The platforms on the fast lines are there simply for operational flexibility, that’s all.

CatInABox

bk wrote: »

Sorry, been away for a few days.

Yes, but DART can also come in shorter lengths, 4 carriages or even just 2.

A 4 carriage DART is about 90m or roughly equivalent to a 90m Metro. That is why I mentioned DART and Metro not being terribly different when it comes to it.

You could have just 4 (or 2) carriage DARTs operating on the SW spur into the Dart Underground tunnel and thus directly into the city center and over towards Connolly.

In fact, they recently been talking about redesigning the DU tunnel to make it cheaper. I wouldn't be at all surprised if that meant making the stations just 100m long, in order to reduce underground station construction costs. That would mean a return to 4 carriage DARTs, but at higher frequency, would mean as much or more capacity then the 8 carriage DARTs.

BK posted this in the "New Luas/Metro lines we might like" thread, and I thought that the idea that they might go with 90/100m trains and stations might spark some discussion on the Dart Underground project in here.

Presumably, they'd want to build Dart Underground in the same fashion as they are attempting to with Metrolink, so they'd want to do it as cheaply as possible.

From what I can see with the Metrolink project, that would mean:

• Putting stations where there's reduced need for CPOs/knocking buildings.
• Digging the stations straight down, rather than digging them out from the tunnel.
• Further to that point, stations must be aligned with the path of the tunnel, to cut down on needing to dig outwards again.
• Follow roads where possible (not sure this one is really applicable in city centre though).

They'd probably also look again at all the project requirements, as they did when they moved the Metro North line west to create the Whitworth Rd interchange.

So with that in mind, what route should the DART Underground take? Where should it interconnect?

Are the Heuston, Stephens Green and Pearse interchanges as important as they originally were, what with the existence of both Metrolink, Phoenix Park Tunnel, Luas Cross City and The DART expansion?

In fact, if the DART is running every 5 to 10, would commuter trains still run into Heuston? They'd all be stuck behind a DART from Hazelhatch/Celbridge onwards anyway. Would a major station outside Celbridge not be better, allowing commuter services to be more frequent as they wouldn't have to go all the way into the city?


Taking the restrictions into account above, my two crayon routes would be:

Inchicore
St James Hospital (where the Fatima Luas Stop currently is)
St Stephens Green (the southern end, going a bit diagonal into the park to take account of the turn to Pearse
Pearse (Will require either a fair bit of CPOing, or digging out the station)
Docklands

There's a possibility of a stop at the Teelings Distillery as well, by diggin up the street.

Inchicore
Heuston
Vicar St (There's a Carpark and building supplies yard there that could be dug up easily, across from John's Lane Church)
St Stephens Green (the northern end)
Macken St
Docklands

Going the north end of Stephens Green seems like it'll make a turn to Pearse too sharp.

bk

CatInABox wrote: »

Follow roads where possible (not sure this one is really applicable in city centre though).

Possibly it could follow the river or one of the quays, cut and cover, I don't know if that would make it easier/cheaper or more complicated/expensive (dealing with waterproofing).

CatInABox wrote: »

They'd probably also look again at all the project requirements, as they did when they moved the Metro North line west to create the Whitworth Rd interchange.

Definitely the importance of Connolly is changing with MetroLink at Whitworth Road and Tara St, plus Hueston West, never mind the land changing hands at Docklands.

CatInABox wrote: »

So with that in mind, what route should the DART Underground take? Where should it interconnect?

Are the Heuston, Stephens Green and Pearse interchanges as important as they originally were, what with the existence of both Metrolink, Phoenix Park Tunnel, Luas Cross City and The DART expansion?

I haven't thought about it too deeply, but Tara St would be the obvious candidate if they could find a way to squeeze the station in there. Interchange with Metrolink and the other DART line there. No need for a separate station at Pearse and Stephens Green (reduce cost) and perhaps a more direct (shorter) route to Hueston. This might allow for a possibly easier route along the river/quays I mention above.

So perhaps, start the tunnel in the Connolly Yard (new platform there), station by Tara St (perhaps built in the river in front of the Customs House), another station by the Dublin City Council offices, into Hueston.

Advantage is one less station and shorter, more direct route (less tunnelling).

