DART+ (DART Expansion)

cgcsb

1. Not in our lifetime
2. No
3. It's proposed to electrify the existing lines as far as Maynooth, Drogheda and Hazelhatch and bring in 10 minute services on all these lines. Docklands station to be moved closer to the liffey and a new interchange station for metrolink and cross guns bridge is proposed.

Caveat: there isn't enough money for this. They have ordered 'hybrid' trains which will be a clown version of electrification and IE have hired an internal design team rather than external consultants and as we all know under the dead hand of IE management the internal design team will produce next to nothing and then they'll have to get external people and then the money will run out, rinse and repeat.

Idbatterim

That should be the green price for going into government, dart underground! How much would the major funnel aspect cost ?

Shedite27

Idbatterim wrote: »

That should be the green price for going into government, dart underground! How much would the major funnel aspect cost ?

Green Party were the main objectors to Metrolink South, leading to that getting cancelled.
https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/eamon-ryan-open-letter-to-shane-ross-on-the-need-for-a-review-of-the-metrolink-design-4094230-Jun2018/

Phil.x

cgcsb wrote: »

1. Not in our lifetime
2. No
3. It's proposed to electrify the existing lines as far as Maynooth, Drogheda and Hazelhatch and bring in 10 minute services on all these lines. Docklands station to be moved closer to the liffey and a new interchange station for metrolink and cross guns bridge is proposed.

Caveat: there isn't enough money for this. They have ordered 'hybrid' trains which will be a clown version of electrification and IE have hired an internal design team rather than external consultants and as we all know under the dead hand of IE management the internal design team will produce next to nothing and then they'll have to get external people and then the money will run out, rinse and repeat.

Docklands station to be moved all of the 100m +/- is just wasteful and I couldn't ever see it happen.

Idbatterim

Shedite27 wrote: »

Green Party were the main objectors to Metrolink South, leading to that getting cancelled.
https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/eamon-ryan-open-letter-to-shane-ross-on-the-need-for-a-review-of-the-metrolink-design-4094230-Jun2018/

Oh I remember. Dart underground and metrolink are the game changers. Why is there zero vision here ? Move the port , release billions in land value and use it to house a huge amount and with some of the money , fund the serious infrastructure it would need , like dart underground. Just throwing this out here. If there was any vision here at all. Could they run the line from heuston to new urban district in what is now the port and then back under the Irish glass bottle site redevelopment?

Idbatterim

Phil.x wrote: »

Docklands station to be moved all of the 100m +/- is just wasteful and I couldn't ever see it happen.

What is the “ logic “ in that ?! Can they not generate more money from selling off air rights over heuston etc ?

Pete_Cavan

specialbyte wrote: »

Enabling works for full construction is stating on the new Pelletstown train station on the Maynooth line: https://twitter.com/RCPCA1/status/1229514141599137792

Enabling works generally refers to a separate contract before the main contract is awarded. This seems to be a single contract for the full works. The letter from Sisk referred to "initial works" not enabling.

Dats me

cgcsb wrote: »

1. Not in our lifetime
2. No
3. It's proposed to electrify the existing lines as far as Maynooth, Drogheda and Hazelhatch and bring in 10 minute services on all these lines. Docklands station to be moved closer to the liffey and a new interchange station for metrolink and cross guns bridge is proposed.

Caveat: there isn't enough money for this. They have ordered 'hybrid' trains which will be a clown version of electrification and IE have hired an internal design team rather than external consultants and as we all know under the dead hand of IE management the internal design team will produce next to nothing and then they'll have to get external people and then the money will run out, rinse and repeat.

That's not true? They've appointed consultants for Maynooth and are tendering for Kildare right now

p_haugh

antimatterx wrote: »

Where will the access go for Baldoyle residents.

I would assume the entrance would be shifted over to make room for the extra track

Last Stop

Moving docklands station provides a direct interchange with the Luas red line. This will make it a more attractive alternative to Connolly.

