Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
DART+ (DART Expansion)
Comments
-
I never used the word 'spur lines'. I said corridor. If you could feed the western line towards Maynooth into DART Underground tunnel, things would begin to make sense.
There are no big engineering challenges in linking DU into the PPT. You just have to design it so that it fits.
Why is the PPT not suitable for high capacity, rapid services? Can you document this?
The problem with the change at Pearse is that it is a long change, it will require a long escalator ride and it will link two medium-frequency services, resulting in long waiting times. Taken altogether, that will mean that journeys will be much longer and less attractive than if western services went straight into the tunnel.
It is not true to say that this is what is done in other cities. In Munich, for instance, all the city centre services are funnelled into the same tunnel.
Unfortunately you have misread the Business Case. The comparable figure is 94,000 for the 'do minimum' in 2030, not 30,000. Going further down the column you will see that the difference between 146,000 with DU and 94,000 if DU is not built, is mainly accounted for by displacement from suburban rail, Luas and buses. This is what makes the increase in passengers as a result of DU abysmally low. These abysmally low numbers are themselves based on celtic tiger forecasts of growth in places like Drogheda and Adamstown.
There is a perfectly good place to put a railway from the Maynooth line up to Blanchardstown, just west of the R121.
If you are talking about running railways to Ballymun and the Airport, the obvious way to do this is by running a railway from Glasnevin junction to the airport and on to the Northern line.0 -
antoinolachtnai wrote: »There is a perfectly good place to put a railway from the Maynooth line up to Blanchardstown, just west of the R121.
Where exactly?
0 -
Sorry, I meant just east of it. A spur off the railway just before it meets Porterstown Road/Clonsilla Road going west. There is a reservation running north. Would need to be elevated above the three roundabouts.0
-
strassenwo!f wrote: »We don't know whether there are engineering obstacles to this. There does not seem to be an obstacle to building the metrowest to Tallaght, so it is not obvious why it would be so difficult to build a DART line broadly along the same alignment, if that's the way it is to be done. Can't see any major financial obstacles either: it'd probably be a bit more expensive than building that section of the metrowest, but we're surely not talking about it being prohibitively more.
Light rail and heavy rail lines are different beasts, with different engineering requirements and safety restrictions for both. For example, when crossing roads on surface - light rail (MetroW) can cross at grade, while heavy rail require level crossings, and I would question whether installing them on new lines in heavily populated urban areas would even be allowed under modern safety standards.
The biggest obstacle to a Dart spur to Tallaght is called Clondalkin. One of the reasons MW takes the zigzag route it does through Clondalkin is to avoid the need to tunnel under the area, with all the heavy engineering work and costs involved. A tunnel line under Clondalkin was recommended under PFC in 2000 and was one of the route options looked at for MW and ruled out.
The exact same problem applies in parts of Tallaght - namely at Kilnamanagh-Kingswood-Belgard where MW cross the existing Red Luas, and at The Square which would be the terminus.
The Luas/MW crossing as planned is a major problem that will probably have to be reworked when MW comes back on the agenda and returns to An Bord Pleanala. Currently, it is planned to put it on a viaduct above the Luas line and Belgard Road. Local residents are dead set against this and have the support of all local politicians - who all want it in a tunnel under Luas and Belgard Road. I would just point to what happened to the Metro North routing through Ballymun as an example of what will probably happen in Tallaght.
Now, if there is that level of opposition to what is essentially a Luas Mór, how do you think the locals will react to a bloody great Dart line overhead?
As for costs, MW is costed at €1.5bn for the entire line, while the Dart U tunnel and stations costs €2.5bn. Putting a circa 8km Dart line, with a number of separate sections in tunnel and at least three underground stations, possibly four, the rest on viaducts and embankments over existing roads or in cuttings under them will easily cost somewhere in the €2-3bn ballpark.No, I can't see financial or engineering obstacles which would rule this out.
See above.I think I already have posted that a good place to start looking for an alignment might be the alignments of the proposed metrowest and of the LUAS red line. The metrowest alignment wouldn't be needed if there were a direct route into town and the LUAS could be rerouted given that its status would be seriously downgraded.
As I have explained, Metrowest has a defined purpose based on the reality of west Dublin today and where many of the people who live there work, shop and spend leisure time. It is also designed to distribute people across west Dublin who do need to access the city centre or areas to the west across the multiple radial lines which serve those locations. It is based detailed study of the living and working patterns of the circa 300,000 people living in and tens of thousands working in Tallaght, Clondalkin-Lucan and Blanchardstown. It is also based on the lessons learned in other cities with radial only rail/metro lines.That's as far as I'm going to go. You cannot seriously expect a private individual to do a lot of investigation into a proposed rail route and work out all the details, when the Department of Transport have not even decided to build such a route. You really can't. You may have a lot of time on your hands, Jack, I don't.
Why not? Cormac Rabbitt has and presented them to CIE and govt on at least three separate occasions. And those behind the Gluas plan for Luas-style light rail in Galway are private citizens. As are West on Track who convinced the govt to build the current Limerick-Galway line and are lobbying for the extension to Tuam, Claremorris and eventually Sligo.
Honestly, your excuse above sounds like a cop out. You either believe in what you are saying and can back it up with sound ideas and plans - or you are spoofing, have been called out on your spoofing but can't bring yourself to admit you are wrong.No, the Department of Transport need to be persuaded that such a rail route would be a good thing, and then the work on designing the route can begin. I am simply here to point out that it would eventually be desirable for Dublin to have a rapid connection between the two largest urban centres in the county, rather than a trundly 45-minute one. That's my function here.
How do you expect to persuade the DOT and NTA they are wrong when you can't produce a viable alternative beyond 'I think there should be a Dart spur from the Kildare line to Tallaght - so there!'?How much will it cost? No idea, but I would expect it would be more expensive than the section of metrowest between Tallaght and the Hazelhatch line.
Given how much we know the various other projects have been costed at, it's relatively easy to come up with a ballpark estimate. I have above.Can it be justified? That would, I think, depend on the state of the country's finances at the time it is going to be built. Very hard to answer that one now, given that the interconnector itself won't be built for a long time, I feel sure.
At least you are now starting to think it through a bit more.How will it be sold to the public? Well you should have absolutely no trouble selling it to people living in locations along the route, e.g. in Clondalkin and Tallaght. Also an easy enough sell to citizens in the rest of Dublin because it would be a more effective use of the expensive tunnel infrastructure. You would like to think that nationally people would feel the same way, but the "Dublin gets everything" brigade are strong, so I would doubt it would be easy to sell it to them.
Two words - Metro North. Most people along the line think it's a great idea - but the rest of the country has fallen in behind the simplistic media and populist oppostion without even considering the benefits. And that's before you even consider the 'Dublin gets everything' line.How will it be funded? No idea. There are a number of ways of funding infrastructure and there may be others by the time this thing is being built. Very hard to say, at this remove, what would be the best way to fund this.
Again, you are at least starting to think about it.No Jack, as I said above, working out the specific detail is not my role. My role here is to try and persuade people that it makes sense to better utilise the capacity in the interconnector by feeding it with trains from a group of spurs, including one to Tallaght. This would create a rapid link between the two biggest urban centres in the county.
Your idea so it's up to you to back it up with detail. No one else will.If it is decided that this would be a good thing, then the detailed work can begin. It's not really the job of a private individual to work out the details before it has even been decided that it would be a desirable project.
And no one can begin to consider whether it is a viable option or not until they have detail. And seeing as the NTA (and their predecessor, the DTO), RPA and IE have all considered this and other options and ruled them out for various reasons, they are not going to revisit them when they have planning permission nailed down for DU and MN - so it is up to people who propose alternatives to lay them out in detail and justify them.
And from everything you have posted here, you are unwilling and unable to do that - beyond shout 'Spur from Kildare line to Tallaght'.0 -
antoinolachtnai wrote: »Sorry, I meant just east of it. A spur off the railway just before it meets Porterstown Road/Clonsilla Road going west. There is a reservation running north. Would need to be elevated above the three roundabouts.
That's the Metrowest alignment and I've already explained this in detail to Strassenwolf re a Tallaght spur so I'm not going to repeat it re Blanchardstown.
I really don't see the difficulty for people in the D15 area - or D24 and D22 areas, for that matter, wrt Fonthill - getting a Metro tram to Porterstown to catch a city or Maynooth bound Dart. MW offers people across the B-L-C-T corridor far travel more options that separate Dart spurs would.0 -
antoinolachtnai wrote: »I never used the word 'spur lines'. I said corridor. If you could feed the western line towards Maynooth into DART Underground tunnel, things would begin to make sense.
