DART+ (DART Expansion)

Rulmeq

LXFlyer wrote: »

DART + Consultation for the Maynooth Line is now live:

https://www.irishrail.ie/about-us/iarnrod-eireann-projects-and-investments/DART-Programme

No replacement for Blakestown LC, I guess it's a minor road.

Rulmeq

L1011 wrote: »

They could do some of it - no way to practically access the existing platforms from the other lines for instance - but it doesn't fix the existing station being a temporary building in a bad location with no facilities.

If you're going to end up rebuilding the station you would not keep it in that location.

How will they cross Sheriff Street?

MJohnston

L1011 wrote: »

They could do some of it - no way to practically access the existing platforms from the other lines for instance - but it doesn't fix the existing station being a temporary building in a bad location with no facilities.

If you're going to end up rebuilding the station you would not keep it in that location.

Well, equally I don't know whether I'd go to the likely huge expense of tunnelling under Sheriff St and building a new railway station building when it doesn't seem specifically necessary to achieve the objectives here.

The alignment of the Northern/Drumcondra lines just north of the existing station seems relatively flexible, I guess I'm not seeing where the physical constraints come from putting it there.

IMO that location where the proposed new station would go would be much more useful as a few hundred apartments, which could potentially be built before the railway order for this is even approved!

Brian CivilEng

Isn't Sheriff St on an existing bridge at this location anyway? Tracks once ran under it as far as the Quays.

Alvin Holler

Yeah, the bus parking currently goes under the bridge so no tunnel required

loyatemu

L1011 wrote: »

With the depot basically in Kilcock and the track doubled to the depot, its clear that there'll be political pressure to extend to Kilcock now.

at the very least build a station at the depot and P&R off the M4.

L1011

MJohnston wrote: »

Well, equally I don't know whether I'd go to the likely huge expense of tunnelling under Sheriff St and building a new railway station building when it doesn't seem specifically necessary to achieve the objectives here.

The alignment of the Northern/Drumcondra lines just north of the existing station seems relatively flexible, I guess I'm not seeing where the physical constraints come from putting it there.

IMO that location where the proposed new station would go would be much more useful as a few hundred apartments, which could potentially be built before the railway order for this is even approved!

As pointed out, Sheriff Street is on a multi-arch/multi-line railway bridge at that point, as this used to be all railway yards. Plenty of apartments have already been built on seconds of this and other railway yards in the area.

bk

MJohnston wrote: »

Well, equally I don't know whether I'd go to the likely huge expense of tunnelling under Sheriff St and building a new railway station building when it doesn't seem specifically necessary to achieve the objectives here.

The alignment of the Northern/Drumcondra lines just north of the existing station seems relatively flexible, I guess I'm not seeing where the physical constraints come from putting it there.

IMO that location where the proposed new station would go would be much more useful as a few hundred apartments, which could potentially be built before the railway order for this is even approved!

If you dig into the site, there are more detailed reports, including one looking at different options for Docklands/Spencer Dock.

It seems that expanding Docklands station faces a variety of issues, including one less line and thus less capacity to hold trains and difficulty with the line approaching from the North and sufficient elevation.

While the Spencer Dock is more expensive, it seems to offer an easier build, more capacity and a variety of benefits for passengers.

MJohnston

L1011 wrote: »

As pointed out, Sheriff Street is on a multi-arch/multi-line railway bridge at that point, as this used to be all railway yards. Plenty of apartments have already been built on seconds of this and other railway yards in the area.

I'd say there will still be significant excavation required to make those arches DART capable, but fair enough, that's a lower cost than an outright tunnel.

It is a shame that it will leave a derelict site in the middle of the Docklands for 7+ years though. Such a waste of valuable space!

MJohnston

bk wrote: »

If you dig into the site, there are more detailed reports, including one looking at different options for Docklands/Spencer Dock.

It seems that expanding Docklands station faces a variety of issues, including one less line and thus less capacity to hold trains and difficulty with the line approaching from the North and sufficient elevation.

While the Spencer Dock is more expensive, it seems to offer an easier build, more capacity and a variety of benefits for passengers.