I'm sure there are a bunch of issues that others can point out. This is just a bit of crayoning after 5 minutes thinking.

The biggest question is probably if it is easier or harder to build close to/in the river.

From Hueston you could later head out towards Lucan and perhaps also have a SW spur.

CatInABox wrote: »

In fact, if the DART is running every 5 to 10, would commuter trains still run into Heuston? They'd all be stuck behind a DART from Hazelhatch/Celbridge onwards anyway. Would a major station outside Celbridge not be better, allowing commuter services to be more frequent as they wouldn't have to go all the way into the city?

Celbridge to Hueston is already quad tracked so that intercity/commuter trains are separate from future DARTs and won't be held up.

Heartbreak Hank

Are the findings of the review out this year?

CatInABox

bk wrote: »

I haven't thought about it too deeply, but Tara St would be the obvious candidate if they could find a way to squeeze the station in there. Interchange with Metrolink and the other DART line there. No need for a separate station at Pearse and Stephens Green (reduce cost) and perhaps a more direct (shorter) route to Hueston. This might allow for a possibly easier route along the river/quays I mention above.

So perhaps, start the tunnel in the Connolly Yard (new platform there), station by Tara St (perhaps built in the river in front of the Customs House), another station by the Dublin City Council offices, into Hueston.

Advantage is one less station and shorter, more direct route (less tunnelling).

I'm sure there are a bunch of issues that others can point out. This is just a bit of crayoning after 5 minutes thinking.

The biggest question is probably if it is easier or harder to build close to/in the river.

I'm not sure on building by the river, I can see the benefits, but I'd be terrified that it'd end up as either a lake, or a new water pipe.

I actually forgot about crossing the Metrolink line as well, so the tunnel will, at least at some point, need to be significantly deeper. Cut and cover would most likely be ruled out by that need.

You're right though, Tara St is definitely the station to aim for. Entirely possible that it could follow Dame St, with the possibility of a station around the old central bank building (you could even call it College Green!), before turning northwards to meet with Tara St. Like Pearse, it'd probably have to be dug out underground.

bk wrote: »

From Hueston you could later head out towards Lucan and perhaps also have a SW spur.

Celbridge to Hueston is already quad tracked so that intercity/commuter trains are separate from future DARTs and won't be held up.

I didn't know that actually, haven't been out that way in years. Makes using Heuston an easy choice then.

redfacedbear

bk wrote: »

Celbridge to Hueston is already quad tracked so that intercity/commuter trains are separate from future DARTs and won't be held up.

I don't think the quad tracking goes all the way into Heuston (google maps suggests that it's a mixture of 2, 3 and 4 tracks between Cherry Orchard station and Heuston). I seem to remember that this was part of the reason that the original DU plan was extended from Heuston to Inchicore to basically take the DART/commuter stuff of the end of the quad track and direct it away from the area where they are restricted in the number of lines they can squeeze in.

I would hope that any revised DU plan would keep the Inchicore entry point for the tunnel and not be stuck by any potential bottleneck closer to Heuston.

bk

redfacedbear wrote: »

I would hope that any revised DU plan would keep the Inchicore entry point for the tunnel and not be stuck by any potential bottleneck closer to Heuston.

Yes, it would make sense to interchange there with the Hueston West "station".

citizen6

At the Metrolink consultation I asked about DU going via Tara instead of Pearse and SSG. The guys I spoke to (from TII and ARUP) weren't involved with DU planning and didn't have much to say about it.

Based on the posts above it sounds like the station construction will be the biggest problem. In which case Docklands-Tara-HeustonWest might be a lot more viable than Docklands-Pearse-SSG-Christchurch-Heuston-Inchicore as previously proposed.

Any chance of a station box under the Hawkins House block before it gets built over? And tunnels to Tara Dart/Metro included in Metrolink design?

gooddarts10

Does anyone actually believe that Dart underground will be built and operational within the next 20 years.

Sam Russell

gooddarts10 wrote: »

Does anyone actually believe that Dart underground will be built and operational within the next 20 years.

I would like to think that once Metrolink is built (assuming it goes to schedule), DU would be next for the underground treatment, them Metro II from SW to NE.

Underground is the only way to deal with public transport in Dublin.

Grandeeod

gooddarts10 wrote: »

Does anyone actually believe that Dart underground will be built and operational within the next 20 years.