The 'corridor' has to come off the main line - that's called a 'spur'.There are no big engineering challenges in linking DU into the PPT. You just have to design it so that it fits.
Yes there are - several major ones. If you can't spot them with a quick glance at the satellite image of the PPT-Heuston area, then you don't undertand that putting in rail line involves more than drawing a line on a map.Why is the PPT not suitable for high capacity, rapid services? Can you document this?
Every major rail study from DRRTS in 1975 through PFC and Strategic Rail Review, both in 2000, up to 2030Vision in 2011. Go check them for yourself.The problem with the change at Pearse is that it is a long change, it will require a long escalator ride and it will link two medium-frequency services, resulting in long waiting times. Taken altogether, that will mean that journeys will be much longer and less attractive than if western services went straight into the tunnel.
That's the norm in pretty much every city with an urban rail system. A couple of minutes walk and an escalator ride will not kill people.It is not true to say that this is what is done in other cities. In Munich, for instance, all the city centre services are funnelled into the same tunnel.
And the lines that they use were all there before the tunnel was built. Only two extensions were built since the tunnel, both to the airport. Also, Munich as a much larger and more densely populated urban area than Dublin so has greater need for more lines.Unfortunately you have misread the Business Case. The comparable figure is 94,000 for the 'do minimum' in 2030, not 30,000. Going further down the column you will see that the difference between 146,000 with DU and 94,000 if DU is not built, is mainly accounted for by displacement from suburban rail, Luas and buses. This is what makes the increase in passengers as a result of DU abysmally low. These abysmally low numbers are themselves based on celtic tiger forecasts of growth in places like Drogheda and Adamstown.
I didn't misread the Business Case. The 30,000 figure relates to the numbers using the existing Dart line in 2007. The 'do minimum' relates to the upgrade of the Maynooth line to Dart and the Dart extension to Drogheda based on the existing infrastructure. The 'do something' is the DartU tunnel. The difference between the two is 52,000. That's 52,000 people on the Dart because it runs under the city centre in the peak morning period between 7am and 9.30am. That's around 20,000 per hour. And it's more than use the current Dart line today. I would suggest that more than justifies the DartU project because that figure will only grow.
As for Celtic Tiger growth rates, Dublin grew 8% and the GDA grew by 11% in the period 2006-11 - most of which was AFTER the crash of 2007-8. And Dublin will continue to grow, even with a moderately growing economy, because in times of recession, people are come to the cities looking for work, and it is the cities that recover first. Look at the growth of Dublin from 1960 to 2001 - much of that growth was in bad times, long before we every heard of that cursed Celtic Tiger.There is a perfectly good place to put a railway from the Maynooth line up to Blanchardstown, just west of the R121.
See my earlier post to you on this point.If you are talking about running railways to Ballymun and the Airport, the obvious way to do this is by running a railway from Glasnevin junction to the airport and on to the Northern line.
Before you even get into the detailed planning, engineering and costings of such a project, I would love to see how high that kite will fly before it's torn to pieces when it's pointed out you would have to tunnel under Glasnevin Cemetery and the Botanic Gardens.0 -
antoinolachtnai wrote: »
There is a perfectly good place to put a railway from the Maynooth line up to Blanchardstown, just west of the R121.Where exactly?
There (metro west line):
https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zWWoEiJ1GCKY.kScJpZ_i0c5I
I have also added the land which had been reserved in early local area plans.
The Maynooth line should be converted to light rail.0 -
-
...because we have too much money and need shot of some or what?
For people living (roughly) inside the M50, the level of service offered by Luas is vastly superior to the level of service offered by suburban trains and quite superior to that offered by Dart. It also wouldn't suffer from the limitations of short platforms or at-grade crossings like Luas does.0 -
Advertisement
-
...because we have too much money and need shot of some or what?
The thread is about a €4billion project that will never get built. Converting the Maynooth line to Light Rail is a better, cheaper alternative.
Light Rail is cheaper to operate, more reliable & will allow for future expansion of the line (extension into the city centre from Docklands Station & to Blanchardstown S/C).0 -
Luas is superior to DART?
That's a gem all right.
The Luas is uncomfortable, mostly over crowded and slow.
It was a waste of money. Heavy rail should have been built.
It's little more than a toy train.0 -
cabrasnake wrote: »Luas is superior to DART?
That's a gem all right.
The Luas is uncomfortable, mostly over crowded and slow.
It was a waste of money. Heavy rail should have been built.
It's little more than a toy train.
Luas is superior in frequency -- one of and often the most important factor in user choice.0 -
Hang on a minute - converting the Maynooth line to LUAS is pure nonsense - the loadings are just far too great and the distance travelled far too long.0
-
The thread is about a €4billion project that will never get built.
Never? Why do? Please do tell...Converting the Maynooth line to Light Rail is a better, cheaper alternative.
Better for those wanting access to the central business and shopping areas in south city centre? Better for those who want improved Kildare, and northern services? When you say better, who is it better for?will allow for future expansion of the line (extension into the city centre from Docklands Station & to Blanchardstown S/C).
You can do that with "heavy" rail.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Who's suggesting such?
This post pretty much:The thread is about a €4billion project that will never get built. Converting the Maynooth line to Light Rail is a better, cheaper alternative.
Light Rail is cheaper to operate, more reliable & will allow for future expansion of the line (extension into the city centre from Docklands Station & to Blanchardstown S/C).
Convert it to light rail = LUAS or Metro
That then ignores Sligo Intercity services or the possibility of restoring freight.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19570
To convert the Maynooth line to Dart just requires the line to be electrified. The rolling stock is already there. Dun Lougharie to Maynooth at 30 min, mixed in with Bray to Malahide at 30 min, and Greystones to Howth at 30 mins.
Why convert it to Luas, which has no advantages over Dart. Smaller, lower capacity trains. In this thread posters are talking about 20 trains per hour or one every 3 mins, while current Darts achieve 4 trains per hour for two destinations.
The cost of converting to Dart is trivial compared to Dart Underground and could be started now.0 -
Coverting the Maynooth line to Luas would be folly. The line should be improved by electrification and the removal of the remaining level crossings (planned). Light rail can be brilliant and has an important role to play in Dublin, but existing heavy rail alignments need to be improved in their own right.
Luas is "better" than DART for reasons other than "it's light rail and DART is heavy rail". Heavy rail can operate at the same or higher frequencies than light rail and the vehicles carry many more passengers (so they require fewer staff generally). Luas is better mainly because the company operating it has some idea about customer care and providing a service people want. If Veolia ran the DART it would be a different, better product IMO.0 -
The thread is about a €4billion project that will never get built. Converting the Maynooth line to Light Rail is a better, cheaper alternative. .
An alternative that would require either the closure of the Sligo line beyond Maynooth or for all passengers to/from beyond Maynooth to change at Maynooth. The knock-on effects for rail traffic beyond Maynooth make it unworkable.
And even without this issue, how is conversion to light rail cheaper than simply electrifying the line? Electrifying the Maynooth line allows the existing track, stations, signalling etc to be used. With light rail conversion not only do you have to install the overhead electrification (which you'd have to do anyway), but re-lay all the track and demolish and rebuilt all the stations due to the lower platforms and the different gauge. And what's the point when none of the line would be on street anyway.0 -
Coverting the Maynooth line to Luas would be folly. The line should be improved by electrification and the removal of the remaining level crossings (planned). Light rail can be brilliant and has an important role to play in Dublin, but existing heavy rail alignments need to be improved in their own right.
For the record, I said Luas is better due to frequency -- I did not say that means the line should be converted.Luas is better mainly because the company operating it has some idea about customer care and providing a service people want. If Veolia ran the DART it would be a different, better product IMO.
Luas is better because of the service levels (including the frequency) set by the RPA (or maybe the original planners?).An alternative that would require either the closure of the Sligo line beyond Maynooth or for all passengers to/from beyond Maynooth to change at Maynooth. The knock-on effects for rail traffic beyond Maynooth make it unworkable.
I don't really care too much for the light vs heavy debate...
So, regardless of light/heavy, diverting intercity services onto the Kildare line might be desirable if you wanted to run high frequency and have a few branches off the Maynooth line. Already posted a link to a possible link diverting route: https://mapsengine.google.com/map/viewer?mid=z3FJgAJIeL9w.kxqdlvA3pl1E0 -
Advertisement
-
Initially I'd like to see the section from Hazelhatch to Spencer dock operating at 5 min frequency at peak time and 10 min off peak. To achieve the 5 min frequency I'd like to see trains depart at the following times past the hour (peak) or something similar (and the reverse runnings of course)
Hazelhatch for Balbriggan:
0:00, 0:20, 0:40
Hazelhatch for Clongriffin
0:05, 0:25, 0:45
Hazelhatch for Spencer dock
0:10, 0:30, 0:50
Hazelhatch for Howth
0:15, 0:35, 0:55
Hazelhatch itself probably doesnt'have the patronage to warrant a 5 min frequency initially so it might be preferable to run the Spencer dock shuttles from somewhere closer to the tunnel, Inchicore perhaps.