Could it be that they've already sold a portion of that land east of the existing Docklands station for development already? Now that I think of it, I do seem to remember some proposed development there.

L1011

MJohnston wrote: »

Could it be that they've already sold a portion of that land east of the existing Docklands station for development already? Now that I think of it, I do seem to remember some proposed development there.

They haven't. There is a coach park on it currently, leased to the NTA.

There are other sites in the Docklands which have been derelict since being cleared in the late 1990s; its nothing new.

MJohnston

L1011 wrote: »

They haven't. There is a coach park on it currently, leased to the NTA.

There are other sites in the Docklands which have been derelict since being cleared in the late 1990s; its nothing new.

Well thanks for explaining the perfectly obvious

I think them remaining derelict is the problem, but whatever. Looks like the Spencer North SHD will at least be taking up half of the derelict city block that this new station is supposed to be located in.

Prezatch

Heroditas wrote: »

Tunnel makes sense I think. There's little room for the bridge because of the proximity of the apartments and shops like Super Valu.
It's challenging to get anything into that area because of how narrow the existing road is and where the buildings are.

Tunnel is going in a different location to where the existing foot bridge is

https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/getmedia/d73fabb6-6a02-47ec-90e4-a8137590c5fa/Ashtown-Roadbridge-Graphic-(A4).pdf

Pete_Cavan

MJohnston wrote: »

Interesting that they're going for a road tunnel at Ashtown under both the rail line and the canal—that seems much more complex than an overbridge!

I'd assume it has a lot to do with the fact that the ground level on the Rathborne/River Road side is several metres lower than the tracks and is falling towards the Tolka. This means the tunnel can tie-in with ground level on that side easier. An overbridge would require a long ramp down and there is limited space. On the other side, Phoenix Park side, there is more space to ramp up/down so either option likely works there.

Geuze

I need to check, but this sounds good.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's important that trains from both Maynooth and the PPT can travel to either Connolly and Docklands.


Also, although it's not mentioned here, if ever the InterConnector is built, a tunnel from Heuston-SSG-Pearse-Docklands, then that would allow a lot more flexible services around all/part of a circular route.

So a train from Maynooth should be able to access the PPT, and then go Heuston-SSG-Pearse-Docklands, and onto to, e.g. airport

This requires a short new line /chord from Maynooth line to join PPT line between Broombridge and Glasnevin.

Am I mad?



City Centre to Phisborough and Glasnevin
It is proposed that both of the existing lines between Connolly and Spencer Dock to Phibsborough and Glasnevin will be electrified with the installation of overhead electrical equipment, associated upgrades, re-signalling, telecoms, electricity substations and parapet heightening as required.

The two rail lines, the Northern Maynooth and Phoenix Park Tunnel lines converge at Phibsborough/Glasnevin, to the west of Cross Guns Bridge.

At Phibsborough and Glasnevin, a new fully integrated station serving both the DART+ Maynooth Line project and the proposed MetroLink project is proposed. Iarnród Éireann and Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) are collaborating to provide this new station which will comprise:

DART+ surface station. The station will have an east-west orientation on both Iarnród Éireann lines (Northern Maynooth and Phoenix Park Tunnel lines);
MetroLink underground station will have a north-south orientation;
A shared concourse with full passenger integration; and
Street level access and public realm improvements

Zebra3

So what trains will terminate in Connolly, continue south, and terminate in Spencer Dock?

L1011

Geuze wrote: »

So a train from Maynooth should be able to access the PPT, and then go Heuston-SSG-Pearse-Docklands, and onto to, e.g. airport

This requires a short new line /chord from Maynooth line to join PPT line between Broombridge and Glasnevin.

Am I mad?

Well, yes - as there is no actual proposal for heavy rail to the Airport; and evne if there was anyone coming from Maynooth would change to Metrolink at Glasnevin and there a good 45 minutes or so before someone doing an underground tour of the city that way!

It would need rather more than one short line as there is no PPT->DU connection proposed or indeed plausible if the portal goes where it was originally to go.

L1011

MJohnston wrote: »

Well thanks for explaining the perfectly obvious

I think them remaining derelict is the problem, but whatever. Looks like the Spencer North SHD will at least be taking up half of the derelict city block that this new station is supposed to be located in.

