DART+ (DART Expansion)

Pete_Cavan

specialbyte wrote: »

I personally would like to see the electrification expanded to Mullingar and then Sligo, though I recognise we are in a country that has underinvested in rail infrastructure for decades.

I can completely understand why the NTA might be worried about scope creep. DART+ West is already a significant infrastructure project with enough problems to work through. The real danger with a project like DART+ West is that it doesn't move quickly enough through the design, planning, procurement and construction phases before the project funding is pulled because of another recession. The funding wheels are still on the track for now. That's not guaranteed into the future if recovery from COVID isn't reasonably quick and smooth. Adding more elements to the project adds more complexity and makes it more likely the whole project will be delayed and ultimately fail. I think not extending to Kilcock is probably the right choice for now.

Terminating DARTs at a station with only two platforms is not a good idea and has the potential to undermine capacity increases on the line, at least from time to time. Spending all this money and still having a situation which currently causes problems at Maynooth and elsewhere. The depot will be beside Kilcock so any extension would be quite short and cheap to do now. I'd rather they skimp somewhere else now and provide a proper terminus as I can't see any more works being done further west for a decade or more after these works are complete, battery trains will likely take the pressure off to electrify further.

Zebra3

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Terminating DARTs at a station with only two platforms is not a good idea and has the potential to undermine capacity increases on the line, at least from time to time. Spending all this money and still having a situation which currently causes problems at Maynooth and elsewhere. The depot will be beside Kilcock so any extension would be quite short and cheap to do now. I'd rather they skimp somewhere else now and provide a proper terminus as I can't see any more works being done further west for a decade or more after these works are complete, battery trains will likely take the pressure off to electrify further.

How much of an issue would it be having a two platform terminus at Kilcock with the depot close by?

GerardKeating

Zebra3 wrote: »

How much of an issue would it be having a two platform terminus at Kilcock with the depot close by?

If the Sligo trains did not stop at Kilcock, would you even need a second platform for the DART service, just continue the double track a bit beyond the station, or is the room in the former goods yard for some form of sidings.

IE 222 wrote: »

The bridge has a platform running under it. Remove the platform and the double track fits.

Is the bridge issue width or Height, typically there is not always the required clearance for OHEL in 19th Century built bridges, but i have never seen the bridge or the station,.

highdef

GerardKeating wrote: »

If the Sligo trains did not stop at Kilcock, would you even need a second platform for the DART service, just continue the double track a bit beyond the station, or is the room in the former goods yard for some form of sidings.



Is the bridge issue width or Height, typically there is not always the required clearance for OHEL in 19th Century built bridges, but i have never seen the bridge or the station,.

I've got the train to/from Kilcock a few times and it's a fairly modern bridge which looks like it was built to accommodate double tracking, two platforms and OHLE.

IE 222

GerardKeating wrote: »

If the Sligo trains did not stop at Kilcock, would you even need a second platform for the DART service, just continue the double track a bit beyond the station, or is the room in the former goods yard for some form of sidings.



Is the bridge issue width or Height, typically there is not always the required clearance for OHEL in 19th Century built bridges, but i have never seen the bridge or the station,.

The bridge was rebuilt most likely when the current station was constructed. It can definitely take a double track and possibly 1 platform but not a second platform. Height looks fine to me. There is bridges along the DART network which would have similar clearances, Raheny is lowish.

Even if clearances were an issue the current platform and line could serve Sligo service's and a new line could be dropped down for OHLE clearances. Put a new island platform west of the bridge.

IE 222

Zebra3 wrote: »

How much of an issue would it be having a two platform terminus at Kilcock with the depot close by?

The depot wont offer any relief and would probably create more conflict positioning trains to and from it. With 15 tph that's an arrival/departure every 4 mins. To keep to the timetable you'll need to allow for some padding in that turnaround time. The terminating station will need the capacity of 3 trains.

IE 222

That's the station and bridge

tnegun

It seem crazy to me to exclude Kilcock. The current station is nothing more than a halt anyway so it would make sense to move the whole lot a little west towards the original station. Maynooth is very space constrained as it is with all the old rail land now housing and with an increase in services will create greater demand on the limited parking spaces available along with generating more traffic into the already congested town. West of Kilcock has plenty of room to better accommodate a terminus station which should be something like the Park and Ride in Dunboyne and if the depot is going out there it should be an easy win.

IE 222

specialbyte wrote: »

I personally would like to see the electrification expanded to Mullingar and then Sligo, though I recognise we are in a country that has underinvested in rail infrastructure for decades.