To answer a previous question; The route alignment in general hasn’t changed from the original scheme however it looks increasingly likely that the tunnel section will be shortened to Heuston as opposed the Inchicore as was originally envisioned.

spacetweek

cgcsb wrote: »

Caveat: there isn't enough money for this. They have ordered 'hybrid' trains which will be a clown version of electrification

The hybrid trains are a transitional measure until full electrification, whenever that happens.

Idbatterim

Last Stop wrote: »

Moving docklands station provides a direct interchange with the Luas red line. This will make it a more attractive alternative to Connolly.

To answer a previous question; The route alignment in general hasn’t changed from the original scheme however it looks increasingly likely that the tunnel section will be shortened to Heuston as opposed the Inchicore as was originally envisioned.

can tunnel be shortered by not looping up as far as SSG ? I assume not unless there was a metro station around the hawkings house etc development now, which there wont be?

Pete_Cavan

Idbatterim wrote: »

can tunnel be shortered by not looping up as far as SSG ? I assume not unless there was a metro station around the hawkings house etc development now, which there wont be?

There will be a Metro station across the road from there, beside Tara Street station. And yes, not going as far south as SSG would slightly reduce the length of the tunnel.

cgcsb

spacetweek wrote: »

The hybrid trains are a transitional measure

:pac: mega lols

Sorry I don't mean to be dismissive but it takes weeks only to electrify such small stretches of track in any other developed country and it should take, at most, 2 years to get rolling stock for our unique gauge. There is no technical need for transitional stock. The purpose of the proosed hybrid trains is to allow every third dart do the long distance commuter service but recently it's been sold as a 'transition' I.e. another clown job like leaving the luas lines physically separated.

LXFlyer

cgcsb wrote: »

:pac: mega lols

Sorry I don't mean to be dismissive but it takes weeks only to electrify such small stretches of track in any other developed country and it should take, at most, 2 years to get rolling stock for our unique gauge. There is no technical need for transitional stock. The purpose of the proosed hybrid trains is to allow every third dart do the long distance commuter service but recently it's been sold as a 'transition' I.e. another clown job like leaving the luas lines physically separated.

“Weeks” to electrify? Come off it.

The Great Western electrification has taken years to do relatively short portions.

You’re not accounting for the removal of level crossings, additional trackwork that will be required (more loops and four tracking on portions of the Northern Line), re-modelling of Connolly Station, re-signalling of the lines - all while services are maintained. You can’t simply view the electrification in isolation.

cgcsb

LXFlyer wrote: »

“Weeks” to electrify? Come off it.

The Great Western electrification has taken years to do relatively short portions.

You’re not accounting for the removal of level crossings, additional trackwork that will be required (more loops and four tracking on portions of the Northern Line), re-modelling of Connolly Station, re-signalling of the lines - all while services are maintained. You can’t simply view the electrification in isolation.

Dont think there's any loops proposed afaik. Signalling should have been already upgraded by now. Closing the crossings is overdue by decades, as is electrification.

skelly22

cgcsb wrote: »

1. Not in our lifetime
2. No
3. It's proposed to electrify the existing lines as far as Maynooth, Drogheda and Hazelhatch and bring in 10 minute services on all these lines. Docklands station to be moved closer to the liffey and a new interchange station for metrolink and cross guns bridge is proposed.

Caveat: there isn't enough money for this. They have ordered 'hybrid' trains which will be a clown version of electrification and IE have hired an internal design team rather than external consultants and as we all know under the dead hand of IE management the internal design team will produce next to nothing and then they'll have to get external people and then the money will run out, rinse and repeat.

I love your optimism

AAAAAAAAA

LXFlyer wrote: »

“Weeks” to electrify? Come off it.

The Great Western electrification has taken years to do relatively short portions.

You’re not accounting for the removal of level crossings, additional trackwork that will be required (more loops and four tracking on portions of the Northern Line), re-modelling of Connolly Station, re-signalling of the lines - all while services are maintained. You can’t simply view the electrification in isolation.

How are we doing on the bridge height front? have we got sufficient clearance for overhead cables on all the bridges on this scheme?