That is already under construction. There is still a land reservation for lines to approach the new station site.

lucernarian

L1011 wrote: »

Well, yes - as there is no actual proposal for heavy rail to the Airport; and evne if there was anyone coming from Maynooth would change to Metrolink at Glasnevin and there a good 45 minutes or so before someone doing an underground tour of the city that way!

It would need rather more than one short line as there is no PPT->DU connection proposed or indeed plausible if the portal goes where it was originally to go.

The station plans for Glasnevin showed a drawing for just such realignment of the junction to allow this connection to happen. All quite doable.

LXFlyer

MJohnston wrote: »

I'd say there will still be significant excavation required to make those arches DART capable, but fair enough, that's a lower cost than an outright tunnel.

It is a shame that it will leave a derelict site in the middle of the Docklands for 7+ years though. Such a waste of valuable space!

Container trains ran under the bridge right up to where the lines into the proposed station is located - I seriously doubt excavation would be needed. Surely the bridge would be raised instead if necessary?

I did flag that this relocation was the NTA thinking before, that they wanted to relocate the station closer to the LUAS stop.

Geuze

L1011 wrote: »

Well, yes - as there is no actual proposal for heavy rail to the Airport; and evne if there was anyone coming from Maynooth would change to Metrolink at Glasnevin and there a good 45 minutes or so before someone doing an underground tour of the city that way!

It would need rather more than one short line as there is no PPT->DU connection proposed or indeed plausible if the portal goes where it was originally to go.

OK, fair enough.

But if the InterConnector is built, SSG becomes the main station?

Then, wouldn't it be good if Sligo/Maynooth/Navan trains could leave Maynooth line, join PPT line, go through tunnel....


.....then okay I see your point, the portal is back in Inchicore, ok, needs a new short line at Islandbridge, off PPT line, drop down underground to meet main line

Geuze

L1011 wrote: »

Well, yes - as there is no actual proposal for heavy rail to the Airport; and evne if there was anyone coming from Maynooth would change to Metrolink at Glasnevin and there a good 45 minutes or so before someone doing an underground tour of the city that way!

It would need rather more than one short line as there is no PPT->DU connection proposed or indeed plausible if the portal goes where it was originally to go.

It's a pity that for the want of maybe 500m of line, Navan/Maynooth trains can't access PPT/Heuston/DU/SSG.


OK, those trains could go Glasnevin-Docks-DU-SSG, the other way, okay.

Geuze

Is there a planned service schedule?

https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/getmedia/84a2dd95-c0a2-4e77-bc98-30d8cfdf75b0/Annex-3-4A-Appendix-A-Peak-Hour-Service-Plans.pdf

This suggests 8x tph from Maynooth?

Seems a lot.

L1011

Geuze wrote: »

It's a pity that for the want of maybe 500m of line, Navan/Maynooth trains can't access PPT/Heuston/DU/SSG.


OK, those trains could go Glasnevin-Docks-DU-SSG, the other way, okay.

There wouldn't be the capacity for more than a tiny fraction of them to do so.

Its not going to happen.

Passengers will 'access' DU via interchange at Docklands/Spencer Dock.

CatInABox

lucernarian wrote: »

The station plans for Glasnevin showed a drawing for just such realignment of the junction to allow this connection to happen. All quite doable.

Geuze is talking about a new line going from the Maynooth line south onto the PPT line, without going to Glasnevin or the junction there at all.

I suppose, once the junction and station are completed, a train from Maynooth could stop at Glasnevin, and then leave in the opposite direction to go through the PPT. Highly unlikely, but possible. Most likely though, would be that passengers just get out of the train at Glasnevin and change onto a train going through the PPT. I don't think that those trains will be stopping at Heuston though, so not much good either.

LXFlyer

Geuze wrote: »

I need to check, but this sounds good.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's important that trains from both Maynooth and the PPT can travel to either Connolly and Docklands.


Also, although it's not mentioned here, if ever the InterConnector is built, a tunnel from Heuston-SSG-Pearse-Docklands, then that would allow a lot more flexible services around all/part of a circular route.