As someone said, much better to do the turn back at Clontarf Road.0 -
Jack Noble wrote: »The population of Maynooth and Leixlip are a combined 30,000 today and growing. Maynooth also has one of the biggest universities in the country. Leixlip has two of the biggest industrial plants in the country. The current demand on the line - in a recession - is enough to satisfy 11 trains between 6.20 and 9.10am - what do you think that demand will be like in 2025 when the economy has recovered and is ticking along nicely? Or 2030? Or 2035?
The demand will be about 10 or 15 buses, at the most, at peak time. The same as swords, only less, because fewer people will live in Maynooth or Leixlip in order to work in the city centre.Drogheda and the Laytown/Bettystown area have a population approaching 50,000 at present. Again, what do you think that will be in 2025, 2030 and 2035? Both are currently served by 11 trains in the morning peak period. Given that demand today, what do you expect it be 10, 15, 20 years from now?
See above.
In the immediate environs of the M50.Once Dart Underground is built, where do you think much of the development in the GDA which will happen in the coming decades will take place?The plan is to electrify all the main intercity lines when the next fleet replacement programme is due
There is no such plan.because long-term, the operation and maintenance of electric fleets will be more economic and efficient than the current diesel trains.
There is no evidence for this.And why would you need extra trains - the EMUs are already being bought to serve the lines - you just run them that extra 20km. Simples.
If you want to maintain the same frequency on a much longer line, then you will need more trains.
The numbers using these services are currently in freefall. So no.And you don't think there will be enough passengers going to and from Maynooth and Drogheda in 2025 to justify and additional operating cost of €240 per train? Given the numbers using both services today, I think that's a no-brainer.0 -
The Maynooth line is not a spur.Jack Noble wrote: »The 'corridor' has to come off the main line - that's called a 'spur'.Yes there are - several major ones. If you can't spot them with a quick glance at the satellite image of the PPT-Heuston area, then you don't undertand that putting in rail line involves more than drawing a line on a map.
You need to change the alignment. It can be done. It's been surveyed before.
Re PPT:Every major rail study from DRRTS in 1975 through PFC and Strategic Rail Review, both in 2000, up to 2030Vision in 2011. Go check them for yourself.
Where is the finding that the PPT is unsuitable for running frequent passenger trains? You should let Irish Rail know about this, before there is an accident.That's the norm in pretty much every city with an urban rail system. A couple of minutes walk and an escalator ride will not kill people.
The problem is that this, combined with your plan for a change from Metro West to the line, will mean a journey time of 40 minutes or more at peak time to travel from St Stephen's Green to Blanchardstown and 50 minutes or more off-peak. That is too slow to provide a meaningful advantage over driving or taking a bus for this common journey.And the lines that they use were all there before the tunnel was built. Only two extensions were built since the tunnel, both to the airport. Also, Munich as a much larger and more densely populated urban area than Dublin so has greater need for more lines.
The Maynooth line has also existed for decades before the tunnel was conceived of. There is no reason it should not feed into DART Underground.I didn't misread the Business Case. The 30,000 figure relates to the numbers using the existing Dart line in 2007. The 'do minimum' relates to the upgrade of the Maynooth line to Dart and the Dart extension to Drogheda based on the existing infrastructure. The 'do something' is the DartU tunnel. The difference between the two is 52,000. That's 52,000 people on the Dart because it runs under the city centre in the peak morning period between 7am and 9.30am. That's around 20,000 per hour. And it's more than use the current Dart line today. I would suggest that more than justifies the DartU project because that figure will only grow.
You have misread it. You are comparing a figure for 2007 for the Do Minimum case with a figure for 2030 for the Do Something case. The whole point of projecting the Do Minimum case forward is to allow meaningful comparisons. Comparing a 2007 figure to a 2030 figure is just ridiculous.As for Celtic Tiger growth rates, Dublin grew 8% and the GDA grew by 11% in the period 2006-11 - most of which was AFTER the crash of 2007-8. And Dublin will continue to grow, even with a moderately growing economy, because in times of recession, people are come to the cities looking for work, and it is the cities that recover first. Look at the growth of Dublin from 1960 to 2001 - much of that growth was in bad times, long before we every heard of that cursed Celtic Tiger.
The DART and suburban rail traffic is in freefall since as far back as 2006, despite the fabulous countercyclical growth. Numbers have fallen from 34m to 26m. (There are a lot of reasons for this, but you are wrong in your belief that just because there are lots of people, and just because there is public transport means that lots of people will use public transport).Before you even get into the detailed planning, engineering and costings of such a project, I would love to see how high that kite will fly before it's torn to pieces when it's pointed out you would have to tunnel under Glasnevin Cemetery and the Botanic Gardens.
The homes of most inhabitants of Glasnevin are designed to cope with at least twelve inches of subsidence. Do you think a single EPBM tunnel will really cause them a lot of disturbance? Or do you foresee a noise issue? I find it hard to imagine what would be so bad about tunnelling deep underneath a public garden.0 -
I am a supporter of a DART Underground (with certain route preferences etc.)
There should be a East-West line from heuston to the centre of town, and linking with the DART.
Whilst the purse strings are being held tight I cant see it appearing in the near future
However there is scope to increase capacity and services on existing lines - or with a smaller investment
- electrify the line to Maynooth
- electrify to line to Balbriggan (with a turn around facility)
- run trains from hazelhatch to connolly/docklands/IFSC via the Phoenix park tunnel
The electrification of the lines seems to be part of the Dart Underground - well why not do them anyways since they can stand alone adding services and new stations to the network whist the DartUnderground is being waited upon.0 -
-
Quick question regarding the Spencer Dock end of DU -- will all three of the northside lines (Northern line, Maynooth line under Ossory Jctn, and the line flanking the Royal Canal) be capable of entering the tunnel?
(Apologies for incorrect line names.)0 -
All except the lower line along the canal will be connected.0
-
Quick question regarding the Spencer Dock end of DU -- will all three of the northside lines (Northern line, Maynooth line under Ossory Jctn, and the line flanking the Royal Canal) be capable of entering the tunnel?
(Apologies for incorrect line names.)
The answer is no. Only the Northern Line will be sufficiently connected to allow frequent services to be operated.
The description of DART Underground states specifically:
"The DART Underground will involve construction and operation of approximately 8.6km of new rail from the CIÉ Inchicore Works to tie into the Northern Mainline south of East Wall Road, north of the Docklands area. "
In fact, there is a provision for a single-track connection to one of the western lines. Strictly speaking this means the answer to your question is yes, it may be possible to access the tunnel from one of the western lines. This is really only suitable for shunting trains and for specials. It is not intended for frequent services.0 -
antoinolachtnai wrote: »The demand will be about 10 or 15 buses, at the most, at peak time. The same as swords, only less, because fewer people will live in Maynooth or Leixlip in order to work in the city centre.
Based on what?
Have you any idea how many people use the Maynooth-Dublin line on a on a daily basis, Mon to Fri as it is?
If that can be catered for by buses why isn't it done?See above.
Right back at ya.In the immediate environs of the M50.
You may want to tell this to the NTA and the four Dublin local authorities.
http://nationaltransport.ie.cdn.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Planning-and-Development-Report-for-Dublin.pdfGovernment policy seeks to increase sustainability and efficiency in urban areas
through greater alignment of land use and transport. In relation to residential
development, this policy seeks to increase residential densities in areas
proximate to public transport corridors. In the Dublin area, a number of large
and medium scale residential development areas on rail-based public transport
corridors were identified for the purposes of this study for delivery of sustainable
neighbourhoods. These areas are planned to achieve (net) densities in excess of
50 units per hectare, as identified as being appropriate for development along
public transport corridors in ‘Sustainable Residential Development in Urban
Areas’ (DoECLG May 2009)
1
.
See Appendix A for details.