LXFlyer

cgcsb wrote: »

Dont think there's any loops proposed afaik. Signalling should have been already upgraded by now. Closing the crossings is overdue by decades, as is electrification.

Whether something is overdue or not is irrelevant to this point.

All of the work needs to happen as part of the same railway order process - they’re not isolated.

There will certainly need to be additional loops (southbound at Clongriffin for example and between Clongriffin and Drogheda), remodelling to allow turn backs off the running lines between Clongriffin and Drogheda.

The signalling on the Maynooth line has not been upgraded and will need a complete overhaul as part of the project, reducing the length of the signal sections along the line to increase capacity.

A depot for the rolling stock is needed.

Connolly is due to be remodelled with possibly one additional platform.

The notion that you can go ahead with electrification completely separate to all of that happening is daft.

But sure, yes all that can be done in “weeks”.

Jamie2k9

There will certainly need to be additional loops (southbound at Clongriffin for example and between Clongriffin and Drogheda), remodelling to allow turn backs off the running lines between Clongriffin and Drogheda.

N Line
* Clongriffian S Loop
* Howth Junction (not quiet sure about track changes proposed)

Prob be half hourly full route with rest turning in Malahide. No resignalling however if budget was there it would be considered and likely any associated loop.

machaseh

Is there any talk at all about a third rail between Howth Junction and Conolly? This would really be important to run an effective commuter/belfast/DART service on this track.

LXFlyer

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

N Line
* Clongriffian S Loop
* Howth Junction (not quiet sure about track changes proposed)

Prob be half hourly full route with rest turning in Malahide. No resignalling however if budget was there it would be considered and likely any associated loop.

The electrification project will have to include turnback facilities off the running lines where trains can stable before changing direction. I’d think two locations between Clongriffin and Drogheda would deliver the enough flexibility.

The current situation at Malahide is far from satisfactory and needs addressing.

LXFlyer

machaseh wrote: »

Is there any talk at all about a third rail between Howth Junction and Conolly? This would really be important to run an effective commuter/belfast/DART service on this track.

Not in the current DART expansion plan, no.

But the penny has finally dropped with the IE CEO, who has now finally realised that to deliver competitive journey times and maximise frequency of services, three or four tracking will be needed for some of that section.

He has now referred to it on a number of occasions.

But that will have to be fleshed out with the NTA for subsequent investment plans.

Jamie2k9

LXFlyer wrote: »

The electrification project will have to include turnback facilities off the running lines where trains can stable before changing direction. I’d think two locations between Clongriffin and Drogheda would deliver the enough flexibility.

The current situation at Malahide is far from satisfactory and needs addressing.

I am not disagreeing but its not been budgeted or costed so right now appears they have no plans. Few years off but quiet a big cost to exclude although can change as quad tracking N Line has.

Its not unreasonable to think 3-4 trains per hour will operate though to Drogheda in 10 years given the population growth along the corridor so apart from a crossover its hard to see them justify such investment.

Conchir

antimatterx wrote: »

Where will the access go for Baldoyle residents.

p_haugh wrote: »

I would assume the entrance would be shifted over to make room for the extra track

I've been looking through the planning details for the next phase of the Stapolin/Baldoyle development, which they've started building work on. The road with the roundabout at the end, leading to the stairs/lift up to the station, will be removed, with pedestrian access maintained through part of the development site it seems (can see the planned phasing in this document). The lift/stairs structure will eventually be removed during Phase II. It will be replaced with a structure that sounds similar to the ramp on the Clongriffin side of the track (page 5 of the An Bord Pleanala notice here)

...landscaping works including Stapolin Square (circa 0.4 hectares) which will provide access to Clongriffin Train Station via a series of terraces, steps and slopes...