I can completely understand why the NTA might be worried about scope creep. DART+ West is already a significant infrastructure project with enough problems to work through. The real danger with a project like DART+ West is that it doesn't move quickly enough through the design, planning, procurement and construction phases before the project funding is pulled because of another recession. The funding wheels are still on the track for now. That's not guaranteed into the future if recovery from COVID isn't reasonably quick and smooth. Adding more elements to the project adds more complexity and makes it more likely the whole project will be delayed and ultimately fail. I think not extending to Kilcock is probably the right choice for now.

It's such a small section the planned test track and platforms in the depot would adequately cover the extension to Kilcock station. The double tracking and electrification will run up to somewhere between Ryewater and Lidl.

I think not expanding to Kilcock is more likely to cause delays. It's very likely locals and politicians will throw there weight in on this or try block/object to the depot plans as a form of protest. More people will object to it not been included than having it included. It's still at very early stages and wouldn't take much to include it into the plans now. Infrastructure wise it's a straightforward addition and a very simple design.

Other savings from the depot could be found as well. If the realignment around Jackson Bridge can be avoid it will offer a large saving also.

Pete_Cavan

tnegun wrote: »

It seem crazy to me to exclude Kilcock. The current station is nothing more than a halt anyway so it would make sense to move the whole lot a little west towards the original station. Maynooth is very space constrained as it is with all the old rail land now housing and with an increase in services will create greater demand on the limited parking spaces available along with generating more traffic into the already congested town. West of Kilcock has plenty of room to better accommodate a terminus station which should be something like the Park and Ride in Dunboyne and if the depot is going out there it should be an easy win.

Fully agree that it is crazy to not replace Kilcock station with a new multi platform station slightly to the west but a Dunboyne style P&R would destroy the town. Looking at it on Google maps, Kilcock is actually quite a compact town by Irish standards and practically all of the population within walking/cycling distance of the station. A new station should be pedestrian/cyclist orientated, there is a route along the canal and a few pedestrian/cycle bridges over the canal/rail line could give most people easy access to the station. Retain the existing station parking and maybe add a small amount at the western end of the town. The land between the rail line and canal would make a great town park which, along with DART services, would make it a very attractive place to live.

tnegun

I don't think a P&R would destroy the town this site would be perfect for it, if the people of Kilcock were offered 4 tph for a slightly longer walk I think most would jump at it. The town center space could be put to civic use not used as an all day car park that is what really kills towns.

IE 222

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Fully agree that it is crazy to not replace Kilcock station with a new multi platform station slightly to the west but a Dunboyne style P&R would destroy the town. Looking at it on Google maps, Kilcock is actually quite a compact town by Irish standards and practically all of the population within walking/cycling distance of the station. A new station should be pedestrian/cyclist orientated, there is a route along the canal and a few pedestrian/cycle bridges over the canal/rail line could give most people easy access to the station. Retain the existing station parking and maybe add a small amount at the western end of the town. The land between the rail line and canal would make a great town park which, along with DART services, would make it a very attractive place to live.

I think any P&R would require a road to be built from Church St. which would miss the town.

SeanW

There are 3 problems at Kilcock that would make including it in the DART this time complicated:

1) Proximity to the canal.
2) An overbridge
3) The line is on a curve - modern safety regulations severely restrict if not prohibit new stations/platforms on a curve.

So turning Kilcock into a DART terminus would require a large scale redesign and rebuilding of the station, possibly further from the town centre. There are other options like going to Enfield, but that would have its own benefits and drawbacks and be costly.

Overall, I think the decision to focus on getting electrification and DART service to Maynooth as quickly as possible is justifiable, if somewhat risk-averse.

Tomrota

SeanW wrote: »

There are 3 problems at Kilcock that would make including it in the DART this time complicated:

1) Proximity to the canal.
2) An overbridge
3) The line is on a curve - modern safety regulations severely restrict if not prohibit new stations/platforms on a curve.

So turning Kilcock into a DART terminus would require a large scale redesign and rebuilding of the station, possibly further from the town centre. There are other options like going to Enfield, but that would have its own benefits and drawbacks and be costly.

Overall, I think the decision to focus on getting electrification and DART service to Maynooth as quickly as possible is justifiable, if somewhat risk-averse.

I think that the size, growth, and proximity of Kilcock to Maynooth justify the extension. If it is only extended to Maynooth, you’ll have people from Kilcock driving to Maynooth to get the DART, causing huge problems. There are no Dublin Bus services from Kilcock to Maynooth, therefore it will only lead to more traffic.

Extending to Kilcock is obvious to me, I hope something can be worked out to enable this. Even more obvious is extend to Naas on the Hazelhatch line.