Areas identified in the four local authorities include:
Dublin City: Pelletstown, Parkwest/Cherry Orchard, Clongriffin/Balmayne, Ballymun
Fingal CoCo: Hansfield/Barnhill, Portmarnock South, Baldoyle/Stapolin, Phoenix Park Racecourse
South Dublin CoCo: Clonburris, Adamstown
Dun Laoighaire-Rathdown CoCo: Sandyford, Stepaside, Cherrywood
Of the areas cited above, in DCC/FCC/SDCC, all bar one are adjacent to the planned Dart lines and the other is on Metro North. The three DLR areas are on the Luas Green Line.There is no such plan.
You may wish to tell IE and NTA that. They certainly are planning for it.
http://www.irishrail.ie/index.jsp?p=124&n=264Iarnród Éireann is planning for the medium to long term development of the railway. This report outlines future development of the railway. The report can now be viewed by clicking on the PDFs below.- 2030 Rail Network Strategy Review - Part 1 of 2 (PDF 9MB)
- 2030 Rail Network Strategy Review - Part 2 of 2 (PDF 6MB)
Phase 3: 2020-2025: Electrification of the Core Rail Network
When sufficient growth has occurred and rolling stock replacement is approaching, electrification of Dublin-Galway and Dublin Cork will yield significant returns. This should encompass direct services to Dublin City Centre and Dublin Airport via the DART Underground.There is no evidence for this.
The British Government begs to differ. Here's what a report from the UK Department of Transport says about the planned electrification of more parts of the UK rail network.
http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20100408232230/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/rail-electrification.pdfCutting costs
13. Electric trains are over 35% cheaper to operate than diesels.They require less maintenance and have considerably lower energy costs since electricity is a significantly cheaper fuel than diesel. They are lighter and so do less damage to the track. Although there are additional costs involved in maintaining electrification infrastructure, these are significantly outweighed by the train operating cost savings.
14. Electric trains are generally cheaper to buy than diesel trains, reflected in lease costs which are typically around 20% lower. This relative advantage is set to increase: engines for diesel trains are likely to become more expensive following the introduction of stricter EU emissions standards from 2012. The engines required by these standards are likely to be heavier, larger and more complicated as a result of the emissions control technology required.
That's based on this study for Network Rail:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/network/working%20group%204%20-%20electrification%20strategy/networkrus_electrification.pdf
Have a look at page 31 - there is a detailed breakdown of the operating and maintenance costs of DMU versus EMU.
Also, in the Aecom study for Irish Rail linked above, the difference in train operating costs per/km is 20% greater for DMU over EMU, €6/km compared to €5/km.
Have a good read of that document - there's a lot of very interesting figures and other data in it.If you want to maintain the same frequency on a much longer line, then you will need more trains.
20km (Balbriggan-Drogheda), which will had 15 mins to the journey, is not "a much longer line". It will not need "more trains". It has already been factored into the DartU rolling stock purchase.The numbers using these services are currently in freefall. So no.
IE's passenger numbers rose in the second half of 2013 after five years of decline in the biggest economic crash and subsequent recession in the history of the State. Dart numbers rose by 6% in H2 2012.
It will be interesting to see what the 2013 figures bring given (a) the slight up turn in the economy, especially in and around Dublin, and (b) IE's new fares structure and pricing and the Leap card on Suburban and Dart in the GDA.The Maynooth line is not a spur.
You don't appear to understand your own posts - never mind mine. Go back and read the context of what you said and my reply to you.You need to change the alignment. It can be done. It's been surveyed before.
Change what alignment - the DartU tunnel?
There is a reason it was decided to extend the tunnel to Inchicore and surface there rather than in the Heuston yards. And that was how much disruption it would cause to existing rail services and how much extra it would cost to carry out the construction works at Heuston.
Secondly, would you like to explain how a grade-separated junction linking twin tunnels some 20m deep to a surface line at the PPT entrance can be constructed without having to dig up the existing lines into Heuston and thus causing chaos for years to the existing services into Heuston? How much will this cost in (a) capital terms and (b) lost revenue through disruption?
Thirdly, have you considered the potential safety implications of running modern twin-bore high capacity tunnels into a 19th century single bore tunnel that does not meet the same modern safety standards?
Finally, what long-term benefits could possibly accrue from the enormous capital and disruption costs such a link would cause during construction given the low level of services it would add?Where is the finding that the PPT is unsuitable for running frequent passenger trains? You should let Irish Rail know about this, before there is an accident.
Read the documents I suggested.
Irish Rail do know - that's why they've opposed the development of passenger services through the PPT for the last 40 years. And it's why they are less than enthusiastic today about the NTA's latest suggestion to run Kildare line trains to Docklands via the PPT.The problem is that this, combined with your plan for a change from Metro West to the line, will mean a journey time of 40 minutes or more at peak time to travel from St Stephen's Green to Blanchardstown and 50 minutes or more off-peak. That is too slow to provide a meaningful advantage over driving or taking a bus for this common journey.
No it wouldn't - at peak it will be closer to 30 mins for anyone along the Clondalkin-Blanch corridor given the distance, MW journey and frequencies involved peak and off-peak.
On MW either Newlands or Blanch to Fonthill will take around 15 mins and Dart to SSG another 15 mins. That's roughly 30-35 mins, including interchange. Just like in other urban rail systems, the MW and Dart trains will be timed so that people can make the connection. The times using MW to Porterstown and Dart to Pearse for change to SSG would be slightly longer. This is not rocket science.The Maynooth line has also existed for decades before the tunnel was conceived of. There is no reason it should not feed into DART Underground.
And it can - the line infrastructure is already in place. Have a look at it on Google Maps satellite image. The cost and effort to upgrade it to Dart is miniscule in the context of the €4bn DartU scheme.
It's down to whether IE/NTA want to do it. At present they don't have Maynooth-Heuston trains on the agenda because the intention is to create two intersecting Dart lines with an interchange at Pearse. Once DU is built, the option of other services is there if IE/NTA chose to run them, eg Clongriffin-Greystones and Maynooth-Hazelhatch.You have misread it. You are comparing a figure for 2007 for the Do Minimum case with a figure for 2030 for the Do Something case. The whole point of projecting the Do Minimum case forward is to allow meaningful comparisons. Comparing a 2007 figure to a 2030 figure is just ridiculous.
I have not misread it and understand it perfectly well. Do you?
How many additional weekday journeys does the 'Do Something' scenario, ie the tunnel element, put on the Dart network 2030 compared to the 'Do Minimum' scenario?The DART and suburban rail traffic is in freefall since as far back as 2006, despite the fabulous countercyclical growth. Numbers have fallen from 34m to 26m. (There are a lot of reasons for this, but you are wrong in your belief that just because there are lots of people, and just because there is public transport means that lots of people will use public transport).
The economy crashed in 2008 and 300,000 people lost their jobs between late-2007 and mid-2011 - of course the numbers using public transport have fallen because the numbers going to work have fallen. What else would you expect?
But the passenger numbers on Suburban Rail and Dart in the second half of 2012 showed growth for the first time in five years. As the economy recovers - and it will recover, despite what the doomsayers say - and moves to sustainable growth, the numbers using PT, particularly rail and light rail, will increase as people return to work, especially if they are offered a regular, reliable, efficent service such as Dart and Luas/Metro.The homes of most inhabitants of Glasnevin are designed to cope with at least twelve inches of subsidence. Do you think a single EPBM tunnel will really cause them a lot of disturbance? Or do you foresee a noise issue? I find it hard to imagine what would be so bad about tunnelling deep underneath a public garden.
It's not an engineering difficulty - in fact, engineering wise, running a tunnel under Glasnevin would be quite easy.
It's a political and PR problem. Remember all the nonsense about Luas and Metro North that appeared in the media and on websites - and was accepted as fact by the majority of people without a second thought?
Well how do you think people will react when residents groups, populist politicians and media shout loudly that the graves of O'Connell, Parnell, Collins and Dev and one million others souls will be damaged and descrated and destroyed by putting a tunnel under Glasnevin Cemetery?
The same goes for the Botantic Gardens.
It doesn't have to be true - people just have to believe it to oppose it. So the politicians are unlikely to even consider such a scheme in the first place.The answer is no. Only the Northern Line will be sufficiently connected to allow frequent services to be operated.
The description of DART Underground states specifically:
"The DART Underground will involve construction and operation of approximately 8.6km of new rail from the CIÉ Inchicore Works to tie into the Northern Mainline south of East Wall Road, north of the Docklands area. "
In fact, there is a provision for a single-track connection to one of the western lines. Strictly speaking this means the answer to your question is yes, it may be possible to access the tunnel from one of the western lines. This is really only suitable for shunting trains and for specials. It is not intended for frequent services.
The answer is you don't know - or to be precise, you haven't the first clue.
Have the plans for the upgrade to Dart of the Maynooth line been released yet? No, they have not.