During the initial consultation phase for that housing development in 2016, IE were on the ball and flagged that the developers had the wrong boundary on their application plans, which would have taken some of IEs land for the four-tracking of the line. I can't see much difference though in the final maps for the housing development that ABP accepted. In any case, the maps are so vague and hard to follow that they're not much use anyway. And ABP need to get a high quality, colour scanner pronto.

machaseh

Conchir wrote: »

I've been looking through the planning details for the next phase of the Stapolin/Baldoyle development, which they've started building work on. The road with the roundabout at the end, leading to the stairs/lift up to the station, will be removed, with pedestrian access maintained through part of the development site it seems (can see the planned phasing in this document). The lift/stairs structure will eventually be removed during Phase II. It will be replaced with a structure that sounds similar to the ramp on the Clongriffin side of the track (page 5 of the An Bord Pleanala notice here)


During the initial consultation phase for that housing development in 2016, IE were on the ball and flagged that the developers had the wrong boundary on their application plans, which would have taken some of IEs land for the four-tracking of the line. I can't see much difference though in the final maps for the housing development that ABP accepted. In any case, the maps are so vague and hard to follow that they're not much use anyway. And ABP need to get a high quality, colour scanner pronto.

What a terribly drawn map.

What they should do (and I can't make it out from this picture) is extend the current road leading up to the entrance of Clongriffin train station to the other side and make it go down again in the direction of grange road (baldoyle). This could allow for bus routes to not only terminate at Clongriffin, but continue onwards to Baldoyle and perhaps further.

Although Clongriffin currently only has the 15 bus, with Busconnects it is planned to become a new bus hub with many new routes. Buses that would terminate could still do so at the main square of clongriffin and other buses could continue if this were built. However, the sharp turn leading up to Clongriffin station might be a bit difficult for buses to do, especially ccoming from the main square. I have seen a new proposed bus route serving the north side of clongriffin though (which currently has no public transportation while many houses and apartments are being built there), and that bus could more easily make that turn up to the entrance of clongriffin station and then onwards towards Baldoyle and perhaps Howth.

Conchir

machaseh wrote: »

What a terribly drawn map.

What they should do (and I can't make it out from this picture) is extend the current road leading up to the entrance of Clongriffin train station to the other side and make it go down again in the direction of grange road (baldoyle). This could allow for bus routes to not only terminate at Clongriffin, but continue onwards to Baldoyle and perhaps further.

Although Clongriffin currently only has the 15 bus, with Busconnects it is planned to become a new bus hub with many new routes. Buses that would terminate could still do so at the main square of clongriffin and other buses could continue if this were built. However, the sharp turn leading up to Clongriffin station might be a bit difficult for buses to do, especially ccoming from the main square. I have seen a new proposed bus route serving the north side of clongriffin though (which currently has no public transportation while many houses and apartments are being built there), and that bus could more easily make that turn up to the entrance of clongriffin station and then onwards towards Baldoyle and perhaps Howth.

From what I can tell, the Baldoyle housing developers are responsible for maintaining pedestrian access to the station only, hence the removal of the stairs/lift structure and building a new ramp. You can see in the 2016 map that they’ve left the road which comes up from the Clongriffin side outside the station as is; it looks as though it would mirror the loop down onto the Baldoyle side in the future, but that takes it outside the boundary of that development so the developers have just kind of ignored it...

ciaran75

Any word yet on journey times, do they hope the removal of gates and electrification of line will speed
up service

LXFlyer

ciaran75 wrote: »

Any word yet on journey times, do they hope the removal of gates and electrification of line will speed
up service

This project is mainly about delivering extra capacity and improving reliability rather than journey time improvements. In other words running more trains.

You may see a few minutes shaved off through faster acceleration and deceleration of electric stock, but given that both the Northern and Maynooth lines are two track railways, unless additional loops and third/fourth tracks are included (they’re not) then trains will still be slotting in behind one another.

On the Maynooth line, an additional station at Pelletstown will counteract some of any improvements gained.

Looking at detailed timings is a fair bit down the road.

cgcsb

I work close to the dart line so I often see darts going past the window and I can't help but notice that between about 8 am and 9.30 the trains going past are mostly 4 carriages brimming with humans. Then for the late morning and afternoon it's all 8 carriages with only a few people on them. What is the logic of this? If any? Fixing this issue should be a central part of dart expansion and it should be done soon.