So a train from Maynooth should be able to access the PPT, and then go Heuston-SSG-Pearse-Docklands, and onto to, e.g. airport

This requires a short new line /chord from Maynooth line to join PPT line between Broombridge and Glasnevin.

Am I mad?



City Centre to Phisborough and Glasnevin
It is proposed that both of the existing lines between Connolly and Spencer Dock to Phibsborough and Glasnevin will be electrified with the installation of overhead electrical equipment, associated upgrades, re-signalling, telecoms, electricity substations and parapet heightening as required.

The two rail lines, the Northern Maynooth and Phoenix Park Tunnel lines converge at Phibsborough/Glasnevin, to the west of Cross Guns Bridge.

At Phibsborough and Glasnevin, a new fully integrated station serving both the DART+ Maynooth Line project and the proposed MetroLink project is proposed. Iarnród Éireann and Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) are collaborating to provide this new station which will comprise:

DART+ surface station. The station will have an east-west orientation on both Iarnród Éireann lines (Northern Maynooth and Phoenix Park Tunnel lines);
MetroLink underground station will have a north-south orientation;
A shared concourse with full passenger integration; and
Street level access and public realm improvements

A link from the PPT to any potential interconnecter isn’t going to happen - the space isn’t there for the reasons already outlined in this thread, nor is there any suggestion of a direct connection coming from the western line from Broombridge to the PPT.

People can change at Glasnevin, Connolly, Pearse or Docklands as appropriate should the Interconnector ever happen.

1huge1

Rulmeq wrote: »

No replacement for Blakestown LC, I guess it's a minor road.

Do you mean Barberstown Level crossing or am I missing something?


https://goo.gl/maps/wT1fzmiLWzqvZpbQ9

bk

MJohnston wrote: »

Could it be that they've already sold a portion of that land east of the existing Docklands station for development already? Now that I think of it, I do seem to remember some proposed development there.

So looking at the Docklands Station Report a bit more.

BTW It is here, warning big PDF:
https://www.irishrail.ie/Admin/getmedia/d6eaa089-ebde-4678-98a2-b542928c15f9/Annex-4-4A-Docklands-Station-Options-Study-Summary-Report-(1).pdf

There seem to be three issues with extending Docklands:
1) You basically end up with two separate stations there, the existing one and a new one East of it. Passengers would need to go out into the main station area to change platforms.

2) There is no connection between the three lines, so lacks flexibility. Basically each platform is accessible to and from only one route/line.

3) There is no space for trains to wait outside the station before Newcomen Junction.

By comparison the Spencerdock station allows space for the three lines to completely interconnect North of the station. This offers the flexibility for trains from any of the three lines to use any of the platforms and then leave via any of the routes.

Obviously this would offer excellent operational flexibility and redundancy.

Also it leaves more space North of the station for trains to wait to enter.

BTW I notice that the picture of the Spencerdock station on the website, looks substantially different from the option explored in the report. The one in the report has just two platforms and is diagonal across the site, while the picture on the Dart+ site shows it with three platforms and an extra line and North to South straight.

So I think what we might end up with something even better then the report, but looks like we will need to wait until the second phase consultation to see detailed maps.

BBTW They mention in the report that the road bridge on Sheriff Street Upper would need to be removed and rebuilt higher and the trackbed below it lowered in order to make space for the electrical wiring for the DARTs. There isn't enough space under the bridge for them at the moment.

From the report, the overall feeling I get is that while Docklands would be cheaper, Spencerdock would offer a far better station with much greater operational flexibility.

bk

Picture probably worth a thousand words. It shows better the difference between Docklands versus Spencerdock. In particular the interconnection between the lines before the stations.

NOTE: Spencerdock station may end up looking different to below, maybe three platforms versus 2 and straight.

Docklands:


Spencerdock:

marno21

Hugh Cregan of the NTA was on the News at One there when I tuned in

The main lines of questioning were about inconveniences of level crossing closures for residents and the difference between the initial concept cost estimate in the NDP and the most recent cost estimate (before proper detailed design).

The usual raimeis. It's useful to be prepared for lots more of it.