So how do you know that the Maynooth line won't be connected to the Dart Underground tunnel?
The phyical infrastructure is already there to run Maynooth trains to Docklands and thus into the tunnel - it is simply a matter of electrifying it and IE/NTA deciding they want to do it.0 -
strassenwo!f wrote: »These posts have now become so long that they are probably being read by nobody bar the poster or the person being quoted.
Sorry, have to agree......0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Jack Noble wrote: »Based on what?
Have you any idea how many people use the Maynooth-Dublin line on a on a daily basis, Mon to Fri as it is?
Well, according to census 2006, the number of people commuting in the morning by train in Maynooth was 595. The number in Leixlip was 776. That gives a good general idea. (I actually thought it would be a bit higher, but it is not far out of kilter with the overall rail statistics).
http://census.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=76574
If that can be catered for by buses why isn't it done?
I don't really know. I suppose it is historical. When the services were instituted in the early part of the last century, there were no dual carriageways or motorways into the city centre.You may want to tell this to the NTA and the four Dublin local authorities.
http://nationaltransport.ie.cdn.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Planning-and-Development-Report-for-Dublin.pdf
Those areas are all within a few kilometres of the M50 with no plans for major developments in Maynooth or Drogheda. I completely agree with providing services as far as Portmarnock and Adamstown.
You may wish to tell IE and NTA that. They certainly are planning for it.
http://www.irishrail.ie/index.jsp?p=124&n=264
This is a strategic review with recommendations. Its recommendations have not been adopted. It is not a plan.The British Government begs to differ. Here's what a report from the UK Department of Transport says about the planned electrification of more parts of the UK rail network.
The UK network is carrying far greater volumes than the Irish network and at far greater frequencies. If you are running fewer than 8 trains per hour on a corridor, the savings probably aren't worth the capital cost. You can't infer from the Irish case to the other. And again, there is a difference between a document with recommendations and findings and an actual plan.20km (Balbriggan-Drogheda), which will had 15 mins to the journey, is not "a much longer line". It will not need "more trains". It has already been factored into the DartU rolling stock purchase.
It does require more trains. All you are saying is that they have been accounted for somewhere else. In my view, it would be better to use the extra trains to serve places like Portmarnock and Adamstown (to which you refer) with higher frequency.IE's passenger numbers rose in the second half of 2013 after five years of decline in the biggest economic crash and subsequent recession in the history of the State. Dart numbers rose by 6% in H2 2012.
During this time, the population of Dublin continued to grow. The decline in rail travel was was very large indeed, over 30 percent.
Can you give me a link for the information about IE's passenger numbers rising in the second half of 2013 to which you refer?Change what alignment - the DartU tunnel?
There is a reason it was decided to extend the tunnel to Inchicore and surface there rather than in the Heuston yards. And that was how much disruption it would cause to existing rail services and how much extra it would cost to carry out the construction works at Heuston.
Secondly, would you like to explain how a grade-separated junction linking twin tunnels some 20m deep to a surface line at the PPT entrance can be constructed without having to dig up the existing lines into Heuston and thus causing chaos for years to the existing services into Heuston? How much will this cost in (a) capital terms and (b) lost revenue through disruption?
The technology has come on leaps and bounds since DART Underground was originally designed.
Half a kilometre of track in this situation would cost low tens of millions of euros. It's pretty feasible. It was done for the Dublin Port Tunnel. The line was kept live pretty much throughout. It is described here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Port_Tunnel#Pipe_jackingThirdly, have you considered the potential safety implications of running modern twin-bore high capacity tunnels into a 19th century single bore tunnel that does not meet the same modern safety standards?Irish Rail do know - that's why they've opposed the development of passenger services through the PPT for the last 40 years. And it's why they are less than enthusiastic today about the NTA's latest suggestion to run Kildare line trains to Docklands via the PPT.
The lady from Irish Rail seems confident enough that it can be done in this video, made by the Irish Times.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1849334937001?bckey=AQ~~%2CAAABogn1yyk~%2CLkRilRH4kedNk-13aFn_KvUuwIQyITxo&bctid=2617597680001No it wouldn't - at peak it will be closer to 30 mins for anyone along the Clondalkin-Blanch corridor given the distance, MW journey and frequencies involved peak and off-peak.
On MW either Newlands or Blanch to Fonthill will take around 15 mins and Dart to SSG another 15 mins. That's roughly 30-35 mins, including interchange. Just like in other urban rail systems, the MW and Dart trains will be timed so that people can make the connection. The times using MW to Porterstown and Dart to Pearse for change to SSG would be slightly longer. This is not rocket science.
I really doubt you could make those sorts of timings. It is going to be about 7km from Clondalkin to Blanchardstown. The average speed of the metro west is going to be around 22km/h. The journey will be more like 19 or 20 minutes.
so at peak, 2 minutes waiting + 19 minutes travel + 4 minutes waiting + 15 minutes travel = 40 minutes. At peak, the waiting time will be at least 50 percent longer, so 43 minutes.And it can - the line infrastructure is already in place. Have a look at it on Google Maps satellite image. The cost and effort to upgrade it to Dart is miniscule in the context of the €4bn DartU scheme.
The DART Underground railway order reports that provision has been made for a single-track link to the Maynooth line, nothing more. Perhaps I am wrong and you can show me where there is a proposition for the second direction. Grade separation is still an issue though. If you have three major railways coming together without grade separation, you are going to have some delays.It's down to whether IE/NTA want to do it. At present they don't have Maynooth-Heuston trains on the agenda because the intention is to create two intersecting Dart lines with an interchange at Pearse. Once DU is built, the option of other services is there if IE/NTA chose to run them, eg Clongriffin-Greystones and Maynooth-Hazelhatch.
If you have any evidence that this is an option open to IE/NTA (beyond the extremely limited service that might be provided on the one track there is obvious provision for), I would be interested to see it.How many additional weekday journeys does the 'Do Something' scenario, ie the tunnel element, put on the Dart network 2030 compared to the 'Do Minimum' scenario?
It puts over 10k journeys, but it mainly cannibalises journeys from suburban rail and Luas. It generates only 1200 or so new journeys.The economy crashed in 2008 and 300,000 people lost their jobs between late-2007 and mid-2011 - of course the numbers using public transport have fallen because the numbers going to work have fallen. What else would you expect?
I wouldn't have expected the numbers to collapse by 30 percent on foot of the recession alone.
It was commented earlier that despite the recession, the population of Dublin has continued to grow. But that hasn't in itself resulted in more train jouneys and that is my point.Well how do you think people will react when residents groups, populist politicians and media shout loudly that the graves of O'Connell, Parnell, Collins and Dev and one million others souls will be damaged and descrated and destroyed by putting a tunnel under Glasnevin Cemetery?
The same goes for the Botantic Gardens.The answer is you don't know - or to be precise, you haven't the first clue.
Thank you for your kind words. Has there been any research on this that you know of? DART Underground itself passes under one very sensitive grave site, has a station in ah highly archeologically sensitive area and requires massive excavation at Dublin's most-used park. I think these problems could most likely be dealt with and the public's mind could be put at ease.Have the plans for the upgrade to Dart of the Maynooth line been released yet? No, they have not.
So how do you know that the Maynooth line won't be connected to the Dart Underground tunnel?
My knowledge arises from the plan for the interconnection is stated in DART Underground. I understand that this is the relevant map from the Railway Order application: http://www.dartundergroundrailwayorder.ie/assets/files/site_files/5%20Railway%20Works%20Drawings/Area%20106/03_RO_Alignment_Details/DU-RO_106_B-C.PDF
No mention is made anywhere of the feasibility of running the types of service you mention on the final track layout that was chosen. It would be great to have contrary information.The physical infrastructure is already there to run Maynooth trains to Docklands and thus into the tunnel - it is simply a matter of electrifying it and IE/NTA deciding they want to do it.
Unfortunately it isn't marked up like that on the maps in the Railway Order. If you have other information to clarify this, I would love to see it.0 -
The Maynooth commuter service is much younger than you seem to think antoinolachtnai. It was one of the few things Albert Reynolds' govt got right. Dublin will continue to expand. We can either let it expand in an ad-hoc fashion (as has been the general trend to date) or we can start doing things properly by providing high capacity rail based transport and building along those corridors. In a perverse way we have ignore rail so much in Dublin that it might stand to benefit us: in most other European countries the likes of Adamstown would aleady be populared. We have green fields on which to build planned, sustainable commuter towns that are really only a stone's throw from the city centre with Dart Underground.0
-
Maynooth station in its present form was opened in 1981. There was previously a station there going back as far as the nineteenth century.