IE 222

SeanW wrote: »

There are 3 problems at Kilcock that would make including it in the DART this time complicated:

1) Proximity to the canal.
2) An overbridge
3) The line is on a curve - modern safety regulations severely restrict if not prohibit new stations/platforms on a curve.

So turning Kilcock into a DART terminus would require a large scale redesign and rebuilding of the station, possibly further from the town centre. There are other options like going to Enfield, but that would have its own benefits and drawbacks and be costly.

Overall, I think the decision to focus on getting electrification and DART service to Maynooth as quickly as possible is justifiable, if somewhat risk-averse.

I don't understand how building new platforms at Kilcock would be more of headache than extending to Enfield. Kilcock is a simple and easy design option. It doesn't need anything fancy. DART doesn't even need to use the current platform if the bridge is a problem. As I suggested earlier the current line could be kept for intercity services and the new line could be lowered under the bridge and 2 bay platforms located to the west of it. A scissors crossing at the eastern throat of the station will allow movements onto the correct line/platform for direction of travel.

1) Canal doesn't cause any issues west of the bridge. In fact Kilcock is one of few stations along the line were the canal doesn't oppose any expansion/development.

2) The bridge can clearly allow for a second track and OHLE clearance most likely isn't an issue or option above of lowering the new track.

3) I'm not sure if that rule would apply here as it's not a new station as such. Any drawings for new platforms at Connolly showed curved platforms been rebuilt, even new ones that didn't exist before. Either way there is enough of a land bank to the west of the bridge which would allow for a non curved island platform without needing to touch the current platform.

CatInABox

https://twitter.com/RCPCA1/status/1312135428376465409

Glass Prison 1214

I was handed this NIMBY letter in Coolmine over the weekend. Does anyone know if this is a widely held view in the area?

MJohnston

Hateful stuff "don't change anything but also, sure, yeah, let's pretend we love DART electrification"

Up there with "I'm a cyclist but..." or "We can't remove cars because think of all the old people"

Sam Russell

The choice is:

1. Close the level crossing and build the bridge.

2. Close the level crossing.

Their choice.

IE 222

Sam Russell wrote: »

The choice is:

1. Close the level crossing and build the bridge.

2. Close the level crossing.

Their choice.

Or leave it there and close it for 3 minutes every 4 minutes. It will save the project multiple millions of euros.

Sam Russell

IE 222 wrote: »

Or leave it there and close it for 3 minutes every 4 minutes. It will save the project multiple millions of euros.

That is what I meant. I live near Sydney Parade Dart station, and at busy times the LC gate is closed more than it is open.

Zebra3

roddney wrote: »

PPT service had limited usage as it was a very new service but patronage was gaining traction. Profile would change completely with new stop at Glasnevin Junction interchanging with Metro, and Luas at Broombridge on Maynooth line.

PPT services don't interchange with Broombridge.

roddney

Zebra3 wrote: »

PPT services don't interchange with Broombridge.

I know, which is why I said "Luas at Broombridge on Maynooth line". Hop off, go one stop, interchange again. Glasnevin to Broombridge will likely be very busy due to that interchange route.

Sam Russell

Mod: Posts relating to rolling stock for Dart expansions moved to new thrread.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058119722

Qrt

Glass Prison 1214 wrote: »

I was handed this NIMBY letter in Coolmine over the weekend. Does anyone know if this is a widely held view in the area?

I love how they don’t give any sort of alternative options.

Rulmeq

Qrt wrote: »

I love how they don’t give any sort of alternative options.

Their alternatives are to keep things exactly as they are. That's the point of NIMBYism

Sam Russell

Rulmeq wrote: »

Their alternatives are to keep things exactly as they are. That's the point of NIMBYism

But it will not be like that because the frequency of trains will be such that the LC will be closed more than it will be open.

GerardKeating

Sam Russell wrote: »

But it will not be like that because the frequency of trains will be such that the LC will be closed more than it will be open.

Not if they sucessfully fustrate the planning process..

roddney

GerardKeating wrote: »

Not if they sucessfully fustrate the planning process..

Sign of things to come. Would imagine south side will be the same, when they look to close those gates. Look what happened with Merrion gates. They just gave up in the end.

It's all necessary though and will have a long term benefit to both road users and public transport users.

They just need to plough ahead with railway order and factor in time for court cases. Kildare and Drogheda might need to be progressed first, if theirs delays.

IE 222

How many complaints objections do the NTA need to get before altering plans. Unlike bus connects I'd imagine complaints will only be in small pockets along the route. There doesn't seem to be any political support for there claims.

The funny thing is that the bridge will resolve most of there worries. The gates will create more noise and emissions. There is little to no loss of green space.

Is there any groups in Kilcock lobbying for a extension?