No.

We will get lots more talk about metros and trams. Some bits may happen. Lots will get redesigned. We may see some DART extensions that will cause more problems than they solve. There will be lots and lots of BS!

Colonel Claptrap

How will the 10 minute DART work at Howth Jct? Will the Howth spur have 10 minute intervals as well as the Malahide spur? Would that mean a very frequent timetable for everything south of Howth Jct?

Or would the mix of inter city and DART on the Malahide spur count towards a 10 minute timetable?

Alternatively, would the Howth spur act as a shuttle with the main northern line acting as the 10 minute line as far as Malahide?

Appreciate any insight.

LXFlyer

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

How will the 10 minute DART work at Howth Jct? Will the Howth spur have 10 minute intervals as well as the Malahide spur? Would that mean a very frequent timetable for everything south of Howth Jct?

Or would the mix of inter city and DART on the Malahide spur count towards a 10 minute timetable?

Alternatively, would the Howth spur act as a shuttle with the main northern line acting as the 10 minute line as far as Malahide?

Appreciate any insight.

The plan is that each spur would have a 20 minute DART service and that you would have a 10 minute DART service between Howth Junction and Bray.

I’d imagine that just as now this will be augmented by some peak time extras.

cgcsb

surely everyone would be better served by 10 minute frequency to Malahide and 10 minute frequency Howth shuttle. That makes DART a turn up and go service.

LXFlyer

cgcsb wrote: »

surely everyone would be better served by 10 minute frequency to Malahide and 10 minute frequency Howth shuttle. That makes DART a turn up and go service.

Given the track layout at Malahide that wouldn’t be practical as the DART has to sit on the running lines.

You have to fit in Northern Line and Enterprise services as well.

Sam Russell

If the Airport spur had happened, then the Howth - Howth Junction would become a shuttle service. That could still happen with the 10 minute service, but I think the Malahide situation needs a solution. It is a pity the siding at Malahide is south of the station.

cgcsb

LXFlyer wrote: »

Given the track layout at Malahide that wouldn’t be practical as the DART has to sit on the running lines.

You have to fit in Northern Line and Enterprise services as well.

It's possible to upgrade Malahide station and quad track Drogheda to Howth Junction with little hassle, this should be part of the DART expansion plan. With good timing Enterprise can bypass all DARTs between Drogheda and Howth Jnct and get from Howth Junction to Connolly in a 10min window without getting stuck behind a DART. If it were me I'd just scrap the Dundalk commuter, have hourly Enterprises, half hourly in the morning and evening. That may require some serious work on the NIR side is all. It would mean a much more simplified timetable.

Colonel Claptrap

It would be incredibly difficult to quad track through Malahide without CPO of an expensive apartment block at Casino, encroaching on the Casino itself (a protected structure) as well as knocking and rebuilding the estuary bridge.

A floating siding built next to the bridge could be an option. This would give enterprise and inter city priority while the DART driver changes cabs in between 10 minute runs.

Or perhaps a dedicated DART siding on the northern side of the estuary? However a walk through by the driver at Malahide before proceeding to the siding would probably be mandatory, in case of sleeping passengers who forget to get off! This takes time.

LXFlyer

cgcsb wrote: »

It's possible to upgrade Malahide station and quad track Drogheda to Howth Junction with little hassle, this should be part of the DART expansion plan. With good timing Enterprise can bypass all DARTs between Drogheda and Howth Jnct and get from Howth Junction to Connolly in a 10min window without getting stuck behind a DART. If it were me I'd just scrap the Dundalk commuter, have hourly Enterprises, half hourly in the morning and evening. That may require some serious work on the NIR side is all. It would mean a much more simplified timetable.

That is pie in the sky thinking in terms of infrastructure upgrades and totally unnecessary.

Bear in mind that the 10 minute DART is due to happen this year.

What is needed to deliver an effective and reliable service is:
1) Ability to overtake between Clontarf Road and Raheny
2) A passing loop at Clongriffin on the Up (Dublin bound) side
3) Reinstate passing loop at Mosney
4) Install proper turnback facilities for DART

Bear in mind you also have bi-directional working between Skerries and Balbriggan which facilitates overtaking.

None of that is going to happen anytime particularly soon.