I am not talking about letting Dublin expand in an ad hoc fashion. Adamstown is an excellent place to build to provide for the growth of Dublin. Maynooth and Drogheda, on the other hand, are not.0 -
To be fair Jack - there is no provision other than a single track connection in one direction between DART Underground and the lines at Ossory Road.
There is no connection whatsoever with the lines at the Royal Canal.
DART Underground is designed from an operational perspective purely to connect with the Northern Line.
As for the PPT - what IE said was that they did not see it as an alternative to DART Underground - that is a long way from saying no or indeed being "lukewarm" about the idea. The NTA are quite obviously trying to make sure that the investment in infrastructure that has been/is currently being made actually gets used to the full potential. Hence the PPT idea.0 -
antoinolachtnai wrote: »Maynooth station in its present form was opened in 1981. There was previously a station there going back as far as the nineteenth century.
Maynooth station reopening significantly predates the Maynooth commuter service - it was served by Sligo trains only. Take a look though the Maynooth Newsletter archives if you want to see the gnashing of teeth at how atrociously poorly served it was until the late 1980s.0 -
antoinolachtnai wrote: »Well, according to census 2006, the number of people commuting in the morning by train in Maynooth was 595. The number in Leixlip was 776. That gives a good general idea. (I actually thought it would be a bit higher, but it is not far out of kilter with the overall rail statistics).
http://census.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=76574
There has been another census since 2006 - so that's an epic fail.
The actual figures for the number of passengers using the Maynooth-Connolly and Drogheda-Connolly services annually are in the Aecom Report for IE I have already linked.
In 2011, 4.15million and 5.67million passengers used the Dublin-Maynooth and Dublin-Drogheda services respectively.I don't really know. I suppose it is historical. When the services were instituted in the early part of the last century, there were no dual carriageways or motorways into the city centre.
It's because they can't meet demand and can't beat the train for both capacity and speed of service.Those areas are all within a few kilometres of the M50 with no plans for major developments in Maynooth or Drogheda. I completely agree with providing services as far as Portmarnock and Adamstown.
That is the strategy for the four Dublin authorities - I suggest you look at Louth, Meath and Kildare CoCos to see their future development strategies. Not all growth and development will be in and around Dublin.This is a strategic review with recommendations. Its recommendations have not been adopted. It is not a plan.
It's very much IE's plan. They wouldn't have had a strategic review otherwise. It's also the NTA's strategy.The UK network is carrying far greater volumes than the Irish network and at far greater frequencies. If you are running fewer than 8 trains per hour on a corridor, the savings probably aren't worth the capital cost. You can't infer from the Irish case to the other. And again, there is a difference between a document with recommendations and findings and an actual plan.
The difference in operating and maintenance costs between diesel and electric will be the same the world over. That's why more and more countries are converting to electric.
You asked for evidence that electric was cheaper to operate and maintain than diesel - I gave you evidence. You then respond with BS. Cop on.It does require more trains. All you are saying is that they have been accounted for somewhere else. In my view, it would be better to use the extra trains to serve places like Portmarnock and Adamstown (to which you refer) with higher frequency.
It does not need additional trains - they are factored in. The actual demand figures trump your ignorant opinions.During this time, the population of Dublin continued to grow. The decline in rail travel was was very large indeed, over 30 percent.
And I have already pointed out why - it's bleedin obvious. And it's also obvious when and why demand will increase again.Can you give me a link for the information about IE's passenger numbers rising in the second half of 2013 to which you refer?
IE reported the figures last January - they were extensively reported. Google is your friend.The technology has come on leaps and bounds since DART Underground was originally designed.
It's nothing to do with technology - it's clear from that reply you simply don't understand the obvious difficulty I have pointed out.Half a kilometre of track in this situation would cost low tens of millions of euros. It's pretty feasible. It was done for the Dublin Port Tunnel. The line was kept live pretty much throughout. It is described here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Port_Tunnel#Pipe_jacking
It's not 1/2km of track that is the problem.The lady from Irish Rail seems confident enough that it can be done in this video, made by the Irish Times.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1849334937001?bckey=AQ~~%2CAAABogn1yyk~%2CLkRilRH4kedNk-13aFn_KvUuwIQyITxo&bctid=2617597680001
And others in IE and other experts disagree. Talk to them sometime.I really doubt you could make those sorts of timings. It is going to be about 7km from Clondalkin to Blanchardstown. The average speed of the metro west is going to be around 22km/h. The journey will be more like 19 or 20 minutes.
It will be around than 15.so at peak, 2 minutes waiting + 19 minutes travel + 4 minutes waiting + 15 minutes travel = 40 minutes. At peak, the waiting time will be at least 50 percent longer, so 43 minutes.
Less.The DART Underground railway order reports that provision has been made for a single-track link to the Maynooth line, nothing more. Perhaps I am wrong and you can show me where there is a proposition for the second direction. Grade separation is still an issue though. If you have three major railways coming together without grade separation, you are going to have some delays.
The Maynooth line already runs to Docklands. When IE want to connect that to the tunnel it will be simple and cheap. It's simply down to IE and NTA wanting to do it.If you have any evidence that this is an option open to IE/NTA (beyond the extremely limited service that might be provided on the one track there is obvious provision for), I would be interested to see it.
It's an option because the service to Docklands already exists. Putting it through the tunnel is a matter of will - not engineering.It puts over 10k journeys, but it mainly cannibalises journeys from suburban rail and Luas. It generates only 1200 or so new journeys.
It put al little bit more than 10k daily journeys through the tunnel. Do the sums - it's easy peasy.I wouldn't have expected the numbers to collapse by 30 percent on foot of the recession alone.
It's the recession. 300,000 lost jobs and people with a lot less money to spend.It was commented earlier that despite the recession, the population of Dublin has continued to grow. But that hasn't in itself resulted in more train jouneys and that is my point.
Without jobs, people have no need to commute and shopping numbers in city centre crashed between 2008 and 2011.Thank you for your kind words. Has there been any research on this that you know of? DART Underground itself passes under one very sensitive grave site, has a station in ah highly archeologically sensitive area and requires massive excavation at Dublin's most-used park. I think these problems could most likely be dealt with and the public's mind could be put at ease.
It should be obvious - no politician is going to recommend tunneling under the most hallowed graveyard in the country.My knowledge arises from the plan for the interconnection is stated in DART Underground. I understand that this is the relevant map from the Railway Order application: http://www.dartundergroundrailwayorder.ie/assets/files/site_files/5%20Railway%20Works%20Drawings/Area%20106/03_RO_Alignment_Details/DU-RO_106_B-C.PDF
No mention is made anywhere of the feasibility of running the types of service you mention on the final track layout that was chosen. It would be great to have contrary information.
Unfortunately it isn't marked up like that on the maps in the Railway Order. If you have other information to clarify this, I would love to see it.
See my response above.0 -
Jack Noble wrote: »There has been another census since 2006 - so that's an epic fail.
Much as I would be honored by the role, I am not your personal researcher.The actual figures for the number of passengers using the Maynooth-Connolly and Drogheda-Connolly services annually are in the Aecom Report for IE I have already linked.
In 2011, 4.15million and 5.67million passengers used the Dublin-Maynooth and Dublin-Drogheda services respectively.
That's around 16,000 customers altogether every day for the two lines.It put al little bit more than 10k daily journeys through the tunnel. Do the sums - it's easy peasy.
The problem isn't the capacity. It's the demand on the DART Underground's limited catchment that is the issue. Is it really well enough interconnected to attract the incremental demand that will make it feasible? Moving people from suburban rail to DART is hardly much of an achievement. 10k journeys per day (around 3 million a year) would be very little in the context of such a big investment. You would be looking to attracting in the order of 100 million new journeys per year to a revamped public transport system to make an investment of billions of euros attractive. (This is quite feasible, but not with the current DU plan.)0 -
To be fair Jack - there is no provision other than a single track connection in one direction between DART Underground and the lines at Ossory Road.
There is no connection whatsoever with the lines at the Royal Canal.
DART Underground is designed from an operational perspective purely to connect with the Northern Line.
I am aware of what is currently planned. What I have said is that there is no great engineering work or cost involved in doing that. What it needs is IE/NTA wanting to do it. As it stands, IE/NTA don't want to do it and their strategy involves two separate and distinct Dart lines - Maynooth-Bray/Greystones and Drogheda-Inchicore/Hazelhatch, interchanging at Pearse.
But there is no great challenge involved in running Maynooth-Hazelhatch and Drogheda-Bray with the same interchange at Pearse - if that's what IE/NTA decides that's what they want to do.As for the PPT - what IE said was that they did not see it as an alternative to DART Underground - that is a long way from saying no or indeed being "lukewarm" about the idea. The NTA are quite obviously trying to make sure that the investment in infrastructure that has been/is currently being made actually gets used to the full potential. Hence the PPT idea.
IE is a bit more than 'lukewarm' about using the PPT - IE/CIE has been dead set against it for nearly 50 years and has opposed every suggestion to use the PPT. If IE wanted it done or saw any merit in it, PPT would have been opened to services years ago. It hasn't and I'm doubtful that it will ever happen because PPT will do very little to add to PT services in Dublin.0 -
Advertisement
-
antoinolachtnai wrote: »Much as I would be honored by the role, I am not your personal researcher.
I don't need you to be - I've already done my research.
But I suggest you do it for yourself.That's around 16,000 customers altogether every day for the two lines.
I suggest you buy a new calculator - or brush up on your basic arithmetic.The problem isn't the capacity. It's the demand on the DART Underground's limited catchment that is the issue. Is it really well enough interconnected to attract the incremental demand that will make it feasible? Moving people from suburban rail to DART is hardly much of an achievement. 10k journeys per day (around 3 million a year) would be very little in the context of such a big investment. You would be looking to attracting in the order of 100 million new journeys per year to a revamped public transport system to make an investment of billions of euros attractive. (This is quite feasible, but not with the current DU plan.)
Dart Underground quadruples the Dart network capacity to 100 million annual journeys.
IE's very conservative estimates suggest that when DartU is built and the planned two Dart lines operational, that in 2030 there will be some 146,000 morning peak Dart boardings. That suggests total average weekday Dart trips of somewhere between 300,000 and 350,000. That's between 70m and 80m Dart passengers annually - up from the close to 16m annually today.
The whole point of putting in such infrastructure on the highest demand routes is to attract people out of their cars and buses and into trains. The four corridors on the Irish rail network with the current highest demand are Dundalk-Connolly, Sligo-Connolly, Cork-Heuston and Galway-Heuston. Why is that? Because once you hit the midlands, from there into Dublin the rail lines attract large numbers of commuters. That will only grow as the economy grows. The figures are there if you are prepared to go and read them.
I have already given you one source - the rest you can research for yourself.0 -
DU means services can be ramped up significantly and buses that currently run long parallel to the rails routes would be able to run short perpendicular feeder routes, delivering passengers to DART stations rather than An Lar directly. Munich has plenty of buses, but hardly nay actually run into Marienplatz (An Lar).
This is a MUCH more efficient use of the infrastructure. DU is NOT a standalone solution to anything, transport networks don't work like that.0 -
DU means services can be ramped up significantly and buses that currently run long parallel to the rails routes would be able to run short perpendicular feeder routes, delivering passengers to DART stations rather than An Lar directly. Munich has plenty of buses, but hardly nay actually run into Marienplatz (An Lar).
This is a MUCH more efficient use of the infrastructure. DU is NOT a standalone solution to anything, transport networks don't work like that.
I don't think many people understand this.
They see projects and modes like DU, MN, MW, Luas, BRT, QBC, ordinary bus routes, etc, in isolation and either ignore or do not understand the concept of an integrated transport network and how the various routes and modes complement and feed into each other.0 -
The key to transport is certainly interconnection. If you think DU is designed to answer this question then ask yourself:
Why is there no stop planned for Phibsboro to meet the N2?
Why is there no stop on the Kylemore Road?
Why does the DU tunnel run parallel and close to the Luas Red line for a significant distance?
Why does the transport model not show DU vastly increasing public transport patronage at peak time?
Off peak frequency is critical to allowing interconnection. Why are there no proposals on the table in relation to this?0 -
I'm not saying the vision IE have for DU is spot on. There should be the possibility to run Maynooth - Hazelhatch services for example, but IE won't be able to control the operation of the network forever. Stations can easily be added at your locations and should be added. Once the tunnel is in place the rest is child's play really. These side issues don't make the idea of linking up the disparate parts of the existing network wrong, far from it.0
-
I mostly agree with you. The vision, as originally expressed in the Arup and DTO documents is very good. The idea of a ring of rail linking the inner suburbs and the city is deeply compelling. The problem is that the execution could be so much better.
The key is attemtion to detail at the planning stage. With dense urban rail, once you set things up, especially for the alignments and junctions, it is extremely hard to modify them without very large expense and disruption. It is very hard to put in extra flyovers at the drop of a hat to link the Maynooth line in an optimal way. If provision hasn't been made, it may not be possible at all because of the restricted grades and curvature. You can't just move a stop from Inchicore to Kylemore without massive consultation and significant civil works. These things have to be planned years in advance. Adding a station is certainly possible but I don't think you could say it's child's play.
All I would suggest is that everybody keep their mind open to the idea that DU can be improved upon.0 -
Advertisement
-
Jack Noble wrote: »Light rail and heavy rail lines are different beasts, with different engineering requirements and safety restrictions for both. For example, when crossing roads on surface - light rail (MetroW) can cross at grade, while heavy rail require level crossings, and I would question whether installing them on new lines in heavily populated urban areas would even be allowed under modern safety standards.
The biggest obstacle to a Dart spur to Tallaght is called Clondalkin. One of the reasons MW takes the zigzag route it does through Clondalkin is to avoid the need to tunnel under the area, with all the heavy engineering work and costs involved. A tunnel line under Clondalkin was recommended under PFC in 2000 and was one of the route options looked at for MW and ruled out.
The exact same problem applies in parts of Tallaght - namely at Kilnamanagh-Kingswood-Belgard where MW cross the existing Red Luas, and at The Square which would be the terminus.
The Luas/MW crossing as planned is a major problem that will probably have to be reworked when MW comes back on the agenda and returns to An Bord Pleanala. Currently, it is planned to put it on a viaduct above the Luas line and Belgard Road. Local residents are dead set against this and have the support of all local politicians - who all want it in a tunnel under Luas and Belgard Road. I would just point to what happened to the Metro North routing through Ballymun as an example of what will probably happen in Tallaght.
Now, if there is that level of opposition to what is essentially a Luas Mór, how do you think the locals will react to a bloody great Dart line overhead?
As for costs, MW is costed at €1.5bn for the entire line, while the Dart U tunnel and stations costs €2.5bn. Putting a circa 8km Dart line, with a number of separate sections in tunnel and at least three underground stations, possibly four, the rest on viaducts and embankments over existing roads or in cuttings under them will easily cost somewhere in the €2-3bn ballpark.
I'm sure your technical stuff has been thoroughly done, Jack, and it all looks terribly impressive. But I think it's also a good idea not to overemphasise all of that, at this stage. There is a proposal (the DART underground) to build the biggest infrastructure project ever in the history of the state. One of the problems which bugs it, and will bug it, is that it will be running at significantly below the capacity which it will actually have.
The current answer to this capacity problem is to feed it with more trains from just one corridor. The original plans, dating from the 1970's, were that it would be fed by more than one corridor, and alignments were set aside for such a corridor to Tallaght (and a similar one, on the Maynooth line, to Blanchardstown). While it seems that one or more Departments have overseen the destruction of these corridors, there may still be time to resurrect something approximating the original proposals. There are, I believe, a goodish number of years before this underground line will be built; now is the time to look at the overall potential of the tunnel, and we should deal with the technical stuff later.
While the original alignments may well have been squandered, as you say, thanks to departmental lack of foresight, it is hopefully not too late to persuade these same departments of the desirability of rapid, direct connections between large centres of population in County Dublin and the centre of the city. Tallaght, as the largest centre in the county outside of Dublin City itself, and currently served mainly by an overall rather slow tramline, should probably be one of these centres, I believe.
It is also hopefully not too late to look at the possibility of one or possibly two spurs to populous areas to the north of the Hazelhatch line. Such spurs could deliver people from populous suburbs directly into and out of the city, without having to change. Similar to what happens in Munich and a host of other cities with central underground lines with spurs feeding into them. Such arrangements are not new and, as I'm sure I have said above, are more efficient for the passengers concerned, and in Dublin would allow better use of the tunnel than is currently proposed. Almost certainly more expensive, but better.Jack Noble wrote: »As I have explained, Metrowest has a defined purpose based on the reality of west Dublin today and where many of the people who live there work, shop and spend leisure time. It is also designed to distribute people across west Dublin who do need to access the city centre or areas to the west across the multiple radial lines which serve those locations. It is based detailed study of the living and working patterns of the circa 300,000 people living in and tens of thousands working in Tallaght, Clondalkin-Lucan and Blanchardstown. It is also based on the lessons learned in other cities with radial only rail/metro lines.
The lesson from the cities the world over with the best public transport systems is that it is most effective, for the whole city, to build radial routes first, then orbital routes come later. Dublin is no different. Promise.Jack Noble wrote: »Why not? Cormac Rabbitt has and presented them to CIE and govt on at least three separate occasions. And those behind the Gluas plan for Luas-style light rail in Galway are private citizens. As are West on Track who convinced the govt to build the current Limerick-Galway line and are lobbying for the extension to Tuam, Claremorris and eventually Sligo.
Mr Rabbitt is a very public-spirited man, and has done a lot of work on his plans. (I don't really know anything about the others you mention, though I'm not convinced that the Limerick-Galway line has made a lot of sense). His current plans are, as I understand them, mainly a proposed alternative way of achieving a line (the DART Underground) which has been officially approved by the DOT. I don't propose to spend any time working out the technical details of what we are currently talking about here (ie spurs to the Kildare line), which have not been officially approved, and may never be.
Simply put, there are many cities, some of which I have lived and worked in (Frankfurt, Munich and London, particularly), which have spurs which directly serve a large number of areas and which make good use of available tunnel capacity, I think it could be a good option for Dublin. If it is eventually decided that that would actually be a good thing for Dublin, I'll do what I can on the technical side.Jack Noble wrote: »Honestly, your excuse above sounds like a cop out. You either believe in what you are saying and can back it up with sound ideas and plans - or you are spoofing, have been called out on your spoofing but can't bring yourself to admit you are wrong.
As I said above, I'm not even going to attempt to provide alignments or costs for a route to/from Tallaght, or for one or more northern spurs from the Hazelhatch line. But, for the reasons I gave above, I feel it is a bit strong for you to categorise this stance as BS.
Is there anywhere of the size of Tallaght (72,000 people, and then there's also Clondalkin along that route) and with comparable closeness to the main city, in any European underground network, which does not have a direct rapid-rail connection to the parent city? I can't think of one, and I'm afraid it's not really up to me to work out the fine details of Martin Cullen's world-class transport system.Jack Noble wrote: »How do you expect to persuade the DOT and NTA they are wrong when you can't produce a viable alternative beyond 'I think there should be a Dart spur from the Kildare line to Tallaght - so there!'?
I certainly would leave out the "so there!", but I would think it makes considerable sense to link up the main population and work centres in the county (such as Dublin City, Tallaght, Blanchardstown) by the fastest and most efficient rail system available. I hope the DOT and NTA don't need some bloke like me on boards.ie to tell them that.Jack Noble wrote: »Your idea so it's up to you to back it up with detail. No one else will.
I repeat, the idea of a spur to Tallaght from the Hazelhatch line is not my idea. It was suggested back in the seventies, by the people who came up with the DRRTS thing, when Tallaght was about to grow into a big urban population. I think it would still be a good thing, given that Tallaght is now the second-largest urban centre in the county.Jack Noble wrote: »And no one can begin to consider whether it is a viable option or not until they have detail. And seeing as the NTA (and their predecessor, the DTO), RPA and IE have all considered this and other options and ruled them out for various reasons, they are not going to revisit them when they have planning permission nailed down for DU and MN - so it is up to people who propose alternatives to lay them out in detail and justify them.
The RPA and IE, and the other Department of Transport offshoots like the DTO, the NTA, etc., all of these subsidiaries have done what was within their remit, and have tried, and generally succeeded, to come up with the best solutions which they can within that. What we have yet to see is how the Department of Transport, the boss, rationalises leaving the biggest urban centre in Dublin, apart from Dublin itself, at the end of a trundly LUAS route or a trundly metrowest route, and without a rapid rail connection to Dublin. Despite what might be happening to similarly-sized centres in competitor European cities.Jack Noble wrote: »And from everything you have posted here, you are unwilling and unable to do that - beyond shout 'Spur from Kildare line to Tallaght'.
I've given you reasons why I will not spend time working out an alignment between Tallaght and the Hazelhatch line, or between the Hazelhatch line and populous areas to the north of it, which would eventually result in a more efficient and effective connection between Dublin city and several of its populous western suburbs. I'm sorry if you feel that I'm shouting, but if I am I will continue, until and beyond the time that the DART Underground project becomes a reality, to shout, "Spur from Kildare line to Tallaght."0 -
I would support the construction of a tunnel from Heuston to Docklands under the following conditions:
Intercity trains from Cork/Limerick/Galway could use it, allowing pax to get off at SGS or Pearse Lower Level (the train could continue)
An underground station at SGS seems to make sense – space to dig, lots of demand, etc.
Maybe an underground station between Heuston and SSG, would help regenerate the south inner city?
Third underground station under Pearse, as planned.
A tunnel would allow a ring of railway lines from Heuston – SSG – Pearse (underground) - Docklands – Drumcondra – Phoenix Park tunnel – and back to Heuston.
Triangular junction where the three lines meet the ring, if possible – what this means is that any train from Kildare or Maynooth may join the ring in either direction (I accept that a triangular junction for the north Dublin line seems tricky)0 -
Of course it can. My main gripe with it is the station design, in particular the small number of exits. The catchment area is needlessly smaller than it should be.antoinolachtnai wrote: »I mostly agree with you. The vision, as originally expressed in the Arup and DTO documents is very good. The idea of a ring of rail linking the inner suburbs and the city is deeply compelling. The problem is that the execution could be so much better.
...
All I would suggest is that everybody keep their mind open to the idea that DU can be improved upon.0 -
antoinolachtnai wrote: »The key to transport is certainly interconnection. If you think DU is designed to answer this question then ask yourself:
Why is there no stop planned for Phibsboro to meet the N2?
The Dart Underground plan that has received a railway order only concerns the tunnel section and stations between Docklands and Inchicore - nothing else. The rest are separate projects that that need separate planning permission.
The plans for the upgrade of the Maynooth-Connolly section have not been published yet so we do not know what additional stations will be proposed or included in the scheme. PFC back in 2001 recommended additional stations on the line and there is space to put in a Dart station at where the rail line passes under Prospect Road. I'd fully expect one to be put on the agenda when the Maynooth Dart plans are finally published - along with other suggested stations such as at Croke Park (for match day use) and North Strand, for example.Why is there no stop on the Kylemore Road?
Again, not part of Dart Underground. That section of line between Parkwest/Cherry Orchard and the tunnel at Inchicore is part of Kildare Route Project Phase 2, work on which is currently suspended along with DartU.
Now that it is proposed to service Ballyfermot by Luas (Line F, Lucan to city centre) which will have an interchange with Dart at Inchicore, I don't see additional Dart stations between Inchicore and ParkWest. And I certainly don't see one at Kylemore Rd as it would be less than 400m from the Inchicore station which will serve Inchicore and Lower Ballyfermot. I know some local politicians in Ballyfermot have suggested a station at Le Fanu Road which would be a further 200-300m away from Kylemore. Again, that will be for when KRP2 comes back on the agenda.Why does the DU tunnel run parallel and close to the Luas Red line for a significant distance?
It's only for a small section between Christchurch and Heuston but the two lines serve different areas either side of the river. The key area for DU to serve is the busy secton between Pearse, SSG and Christchurch - any link from there to H will run parallel to Luas Red.Why does the transport model not show DU vastly increasing public transport patronage at peak time?
Dart U is about increasing capacity to cope with future demand.Off peak frequency is critical to allowing interconnection. Why are there no proposals on the table in relation to this?
Because peak times are the most important because that's when the highest demand will be. The other times can then be set based on demand during the day. But given any IE envisage an airport dart link and a train every 15 mins all day to Inchicore, along with the trains for the outer suburbs and commuter towns, I can't really see a frequency of less than every 6 to 10 mins through the tunnel, depending on the time of day. The key is putting in a timetable whereby people know they can get a train every X mins.
Another point is that peak times will see 8-car Dart trains with a capacity of 1,400 each. Off peak, it's perfectly feasible to run a high frequency timetable but with shorter 4-car or 6-car trains depending on the time of say and demand.
But these are things to be worked out once the line is operational and IE have a clear idea of what the demands are throughout the day - like was done with Luas.0 -
Yes, with the population of Tallaght (72,000), and the population of Clondalkin south of the Hazelhatch line, and sundry other locations in between, you're talking about an overall population of around 100,000 along a potential 8 km stretch between the Hazelhatch line and Tallaght.
By my reckoning, that works out at an average of around twelve and a half thousand potential users per kilometre along this potential route.
I reckon it's got to be worth a proper look.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement